They Made Me Gay

[musterion]

that's how i see it :idunno:

if you have the choice between abstinence and homo sex, and you choose homo sex, you're a homo

Yup. For crying out loud, that's what the word means.

 

[ok doser]

Yup. For crying out loud, that's what the word means.

i wonder if rusha would afford the same latitude to a rapist who claimed he was frustrated?

 

[musterion]

A man steals something, he's a thief.

A man cheats on his spouse, he's an adulterer.

A man rapes someone, he's a rapist.

A man murders someone, he's a murderer.

A man wants sexual contact with another man, he's a homosexual.

Simple matter of definitions. Not seeing why this is so hard for some people.

 

[ok doser]

A man steals something, he's a thief. (unless he's frustrated, then it's ok)

A man cheats on his spouse, he's an adulterer. (unless he's frustrated, then it's ok)

A man rapes someone, he's a rapist. (unless he's frustrated, then it's ok)

A man murders someone, he's a murderer. (unless he's frustrated, then it's ok)

A man wants sexual contact with another man, he's a homosexual. (unless he's frustrated, then it's ok)

Simple matter of definitions. Not seeing why this is so hard for some people.

:think:

 

[intojoy]

No ... in that particular instance it would be a matter frustration, not attraction.

Ridiculous


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[Arthur Brain]

He may not act on it often, if at all. He may regularly have sex with a woman (the natural default setting of desire for human males). But if a man can also be aroused by the thought of homosexual contact, rather than be viscerally repelled at the thought, he is a homosexual.

Really? You once acknowledged that you entertained the thought of an intimate act with another man even if you didn't go through with it. By your 'logic' above you're a homosexual by your own definition...

 

[musterion]

Nope.

 

[ok doser]

nailed it! :banana:


:mock:artie

 

[Arthur Brain]

Nope.

Sure it does. Here are your own words again, in bold just so you can't miss it:

"But if a man can also be aroused by the thought of homosexual contact, rather than be viscerally repelled at the thought, he is a homosexual."

You obviously weren't 'viscerally repelled' by the thought of intimacy with another man in order to have entertained the notion.

So by your own "reasoning" and words no less - you are a homosexual.

 

[musterion]

Nope.

 

[ok doser]

You obviously weren't 'viscerally repelled' by the thought of intimacy with another man ...

cite?

 

[musterion]

I can't make you understand what you don't want to understand. It isn't my problem. It's yours.

 

[ok doser]

Sure it does. Here are your own words again, in bold just so you can't miss it:

"But if a man can also be aroused by the thought of homosexual contact, rather than be viscerally repelled at the thought, he is a homosexual."

a link, please, to musty's post where he said he was aroused by the thought of homosexual contact

 

[Arthur Brain]

I can't make you understand what you don't want to understand. It isn't my problem. It's yours.

I understand what you said just fine. By your own words you defined yourself as a homosexual. You couldn't have been viscerally repelled at the thought of same sex intimacy in order to have considered it. Your words dude.

 

[musterion]

Nope.

I've tried to explain this to you before but you rejected my explanation because it comes straight out of the Bible and it is true. I'm not going to waste my time with it again.

 

[Arthur Brain]

a link, please, to musty's post where he said he was aroused by the thought of homosexual contact

Why don't you ask him yourself? I doubt he'll be dishonest enough to deny he briefly considered it at one point. If not then I'll dredge it up. As you can imagine, aCW was all over it...

 

[Arthur Brain]

Nope.

I've tried to explain this to you before but you rejected my explanation because it comes straight out of the Bible and it is true. I'm not going to waste my time with it again.

No, you need to change your definition if you don't like it being reversed on you because your own words class you as a homosexual. You should change it regardless as it's hardly a rational one as it is anyway.

 

[ok doser]

Why don't you ask him yourself?

you're the one making the wild accusations

either back them up or face the consequences

 

[ok doser]

i see you're enlisting anna to do your research :chuckle:


predictable

 

[musterion]

AB is referring to an incident during college where I was briefly tempted to allow a homosexual to perform an act he had offered. I never took him up on it and never had another opportunity, nor wanted one. I didn't actually want that one either; it just came up at a party, out of nowhere.

But the real point is, it happened before I was saved. Paul addresses in very specific detail how people who are saved are no longer what they once were. In my case, I was never remotely an active homosexual or anything close to it. I was simply tempted by a one time offer that I declined.

If AB wants to argue that, by my own definition, that incident made me a homosexual, then I was a homosexual for the 2 minutes I'd considered it. But once I became saved, all that was gone along with everything else. I am now a new creation in Christ, and the thought of that incident and many more - all involving women - are now thoroughly repugnant to me.

That's the part AB always ignores whenever I bring it up because he doesn't want to believe God can and does save people.