We're here, we're queer and we're coming for your children'

[abcaines]

The problem in this discussion is the liberal/agnostic/atheist perspective which practically and essentially rejects all theological and Scripturally inspired basis for morality.

I believe that is the problem with all lifestyles that are contrary to God, whether sexual deviance of any kind, the party life or any hedonistic pursuit... anything. The issue is less the sin being practiced and more the fact that we are sinners. We aren't sinners because we sin; we sin because we are sinners. Except by God's grace in providing redemption through His Son, we are already condemned. It is when we turn to Him that we unavoidably turn our backs to sin. That's not to say the struggle is over while we're still in the flesh but our minds and spirits have been changed.

While I'm here, I strive to glorify God as best as I can but the day is coming when I will have committed my last sin and the struggle will be over.

 

[Ransom]

You say "born out of a corrupted and sinful nature" and Baptist Renegade has also said that homosexuality is due to "sin". Everyone has a sinful and corrupted nature or were you saying that the homosexually inclined has a specific corrupted and sinful nature causing him to fall to this "sin"?

I don't think there's a specific variety corruption that necessarily leads to homosexuality or idolatry or thievery or whatever, if that's what you're asking. We all have the sins we love and they will manifest themselves in various ways depending on the person, and we might not even be aware of the ways in which we sin. I don't believe God has a particular axe to grind with gays that he doesn't have with, say, a man who lets his eyes linger a little too long on a good-looking woman who fills out her jeans particularly well.

I have a personal theory that Paul chose the particular examples of idolatry and homosexuality because of their relationship to the creation account: "God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them" (Gen. 1:17). Being made in the image of God, and being made male and female, are somehow connected.

Idolatry, the worship of images, demeans the image of God because God's design for worship is that the images are the ones doing the worshipping. Similarly, God's design for human sexuality is that a man and his wife will use sex to bond them together and make babies. Two men or two women are utterly incapable of doing that. Again, they demean the image of God by rejecting the natural design of the human body and turn to unnatural relations that cannot fulfill the divine intent. Which is also why same-sex marriage is a contradiction in terms. It cannot accomplish the purpose of marriage.

Do you feel that one doesn't become gay until he's grown or do you acknowledge that children who are gay know it (even if they can't put it into words)? And if so, what on earth did a little child do to become one of the two sinners that Paul singles out as "disordered" in his thinking?

I fall on the "nurture" side of the nature/nurture debate. No one's ever found a "gay gene"; I think at this point it's safe to say there's no such thing. Beyond that, I'm not remotely qualified to unravel the tangle of psychological, environmental, social, or political factors that might cause a person to be gay, either involuntarily or voluntarily.

 

[Dr. Huk-N-Duck]

From a Christian perspective the notion that each of us have differing proclivities that we are susceptible to is explicitly taught….

Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us.

The problem in this discussion is the liberal/agnostic/atheist perspective which practically and essentially rejects all theological and Scripturally inspired basis for morality.

It seems as though Gringo isn’t arguing that Scripture teaches homosexuality is morally wrong. He seems to readily admit such. I guess the issue is he just chooses not to believe in Scriptures period. (I have my doubts that he truly doesn’t believe, otherwise he wouldn’t be here.)

 

[ALAYMAN]

It seems as though Gringo isn’t arguing that Scripture teaches homosexuality is morally wrong. He seems to readily admit such. I guess the issue is he just chooses not to believe in Scriptures period. (I have my doubts that he truly doesn’t believe, otherwise he wouldn’t be here.)

Well, I will let him speak for himself but the last I was aware of Gringo’s framework or classification of belief he was firmly in the agnostic category. As such, in some sense I suppose you could assume he is potentially a seeker, but from his admitted past perspective he believes there’s just not enough evidence to convince him of ANY existence of God, let alone the Christian view of God in Christ. Given those assumptions it only stands to reason that the Scriptures aren’t in any way inspired or authoritative to him ethically or morally.

 

[Gringo]

"Well, I will let him speak for himself"

I will try to let Dr HuknDuck understand me a little better.


"He believes there’s just not enough evidence to convince him of ANY existence of God,"

No, this isn't true. I've never said that or at least, I didn't mean to give that impression. It's because there IS evidence of God that I even think about theological things. The difference between you and me is that even though you've never seen or physically spoken with Him, you have decided you know His name, His attributes, what He's done in the past, what He will do in the future, who He favors, who He doesn't favor etc. I, on the other hand feel that we can't know His name, His attributes, what He's done in the past, what He will do in the future, who He favors, who He does't favor etc. Neither you or I have ever physically seen Him. We've never physically touched him. We've never physically sat in his presence and heard Him speak. All you have is some literature saying that His name is Jehovah and that it's His letter to you. The problem with that is that my friend Khadijah, swears that no, His name is Allah and SHE has the letter and it was written to her. And my friend Raj swears that no, His name is Krishna and he and his billion followers have the true thoughts about gods.

The difference between you and me is that you look at the Bible as the only authoritative Word of God (like the Muslims do with the Koran) and you study it from that perspective. Before you ever read the first passage, you have already decided who wrote it therefore you interpret each passage with that in mind. I, on the other hand, look at the Bible as the word of the Hebrews, one people in one area of the world. I do not look at it as the authoritative Word of God and therefore I tend to study each book of its compilation on its own and do not feel that it tells "one story", as you do. And I'm able to see its contradictions in an objective light without any hatred in my heart towards the writers.

I just don't have the trait that all of you do to be able to believe things that can't be proven about God. What I say is that I tend to suspect that there is someone or some people higher than you and me; that someone did put us into motion and existence; that there is evidence of a plan (just look at your body; look at the seasons) but so has everyone else believed that from every corner of the world in every age. It's from that belief that people have gotten carried away and started to give him names and attributes for the which can't possibly proven. I don't see faith as a positive thing like y'all do. I think it's foolish, like The Apostle said I would.

We both tend to lean towards someone bigger than us - it's just that you and Khadijah and Raj seem convinced that you know all about Him and, I'm not convinced at all.


"The Scriptures aren’t in any way inspired or authoritative to him ethically or morally."

That's right but remember that I don't put any more stock in the Koran or any other sacred writing than I do in the Bible so don't feel that my lack of conviction is directed from hatred for Christians. NO!! I believe that the Torah, the Koran, the Bible and other great and important writings, all, have great advice in certain areas and some great teachings but I am not convinced that any of them came from God directly. I believe they were written by infallible man and as such have errors.

And that brings me to hopefully, my last post about this gay issue . . .

What y'all have said makes perfect sense from a biblical perspective and if I really believed that homosexuality was the result of sin and if I really believed that homosexualiy was no different than telling a lie: (just don't do it), then I would be right there with you. Your teaching on this subject is right in line with what the Bible teaches and as I've said, it makes no sense to deny that the Bible teaches something that it so clearly does. So, good on you for standing fast for what you believe.

Doc (when I have used "you" in this post) it is collective and not aimed just at you. But you may have wondered how can Gringo be so brazen and defiant against God. I don't feel that I am. I am brazen and defiant against the Apostle Paul, who I believe was just a man speaking his own opinion. If I'm wrong, then I'll have to deal with that.

If you will remember, he tells us that it's better to have a wife than to "burn". The writer of that passage knew the strong Strong STRONG hold that sexual libido has on a man. In his youth, during his "sexual years", it can overtake him. And so the writer tells us it's better to have a wife than to burn with lust. You each know that a man needs a sexual partner. If you're truthful I don't think any of you would disagree with that because you know that it's physically based - as well as emotionally based.

But somehow, you feel that since the Bible says it's sin, if one is a homosexual, even though his libido is physically based, DRIVING HIM CRAZY in his sexual years, he should just cross his legs and deal with it and be celibate. That may be biblcial,

but it's not very realistic.

I believe that in every age throughout history, due to the way nature has created us, the vast majority of people has been heterosexual (for the propogation of future generations) but that in every age throughout history, there have always been a minority that was homosexual. You believe it's because they were sinful.

I don't.

Believing that a homosexually orientated person is that way by nature and not sin, I believe the true "sin" for a homosexually orientated person is to lie, first to himself and then to others and deny himself a life of happiness (lack of constant conflict) because of what a single man , who had "a thorn" and was an ex murderer - said about the issue. To me that's the "sin".

I disagree that homosexuality has anything to do with one's voracious sexual appetite.

I disagree that homosexual orientation is like lying or stealing and is just another sin

I disagree that the homosexual is only sexual and has no capacity for love

I disagree that one is a homosexual because of sin.

I certainly disagree that homosexuals are out for your children.

I disagree that homosexuality is a synonym for pedophaeilia.

I disagree that one is not born gay

I disagree with The Apostle Paul.


​

We both agree that little children should be left out of sex all together and that drag queens and sex-changing doctors should leave our chidlren alone.

You've each been clear explaining your biblical perspective and I have explained my perspective.

We can end this thread that biblically, homosexuality is sinful and one's choice. That can be the last word.

Now, why don't we end this thread?

 

[Ekklesian]

And so, a young person who has never - yet - had sex, and is not drawn to the opposite sex,
is that way because he is addicted to the sex he hasn't had yet. Is that right?

Maybe not had, but exposed to...

And so, the thousands of gay people who have gone into their pastors offices down throught the years asking for help,

How many 'straight' men have begged for deliverence from their 'heterosexual' lusts, and yet found themselves left to burn?

didn't really want that help quiet enough?

Not necessarily...just counseled incorrectly, in the thinking that 'heterosexual' lust is just natural, so just marry and get your rocks off and you'll be fine (which is a perversion of marriage, and not at all what Paul was teaching), but telling the 'homosexual' man that he must have only feelings for women, or he'll never be fine, or ever enjoy a natural and fulfilling relationship with the woman.

Lust in one sense is hallowed; in the other, abominable.

That is the false dichotomy being drawn.

When I, as a young man upon realizing my own situation and praying multiple times and begging for "deliverance", I just didn't want it quiet enough. Is that right? Because if I did, I could have had a natural relationship with a woman and found it appealing and fulfilling - if I just had desired it a little more. Is that right?

No. Like I said, you could have been counselled incorrectly.

But...

...to recondition your appetite...that is, to acquire a taste for the woman...you must want it badly enough. Yes.

I too have known of people, more than one, who have indeed, lived their lives married to one of the opposite sex and have grown to love that person but no matter how much one wants or desires an opposite sex relationship, one's same sex feelings aren't going to go away

That's true. And they don't have to go away any more than my desires for women to whom I am not married. That doesn't sanctify the desires, and, that doesn't relieve either of us of the responsibility to confess and forsake them.

and so like you said, I guess it does depend on how much one desires or wants it. For me, I just knew that I did not want to live a life of two-facedness, of conflict between natures, just so that I could fit in. And I certainly did not want to tie up the life of an innocent person so that I would not "be living in sin".

I think it was more weariness than a pursuit of virtue, but there is a relief in the admission. And that's understandable. However, that admission is laden with the constructs of 'orientation' and other illusions that lend virtues and sanctimony to it. Thirty years ago, 'coming out' was considered 'courageous.'

Today, it's like, "Meh."

Fortunately, I have had a good and happy life, never having had to look over my shoulder trying to remember what I said and to whom.

Like I said, admission can be a relief of sorts.

And having nothing to do with gluttonous sex, I have had a life of love for these last 30 years.

Well, that's where we'll disagree. You've had thirty years of indordinate sex.

I sure hope that I am misunderstanding you but it seems like you are saying that a gay person is gay because of the amount of sex he has.

Yes, you're misunderstanding. I said sexuality is largely conditioned, and in large part, to the things to which one has been exposed. I said your 'ability' to change, will depend on a large part to the amount of the kind of sex you've had, and the degree of your desire to change.

It seems like you are saying that if I want to be straight and cut out the excessive sex from my voracious sexual appetite, that I could become heterosexual after all; that even though I wasn't drawn to the opposite sex from the beginning, before sex, now that I have had sex, if I just cut down and stop it, I could become attracted to the opposite sex.

Is that rigiht? Surely, I am misunderstanding you.

No. You've completely misunderstood. There's no such thing as 'straight' or 'gay.' I told you that many of the things I am saying are predicated on the premises expressed in the article I cited. It's clear you haven't bothered to read it. Read it, and you'll better understand where I'm coming from.

I said, if you want to acquire a natural taste for the woman, the first step is to stop having unlawful sex. I didn't say '"just" cut down and stop it.' I said it would require herculean effort. So you'd better want it bad enough. Otherwise, don't bother. But spare us the sanctimony...or, at least spare me the sanctimony...It appears that most here think it a virtue to blow smoke up your butt. It's not a trait like hair color. It's a conditioned behavior. And you like it.

 

[Ekklesian]

To be honest, I don't really care who is homosexual and who isn't as long as they're not the "in your face" type of people. I can usually ge along with most people in person...and most of the time even on the internet...except for people like Aaron (right Ekkk???) Ekklesian and I clash occasionally...but,, it's usually in fun. Huk and I disagree at times, but, we still talk to each other. And Ray and I don't agree on a lot of stuff, but we're friends and have been on the net for years. I've got far too many relatives who are bi-sexual or homosexual to be worried about who is and who isn't. One thing I won't do, however, is call a man a woman, or a woman a man. If they don't like that, they can stick it in their ear! LOL

Hey, I was just going to ask where you'd been?

 

[Dr. Huk-N-Duck]

We can end this thread that biblically, homosexuality is sinful and one's choice. That can be the last word.

On a separate note from the gay conversation, your thoughts on religion makes you sound much more like a deist than an agnostic. If you’re not familiar with deism, you can research that subject. Deism was quite popular just a few hundred years ago, and some of our “Christian” founding fathers weren’t Christian at all, but rather deists, such as Thomas Jefferson.

 

[Ekklesian]

I disagree with The Apostle Paul.​

Why?

 

[ALAYMAN]

"Well, I will let him speak for himself"

I will try to let Dr HuknDuck understand me a little better.


"He believes there’s just not enough evidence to convince him of ANY existence of God,"

No, this isn't true. I've never said that or at least, I didn't mean to give that impression. It's because there IS evidence of God that I even think about theological things. The difference between you and me is that even though you've never seen or physically spoken with Him, you have decided you know His name, His attributes, what He's done in the past, what He will do in the future, who He favors, who He doesn't favor etc. I, on the other hand feel that we can't know His name, His attributes, what He's done in the past, what He will do in the future, who He favors, who He does't favor etc. Neither you or I have ever physically seen Him. We've never physically touched him. We've never physically sat in his presence and heard Him speak. All you have is some literature saying that His name is Jehovah and that it's His letter to you. The problem with that is that my friend Khadijah, swears that no, His name is Allah and SHE has the letter and it was written to her. And my friend Raj swears that no, His name is Krishna and he and his billion followers have the true thoughts about gods.

The difference between you and me is that you look at the Bible as the only authoritative Word of God (like the Muslims do with the Koran) and you study it from that perspective. Before you ever read the first passage, you have already decided who wrote it therefore you interpret each passage with that in mind. I, on the other hand, look at the Bible as the word of the Hebrews, one people in one area of the world. I do not look at it as the authoritative Word of God and therefore I tend to study each book of its compilation on its own and do not feel that it tells "one story", as you do. And I'm able to see its contradictions in an objective light without any hatred in my heart towards the writers.

I just don't have the trait that all of you do to be able to believe things that can't be proven about God. What I say is that I tend to suspect that there is someone or some people higher than you and me; that someone did put us into motion and existence; that there is evidence of a plan (just look at your body; look at the seasons) but so has everyone else believed that from every corner of the world in every age. It's from that belief that people have gotten carried away and started to give him names and attributes for the which can't possibly proven. I don't see faith as a positive thing like y'all do. I think it's foolish, like The Apostle said I would.

We both tend to lean towards someone bigger than us - it's just that you and Khadijah and Raj seem convinced that you know all about Him and, I'm not convinced at all.


"The Scriptures aren’t in any way inspired or authoritative to him ethically or morally."

That's right but remember that I don't put any more stock in the Koran or any other sacred writing than I do in the Bible so don't feel that my lack of conviction is directed from hatred for Christians. NO!! I believe that the Torah, the Koran, the Bible and other great and important writings, all, have great advice in certain areas and some great teachings but I am not convinced that any of them came from God directly. I believe they were written by infallible man and as such have errors.

And that brings me to hopefully, my last post about this gay issue . . .

What y'all have said makes perfect sense from a biblical perspective and if I really believed that homosexuality was the result of sin and if I really believed that homosexualiy was no different than telling a lie: (just don't do it), then I would be right there with you. Your teaching on this subject is right in line with what the Bible teaches and as I've said, it makes no sense to deny that the Bible teaches something that it so clearly does. So, good on you for standing fast for what you believe.

Doc (when I have used "you" in this post) it is collective and not aimed just at you. But you may have wondered how can Gringo be so brazen and defiant against God. I don't feel that I am. I am brazen and defiant against the Apostle Paul, who I believe was just a man speaking his own opinion. If I'm wrong, then I'll have to deal with that.

If you will remember, he tells us that it's better to have a wife than to "burn". The writer of that passage knew the strong Strong STRONG hold that sexual libido has on a man. In his youth, during his "sexual years", it can overtake him. And so the writer tells us it's better to have a wife than to burn with lust. You each know that a man needs a sexual partner. If you're truthful I don't think any of you would disagree with that because you know that it's physically based - as well as emotionally based.

But somehow, you feel that since the Bible says it's sin, if one is a homosexual, even though his libido is physically based, DRIVING HIM CRAZY in his sexual years, he should just cross his legs and deal with it and be celibate. That may be biblcial,

but it's not very realistic.

I believe that in every age throughout history, due to the way nature has created us, the vast majority of people has been heterosexual (for the propogation of future generations) but that in every age throughout history, there have always been a minority that was homosexual. You believe it's because they were sinful.

I don't.

Believing that a homosexually orientated person is that way by nature and not sin, I believe the true "sin" for a homosexually orientated person is to lie, first to himself and then to others and deny himself a life of happiness (lack of constant conflict) because of what a single man , who had "a thorn" and was an ex murderer - said about the issue. To me that's the "sin".

I disagree that homosexuality has anything to do with one's voracious sexual appetite.

I disagree that homosexual orientation is like lying or stealing and is just another sin

I disagree that the homosexual is only sexual and has no capacity for love

I disagree that one is a homosexual because of sin.

I certainly disagree that homosexuals are out for your children.

I disagree that homosexuality is a synonym for pedophaeilia.

I disagree that one is not born gay

I disagree with The Apostle Paul.


​

We both agree that little children should be left out of sex all together and that drag queens and sex-changing doctors should leave our chidlren alone.

You've each been clear explaining your biblical perspective and I have explained my perspective.

We can end this thread that biblically, homosexuality is sinful and one's choice. That can be the last word.

Now, why don't we end this thread?

You said a lot that I would love to converse about further, but for now I am stuck in my apparently faulty memory and must ask just one (twofold) question. Are you saying you’re a theist, and that was your position when you first appeared on the original FFF ( in 2006)?

 

[Agent P]

.
Not at all. I understand full well that Paul felt that I don't stand a chance for the Kingdom of God. But considering that I don't believe in life after death, I'm not worried about it.
As I said in another post, there's no point in denying what writers of the Bible taught. I'm not on the fence at all.
.

Fair enough.

 

[Agent P]

Growing up, we were family friends with a family from church that had three sons. The middle son turned out to be gay. He was “different” from before he even hit puberty. The eldest son would be playing video games and the youngest son would be playing football or something similar, while the middle son wanted to bake cakes. We (young guys), knew he was gay before he was even old enough to have such thoughts. All three boys were raised by the same church-going parents under the same circumstances.

I tell that story to say that this example has long left an impression on me that we just don’t know everything. I understand that the Bible indicates homosexuality is wrong, and I don’t doubt that any more than having sexual relations outside of marriage is wrong. However, I do believe there are people who are born “wired” in that direction. There are also people who I believe have become of that persuasion as a result of some type of abuse or trauma, but again, going back to my church family example, the latter wouldn’t apply (at least I’d be 99.99% sure in that regard).

Heh. That sounds like my brother's family but in reverse. The oldest played football, the middle kid liked to cook (and play football), the youngest read a lot.

Now in adulthood, the one who liked to cook is the only straight one of the three!

 

[Dr. Huk-N-Duck]

Now in adulthood, the one who liked to cook is the only straight one of the three!

Wow! Two out of three sons are gay. I’ve never heard of that before.

 

[Gringo]

Maybe not had, but exposed to...


How many 'straight' men have begged for deliverence from their 'heterosexual' lusts, and yet found themselves left to burn?


Not necessarily...just counseled incorrectly, in the thinking that 'heterosexual' lust is just natural, so just marry and get your rocks off and you'll be fine (which is a perversion of marriage, and not at all what Paul was teaching), but telling the 'homosexual' man that he must have only feelings for women, or he'll never be fine, or ever enjoy a natural and fulfilling relationship with the woman.

Lust in one sense is hallowed; in the other, abominable.

That is the false dichotomy being drawn.


No. Like I said, you could have been counselled incorrectly.

But...

...to recondition your appetite...that is, to acquire a taste for the woman...you must want it badly enough. Yes.


That's true. And they don't have to go away any more than my desires for women to whom I am not married. That doesn't sanctify the desires, and, that doesn't relieve either of us of the responsibility to confess and forsake them.


I think it was more weariness than a pursuit of virtue, but there is a relief in the admission. And that's understandable. However, that admission is laden with the constructs of 'orientation' and other illusions that lend virtues and sanctimony to it. Thirty years ago, 'coming out' was considered 'courageous.'

Today, it's like, "Meh."


Like I said, admission can be a relief of sorts.


Well, that's where we'll disagree. You've had thirty years of indordinate sex.


Yes, you're misunderstanding. I said sexuality is largely conditioned, and in large part, to the things to which one has been exposed. I said your 'ability' to change, will depend on a large part to the amount of the kind of sex you've had, and the degree of your desire to change.


No. You've completely misunderstood. There's no such thing as 'straight' or 'gay.' I told you that many of the things I am saying are predicated on the premises expressed in the article I cited. It's clear you haven't bothered to read it. Read it, and you'll better understand where I'm coming from.

I said, if you want to acquire a natural taste for the woman, the first step is to stop having unlawful sex. I didn't say '"just" cut down and stop it.' I said it would require herculean effort. So you'd better want it bad enough. Otherwise, don't bother. But spare us the sanctimony...or, at least spare me the sanctimony...It appears that most here think it a virtue to blow smoke up your butt. It's not a trait like hair color. It's a conditioned behavior. And you like it.

.
"No. You've completely misunderstood. There's no such thing as 'straight' or 'gay.' I told you that many of the things I am saying are predicated on the premises expressed in the article I cited. It's clear you haven't bothered to read it. Read it, and you'll better understand where I'm coming from."


I don't understand you, that's true. Actually I did go and try to read that article. But the writer's writing style was so verbose that I gave up trying to understand what he was saying.

If there is no such thing as straight and gay, then, does that mean that you have been attracted in the past, to people of your sex?

Are you saying that everyone is bisexual and that we should just choose to concentrate on the opposite sex?

Paraphrase for me, what that writer was saying - and what you are saying because, indeed, I don't understand.

Thanks.

 

[AverageJoe]

Hey, I was just going to ask where you'd been?

I've been around. I have had to use my phone for posting lately as my internet connectivity for my computer has been spotty. Don't know what in the world is going on with it. I'm on it at the present, though, and it's slow, but, working! Hey, at least somebody is thinking about me! LOL

 

[Bob Jones V]

Oops! I did get an answer.

I was judging your motivation incorrectly, and I apologize.

How am I "in his face?" My questions are genuine. And guess what...he and I are engaging in dialogue.

It felt like you were getting his face with the "Are you here seeking deliverance?" question. Just a feeling

Does that chap your hide somewhat?

Doesn't chap my hide/ Not much does, brother.

Apparently your approval or my approval is irrelevant. That's fine. I am the personification of apathy in that regard. Not that it matters.

I was just making a comment on how I felt about him being here. From my recollection, he has been totally respectful of other's views of Homosexuality, or not even commented when articles were posted, not confrontational at all. As I said, I never even knew, unless I was told 10 years ago and simply forgot.

 

[Ekklesian]

I was judging your motivation incorrectly, and I apologize.

It felt like you were getting his face with the "Are you here seeking deliverance?" question. Just a feeling

Doesn't chap my hide/ Not much does, brother.


I was just making a comment on how I felt about him being here. From my recollection, he has been totally respectful of other's views of Homosexuality, or not even commented when articles were posted, not confrontational at all. As I said, I never even knew, unless I was told 10 years ago and simply forgot.

We're good, bro!

 

[Ekklesian]

Hey, at least somebody is thinking about me! LOL

Dude, who could forget you?

 

[Ekklesian]

If there is no such thing as straight and gay, then, does that mean that you have been attracted in the past, to people of your sex?

In my childhood, I distinctly remember some same sex attraction. I also remember some of the stimuli that awakened my appetites.

Are you saying that everyone is bisexual and that we should just choose to concentrate on the opposite sex?

No. There is a natural disposition, of course, but it can be modified by the manners in which sexual appetites are awakened. I'm baring my neck here to the Boor Brigade who take great delight in calling me faggotty...

I remember a piece of black velveteen art my dad brought in when I was around three or four years old. It's my first memory of portraiture. In the center was the representation of Satan, smoking a cigarette (or so I think. My parents smoked cigarettes) and in the periphery were various scenes. I can't remember all, but I remember two. One had a syringe and some capsules, and the other was a nude woman spread eagle in anticipation.

The impact that had on my view of women was enormous. (This is, of course, looking back.)

That wasn't the only exposure in my early childhood, but it's the only one of which I'm willing to reveal here.

Paraphrase for me, what that writer was saying - and what you are saying because, indeed, I don't understand.

Thanks.

That the identities as homo- or heterosexual are 19th-century constructs and illusory. When first coined, the term heterosexual was used to describe one who disired sodomy with one of the opposite sex, and the term homosexual was used to describe one who desired sodomy with one of the same sex. Each was a 'psychological' disorder.

Prior to that, there was only marriage or fornication (sodomy being a subset thereof).

In the acceptance of the ideas of sexual orientation or identity, we are entrapping or binding people to sin.

 

[Gringo]

.
There is a natural disposition

What is the natural disposition? And what do you mean by "nartural"?
.