Who Here Chose To Be Heterosexual?

[StanJ53]

In another homosexual thread, Arthur Brain made reference to himself being a heterosexual EIGHT TIMES in the same post.

I was curious how many times he'd try to convince himself (and others) that he isn't a practicing homosexual nor has homosexual desires.

Seems the ONLY time you show up is when Homosexuals are being discussed. You have some good unresolved issues acw. Was it an uncle or a friend?

 

[Angel4Truth]

Perhaps then you didn't need to learn what it was nor would it be ever likely to flip flop.

Then murder, and theft and all other manner of sins are ok so long as its a natural temptation in us.

Temptation is not sin, acting on it can be though depending on what the temptation is.

We all know we have to learn to control certain temptations though dont we, just in living, its a constant lesson isnt it.

 

[Lighthouse]

The first part simply meant that more usually our sexual preference is for the opposite sex and is built in, I really don't think it can be fundamentally changed whatever way it actually is. Not everyone is polarised in that sexual preference which I think accounts for some who will go either way. I'm not sure what you mean at the end, if not choice what then? A kind of brainwashing by those evil perverted homosexuals perhaps? I really don't think so btw.

Circumstances.

Ask Quincy.

 

[quip]

Temptation is not sin, acting on it can be though depending on what the temptation is.

We all know we have to learn to control certain temptations though dont we, just in living, its a constant lesson isnt it.

Why imply homosexualism more a temptation than heterosexualism?

Both of them have that nasty term imbeded within them...."sex"! :chuckle:

 

[Angel4Truth]

Why imply homosexualism more a temptation than heterosexualism?

Both of them have that nasty term imbeded within them...."sex"! :chuckle:

Heterosexuals need to control themselves too.

Who will die if they don't have sex?

 

[The Barbarian]

Heterosexuals need to control themselves too.

Who will die if they don't have sex?

 

[Angel4Truth]

You need to explain that, will spock die or something if he doesnt have sex? I am not familiar enough with star trek to know things like that.

 

[Rusha]

You need to explain that, will spock die or something if he doesnt have sex? I am not familiar enough with star trek to know things like that.

Spock has no emotions ... he doesn't need or want sex.

 

[alwight]

Then murder, and theft and all other manner of sins are ok so long as its a natural temptation in us.

Temptation is not sin, acting on it can be though depending on what the temptation is.

We all know we have to learn to control certain temptations though dont we, just in living, its a constant lesson isnt it.

I sometimes think you simply go out of your way to miss the point.
I understand what your doctrine and beliefs say about gay people having sex, but put all that aside for a moment or two can we?
From a secular pov:
Tell me who is actually harmed by consensual responsible homosexual sex?
What exactly is so wrong with gay sex that can't equally be applied to straight sex?
Do any innocent third parties get deprived of their property or lives by a gay couple having sex? :nono:

Civil laws on (say) murder and theft don't exist simply as a convenience for maintaining your particular doctrinally based morality and dogma, they exist in the main to protect society from those who would do actual harm to others.
You clearly do not approve of what gay couples may do in bed together but unless you can show that physical or mental harm is being imposed then I politely suggest that you butt out and show some tolerance.

 

[alwight]

You need to explain that, will spock die or something if he doesnt have sex? I am not familiar enough with star trek to know things like that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pon_farr

"Pon farr was introduced and prominently featured in the original Star Trek series episode "Amok Time", written by Theodore Sturgeon. In the episode, Mr. Spock experiences pon farr and is returned to his home planet Vulcan by Captain Kirk and Dr. McCoy in order to undergo the mating ritual and save his life"
:e4e:

 

[Lon]

So you really do think that all homosexuals, for some yet to be adequately explained reason other than it suits your religious doctrine, simply choose to be perverse (eating glass) rather than doing what naturally attracts them to do or makes them happy?
Or perhaps you think that eating glass (or sword swallowing?) is simply what some people like to do as a perverse pleasure in itself or do just to be perverse?

Yes, whether such brainless masses enjoy watching it or not. I'd pay no money to see someone eat glass *(more later under 'explode')

It makes no sense at all Lon. :nono:

Rather, what you are implying/suggesting, is that we not stifle any appetite whatsoever, knowing full well that certain ones should be stifled. It is called 'self-control' and we might yet esteem it as a society. If not, then it is just me and we can disagree. After that, as you say above, we can discuss the religious implications as well, but I've left that off for an appeal to common sense.

"Pon farr ... featured in the original Star Trek...

:doh: I was celibate until I was 27 and married. * I didn't explode...difference between living in a fantasy world and reality...

From a secular pov:
Tell me who is actually harmed by consensual responsible homosexual sex?
What exactly is so wrong with gay sex that can't equally be applied to straight sex?

Some parent's son or daughter.... and their parents...and extended family, etc. etc. I could make a list for an hour, easily and you are naive. Do a Google search of 'harm' caused. It happens in unwed cases too, but don't turn a blind-eye for convenience sake.

Some people may show off (eat glass) for money, some people have sex for money, it doesn't mean that's what they like to do, it only means they want money.
Most people will ultimately sell themselves with money as the motive, so what is the motive that drives all gay people if not a more fulfilled life? Is it money, simply to be perverse or perhaps as a helpful convenience toward an otherwise blatantly homophobic bigoted religious doctrine? :AMR:

Again, it is an inability to say 'no.' Part of our nation's financial crisis is caused by this entitlement behavior of 'have now' then 'pay later.' Judgement is too far away, even for you, to make much of a difference in your life. For me, that is a strange denial of consequences. There are consequences for our every behavior. Those are some of the practical issues, without needing religious reasons but when God enters the picture, this debate is over imo:

Just saying "there is no God to answer to" is much too convenient and frankly, childish and purposefully obtuse. Such is an atheist wanna-be rather than an actual. I see a lot of hoping and praying to some other god to not have to meet the one who is associated with the cross of His Son...

 

[StanJ53]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pon_farr

"Pon farr was introduced and prominently featured in the original Star Trek series episode "Amok Time", written by Theodore Sturgeon. In the episode, Mr. Spock experiences pon farr and is returned to his home planet Vulcan by Captain Kirk and Dr. McCoy in order to undergo the mating ritual and save his life"
:e4e:

Actually that is not correct. He was returned to Vulcan to have his "marbles" as Bones called them, returned to his refurbished body. He underwent ponfar on the Genesis planet before it was destroyed, and Saaviik, a fellow Vulcan brought him through it. She was played by a different actress in STII.
This movie was STIII The Search for Spock, which started at the end of STII The Wrath of Khan.

FYI, you can't ALWAYS trust Wiki to be accurate, but a Trekkie like me knows it ALL.

 

[resurrected]

:doh:

condensed version

 

[alwight]

Actually that is not correct. He was returned to Vulcan to have his "marbles" as Bones called them, returned to his refurbished body. He underwent ponfar on the Genesis planet before it was destroyed, and Saaviik, a fellow Vulcan brought him through it. She was played by a different actress in STII.
This movie was STIII The Search for Spock, which started at the end of STII The Wrath of Khan.

FYI, you can't ALWAYS trust Wiki to be accurate, but a Trekkie like me knows it ALL.

No, I tend to disagree. Although I've never been a "Trekkie" as such I seem to remember the original series fairly well, being an old git.
The Wiki page seems to closely match my recollection from the original series anyway, but if indeed it is wrong then surely it would have been corrected by an ST1 enthusiast by now, since there are quite a few?
The TV episode IIRC involved Spock having a physical need to find a Vulcan mate on Vulcan which wasn't available on the Enterprise, else how else would unemotional Vulcans ever reproduce?
The movie IIRC was nothing to do with Vulcan sex lives, Spock was contaminated and died. His body ended up on the Genesis Planet where he came back to life as younger version of himself when life was generated on the planet.

I see that resurrected seems to agree with me.

 

[StanJ53]

No, I tend to disagree. Although I've never been a "Trekkie" as such I seem to remember the original series fairly well, being an old git.
The Wiki page seems to closely match my recollection from the original series anyway, but if indeed it is wrong then surely it would have been corrected by an ST1 enthusiast by now, since there are quite a few?
The TV episode IIRC involved Spock having a physical need to find a Vulcan mate on Vulcan which wasn't available on the Enterprise, else how else would unemotional Vulcans ever reproduce?
The movie IIRC was nothing to do with Vulcan sex lives, Spock was contaminated and died. His body ended up on the Genesis Planet where he came back to life as younger version of himself when life was generated on the planet.

I see that resurrected seems to agree with me.

Sorry you were right, I read the wrong part of the link. The movie is as I described but the TV episode is as you described. I do remember the TV episode.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Who here chose to be a 'Trekkie'?

 

[StanJ53]

I did...Live long and prosper.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Spock has no emotions ... he doesn't need or want sex.

They (vulcans, isnt that what he is suppose to be) reproduce without it?

 

[Angel4Truth]

I sometimes think you simply go out of your way to miss the point.
I understand what your doctrine and beliefs say about gay people having sex, but put all that aside for a moment or two can we?
From a secular pov:
Tell me who is actually harmed by consensual responsible homosexual sex?
What exactly is so wrong with gay sex that can't equally be applied to straight sex?
Do any innocent third parties get deprived of their property or lives by a gay couple having sex? :nono:

Civil laws on (say) murder and theft don't exist simply as a convenience for maintaining your particular doctrinally based morality and dogma, they exist in the main to protect society from those who would do actual harm to others.
You clearly do not approve of what gay couples may do in bed together but unless you can show that physical or mental harm is being imposed then I politely suggest that you butt out and show some tolerance.

Actually its you who went out of your way to miss the point. Tell me where emotions have anything to do with science and the way men and women are physically made and what those differences are for, explain please.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Who here chose to be a 'Trekkie'?

Not me, which i dont know much about it.