I'm saying no, no one is born bisexual, and yes, one should only marry and copulate with one of the opposite sex.
We're here, we're queer and we're coming for your children'
- Thread starter Dr. Huk-N-Duck
- Start date
The natural disposition is opposite sex attraction and copulation.
Sorry, but I don’t buy into this modern concept of sexual fluidity. I know there are some individuals who lean in that direction. I don’t recall ever being attracted to a dude—not at 10 or 20 or 30 or 40 years old.
So?
So, I think the theory holds about as much water as the modern day transgender theory. I think it’s drivel.
And actually, it's not the 'fluidity' that is the modern concept. It's the 'orientation' that is. You're only testifying of your exposure and conditioning.
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2013
- Messages
- 529
- Reaction score
- 304
- Points
- 63
To me, what we are talking about is very important. SO, please have patience with me. I'm asking you this in the sincerest way possible and I'm not at all trying to be argumentative.
But I think you are saying that while there is no such thing as "orientation", that THE CREATOR, Himself, has put it into us to be attracted to the opposite sex - all of us - for the propagation of the species
BUT THAT
even though the natural disposition is opposite sex attraction and copulation, and that even though "no one is born bisexual" we can still be attracted to the same sex depending on what we were exposed to and conditioned to - whether it is pornography or an abusive situation but because we each do have, and always have had, the natural disposition towards the opposite sex, that we ought to focus on a relationship with the opposite sex.
An example would be if you were to put Dr HukNduk and myself at a table and put a picture of a physically fit man and a picture of a physically fit woman in front of us, that because we are naturally disposed to the opposite sex, that both pairs of our eyes would go towards the woman first - assuming that neither of us had been exposed or conditioned to something negative in our pasts.
And that basically, any sexual attraction towards the same sex, for which we weren't born with, is the result of something bad in our pasts that we were exposed to or conditioned to and that any sexual attraction to the opposite sex is the result of THE CREATOR having designed us that way - and that we each have that attraction naturally within us.
Is that right?
But I think you are saying that while there is no such thing as "orientation", that THE CREATOR, Himself, has put it into us to be attracted to the opposite sex - all of us - for the propagation of the species
BUT THAT
even though the natural disposition is opposite sex attraction and copulation, and that even though "no one is born bisexual" we can still be attracted to the same sex depending on what we were exposed to and conditioned to - whether it is pornography or an abusive situation but because we each do have, and always have had, the natural disposition towards the opposite sex, that we ought to focus on a relationship with the opposite sex.
An example would be if you were to put Dr HukNduk and myself at a table and put a picture of a physically fit man and a picture of a physically fit woman in front of us, that because we are naturally disposed to the opposite sex, that both pairs of our eyes would go towards the woman first - assuming that neither of us had been exposed or conditioned to something negative in our pasts.
And that basically, any sexual attraction towards the same sex, for which we weren't born with, is the result of something bad in our pasts that we were exposed to or conditioned to and that any sexual attraction to the opposite sex is the result of THE CREATOR having designed us that way - and that we each have that attraction naturally within us.
Is that right?
Last edited:
No, I’m simply employing modern construct language to prove my point. Today’s academic liberal bourgeoisie have markedly eliminated sexual “orientation” in favor of “fluidity.” The idea of being “straight” or “gay” is considered passé, in favor of no fixed box labels. The same is true with sex/gender. Race is considered another social construct. In other words, everything is being eliminated and erased.
Remember, Satan is the author of confusion. John 8:44: “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.“
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2012
- Messages
- 9,304
- Reaction score
- 2,950
- Points
- 113
I struggled as to whether this post should be placed under this thread or the other “belief” thread, but in the end figured it covered both areas of sexuality AND belief so here it is.
In my younger years of budding Christianity and the study of apologetics I realized how important the field of philosophy was in determining important frameworks of morality and other vital ideas such as ontology, epistemology, etc. One of the most profound quotes impacting my understanding of how people arrive at their beliefs was partially alluded to by Gringo when he said that how we view the Bible (and God) is essentially decided before we ever open and read it. That quote was by famed philosopher Aldous Huxley….
“I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption…
‘Most ignorance is vincible ignorance. We don’t know *because we don’t want to know. It is our will that decides how and upon what subjects we shall use our intelligence. Those who detect no meaning in the world generally do so because, for one reason or another, it suits their books that the world should be meaningless…’
We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom“
I don’t think a Christian apologist could have identified a more vivid description of the Bondage of the Will <ahem, apologies to Luther
>.
Link
In my younger years of budding Christianity and the study of apologetics I realized how important the field of philosophy was in determining important frameworks of morality and other vital ideas such as ontology, epistemology, etc. One of the most profound quotes impacting my understanding of how people arrive at their beliefs was partially alluded to by Gringo when he said that how we view the Bible (and God) is essentially decided before we ever open and read it. That quote was by famed philosopher Aldous Huxley….
“I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption…
‘Most ignorance is vincible ignorance. We don’t know *because we don’t want to know. It is our will that decides how and upon what subjects we shall use our intelligence. Those who detect no meaning in the world generally do so because, for one reason or another, it suits their books that the world should be meaningless…’
We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom“
I don’t think a Christian apologist could have identified a more vivid description of the Bondage of the Will <ahem, apologies to Luther
>.Link
This, I believe is what Paul is referring to in Romans 1 when he says the natural use of the man and woman.
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
In red, I do not believe that it is the result of something that happened in your past. It is a sinful inclination that you were born with, and it was engaged by your sinful heart. Just as Adultery was a sinful inclination of my heart that I engaged because of my sinful heart and situations that happened. They are both sin, of the same magnitude. Romans 1, however, I believe, is talking specifically about homosexual acts, not homosexual inclinations.
I'm talking about the reality. One's appetite isn't necessarily "fluid" in the novel concept. Once it's conditioned, it's like pulling teeth to recondition it. But one can be reconditioned.
LOL. I think we’re talking in circles here, and I’m not completely positive, but I think we’re agreeing, we’re just arriving at the same conclusion from different doors in the house.
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2012
- Messages
- 8,856
- Reaction score
- 845
- Points
- 113
Meanwhile 
babylonbee.com
Democrats Confused By Parades Where Everyone Wears Clothes And Doesn’t Swing Sex Toys Around
U.S. — Democrats across the nation were reportedly confused by thousands of local parades held yesterday, as everyone in them kept their clothes on and didn't swing sex toys around.
babylonbee.com
I would say we were created for marriage, and that sex is intended to be a profoundly intimate and rapturous experience between a man and his wife, and children are the result. Marriage is the first purpose for which we are created. Children are the second.
Focus on marriage, yes.
No. I don't think I'm saying that. Could you rephrase your question?
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2013
- Messages
- 529
- Reaction score
- 304
- Points
- 63
While I disagree that homosexual orientation has anything to do with a sinful choice, I do understand that that is what the Bible teaches. And so,
I respect those of you that, in believing what you consider to be the inerrant Word of God, stick to your guns even though the majority of society seemingly, is shifting. I say "seemingly" because I believe that is just what the press would have us believe. I believe the majority of our society still believe as you do. We just don't realize it.
Life is cyclical. Our parents have us. They become old. They pass on. We become old. We will pass on. And I have lived more days in the past than I will in the future.
I'm not homosexually active, at all and haven't been in a number of years.
But sexual orientation (no matter which one) is like a forest fire. At its height, it RAGES upward towards the sky in furious anger. But as times goes by, it (sexual desire and lust) begins to dwindle. It's still a fire. But little by little, it becomes weaker and weaker until one day, all one sees are embers around a fire pit. If one leaves those embers alone, they just stay there in peaceful calmness. But if one were to throw gasoline on them (pornography or sexual talk), it's possible that the flames will once again erupt.
At this time in my life, the embers are just lying there in peacefulness. I can think far more clearly than I could as a lust-driven young man. But I don't believe my inability to believe theologically as y'all do has anything to do with my sexual orientation or my past desire for sex. They are two different things.
Alayman, if I can ever figure out and piece together which city you are in, I might try to quietly walk in and sit in the back pew (hoping the ceiling doesn't cave in) in the hopes that you did take you church over and that I can hear you speak.
I wish you each the best as you strive towards your high calling.
.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2012
- Messages
- 9,304
- Reaction score
- 2,950
- Points
- 113
You can see/hear the last Sunday morning sermon I preached here (my pastor, Paul Gibson, a fellow Georgian such as yourself, is sitting behind me on the pulpit that day recovering from recent heart surgery, such a faithful man)….
And after this last informative post of yours as to your reflective feelings about time and the inevitable cycles of life and death I’ll just say what I believe the Lord would say to you Gringo…
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
You’d be more than welcome to stop by our church if you’re ever in West Portsmouth….Have a great day Gringo!
Same is true of Adulterous inclinations.
It sounds like even though you identify as gay, you’ve been celibate for years. I see zero wrong with this from a biblical perspective.
By the way, to a certain degree, I do feel I can identify with you, despite me being straight and younger. I’m not sure of your exact age, but I’m guessing we’re probably around twenty-five years apart based on some of your comments. As a straight guy, I don’t feel being with one woman for decades is very natural or realistic either. However, I do recognize it’s a biblical mandate and God’s will. But from a purely flesh perspective, it feels extremely unnatural, doesn’t really make sense, and I know the majority of the world finds it an archaic way of thinking to marry and only have relations with your wife until death. So, in a way, I can see how reading a mandate from Scriptures would seem counterintuitive to what feels natural to you and, therefore, difficult to accept as a living principle in life.
I want to point out the message of this statment in light of some of the things that have been talked about.
I know what you're saying, Gringo, and I'm not finding fault with you or with what you're trying to say.
This statement highlights the problems with thinking of 'homosexuality' or 'heterosexuality' as an idenity, and also what the 'identity' is all about. You may be celibate right now, but you haven't stopped being yourself. So the behavior isn't your identity.
And the the bottom line is, 'homosexuality' and 'heterosexuality' is just about sex. Neither concept can identify an individual.