BaylorJacket said:
Golem said:
He Hate Me said:
BaylorJacket said:
He Hate Me said:
No one is a homosexual. There are people who engage in homosexual conduct. It is not an immutable characteristic as some would like you to believe.
Holy ****, this might be the most ignorant post I've seen on the board. Homosexuality is by definition a sexual orientation that is characterized by a romantic and/or sexual attraction to individuals of the same gender.
Do you genuinely believe no one is actually homosexual?
A homosexual is someone who engages in sexual conduct with someone of the same sex. If you don't act on a same sex attraction, then you are either celibate or still straight.
In other words, there is no homosexual without a homosexual act. No one is a homosexual but some acts are homosexual.
Also, there are plenty of disordered sexual impulses. Pedophiles are sexually attracted to kids. Bestiality has humans sexually attracted to animals. Cuckoldry has men sexually attracted to the site of other men railing their wives. Sadists are sexually attracted inflicting pain. Masochists are sexually attracted to receiving pain. Necrophiliacs are sexually attracted to corpses.
The existence of sexual attraction to something or someone not fit for the purpose is not an orientation. It's a disorder. A vote by a group of politically motivated psychiatrists in 1973, while their gathering was protested by militant homosexual fetishists, will never change that.
Do you genuinely believe that adults assaulting and raping children, or assaulting an animal, or assaulting a rotting corpse is even remotely in the same ballpark as two adults having a consensual relationship?
There is a monumental difference between assaulting someone/something, and consent between adults.
You may believe that this type of relationship is not as God intended, which I completely understand as I have once held the same view, but please do not lump homosexuals with child rapists. That is incredibly offensive and bigoted.
You provide a definition of sexual attraction as a justification for behavior and as evidence it's a valid "orientation". I provided further examples of sexual attraction and you balk because they aren't yet culturally acceptable 'orientations'. You switch your argument from one of 'attraction = valid orientation' to one of consent when confronted with that exact argument.
I notice you left out the other examples I mentioned of disordered sexual attraction where adults consent to humiliation or extreme physical abuse. Because "consent", no doubt. Consent doesn't make something healthy or valid. Violently sodomizing a partner who is tied up, with a ball gag in her mouth, whilst spitting on her and calling her degrading names and then ejaculating on her face, isn't any less disordered because of consent.
All disordered sexual attraction is disordered, regardless at who or what it fetishizes. Remove God from the debate and substitute evolution and you can come to only that one conclusion, if you are intellectually honest. And they must ALL be chosen by the actor to act upon.