no propaganda please Loc: moon orbiting the third rock from the sun

Same sex behavior between males has been considered part of accepted practice in pagan cultures throughout history. A number of African tribes believed that a boy must perform oral sex on a number of males in order to consume enough ejaculate to become a fertile male. The Greeks and Romans believed that adult males could, without criticism be the penetrating partner in a "relationship" with a boy or a servant or s***e, but that behavior was wrong between adults of the same caste. Being the recipient was forbidden for the upper caste males. Their cultures validated pederasts, but not adult same sex behavior. They had no concept of "orientation" but said that sexual preference is fluid and can and does change depending on the situation. That seems to be the belief of all groups that are used as examples of the acceptability of same sex relationships. I can find no examples of adult male to male sexual behavior being considered acceptable, except in small groups of people, primarily in Africa, where the requirement was that one of the two was owned or was the s***e of the other and was the receiver. There are many accounts of sailors seeking sex with 10 to 14 year old male prostitutes in the USA during the early years after the founding of the country so pederasty was obviously acceptable. In all cases, until recently, sexual interest was considered fluid and definitely not something you were "born with" It was the "research" by Dr. Kinsey using criminals and p*******es, plus children of any age, that claimed that children were born sexually responsive and wanted to have sex with adults. The concept of children by age four knew which sex they wanted to have sex with was an offshoot of this "information" Children by age four are trying to develop their g****r identity, and some boys may play with girls dolls rather than boys dolls like GI Joe, some girls may prefer Tonka trucks rather than jacks, but that is part of developing g****r identity. Girls can prefer Tonka toys and toy guns and still be heterosexual and fully aware that they are female. My wife is one of those, never did like girlie things, and became an excellent marksman before arthritis set in, much better than me. She is also capable of changing oil in a car and doing household wiring, and I am the better cook, but both of us are fully comfortable knowing which sex we are. The effort these days is to claim because girls are playing with trucks, and boys are cooking that these children really are homosexual. Thus the concept that children are homosexually oriented by four has become part of the L***Q idea. Children of 4 do not have defined sexual desires. If they seek love from someone of the same sex it is a different type of love they are generally seeking but it does make them vulnerable to p*******es attention. That vulnerability in early teen years often makes the victims of pederasts and if they are told that it was a voluntary"affair" they may act and believe accordingly. Those are often the children that my wife and I are involved in helping heal and be able to finish their journey into manhood. Most of them question their sexual preferences if they were not violently assaulted but "gently molested" as many pederasts choose to call it while justifying their despicable behavior. Your idea that if God made them they must be good would definitely be correct if environment had nothing to do with sexual preference, but there does not seem to be evidence that is the case. As is the case in all human behavior except for those behaviors caused by brain damage, both genetics and environment are involved, with the latter having the greater influence. Considering how many people change from being same sex attracted as teenagers to opposite sex attracted as adults, that obviously must be the case. No one can change from being oriental to being caucasian as they grow up, nor can their DNA change from male to female, no matter what superficial surgeries have been performed.

You are a reverend in a church that apparently does not consider same sex sexual activity as a sin. Do you consider heterosexual sex activity outside of marriage a sin, or "open marriages" whether homosexual or heterosexual in nature to be sinning? If neither one is considered a sin in your church, how do you define adultery as in "thou shall not commit adultery?
Thank you for reading this and I hope you can answer the last question with the same respect that I have given you in this post.

no propaganda please Loc: moon orbiting the third rock from the sun

[quote=no propaganda please]Same sex behavior between males has been considered part of accepted practice in pagan cultures throughout history. A number of African tribes believed that a boy must perform oral sex on a number of males in order to consume enough ejaculate to become a fertile male. The Greeks and Romans believed that adult males could, without criticism be the penetrating partner in a "relationship" with a boy or a servant or s***e, but that behavior was wrong between adults of the same caste. Being the recipient was forbidden for the upper caste males. Their cultures validated pederasts, but not adult same sex behavior. They had no concept of "orientation" but said that sexual preference is fluid and can and does change depending on the situation. That seems to be the belief of all groups that are used as examples of the acceptability of same sex relationships. I can find no examples of adult male to male sexual behavior being considered acceptable, except in small groups of people, primarily in Africa, where the requirement was that one of the two was owned or was the s***e of the other and was the receiver. There are many accounts of sailors seeking sex with 10 to 14 year old male prostitutes in the USA during the early years after the founding of the country so pederasty was obviously acceptable. In all cases, until recently, sexual interest was considered fluid and definitely not something you were "born with" It was the "research" by Dr. Kinsey using criminals and p*******es, plus children of any age, that claimed that children were born sexually responsive and wanted to have sex with adults. The concept of children by age four knew which sex they wanted to have sex with was an offshoot of this "information" Children by age four are trying to develop their g****r identity, and some boys may play with girls dolls rather than boys dolls like GI Joe, some girls may prefer Tonka trucks rather than jacks, but that is part of developing g****r identity. Girls can prefer Tonka toys and toy guns and still be heterosexual and fully aware that they are female. My wife is one of those, never did like girlie things, and became an excellent marksman before arthritis set in, much better than me. She is also capable of changing oil in a car and doing household wiring, and I am the better cook, but both of us are fully comfortable knowing which sex we are. The effort these days is to claim because girls are playing with trucks, and boys are cooking that these children really are homosexual. Thus the concept that children are homosexually oriented by four has become part of the L***Q idea. Children of 4 do not have defined sexual desires. If they seek love from someone of the same sex it is a different type of love they are generally seeking but it does make them vulnerable to p*******es attention. That vulnerability in early teen years often makes the victims of pederasts and if they are told that it was a voluntary"affair" they may act and believe accordingly. Those are often the children that my wife and I are involved in helping heal and be able to finish their journey into manhood. Most of them question their sexual preferences if they were not violently assaulted but "gently molested" as many pederasts choose to call it while justifying their despicable behavior. Your idea that if God made them they must be good would definitely be correct if environment had nothing to do with sexual preference, but there does not seem to be evidence that is the case. As is the case in all human behavior except for those behaviors caused by brain damage, both genetics and environment are involved, with the latter having the greater influence. Considering how many people change from being same sex attracted as teenagers to opposite sex attracted as adults, that obviously must be the case. No one can change from being oriental to being caucasian as they grow up, nor can their DNA change from male to female, no matter what superficial surgeries have been performed.

You are a reverend in a church that apparently does not consider same sex sexual activity as a sin. Do you consider heterosexual sex activity outside of marriage a sin, or "open marriages" whether homosexual or heterosexual in nature to be sinning? If neither one is considered a sin in your church, how do you define adultery as in "thou shall not commit adultery?
Thank you for reading this and I hope you can answer the last question with the same respect that I have given you in this post.[/quo


For thousands of years nobody believed that sexual behavior was of a primarily genetic nature, even after genetics were discovered, and ancient cultures considered homosexual behavior to be permitted under some circumstances, as explained abouve, the idea that "what ever way God made them is fine with me, and none of it is a sin" is, in my opinion, illogical. There are people who prefer teenagers, or can only get satisfaction while doing violent things to other people, inaddition to those who prefer eight year old, of which ever sex. They didn't decide one day that this behavior was really a fun way to be, and particularly for those who are child molesters, it is far more difficult to change their behavior, than to change or modify same sex attraction for some people. If you are going to say that one group is God's gift to mankind, shouldn't all the other behaviors also be considered the same way? Something to think about.

PaulPisces Loc: San Francisco

For thousands of years nobody believed that sexual behavior was of a primarily genetic nature, even after genetics were discovered, and ancient cultures considered homosexual behavior to be permitted under some circumstances, as explained abouve, the idea that "what ever way God made them is fine with me, and none of it is a sin" is, in my opinion, illogical. There are people who prefer teenagers, or can only get satisfaction while doing violent things to other people, inaddition to those who prefer eight year old, of which ever sex. They didn't decide one day that this behavior was really a fun way to be, and particularly for those who are child molesters, it is far more difficult to change their behavior, than to change or modify same sex attraction for some people. If you are going to say that one group is God's gift to mankind, shouldn't all the other behaviors also be considered the same way? Something to think about.[/quote]

NPP - The difference is that adult same-sex relationships are consensual, while the others you describe are abusive, damaging or manipulative to one of the partners. There are some adult consensual acts that are repugnant to some (like S&M or other fetishes) but if they are truly consensual and private, by what right does anyone forbid them?

Btfkr Loc: just outside the Mile High City

NPP - The difference is that adult same-sex relationships are consensual, while the others you describe are abusive, damaging or manipulative to one of the partners. There are some adult consensual acts that are repugnant to some (like S&M or other fetishes) but if they are truly consensual and private, by what right does anyone forbid them?[/quote]





Right on Paul. I believe it to be a far reach and paranoid to think we will go from accepting same sex relationships down some imaginary "slippery slope" to allowing child abuse or some kind of violence. I also believe there to be a great difference of clearing doubts of sexuality in a young person who's natural sexual development was interfered with by molestation as opposed to "change or modify" same sex attraction in someone who is predestined either straight or gay or bi for that matter.

no propaganda please Loc: moon orbiting the third rock from the sun

The Reverend was claiming that children were born either same sex attracted or opposite sex attracted, and that God made them that way, so therefore what ever sexual propensities people have are equally valid. I agree with you that between or among groups of adults what they do in private should not be illegal. Where we differ from the point of legality is what constitutes marriage. My historical comments however, should give pause to the born that way concept. Certainly the Greeks and Romans believed that adult men were free to have sex with young boys, and their s***es while also being able to have sex with their wives and mistresses. They had no concept of men having sex with men of the same caste, or being the receiver of anal intercourse as being acceptable, and they thought that sexual attractions were fluid. In their societies that was what men did, no born that way included. While there has been no proof of "born that way" claims, it has become the mantra. So has the concept of g****r identity being entirely different from sexual attraction except under those circumstances where it is convenient to believe otherwise, such as the statement from Reverend Elizabeth and her church which has a "process theology" doctrine.

Btfkr Loc: just outside the Mile High City

Have you ever studied "two spirit" or berdaches? I may or may not comment further on this whole subject matter at some point in time. I do believe you are mixing apples and oranges. What cultural items you mention in societies past really have nothing to do with sexual attraction. In all the consternation of attempting to categorize everyone the way the most common interpretations of the Bible wants, and all the tangents that are taken, the obvious is disregarded. I personally am 100% convinced that I was born gay. The vast majority of gay people I have ever met think the same way. I spent the first 40 years of my life denying what and who I was. Would it not just be easier to accept the t***h from the people who really know?

boss2

A*********n???

no propaganda please Loc: moon orbiting the third rock from the sun

If it weren't for the fact that I know a number of people who were same sex attracted and are now opposite sex attracted and several that were opposite sex attracted and are now same sex attracted and also a number who are attracted to either sex, I might be willing to accept the idea with no hesitation at all. As long as you are happy with it for you ,it is not my duty to judge you, somebody greater than I will judge all our sins later. That you are monogamous is certainly a step in the right direction (I assume) as far as God is concerned. Of all the same sex pairs I know you are only the second to be monogamous, most are proud of their "open marriages" as Paul said he is of his. However, as I hear more and more of the school systems and the teaching that is going on where they are trying to convince children that if they have any attraction to the same sex at all that means they are homosexual, and not that it is just a temporary attraction best not acted on, the more I believe that is not the whole story and will probably lead some children to believe what is not necessarily the t***h.
.Yes I have heard of the two spirit concept, which I always was lead to believe was a person who believed that they were both male and female, even though biologically they were one sex or the other (usually male, I believe) Some of the American Indian tribes worshiped them, much like some of the tribes worshiped people who were epileptic and had seizures, or had multipersonality disorders. But then are groups who worship two headed cows, and consider them holy. Haven't looked into the two spirit concept however, and would find it interesting.

PaulPisces Loc: San Francisco

NPP - I believe there has been a misunderstanding. I never meant to convey that my marriage is an open one. Rather than comb through my older posts to review let me just set the record straight and say that my marriage is not an open one. In fact I recently received an offer for recreational sex from someone I find incredibly appealing, but I had to decline because John and I have not negotiated such things.

I probably have indicated that I think an open or even polyamorous relationship can work and be incredibly fulfilling for those involved, though from my observation (and some experience in the past) this requires an enormous amount of trust and communication for which many people are not equipped. The point is that ALL relationships must be honestly agreed upon one way or the other if the parties are to ensure their needs are understood and met.

Btfkr Loc: just outside the Mile High City

I do know that some groups ie focus on the family, family research council etc etc, declare that is what the school systems are teaching, but I also know for fact that they are masters of out taking things out of context, dishonesty be omission, and I might as well say it, just flat out lying. I live just 60 miles north of fof world headquarters. I have plenty of experience of their dealings for a good number of years.

boss2

Born sinner? Dont make it ok.

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

Born the way God made ya. And in many cases, it is a sick joke.

no propaganda please Loc: moon orbiting the third rock from the sun

Thank you for clearing that up. Frankly that bothered me a lot because it seemed out of character with most of your comments.

no propaganda please Loc: moon orbiting the third rock from the sun

The above question was not answered by the reverend. Under the conditions above, which includes all sexual preferences, how do you define adultery, or does it not exist as far as your church rules go?

Btfkr Loc: just outside the Mile High City

Well...in my estimation, I've had s sicker pranks pulled on my than being born gay :shock: :P