Thanks, Twinky. Good logic there. Homosexuality is no worse a sin than any other, and we all sin.
I always thought it was ironic that in TWI they called homosexuality the "bottom of the barrel" because of it being last in the list of sins in Romans 1, yet they mocked those who used the same logic to say speaking in tongues was less important because it was last in Paul's list. "Ladies and gentlemen, something's got to be last!"
I'll bite, it's been quite a while since I've been down here in the basement. I don't have a Bible in front of me at the moment, but my memory of the first couple of chapters of Romans was, the point wasn't really that homosexuality was the sin - the sin was, there were those teaching it as a sin and condemning homosexuality, who were equally guity of worshiping the creation above the creator. In other words, it was about the hypocrites.
And in the end, I go back to . . "let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
When I become perfect, then I MIGHT have the right to judge someone else's relationship with God. Until then, I figure it is between each individual and God to work it out.
Err, don't teach it but practicing it is ok?
Maybe... homosexuality is not a sin? Not an abomination. Promiscuity is a sin, spreading disease is an abomination. Abomination is the biblical word for "disease". Disease unfortunately kills people irregardless of your faith..
Remember adultery was considered worthy of stoning as was promiscuous homosexuality because a lover did not confide in a partner about sexual infidelity... So stoning was because a lover did not break up or confide with another lover before committing adultery. Without honesty then death caused by diseased infidelity IS an abomination.
I once met a very cute guy in a bar. I asked him are you aids positive and he said no. I asked are you sure and he answered, "I'm positive I don't have aids". I said you're positive?
The thief cometh...
Hosea 7:1 KJV
When I would have healed Israel, then the iniquity of Ephraim was discovered , and the wickedness of Samaria: for they commit falsehood; and the thief cometh in , and the troop of robbers spoileth without.
Remember adultery was considered worthy of stoning as was promiscuous homosexuality because a lover did not confide in a partner about sexual infidelity... So stoning was because a lover did not break up or confide with another lover before committing adultery. Without honesty then death caused by diseased infidelity IS an abomination.
Ahh actually, there was no concern for sexually transmitted diseases back then. There was no mention of syphilis, gonorrhea, AIDS, etc. in the bible. The prohibition against sexual misbehaviors was strictly from a social/religious background to the controlling of behavior.
Never mind that even many of the most 'godly' individuals of the bible often partook of the 'forbidden fruit' of unmarried sex, and quite often at that. <_<
Ahh actually, there was no concern for sexually transmitted diseases back then. There was no mention of syphilis, gonorrhea, AIDS, etc. in the bible. The prohibition against sexual misbehaviors was strictly from a social/religious background to the controlling of behavior.
Never mind that even many of the most 'godly' individuals of the bible often partook of the 'forbidden fruit' of unmarried sex, and quite often at that. <_<
So you don't think God minded a whole tribe catching herpes? And eating pork was an abomination too not of course because of the disease Trichinosis... Just because God hates pigs...
No concern was why lepers were quarantined too? How you err...
You may also consider that last pope John Paul died of old age and also Parkinson's disease which is actually leprosy so the last pope was a leper. Didn't Jesus heal the leper?
Help me fit all this into my tiny homosexual mind...
You may also consider that last pope John Paul died of old age and also Parkinson's disease which is actually leprosy so the last pope was a leper. Didn't Jesus heal the leper?
Help me fit all this into my tiny homosexual mind...
Parkinson's is not leprosy.
There is some evidence that the susceptibility to both of them may be closely related but they are not the same disease.
The prohibition against sexual misbehaviors was strictly from a social/religious background to the controlling of behavior.
Interesting point. I have to wonder if outlawing homosexuality was a method to help build the tribes numbers, in the same way that the Mormons encouraged plural marriage as "Gods Will" , TWI near demanded that you marry within the household, or the Catholics edicts against birth control
Ahh actually, there was no concern for sexually transmitted diseases back then. There was no mention of syphilis, gonorrhea, AIDS, etc. in the bible. The prohibition against sexual misbehaviors was strictly from a social/religious background to the controlling of behavior.
Never mind that even many of the most 'godly' individuals of the bible often partook of the 'forbidden fruit' of unmarried sex, and quite often at that. <_<
I absolutely disagree with you. Are you actually saying that God condones the spreading of disease without telling a partner but objects to two same sex partners living in fidelity? That is hogwash. Just so you can perpetuate homophobia?
So then the reason for not eating pork was because it was a behavioral thing also? Then we get to the myth "the way" taught us that disease didn't exist until people started sleeping around. According to science viruses existed before even plants and animals. Also DNA was being mutated in animals long before humans existed on earth. As homosexuality is also observable in animals and existed long before, err, disco music...
I will attempt to kill several birds with one stone. Disease was very well known in both old and new testament times. Lot left a city rampant with promiscuity and disease.
Why did Jesus wash the feet of the disciples. Is cleanliness next to godliness? And this stuff about sin not having size is also hogwash. Are you saying murder is equal to telling a child there really is a Santa Clause? Only a sociopath would agree. Just because people perceive sin in different intensities does not make it so. Sin does have different size, weight and gravity. Jesus did not wash his hands before eating. That was a sin also. And Luke was a physician.
Then the sons of Ham were the first black people right? (wrong) Are these black people the ones who will be stricken from the book of life? The Bible is one of the most erroneous, homophobic and racist books ever written.
Just because the writers of the bible threw a little truth into the book then we are supposed to believe the lies also? Is this not the greatest crime and sin ever perpetrated in all of history? How many homosexuals have been persecuted and murdered because of this evil book?
Did I also mention male chauvinist? How Eve committed the original sin (why because she began to think for herself, God forbid...) and how Adam was formed, made and created first? (more lies) When DNA says Eve came first... Males have an incomplete set of chromosomes meaning our Y chromosome is actually a mutation of X and thus came after the X chromosome... Need I go on? And then we are supposed to trust this fantasy book as our sole and only rule of faith and practice?
So should we stand firmly on this, err, "solid ground" of racism, male chauvinism and homophobia?
Why were people not supposed to touch dead bodies, drink blood and such, because of behavioral concerns or disease?
It is a greater sin to believe the bible than to deny it.
I don't know where all this discussion has gone (haven't read the whole thread), but a couple of humanities classes led me on a tangent a couple of years ago which really altered my idea of context in the "biblical" discussion of homosexuality.
My understanding is that in the Greek era, same sex sex were fine as long as you weren't the one that was being penetrated. So it was weaker men and male children who were penetrated. Homosexual sex was an act of over-lording. In the Roman era, same sex sex was encouraged in the armies because it was believed to be beneficial to building relationships, but men would go home to their wives or at some other point get married. The relationship was not sacred. Within the pagan community (which was just about everyone), there was a good amount of ritual sex. Some of that may have been in the context of sacred, but there was probably a good amount of it that wasn't.
I think the bible speaks against any kind of sex that is not based on love and commitment as being wrong. It always speaks of sex being "wrong" whenever the act is done outside the sacred relationship.
So perhaps it's the context of the act, not the sex of the people that's important.
So you don't think God minded a whole tribe catching herpes? And eating pork was an abomination too not of course because of the disease Trichinosis... Just because God hates pigs...
No concern was why lepers were quarantined too? How you err...
Read what I said again. It's quite plain what I said, even if you 'mistake' what it says.
Disease was very well known in both old and new testament times.
I didn't say that it wasn't known of. I said that the sexual prohibitions weren't dealt with because of disease. But I'll tell you one thing. They didn't know nearly as much about diseases as we do know now. A glaring example? Mental illness back then was referred to as "being possessed by demons". That point _alone_ illustrates their blatant ignorance in their knowledge of medicine and health.
Then the sons of Ham were the first black people right? (wrong) Are these black people the ones who will be stricken from the book of life? The Bible is one of the most erroneous, homophobic and racist books ever written. ... (and following in that post)
????? Huh! And here I thought that you were a devout Christian. A lot of things in that particular post alone would get most Christians ticked at you. :o
Anyway, you're a grown adult. Read what I said. There are quite a few points where you missed/misread what I said. ... As Zixar once said in his tag sign-off, "It's not my fault if you don't read the whole thing."
I'm sure I don't know God as well as some people here. (I'm not really sure about much these days.)
But I am fairly certain of these two points:
1. God doesn't care what you eat.
2. God doesn't care what consenting adults do behind closed doors.
And with regard to these two points, I don't care what the bible says.
And that's that.
Well, it isn't really a sin against you or me is it? I could care less what consenting adults do behind closed doors. . . . . but, then again, I am not a holy God who cannot abide sin. What makes you fairly certain He doesn't care? Not agreeing or disagreeing. . . . just curious.
The pat Christian answer. . . . bearing in mind Christians believe we are all fallen. http://www.gotquesti...
"The Bible consistently tells us that homosexual activity is a sin (Genesis 19:1-13; Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9). Romans 1:26-27 teaches specifically that homosexuality is a result of denying and disobeying God. When people continue in sin and unbelief, God "gives them over" to even more wicked and depraved sin in order to show them the futility and hopelessness of life apart from God. 1 Corinthians 6:9 proclaims that homosexual "offenders" will not inherit the kingdom of God.
God does not create a person with homosexual desires. The Bible tells us that people become homosexuals because of sin (Romans 1:24-27) and ultimately because of their own choice. A person may be born with a greater susceptibility to homosexuality, just as some people are born with a tendency to violence and other sins. That does not excuse the person's choosing to sin by giving in to sinful desires. If a person is born with a greater susceptibility to anger/rage, does that make it right for him to give into those desires? Of course not! The same is true with homosexuality.
However, the Bible does not describe homosexuality as a "greater" sin than any other. All sin is offensive to God. Homosexuality is just one of the many things listed in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 that will keep a person from the kingdom of God. According to the Bible, God's forgiveness is just as available to a homosexual as it is to an adulterer, idol worshipper, murderer, thief, etc. God also promises the strength for victory over sin, including homosexuality, to all those who will believe in Jesus Christ for their salvation (1 Corinthians 6:11; 2 Corinthians 5:17; Philippians 4:13)."
I don't know...a sense of proportion, or keeping things in persepctive, maybe? With all the violence going on in the world and with man busy destroying the earth, why would God be concerned with gay sex?
I've heard some wacked-out religious nut jobs (Jerry Falwell, etc.) declare that HIV/AIDS is God's punishment for gay sex. To believe that that God punishes gays while they are here on earth but does not punish serial killers, mass murders or pedophiles while they are here on earth is ludicrous.
"The Bible consistently tells us that homosexual activity is a sin (Genesis 19:1-13; Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9). Romans 1:26-27 teaches specifically that homosexuality is a result of denying and disobeying God. When people continue in sin and unbelief, God "gives them over" to even more wicked and depraved sin in order to show them the futility and hopelessness of life apart from God.
The Romans and Corinthians verses seem to support your argument (I'm not entirely conviced) but Leviticus? Come on...here's a book that tells us about burnt offerings, blood sacrifices and skin diseases. It goes on to tell us about male "discharges" (nocturnal emissions? venereal disease? it doesn't specify), how long males and females are "unclean" after their respective "discharges" (don't touch a menstruating female or you'll be unclean until sundown -- that's a good one).
Sorry about the sarcasm.
The Book of Leviticus holds little moral or spiritual value for modern man. It's pure fiction with no redeeming value that I can see.
God does not create a person with homosexual desires.
.
.
.
A person may be born with a greater susceptibility to homosexuality, just as some people are born with a tendency to violence and other sins. That does not excuse the person's choosing to sin by giving in to sinful desires. If a person is born with a greater susceptibility to anger/rage, does that make it right for him to give into those desires? Of course not! The same is true with homosexuality.
I disageee. Every survey of homosexuals that I've ever seen indicates that homosexuality is most often not a choice. Most report that they've always felt that way, or at least since puberty.
One of my earliest memories and fears was a spiral staircase. I remember as a toddler choosing the narrowest part of the stairs to traverse downward. I remember at least two very marked homosexual fantasies as a toddler. I will not divulge them in detail now, yet. Surely before I was well before age five. Lusting secretly after other males in my life with profound, err, LOVE... that I have never been able to forget. I was never molested, it was a "natural" choice.
One of my earliest memories and fears was a spiral staircase. I remember as a toddler choosing the narrowest part of the stairs to traverse downward. I remember at least two very marked homosexual fantasies as a toddler. I will not divulge them in detail now, yet. Surely before I was well before age five. Lusting secretly after other males in my life with profound, err, LOVE... that I have never been able to forget. I was never molested, it was a "natural" choice.
Now this is the part I truly don't understand. I'm a heterosexual. I only mention that to give some perspective. But, I don't remember ever having any "sexual" thoughts before I reached the age of puberty, hetero or homo. So, how could I have known, from an early age, what my sexual leanings would be? I'm not trying to be contrary. I just don't understand that part.
Now this is the part I truly don't understand. I'm a heterosexual. I only mention that to give some perspective. But, I don't remember ever having any "sexual" thoughts before I reached the age of puberty, hetero or homo. So, how could I have known, from an early age, what my sexual leanings would be? I'm not trying to be contrary. I just don't understand that part.
What is there to understand or learn? It is a "natural" propensity to what one is preferential to. Just because you don't remember your past doesn't mean it was not there.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
15
17
17
16
Popular Days
Jun 11
47
Jun 9
16
Dec 22
14
Jun 12
11
Top Posters In This Topic
Abigail 15 posts
rhino 17 posts
cman 17 posts
DrWearWord 16 posts
Popular Days
Jun 11 2008
47 posts
Jun 9 2008
16 posts
Dec 22 2009
14 posts
Jun 12 2008
11 posts
Popular Posts
rhino
No, you didn't forget ... those are questions that could be asked and answered somewhere else, it is not a question of whether they matter, but they are a separate issue. That is a matter of applicat
rhino
It is YOUR judgment that I have harassed and need to justify anything. And the fact that other people are involved is why I want to get be sure the record is set straight. To be more straight forwar
rhino
I respond when the lies and accusations are repeated. I generally have not responded when someone else chimes in with their support against those hateful close minded people, unless I am addressed by
cman
If Leviticus and Romans are about the act of sex between two men then women should shutup in the church.
Along with a bunch of literal crap stuck in our face.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
"Gathering wood" :o
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
Thanks, Twinky. Good logic there. Homosexuality is no worse a sin than any other, and we all sin.
I always thought it was ironic that in TWI they called homosexuality the "bottom of the barrel" because of it being last in the list of sins in Romans 1, yet they mocked those who used the same logic to say speaking in tongues was less important because it was last in Paul's list. "Ladies and gentlemen, something's got to be last!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
Err, don't teach it but practicing it is ok?
Maybe... homosexuality is not a sin? Not an abomination. Promiscuity is a sin, spreading disease is an abomination. Abomination is the biblical word for "disease". Disease unfortunately kills people irregardless of your faith..
Remember adultery was considered worthy of stoning as was promiscuous homosexuality because a lover did not confide in a partner about sexual infidelity... So stoning was because a lover did not break up or confide with another lover before committing adultery. Without honesty then death caused by diseased infidelity IS an abomination.
Edited by DrWearWordLink to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
Ephesians 4:15 KJV
But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:
Edited by DrWearWordLink to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
I once met a very cute guy in a bar. I asked him are you aids positive and he said no. I asked are you sure and he answered, "I'm positive I don't have aids". I said you're positive?
The thief cometh...
Hosea 7:1 KJV
When I would have healed Israel, then the iniquity of Ephraim was discovered , and the wickedness of Samaria: for they commit falsehood; and the thief cometh in , and the troop of robbers spoileth without.
Edited by DrWearWordLink to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Ahh actually, there was no concern for sexually transmitted diseases back then. There was no mention of syphilis, gonorrhea, AIDS, etc. in the bible. The prohibition against sexual misbehaviors was strictly from a social/religious background to the controlling of behavior.
Never mind that even many of the most 'godly' individuals of the bible often partook of the 'forbidden fruit' of unmarried sex, and quite often at that. <_<
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
So you don't think God minded a whole tribe catching herpes? And eating pork was an abomination too not of course because of the disease Trichinosis... Just because God hates pigs...
No concern was why lepers were quarantined too? How you err...
Edited by DrWearWordLink to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
And Craig after screwing that many women (fifty was it) don't you think he caught a few diseases? Not a pretty "athlete" of the spirit after that...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
You may also consider that last pope John Paul died of old age and also Parkinson's disease which is actually leprosy so the last pope was a leper. Didn't Jesus heal the leper?
Help me fit all this into my tiny homosexual mind...
Edited by DrWearWordLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Parkinson's is not leprosy.
There is some evidence that the susceptibility to both of them may be closely related but they are not the same disease.
http://www.biospace.com/news_story.aspx?NewsEntityId=14957220
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
Isn't that like saying obesity and overeating are linked but not the same?
My point was to show the irony of God's will.
Edited by DrWearWordLink to comment
Share on other sites
mstar1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
I absolutely disagree with you. Are you actually saying that God condones the spreading of disease without telling a partner but objects to two same sex partners living in fidelity? That is hogwash. Just so you can perpetuate homophobia?
So then the reason for not eating pork was because it was a behavioral thing also? Then we get to the myth "the way" taught us that disease didn't exist until people started sleeping around. According to science viruses existed before even plants and animals. Also DNA was being mutated in animals long before humans existed on earth. As homosexuality is also observable in animals and existed long before, err, disco music...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
I will attempt to kill several birds with one stone. Disease was very well known in both old and new testament times. Lot left a city rampant with promiscuity and disease.
Why did Jesus wash the feet of the disciples. Is cleanliness next to godliness? And this stuff about sin not having size is also hogwash. Are you saying murder is equal to telling a child there really is a Santa Clause? Only a sociopath would agree. Just because people perceive sin in different intensities does not make it so. Sin does have different size, weight and gravity. Jesus did not wash his hands before eating. That was a sin also. And Luke was a physician.
Then the sons of Ham were the first black people right? (wrong) Are these black people the ones who will be stricken from the book of life? The Bible is one of the most erroneous, homophobic and racist books ever written.
Just because the writers of the bible threw a little truth into the book then we are supposed to believe the lies also? Is this not the greatest crime and sin ever perpetrated in all of history? How many homosexuals have been persecuted and murdered because of this evil book?
Did I also mention male chauvinist? How Eve committed the original sin (why because she began to think for herself, God forbid...) and how Adam was formed, made and created first? (more lies) When DNA says Eve came first... Males have an incomplete set of chromosomes meaning our Y chromosome is actually a mutation of X and thus came after the X chromosome... Need I go on? And then we are supposed to trust this fantasy book as our sole and only rule of faith and practice?
So should we stand firmly on this, err, "solid ground" of racism, male chauvinism and homophobia?
Why were people not supposed to touch dead bodies, drink blood and such, because of behavioral concerns or disease?
It is a greater sin to believe the bible than to deny it.
Edited by DrWearWordLink to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
I don't know where all this discussion has gone (haven't read the whole thread), but a couple of humanities classes led me on a tangent a couple of years ago which really altered my idea of context in the "biblical" discussion of homosexuality.
My understanding is that in the Greek era, same sex sex were fine as long as you weren't the one that was being penetrated. So it was weaker men and male children who were penetrated. Homosexual sex was an act of over-lording. In the Roman era, same sex sex was encouraged in the armies because it was believed to be beneficial to building relationships, but men would go home to their wives or at some other point get married. The relationship was not sacred. Within the pagan community (which was just about everyone), there was a good amount of ritual sex. Some of that may have been in the context of sacred, but there was probably a good amount of it that wasn't.
I think the bible speaks against any kind of sex that is not based on love and commitment as being wrong. It always speaks of sex being "wrong" whenever the act is done outside the sacred relationship.
So perhaps it's the context of the act, not the sex of the people that's important.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
soul searcher
I'm sure I don't know God as well as some people here. (I'm not really sure about much these days.)
But I am fairly certain of these two points:
1. God doesn't care what you eat.
2. God doesn't care what consenting adults do behind closed doors.
And with regard to these two points, I don't care what the bible says.
And that's that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Read what I said again. It's quite plain what I said, even if you 'mistake' what it says.
I didn't say that it wasn't known of. I said that the sexual prohibitions weren't dealt with because of disease. But I'll tell you one thing. They didn't know nearly as much about diseases as we do know now. A glaring example? Mental illness back then was referred to as "being possessed by demons". That point _alone_ illustrates their blatant ignorance in their knowledge of medicine and health.
????? Huh! And here I thought that you were a devout Christian. A lot of things in that particular post alone would get most Christians ticked at you. :o
Anyway, you're a grown adult. Read what I said. There are quite a few points where you missed/misread what I said. ... As Zixar once said in his tag sign-off, "It's not my fault if you don't read the whole thing."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Well, it isn't really a sin against you or me is it? I could care less what consenting adults do behind closed doors. . . . . but, then again, I am not a holy God who cannot abide sin. What makes you fairly certain He doesn't care? Not agreeing or disagreeing. . . . just curious.
The pat Christian answer. . . . bearing in mind Christians believe we are all fallen. http://www.gotquesti...
"The Bible consistently tells us that homosexual activity is a sin (Genesis 19:1-13; Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9). Romans 1:26-27 teaches specifically that homosexuality is a result of denying and disobeying God. When people continue in sin and unbelief, God "gives them over" to even more wicked and depraved sin in order to show them the futility and hopelessness of life apart from God. 1 Corinthians 6:9 proclaims that homosexual "offenders" will not inherit the kingdom of God.
God does not create a person with homosexual desires. The Bible tells us that people become homosexuals because of sin (Romans 1:24-27) and ultimately because of their own choice. A person may be born with a greater susceptibility to homosexuality, just as some people are born with a tendency to violence and other sins. That does not excuse the person's choosing to sin by giving in to sinful desires. If a person is born with a greater susceptibility to anger/rage, does that make it right for him to give into those desires? Of course not! The same is true with homosexuality.
However, the Bible does not describe homosexuality as a "greater" sin than any other. All sin is offensive to God. Homosexuality is just one of the many things listed in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 that will keep a person from the kingdom of God. According to the Bible, God's forgiveness is just as available to a homosexual as it is to an adulterer, idol worshipper, murderer, thief, etc. God also promises the strength for victory over sin, including homosexuality, to all those who will believe in Jesus Christ for their salvation (1 Corinthians 6:11; 2 Corinthians 5:17; Philippians 4:13)."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
soul searcher
I don't know...a sense of proportion, or keeping things in persepctive, maybe? With all the violence going on in the world and with man busy destroying the earth, why would God be concerned with gay sex?
I've heard some wacked-out religious nut jobs (Jerry Falwell, etc.) declare that HIV/AIDS is God's punishment for gay sex. To believe that that God punishes gays while they are here on earth but does not punish serial killers, mass murders or pedophiles while they are here on earth is ludicrous.
The Romans and Corinthians verses seem to support your argument (I'm not entirely conviced) but Leviticus? Come on...here's a book that tells us about burnt offerings, blood sacrifices and skin diseases. It goes on to tell us about male "discharges" (nocturnal emissions? venereal disease? it doesn't specify), how long males and females are "unclean" after their respective "discharges" (don't touch a menstruating female or you'll be unclean until sundown -- that's a good one).
Sorry about the sarcasm.
The Book of Leviticus holds little moral or spiritual value for modern man. It's pure fiction with no redeeming value that I can see.
I disageee. Every survey of homosexuals that I've ever seen indicates that homosexuality is most often not a choice. Most report that they've always felt that way, or at least since puberty.
Edited by soul searcherLink to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
One of my earliest memories and fears was a spiral staircase. I remember as a toddler choosing the narrowest part of the stairs to traverse downward. I remember at least two very marked homosexual fantasies as a toddler. I will not divulge them in detail now, yet. Surely before I was well before age five. Lusting secretly after other males in my life with profound, err, LOVE... that I have never been able to forget. I was never molested, it was a "natural" choice.
Edited by DrWearWordLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Now this is the part I truly don't understand. I'm a heterosexual. I only mention that to give some perspective. But, I don't remember ever having any "sexual" thoughts before I reached the age of puberty, hetero or homo. So, how could I have known, from an early age, what my sexual leanings would be? I'm not trying to be contrary. I just don't understand that part.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
What is there to understand or learn? It is a "natural" propensity to what one is preferential to. Just because you don't remember your past doesn't mean it was not there.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.