Did homosexuals choose to be homosexuals? Did map choose to be map?

Author: Best.Korea

Posts

Total: 77
Topic's author
#1
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 354
Posts: 10,516
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
Attraction doesnt seem like a choice. I mean, if it was a choice, person could change it any time a person chooses. However, it just seems impossible to change an attraction by choice.

Homosexual man could try not to look at men. However, he would still have imagination, because he would not be able to forget how men look like.

Acting on an attraction is a choice, of course. Therefore, when homosexual man chooses to act on his attraction, that is choice.

Lets think of this in a different way. God could have made me a homosexual. If He did, I would not be able to change it. I cannot change attraction by simply wishing it to change.

Now, Bible tells us not to judge, not to seek revenge and to love everyone.  That is what The New Testament is about.

That doesnt mean that we cannot tell homosexuals who engage in homosexual acts that what they are doing is wrong and that God will punish them for it.

Attraction is not a choice. Action is.
#2
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,510
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Best.Korea

You know that God created homosexuals due to his poor design, don't you?
Topic's author
#3
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 354
Posts: 10,516
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@FLRW
Well, God created everyone, no? Still, God hates sin. I dont think that attraction is a sin. Action can be a sin, but attraction is simply out of person's control.
#4
Devis4657
Devis4657's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7
0
0
0
Devis4657's avatar
Devis4657
0
0
0
-->
@Best.Korea
With all do respect I disagree. Being gay is a choice.

Now I’d like to actually define terms:

Gay: a man who is sexually attracted to another man
Straight: a man or woman sexually attracted to the opposite sex. 

I will begin with what is the primary sexual disposition…. Heterosexuality or being straight.
That is the default. 

You cannot suppose any other sexual orientation to be the primary sexual disposition. For that to be so it would have had to have been recognized as the official stance by any state in history. There are none. While you will note instances of sexuality between men, very prominent in Greek cultures. But not the main sexuality of the state for one simple fact. No children are produced.

You can ignore the sexually transmitted diseases aspect historically if you wish, but nonetheless relevant.

But the fact remains for any nation to survive they require a new generation. Repeatedly. For women to run the home, men to fight, business, whatever.  Failure to reproduce led to a shortage of fighters, economy, or mothers to support the family. The states are tribes/states are either whittled down into nothing, or are conquered or economically dominated by someone who did continue the cycle. You can find no civilizations this didn’t exist. 

So, now I would deviate into the actual benefits of gay sex from an evolutionary standpoint. There are none. This completely disposes of evolution theory. And what is evolution theory? 

According to the theory, individuals with traits that enable them to adapt to their environments will help them survive and have more offspring, which will inherit those traits. Individuals with less adaptive traits will less frequently survive to pass them on. Over time, the traits that enable species to survive and reproduce will become more frequent in the population and the population will change, or evolve, according to BioMed Central. Through natural selection, Darwin suggested, genetically diverse species could arise from a common ancestor. - end quote

The entire purpose? Reproduction. Gay sex does not accomplish that. Hence if there had been a gay gene it would have been “mutated” out so to speak. There are no beneficial traits in this biologically speaking. Emotion has nothing to do with this. I’ve heard the theory of the “Gay uncle” but even in that, what is the point? Other males who have offspring can just as easily compensate. If not better in animals that form packs. having loose males makes no sense. 

Also you will note that in the animal kingdom gay sex between males in a form of domination. Not love. See monkeys. I see no species that do so and find life long mates. 

Genetically there is no reason for this. 

The only possibility then is the mind. I’m no expert oj the mind and think you are not either. 

So if we can agree that the origins are not genetic then it would originate there. Why would the mind create such an attraction? I postulate trauma. Damage. Of either a physical nature of psychological. A defect if you will. I mean no insult by this I am speaking in general terms. If the default in sexual orientation is male-female. Deviation not of genetic orientation is an anomaly. A defect. 

I picture next you will show me the studies on the “gay gene”. Fair. But again very contradictory to evolution theory. If you postulate it as anything other than a genetic defect. Also how do you know that that is what codes for a gay gene? Do all males have this gene? Or some? Do all who possess the gene express gay desires? Or only a select few? Does that gene expression contradict in any other manner? Not in a science article someone else made. In your own words. ELI5 me. 

Your next argument is biblical. God possibly made you gay. The evidence against this statement is manifold. The biblical position on sexual relations between same sex couples is clear. 

Leviticus 18:22 ~ You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.
Leviticus 20:13 ~ If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.
Jude 1:7 ~ Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire

By claiming the possibility that god made you that way you are stating that god is contradictory. Prone to mistakes. Or worse made you especially for damnation. Both are bad and false ideas. 

You say that others should not take revenge and that god is love? True. But that is not the same as affirmation. He commands his disciples to love the sinner not the sin. 

In the end you are partially correct. How you act in your attraction is a choice. However I believe sexual orientation outside the norm is a choice 
#5
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,043
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Best.Korea
@Devis4657
Procreation and recreation are two different sexual opportunities that thinking man/woman is presented with.

A bit of man on man action currently seems to have no effect upon the increase in World population....It might be better if it did.

Other than that, we are binary by design, but there is nor real obligation to utilise that design in a specific way.

GOD  and homosexuality are two products of overthink.........The difference being though, non-binary sexual satisfaction is proven to be achieveable.

Whereas a GOD, has not as yet, even been proven to exist
#6
ponikshiy
ponikshiy's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 604
3
3
6
ponikshiy's avatar
ponikshiy
3
3
6
Many do not choose to have gay sex. Many were chosen for such a thing by more powerful men with perverse hearts. 
#7
Devis4657
Devis4657's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7
0
0
0
Devis4657's avatar
Devis4657
0
0
0
-->
@zedvictor4
Yes but OP is not speaking of fun in sex. That’s not the discussion but rather sexual orientation isn’t a choice. 

There is an obligation: one to yourself(debateable), one to your spouse- to have children, responsibility to your parents and ancestry if your so philosophically inclined, and finally your obligation to your home/country.  Your not religious I think or I would have added your obligation to god. 

That’s an odd statement. Even though I believe in god I can see why others wouldn’t. But GAY is a product of overthink while non binary relationships are not? That’s a really bad argument friend. 

1. Non binary makes no sense. Bear with me. And I’d like to hear your rebuttal if your so inclined….

Non-binary: denoting, having, or relating to a gender identity that does not conform to traditional binary beliefs about gender, which indicate that all individuals are exclusively either male or female.

Here’s the problem with that…. That definition is idyllic. It does not fit the actuality of the situation on the ground as I’ve seen it. So when I ask someone what non-binary is I get multiple definitions. It’s not standard. Things along the lines of

1. I’m either a man or woman as I choose. 

2. I’m something else altogether. 

The problem here is that within the ideology you cannot define terms in a way that doesn’t clash.  If you have the ability to be either a man or woman at your choosing you have to define what both of them are. You’ve heard Matt Walsh phrase what is a woman? I don’t want a character debate on Matt Walsh. He is correct though. You need to know exactly what it is you are claiming to be.

I am an adult human male. Identifiable by the penis and balls I have for reproductive organs. This is a trait ALL men share. My bone structure is larger than the average woman’s in my race, age group. Most men’s are. My strength is average for a male. My chest is flat. Their are no boobs with mammary glands…. I cannot lactate. Something exclusive to women. I cannot give birth. I lack the reproductive organs and the structure to do so. I excrete semen. ALL men do this. If an archeologist digs up my bones in 1000 years they will say adult male.

Women: have female reproductive organs. Vagina, ovaries, fallopian tubes, breasts, mammary glands, ability to lactate. Smaller stature in comparison of race and age. Wider hips for childbirth. Damn beautiful in my opinion but that’s another matter. An archeologist digs up my sister in 1000 years he will say adult human female. 

There are no other sexes. Intersex is a thing yes. But trans are not intersex. True intersex bear sexual features of both sexes. However one is more prominent. They take that as their sex. They are typically make. I believe their are only 11 cases of true intersex producing offspring due to having correct reproductive parts. But all of that is a true rarity. Check 95%+ transgenders today. Even with their surgeries they are still anatomically their original sex. Mutilated but distinguishable nonetheless. Or those who haven’t had surgery at all. Much easier to identify absent diagnostic testing.

Also when you go to the hospital none of that matters. I can say I’m a woman. And that’s dangerous. Women have different numbers for dosages, labs, etc. surgeries are performed differently due to different anatomy. Treating and operating on s man as if he’s a woman is malpractice. Any errors sueable…. 

Next the claim lf being something else altogether….

Define it.tell me I am a 5’9 brown skin bald puerto Rican who stays fit…. Can I identify as a Asian lesbian tommorow? Why not? A black woman? A yxhxd? A :(!$.!  ? Why not? The idea is absurd. Can I identify as handsome billionaire? Why not? Why does no one affirm this. While I am handsome and charming…. I’m no billionaire. My bank account proves that. 

Claiming to be not of same sex is foolishness. Even with surgery, alterations, makeup and the like any man or woman is still identifiable with diagnostic testing.  

Gender wise: makes even less sense. If gender is not tied to sex.. is completely malleable it needs to be define-able. Not whimsical. People who identify as dogs, cats, children? They can’t. They do not possess the anatomy nor social characteristics nor linguistics nor abilities of what they pretend to be. They are mimicking. How does a man know why s woman acts as she does? He doesn’t. I can put on my girls panties dress, go buy a wig and use her bag and make up. Omen now what? As ludicrous as that is. I now have to walk like a woman. Socialize like one. Think like one. Women do have different opinions but the way they think is similar to each other and very different from men’s. I can strut around …. Doesn’t give me s woman’s poise nor grace. I can talk like they do waving my hands, gibberish and screaming in excitement. I would look like a dumbass. Not because women do when they act that way… it’s that I would be creating s mockery of it. Fake. Same in reverse. A woman can copy general men’s walks, talking style, etc. that’s feminism. A mockery of men’s natural attributes. A dimming if their own amazing feminine ones. 

Next to create another gender you would have to differentiate it from what already is. Not copy it. There’s 0 point to thst. What are the attributes of this “new gender” what makes it different than the standard? Is it realistic? 
#8
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,043
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Devis4657
Briefly.

Binary basically means, involving two things.

As in male and female.

So as a species and with regard to procreation we are binary.

Therefore the term non-binary is not applicable to humans in this regard.

Though if one chooses to label as  fully non-participant in recreational  or procreational  heterosexual sex, then sticking a label on ones head which reads non-binary is applicable, but not necessary.


As for the OP. 

The question is unavoidably all about the fun in sex. 

Because homo-sexuality is about one thing.......The fun achievement of procreational satisfaction (orgasm) between two males.

The social ad-ons to an all male relationship are essentially the same as in any  other relationship.....You know......The puppy, the mortgage, the fitted kitchen the dirty laundry etc. 


And so, some people in their musings like to reflect upon such things in the guise of a third party supernatural fantasy guy, who is obsessed with sin.
 

Whereas I look at it from the point of view of a guy who doesn't give a shit about what other men might do with their dicks and their arses.
#9
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,663
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@Devis4657
If you think sexual orientation is a choice then you must have chosen your own orientation, which is to say, it could have gone either way for you and you had to choose. 

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but if you had to look in a book to help you decide which way to go, you are gay.
#10
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,510
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
The hereditary link of homosexuality has long been established, but scientists knew it was not a strictly genetic link, because there are many pairs of identical twins who have differing sexualities. Scientists from the National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis say homosexuality seems to have an epigenetic, not a genetic link.
Long thought to have some sort of hereditary link, a group of scientists have suggested that homosexuality is linked to epi-marks — extra layers of information that control how certain genes are expressed. These epi-marks are usually, but not always, "erased" between generations. In homosexuals, these epi-marks aren't erased — they're passed from father-to-daughter or mother-to-son, explains William Rice, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California Santa Barbara and lead author of the study.
"There is compelling evidence that epi-marks contribute to both the similarity and dissimilarity of family members and can therefore feasibly contribute to the observed familial inheritance of homosexuality and its low concordance between [identical] twins," Rice notes.
Rice and his team created a mathematical model that explains why homosexuality is passed through epi-marks, not genetics. Evolutionarily speaking, if homosexuality was solely a genetic trait, scientists would expect the trait to eventually disappear because homosexuals wouldn't be expected to reproduce. But because these epi-marks provide an evolutionary advantage for the parents of homosexuals: They protect fathers of homosexuals from underexposure to testosterone and mothers of homosexuals from overexposure to testosterone while they are in gestation.
"These epi-marks protect fathers and mothers from excess or underexposure to testosterone — when they carry over to opposite-sex offspring, it can cause the masculinization of females or the feminization of males," Rice says, which can lead to a child becoming gay. Rice notes that these markers are "highly variable" and that only strong epi-marks will result in a homosexual offspring.
Though scientists have long suspected some sort of genetic link, Rice says studies attempting to explain why people are gay have been few and far between.



#11
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@FLRW
That's ridiculous. I've seen plenty of gay men that are masc as fuck (at least bi if not gay) and plenty of lesbians (PLENTY) who are femme as all hell and love being it.

Transgenderism and queerness are not at all entirely linked to homosexuality but I feel like lesbians that exclusively top and gays that exclusively bottom probably are more true to that study's presumptions.
#12
Devis4657
Devis4657's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7
0
0
0
Devis4657's avatar
Devis4657
0
0
0
-->
@Sidewalker
Actually no. If you’d read my statement you’d have seen that I believed heterosexuality to be the only sexual orientation. With all others being outside the norm a result of following trauma in essence. 

Can assure you I’m not gay. I can’t tell what there is to like sexually about men. I asked my girlfriend and what she told me I never want to hear again. Forgive me but it’s rather grotesques when transposed on male attraction to another 
#13
Devis4657
Devis4657's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7
0
0
0
Devis4657's avatar
Devis4657
0
0
0
-->
@zedvictor4
Except even this argument doesn’t make sense. If you will here is my idea for it. It’s not flawless to say the least. 

If an individual who is “non binary”  is outside the sexual dichotomy of male and female that in and of itself requires definition. Not vagaries…..

All life born of reptilian or mammalian copulation are born vaginally. The outliers lay within the human realm solely. Examples such as C section. However this is not a natural concept in nature. It is a procedure borne of human ingenuity. Show me another species that can perform this surgically. With or without anesthesia? It doesn’t exist. 

Next the principle that something cannot come from nothing…. The individual components had to already have been there. 

Sexually speaking you cannot claim that non binary exists solely in this realm and nowhere else. 

This is the definition I found of non binary in a sexual aspect. 

Like anyone else, nonbinary people have sexual orientations that reflect who they're attracted to. They can be straight, gay, bisexual, asexual, or whatever sexuality they feel best describes them.

Several questions. 

1. Are they themselves non binary? Outside the sexual dichotomy? If so can you define the new “being” and how it differs from the average male or female?

2. If it is solely a mental application…. Then the subjects themselves are male and female. This is just saying they can fuck whoever they want. Is that not the same thing as BI?  If they can fluidly select what they are attracted to at any given moment what determines this? Are they attracted to men one moment then not as they are attracted to a woman the next? Or more likely as I postulate they have their original sexual orientation however they are able to recognize a handsome/ beautiful qualities in members of the same sex. 

Next section. 

But your being even more short sighted than I am. No offense meant. When you say that gay sex is solely for fun…. You discard the possibility of actual loving relationship in the process. Don’t get me wrong I agree with you but it seems an odd position for you to have. 
#14
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,043
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Devis4657
1. In the main, people are either male or female...Sperm producer or egg producer.

Pre-natal developmental anomalies do occur, but rarely. 

Nonetheless we are all  of a binary species, though a very few may not be able to function as such.

Which is not to say that a new/modified being is not evolving, as one must always assume that evolution is ongoing.

Though I don't think that the human species has become a non-binary species yet.


2. Humans take a base function and overthink it and expand upon it.

Which is of course a species speciality and also an immensely powerful evolutionary tool.

So mental application changes things and changed things become established and then modified and established and then modified again etc.

Sex ceased to be just about procreation a long time ago.

I think that it's fair to say that in certain societies sex has become primarily an issue of recreational gratification.

Procreation takes second place, and is also achievable outside of the older style family constraints.

I would suggest that attraction is relative to on-going social and ideological conditioning. Which is to say, that we learn what is attractive rather than have an innate sense of attraction. I would further suggest that we lost our innate sense of attraction a long time ago. 

So what is and isn't attractive has been socio-psychologically modified  along with the idea of what is and isn't acceptable.

Nonetheless, at times we still like to dress up new style relationships with older style sentimentality....One of the  effects of a highly developed sense of memory I suppose.


3. Loving relationship.

Hmmmmmm.

I would suggest that "loving relationship" is sentimentality that evolved out of pair bonding  and responsibility, which evolved out of mating and survival.

I don't have a lot of time for  the term "loving relationship".

Maybe....The mutual benefit of a committed relationship, would be more appropriate.

Though committed relationships do have a regular habit of ending unlovingly rather quickly.
#15
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,510
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Devis4657
A woman, who was born with both male and female genitalia has told how doctors decided she was a boy 'without her consent' at birth.
Luna Animisha, 24, who lives in Puna, Hawaii, was assigned a gender by medics at birth and she says that doctors 'stitched up her vagina' and removed her uterus after determining that she was male - a procedure that she now calls 'barbaric'.     
She says that undergoing surgery and being assigned her a gender before she was old enough to make her own choice left her with identity problems because she always felt more feminine than masculine.   
#16
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,154
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
A person can either choose or not choose to act on their feelings or thoughts. Doesn't matter what those feelings and thoughts are about. I feel and think many different things, I don't act on all of them. The question I have to ask myself is it worth any down sides if I do act or don't act on those feelings and thoughts. For me, its better not to act on most of my feelings and thoughts. I don't like the thought of going to prison.
#17
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,043
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@FLRW
As I stated, real anomalies are rare.

And once again we need a time machine.

So that Doctors can go forwards and backwards and make the right decision.

But you could bet any amount of money, given todays ideological climate.......That if they had cut off the dick and left the vagina Ms Animisha would have wanted to have been a bloke.

Though your statement is a tad misleading, because Luna Ashima is a Man who was born with both male and female genitalia.
#18
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,510
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@zedvictor4
 Luna Ashima is a Man who was born with both male and female genitalia.
I am just pointing out God's poor design. We don't hear from him anymore because he lost his God license.
#19
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,154
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
A person who has homosexual thoughts "CHOOSES" to act on them. They can just as easily choose not to. As a heterosexual I can choose to abstain from sex just as easily as I can choose to engage in it. Everything you "do and act on " is a choice.
#20
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Best.Korea
Attraction doesnt seem like a choice. I mean, if it was a choice, person could change it any time a person chooses. However, it just seems impossible to change an attraction by choice.
The subject of choice is essentially futile. It doesn't matter whether there's a choice or not.

Acting on an attraction is a choice, of course. Therefore, when homosexual man chooses to act on his attraction, that is choice.
Acting on attraction comprises, at least in part, one's sexuality.

Now, Bible tells us not to judge, not to seek revenge and to love everyone.  That is what The New Testament is about.

That doesnt mean that we cannot tell homosexuals who engage in homosexual acts that what they are doing is wrong and that God will punish them for it.

Attraction is not a choice. Action is.
This exemplifies that which many don't understand: the Bible condemns the action, not the attraction necessarily.
#21
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@FLRW
The hereditary link of homosexuality has long been established,
No, it hasn't.

but scientists knew it was not a strictly genetic link,
It's not a genetic link.

because there are many pairs of identical twins who have differing sexualities.
Exactly. So explain to me how scientists have controlled for the genetic content or factors that strictly result in homosexual attraction and/or behavior.

Scientists from the National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis say homosexuality seems to have an epigenetic, not a genetic link.
Seem is not an argument; it does not belong in scientific lexicon. That should have been your first red flag.

Long thought to have some sort of hereditary link, a group of scientists have suggested that homosexuality is linked to epi-marks — extra layers of information that control how certain genes are expressed.
How have they controlled for these epi-marks?

"There is compelling evidence that epi-marks contribute to both the similarity and dissimilarity of family members and can therefore feasibly contribute to the observed familial inheritance of homosexuality and its low concordance between [identical] twins," Rice notes.
Rice and his team created a mathematical model that explains why homosexuality is passed through epi-marks, not genetics. Evolutionarily speaking, if homosexuality was solely a genetic trait, scientists would expect the trait to eventually disappear because homosexuals wouldn't be expected to reproduce. But because these epi-marks provide an evolutionary advantage for the parents of homosexuals: They protect fathers of homosexuals from underexposure to testosterone and mothers of homosexuals from overexposure to testosterone while they are in gestation."
Mathematical models which do not control for "incidence" as opposed to designated appearance. These scientists would have to demonstrate how these epi-marks result--not contribute by correlation or "concordance"--in the expression of homosexual attraction and/or behavior.

Though scientists have long suspected some sort of genetic link, Rice says studies attempting to explain why people are gay have been few and far between.
The reason scientists have conducted few and far between studies attempting to explain the reason homosexuals are gay because they're not psychics, and they never will be.


Topic's author
#22
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 354
Posts: 10,516
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Athias
The subject of choice is essentially futile. It doesn't matter whether there's a choice or not.
I agree that it holds little to no value, but to some people it does so I went with that to make topic.


Acting on attraction comprises, at least in part, one's sexuality.
Yes. Attraction is part of that equation, just not the only part.
#23
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,510
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Athias

You know that you are only made of atoms, don't you?
#24
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@FLRW
You know that you are only made of atoms, don't you?
I know scientistss have described the composition of matter as being a composite of electrons, protons, and neutrons. What does this have to do with my response to your statement?
#25
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,203
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
But it takes two people to be gay .
I mean . 
Well a gay act. 

So everything to do with choice is thrown out the window. 

▪○°•▪○°•▪○°•▪○°•▪○°•▪○°•○°•▪○••

Ima talk about  " Gay sex " 
Like ummmmm,  man on man shit you know.

No butt what im trying to ask issss.
 You dont have to be gay, other then in the act of hey ? 

I mean 
Just because my mate sucked off his mate when they where young. 
Don't mean im gay, i mean his gay . 

Butttttttttttttt.
Can you be gay before you are gay ? 
Ya can can't ya. 

Look i don't know .
I'm just gonna pass on this . 

A ' limp wristed ' pass. 

Good game but. 

Ps.  
I can think of some experiments we could run to help us get to the bottom of this. 
Butt.
#26
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,203
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
Lucky the bible says dont be gay. 
Because i dont think i could of figured that out on my own. 
Thanks bibe bibe. 
#27
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,510
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull

Didn't God kill his only son because he was gay? What Father allows his son to be crucified?
My God, My God, Why Have You Forsaken Me?
#28
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,325
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@FLRW
Why do my family, and myself,
Act ourselves, encourage each other,
To help our family member, my third brother,
Who has gone wayward, and far more wayward still from drug abuse?

Why, though it digs our wallets, though it harms our emotions, our property, our peace of minds?

Because we love him,
And view it worth trying, that he might be saved.

Jesus himself could have turned from his path,
My family could turn from ours.

. . .

As to why Jesus cried out,
 “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?”,
There are many interpretations.
#29
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,043
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Like ummmmm, man on man shit you know.

Yep, an unavoidable consequence of a multi-functional entry/exit system.

18 days later

#30
AmericanPatriot
AmericanPatriot's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 11
0
0
2
AmericanPatriot's avatar
AmericanPatriot
0
0
2
-->
@ponikshiy
You definitely chose to have gay sex. I have no idea how you don't.