Viewing Thread:
"Are you born gay or do you 'acquire' it?"

I heard two people talking about this the other night, and was wondering what you guys thought. Is being gay in your DNA, or is it 'acquired' through your life?

So yeh, enlighten me...

Light wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> Pandaemonium wrote:
> (I know what you are getting at BTW, platonic love, and I tend to
> agree, I just found it an interesting quote, and wanted to show how
> diferently it could be interpreted)
>
> I fully understand that - the skeptics use the same, but overall
> with
> the amount of wives David had - he wouldn't have been interested in
> men.
>
> Bwah ha ha ha haaaaa! Bisexuality doesn't exist in your world then?
> Dear Lord...Caesar had the most beautiful woman in the world, and his
> choice of Roman women. Yet he was no stranger to the manlove either.
>
>
> Your naivety would amuse me were you not insistent that everyone else
> should be as dumb as you.

Not a fine answer.

Pandaemonium wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> I really don't see it - because David wasn't interested in a sexual
> relationship - it was just a good friend and there is no problem
> with
> good friends.
>
> *shrugs* Can't vouch for him. Never met him face to face. read about
> him yes, had a conversation no.
>
> Just exploring possibilities.

Fine.

Forest Fan wrote:
> Pandaemonium wrote:
> (I know what you are getting at BTW, platonic love, and I tend to
> agree, I just found it an interesting quote, and wanted to show how
> diferently it could be interpreted)
>
> I fully understand that - the skeptics use the same, but overall with
> the amount of wives David had - he wouldn't have been interested in
> men.

Bwah ha ha ha haaaaa! Bisexuality doesn't exist in your world then? Dear Lord...Caesar had the most beautiful woman in the world, and his choice of Roman women. Yet he was no stranger to the manlove either.

Your naivety would amuse me were you not insistent that everyone else should be as dumb as you.

Forest Fan wrote:
> I really don't see it - because David wasn't interested in a sexual
> relationship - it was just a good friend and there is no problem with
> good friends.

*shrugs* Can't vouch for him. Never met him face to face. read about him yes, had a conversation no.

Just exploring possibilities.

Pandaemonium wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> I fully understand that - the skeptics use the same, but overall
> with
> the amount of wives David had - he wouldn't have been interested in
> men.
>
> And you know that as a fact exactly how? Have you heard of the word
> "Bisexual" perchance?

I really don't see it - because David wasn't interested in a sexual relationship - it was just a good friend and there is no problem with good friends.

Light wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
>
>
> This means on Monday week - many Americans will have the chance to
> be
> homoseuxally married. Isn't marriage supposed to be between a man
> and
> a woman - groom and bride?
>
> So you're not worried that the Catholic church blessed same sex
> unions until the early middle ages then?

I don't belong to the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is actually the woman who rides the Beast (The Anti Christ) - I believe I mentioned that in an earlier post.

Forest Fan wrote:
> I fully understand that - the skeptics use the same, but overall with
> the amount of wives David had - he wouldn't have been interested in
> men.

And you know that as a fact exactly how? Have you heard of the word "Bisexual" perchance?

Light wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> Edgy wrote:
>
>
> But that's not the Biblical view - that's not God's view - that's
> not
> Jesus' view and that's not my view. Your views are valid right? So
> are mine and so are Jesus'.
>
> Yeah, but Jesus never said "Lo, blessed are those whom little
> children don't bully and pick on for being different", did he?
> So the whole "little kids use gay as an insult" is hardly a
> biblical view, is it?

It's the modern view - I never even said it was right - because even though I don't agree with religion or homosexuality - I'm not going to outright blaspheme - that's wrong.

Forest Fan wrote:

>
> This means on Monday week - many Americans will have the chance to be
> homoseuxally married. Isn't marriage supposed to be between a man and
> a woman - groom and bride?

So you're not worried that the Catholic church blessed same sex unions until the early middle ages then?

Pandaemonium wrote:
> (I know what you are getting at BTW, platonic love, and I tend to
> agree, I just found it an interesting quote, and wanted to show how
> diferently it could be interpreted)

I fully understand that - the skeptics use the same, but overall with the amount of wives David had - he wouldn't have been interested in men.