Things Learned from LGBTQ+ Discussions

[Trapped]

I was going to write a post, but turned to google to get help with some phrasing, and found an article already written that encapsulates my thought better than I could have written it. I also think this article dovetails somewhat into StG's line of inquiry about homosexual acts being "off the mark".

Here's the link. This is standard apologetics/logic stuff:

https://www.str.org/w/homosexuality-...ought-fallacy-

I would tighten up his words to say "homosexual sex is unnatural" rather than homosexuality, which would just imply the attractions. I'm consistently trying to make a distinction between the feelings and the acts, the former not being a sin, and the latter being a sin, at least in my grounding of it.

To me, this is like looking at a pile of hex nuts and bolts, and thinking it's totally normal to try to use two hex nuts to assemble a bookshelf. Can you put two hex nuts next to each other? Sure you can. But it's obvious it's "off the mark" of how nuts and bolts were designed to be used in conjunction with each other.

And by the way, this is not an argument related to procreation. I'm just talking about the design for use, not what's produced from the designed use.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Trapped

I was going to write a post, but turned to google to get help with some phrasing, and found an article already written that encapsulates my thought better than I could have written it. I also think this article dovetails somewhat into StG's line of inquiry about homosexual acts being "off the mark".

Here's the link. This is standard apologetics/logic stuff:

https://www.str.org/w/homosexuality-...ought-fallacy-

I would tighten up his words to say "homosexual sex is unnatural" rather than homosexuality, which would just imply the attractions. I'm consistently trying to make a distinction between the feelings and the acts, the former not being a sin, and the latter being a sin, at least in my grounding of it.

To me, this is like looking at a pile of hex nuts and bolts, and thinking it's totally normal to try to use two hex nuts to assemble a bookshelf. Can you put two hex nuts next to each other? Sure you can. But it's obvious it's "off the mark" of how nuts and bolts were designed to be used in conjunction with each other.

And by the way, this is not an argument related to procreation. I'm just talking about the design for use, not what's produced from the designed use.

Then what is the line of reasoning for masturbation among heterosexuals? Homosexual sex is mostly masturbation if you think about it. Or people who are born intersex?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

Then what is the line of reasoning for masturbation among heterosexuals? Homosexual sex is mostly masturbation if you think about it. Or people who are born intersex?

That line of reasoning to strict Bible believers is Onanism.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Trapped

I was going to write a post, but turned to google to get help with some phrasing, and found an article already written that encapsulates my thought better than I could have written it. I also think this article dovetails somewhat into StG's line of inquiry about homosexual acts being "off the mark".

Here's the link. This is standard apologetics/logic stuff:

https://www.str.org/w/homosexuality-...ought-fallacy-

I would tighten up his words to say "homosexual sex is unnatural" rather than homosexuality, which would just imply the attractions. I'm consistently trying to make a distinction between the feelings and the acts, the former not being a sin, and the latter being a sin, at least in my grounding of it.

To me, this is like looking at a pile of hex nuts and bolts, and thinking it's totally normal to try to use two hex nuts to assemble a bookshelf. Can you put two hex nuts next to each other? Sure you can. But it's obvious it's "off the mark" of how nuts and bolts were designed to be used in conjunction with each other.

And by the way, this is not an argument related to procreation. I'm just talking about the design for use, not what's produced from the designed use.

I think it's more complex than the nut fits the bolt.

I've mentioned a brother in the LC, that came out as gay to his wife, 3 kids, parents, and the LC. I was out of the LC for about 6 months at that time. It didn't bother me that he was gay. I stayed friends with him for years.

And I picked and picked at his brains to try to determine what made him gay. To no avail. Then he eventually explained it to me.

Here's how it happened. He and his lover worked as programmers for a large utility company. There they made friends with a female programmer. She didn't know they were gay, and was hurt when her advances were rejected.

At Halloween, they went together to Oktoberfest in Key West. They got drunk. When they got back to their room she was inebriated out of her gourd. So they decided to give her whats she's been begging for. They took turns.

This blew my mind on many levels. I said, John, you told me you didn't like lady parts. He said, "I'm not gay for the sex ; lady parts are made for male parts. It's the best. I'm gay for romance with men.

And there it was. That's why I say it's more complex than a nut and bolt. Human's aren't robots.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

And there it was. That's why I say it's more complex than a nut and bolt. Human's aren't robots.

And there we have it folks: perfect justification for LGBT: Humans are not robots.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by awareness

I think it's more complex than the nut fits the bolt.

I've mentioned a brother in the LC, that came out as gay to his wife, 3 kids, parents, and the LC. I was out of the LC for about 6 months at that time. It didn't bother me that he was gay. I stayed friends with him for years.

And I picked and picked at his brains to try to determine what made him gay. To no avail. Then he eventually explained it to me.

Here's how it happened. He and his lover worked as programmers for a large utility company. There they made friends with a female programmer. She didn't know they were gay, and was hurt when her advances were rejected.

At Halloween, they went together to Oktoberfest in Key West. They got drunk. When they got back to their room she was inebriated out of her gourd. So they decided to give her whats she's been begging for. They took turns.

This blew my mind on many levels. I said, John, you told me you didn't like lady parts. He said, "I'm not gay for the sex ; lady parts are made for male parts. It's the best. I'm gay for romance with men.

And there it was. That's why I say it's more complex than a nut and bolt. Human's aren't robots.

He’s bisexual homoromantic.
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-possible...d-homoromantic

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

He’s bisexual homoromantic.
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-possible...d-homoromantic

Is there another alphabet for that or is included in the + sign?

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Is there another alphabet for that or is included in the + sign?

No it’s this..
What is the difference between romantic orientation and sexual orientation?

Romantic orientation indicates the gender with which a person is likely to have a relationship or fall in love. This does not necessarily have to involve sex. This means that some people can have different sexual and romantic orientations, based on the perspective that sexual attraction is just a single component of a larger dynamic. For example, someone might be sexually attracted to more than one gender (bisexual) but might only be able to see themselves in a romantic relationship with someone of the same gender (homoromantic).

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

No it’s this..
What is the difference between romantic orientation and sexual orientation?

Romantic orientation indicates the gender with which a person is likely to have a relationship or fall in love. This does not necessarily have to involve sex. This means that some people can have different sexual and romantic orientations, based on the perspective that sexual attraction is just a single component of a larger dynamic. For example, someone might be sexually attracted to more than one gender (bisexual) but might only be able to see themselves in a romantic relationship with someone of the same gender (homoromantic).

Is it just me? Maybe it is . . . but I have to ask - is this getting more and more complex?

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Is it just me? Maybe it is . . . but I have to ask - is this getting more and more complex?

In the beginning it is, but thats like theoretical science.. I didnt know what lgbtq stood for at first. Until I had those same sex feelings and attractions, then had to look it up as a teenager. And I’m sure if we can comprehend the trinity, we can comprehend the difference between these two concepts. I’m glad God made us with brains

Here let me dumb it down for you... if someone feels like they are romantically attracted to someone and wants to be in a romantic relationship with someone, thats romantic attraction.
Biromantic- can be in relationship with either a male or female
Homoromantic- can be in romantic relationship with same sex but not opposite sex
Heteromantic- can be in romantic relationship with opposite sex but not same sex
Panromantic- Can be in a relationship with any gender (these include people who identify as transgender, or intersex, agender

If the relationship includes sexual attraction, and involves sex-
bisexual- sexually attracted to both males and females (may or may not be at the same time in their lives)
heterosexual- sexually attracted to someone of opposite sex
homosexual- only sexually attracted to someone of same sex.
pansexual- sexually attracted to those who are bisexual, heterosexual, homosexual, transsexual, asexual.

Here is a full list of terms if you want to dig deeper:
http://www.umass.edu/stonewall/sites...rm_handout.pdf

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Is it just me? Maybe it is . . . but I have to ask - is this getting more and more complex?

This is 2020. Get used to it!


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One of the funniest things I heard all year was a comment about the Cleveland Browns football team last month. They lost their first game, and the comment was, "that's the first normal thing that has happened all year."

Then the Browns won 4 straight games, and we, by definition, have just returned to "2020 crazy."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

He’s bisexual homoromantic.

Truly amazing how many new diseases and pandemics are infecting the human race in these last days.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Truly amazing how many new diseases and pandemics are infecting the human race in these last days.

Very nice of you to say that gayness is a disease.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

Very nice of you to say that gayness is a disease.

Wail a minute! What does "bisexual homoromantic" even mean? Sounds like something you just made up.

If I can be so-called "diagnosed" as a "heterosexual homophobic," as if that is some kind of new disease, so can that guy who ruined his wife and kids.

Sorry Serenity, but many of those in the LGBTQ community look at those of us traditional conservatives with disgust because we believe marriage is one male and one female, so don't act so shocked when the shoe is on the other foot.

Just the other day you tried to denigrate me as an "old white guy." How do you think that makes me feel? Some would say that was a micro-aggression?

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Wail a minute! What does "bisexual homoromantic" even mean? Sounds like something you just made up.

If I can be so-called "diagnosed" as a "heterosexual homophobic," as if that is some kind of new disease, so can that guy who ruined his wife and kids.

Sorry Serenity, but many of those in the LGBTQ community look at those of us traditional conservatives with disgust because we believe marriage is one male and one female, so don't act so shocked when the shoe is on the other foot.

Just the other day you tried to denigrate me as an "old white guy." How do you think that makes me feel? Some would say that was a micro-aggression?

Did I say “old white guy”? I only asked your demographics but you declined to answer. It’s the same as you saying that I was Asian and my experiences were “cultural” and I was generalizing to other Christians. I dont look at you with disgust. But i t seems like you look at gays with disgust since you microlabeled them as a disease. And I sure as hell did not make “bisexual homoromantic” up. Just look at the articles or google it.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

He’s bisexual homoromantic.
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-possible...d-homoromantic

Sometimes the body parts just get in the way. But my question is, is homoromanticism sin? David and Jonathan comes to mind. Clearly they had a romance going on. Would what they had be called homoromantic? And was it sin?

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by awareness

Sometimes the body parts just get in the way. But my question is, is homoromanticism sin? David and Jonathan comes to mind. Clearly they had a romance going on. Would what they had be called homoromantic? And was it sin?

Definitely homoromanticism. David adopted Jonathan’s kid after Jonathan died in battle. Well the prophet Nathan commented on David’s trangression with the other man’s wife. (And God had to abort their first kid.)But nothing about his relations with Jonathan. And since David became the ancestor of Jesus, it shows that even God can use a guy who committed sin, for ultimate good.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

He’s bisexual homoromantic.

Sorry but......

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Trapped

I was going to write a post, but turned to google to get help with some phrasing, and found an article already written that encapsulates my thought better than I could have written it. I also think this article dovetails somewhat into StG's line of inquiry about homosexual acts being "off the mark".

Here's the link. This is standard apologetics/logic stuff:

https://www.str.org/w/homosexuality-...ought-fallacy-

I would tighten up his words to say "homosexual sex is unnatural" rather than homosexuality, which would just imply the attractions. I'm consistently trying to make a distinction between the feelings and the acts, the former not being a sin, and the latter being a sin, at least in my grounding of it.

To me, this is like looking at a pile of hex nuts and bolts, and thinking it's totally normal to try to use two hex nuts to assemble a bookshelf. Can you put two hex nuts next to each other? Sure you can. But it's obvious it's "off the mark" of how nuts and bolts were designed to be used in conjunction with each other.

And by the way, this is not an argument related to procreation. I'm just talking about the design for use, not what's produced from the designed use.

Trapped - that linked article was a pretty cerebral argument that I didn't completely follow part of the time, but I believe I get the point.

Originally Posted by awareness

This blew my mind on many levels. I said, John, you told me you didn't like lady parts. He said, "I'm not gay for the sex ; lady parts are made for male parts. It's the best. I'm gay for romance with men.

That's interesting . . . have to think about that for a bit. The gay man acknowledged that one sexual part (female) was designed for another part (male), but is choosing to ignore that fact and go against the design purpose, in order to have a romantic relationship with another man. Hmmmmmm

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Trapped - that linked article was a pretty cerebral argument that I didn't completely follow part of the time, but I believe I get the point.

That's interesting . . . have to think about that for a bit. The gay man acknowledged that one sexual part (female) was designed for another part (male), but is choosing to ignore that fact and go against the design purpose, in order to have a romantic relationship with another man. Hmmmmmm

Since Trapped put out an interesting article, I would like to share my own. I think this one embodies almost all of how I view interpreting homosexuality in the bible:

https://static1.squarespace.com/stat...agebyColin.pdf