Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MaxMirkin
I think John's trying to convert us.
 |
| --> |
do you even work out?
|
Originally Posted by I Are Baboon
No wonder Christopher Columbus got the hell out of there.
|
|
Originally Posted by MaxMirkin
I think John's trying to convert us.
|
|
Originally Posted by SPIKE1257
Nearly 100% of all Men... Are tired of your gay posts.
|
|
Originally Posted by min0 lee
Maybe he's trying to make gay people feel good about themselves.
|
|
Originally Posted by du510
Hey - thumbs up if you care.
|
|
Originally Posted by John H.
Nearly 50% of all Men engaged in Sex with each other....
Take Care, John H. |
|
Originally Posted by Luke9583
That's a poor statement.
Are you sure they weren't pollin' prisons in europe? |
|
Originally Posted by I Are Baboon
No wonder Christopher Columbus got the hell out of there.
|
|
Originally Posted by Robert DiMaggio
are you trying to rationalize your homosexual tendancies or something?
|
|
Originally Posted by MaxMirkin
I think John's trying to convert us.
|
|
Originally Posted by bulletproof1
do you even work out? |
|
Originally Posted by BabsieGirl
Those were my thoughts exactly.
I like Johnny but I just don't see the reason why he posted this one. Johnny - Are there Bi-sexual men on this board you're trying to educate? Or, are there men on this board who think it's "wrong" to have sexual relations with other men? Personally, I don't understand the "passion" in male on male relations. But......I guess a Mans gotta do, what a man's gotta do and it doesn't matter who it's with....... sorry, I had to say the last part.... |
|
Originally Posted by OceanDude
Hey this makes me wonder about something. Do Homosexuals consider it "cheating" or being untrue to their unnatural proclivities if they have conventional or anal sex with a woman and visualize a man? Was curious since it might be a way for them to cope and be accepted better.
|
|
Originally Posted by JJJ
lol @ bulletproof1
|
|
Originally Posted by Jeanie
|
|
Originally Posted by BoneCrusher
John have you ever got laid posting crap like this?
|
|
Originally Posted by Luke9583
That's a poor statement.
BTW, you sure do read alot of literature on homosexuality |
|
Originally Posted by OceanDude
John H. is just playing games with the statistics like a lot of people do to make himself feel less guilty about shameful things.
The statement "Nearly 50% of all Men engaged in Sex with each other...." is misleading. If you know this history of Florence (Firenza) it helps to understand what really happened. There happened to be a lot of orgies when the Roman Centurions came into town and they were known to drink a lot and were notoriously known to be far sighted while in a drunken stupor. In some cases they just plugged into whatever seemed to fit. But in most other cases they "had sex with men" in the context of a 3-some or 4-some or "n-some" there the "some" was a local wench (female) who was paid or pressured into performing for the men. In that sense it was not homosexual encounters as John insinuates (cleverly) or fantasizes about but hetero-encounters with multiple partners. Of course some of the historians of the time were also known homosexuals and it is also likely that they recorded their own accounts as their own personal fantasies led them to visualize things that simply never occurred. There is also the fact that many of the Italian women have a history of having dark facial hair and often appeared as men and no doubt some were just as ugly; all adding to the queer statistics. Sorry John. Hey this makes me wonder about something. Do Homosexuals consider it "cheating" or being untrue to their unnatural proclivities if they have conventional or anal sex with a woman and visualize a man? Was curious since it might be a way for them to cope and be accepted better. OD P.S. The men of Florence also were known to have an interesting perspective on sexual domination. The term "giving head" was not what John would have expected either and many were thus grossly incompetent in administering circumcision rituals with rather unfortunate results. To wit: |
|
Originally Posted by Vieope
Is that good to be gay John H.?
|
|
Originally Posted by BoneCrusher
I would guess not if he needs to come to a hetro site to get confirmation of his ability to "fit" in ... even though he doesn't.
|
|
Originally Posted by Luke9583
That's a poor statement.
BTW, you sure do read alot of literature on homosexuality |
|
Originally Posted by JJJ
I would like to be a gay woman. Sounds like fun.
|
|
Originally Posted by Minotaur
Why are you wondering about something homosexual? Want to tell the group something? It's pretty common knowledge that those who protest the loudest against something usually have something to hide. Why you spend so much time in homosexual threads is suspect.
The lady doth protest too much, methinks. Anyhoo... we are just like anyone else; cheating is cheating. |
|
Originally Posted by John H.
Hi Bone,
|
|
Originally Posted by OceanDude
No Mino I do not want to tell you something.
|
|
Originally Posted by OceanDude
Lady? Now I know you are a sick puppy.
|
|
Originally Posted by OceanDude
Hugs,
OD |
|
Originally Posted by Minotaur
Ooh, now you're really getting me excited.
|
|
Originally Posted by John H.
Hi Bullet,
If you are asking me, the answer is "yes, absolutely"! I KNOW the benefits bigtime! Take Care, John H. |
|
Originally Posted by John H.
Does a Hetereosexual person have to "rationalize" their Heterosexuality?
Take Care, John H. |
|
Originally Posted by John H.
Hi Luke,
I read a lot on a lot of subjects actually. Take Care, John H. |
lol|
Originally Posted by BoneCrusher
I have not one time ever bagged on Minotaur. He is here as a member of the fitness community and deserves to be treated the same as anyone else.
|
|
Originally Posted by SPIKE1257
A Freudian slip ? Perhaps
|
|
Originally Posted by MaxMirkin
This is taking on a familiar pattern:
1) John starts a gay-ass thread. 2) We all make it clear to him how annoyed we are by this. 3) OD makes it even more clear via his novella-sized posts. 4) Two weeks later John comes back to annoy us further with a reply to each and every comment anybody ever made. And since he apparently finds it necessary to match each comment's length, word for word with his own, his reply to OD soon turns into a war of books. 5) OD hides some nasty line about homos in one of his gigantamus posts. 6) Another two weeks go by. 7) Minotaur (official defender of the buttholy-enhanced) manages to dig up the offensive remark, and begins round 2 with OD. 8) Rinse and repeat. So can we like skip to the chase and just ban John's troublemaking ass already?...Please? |
|
Originally Posted by du510
Quote:
Originally Posted by OceanDude Hugs, OD Haha. |
|
Originally Posted by min0 lee
Yep, he gets to see naked men bathe at the gym's shower room.
|
|
Originally Posted by Luke9583
No, but that's for a completely different reason. There's no need to rationalize when you are considered to be in the 'norm'
What scares me is you post so much material on homosexuality alone, that it's obvious that you aren't comfortable with it. You mostly post about this one lolWhat else interests you, out of curiousity? |
|
Originally Posted by BoneCrusher
If no one posted in these threads then these gay ass hetro trolling guys would go away. Gay guys who come here to converse with fit hetro types, the kind that would normally not even consider talking with them, would get bored and leave. How long could John H post in a thread if he was only talking to himself?
I propose a new solution ... we only post in threads with gay people like John H IF they are here as members of the fitness community and join in on other threads as normal people do. I have no problems with him being gay. I have not one time ever bagged on Minotaur. He is here as a member of the fitness community and deserves to be treated the same as anyone else. Guys like John H are just here trolling. Fags trolling for coq should get get ignored. John you are the first to earn the ignore feature from me. What ever you post in your response to me will be wasted so save your energy. I believe it would be even worse if we came into these threads and ignored the topic as well as the person who hosted the thread and just whored it up. Talk fitness, sports, politics, the weather or whatever; but, if we ignored what ever people like John H posted he would feel our point and move on eventually. Just MHO. |
|
Originally Posted by John H.
I love...wrestling (not really the WWF kind but the real thing)...
Take Care, John H. |
|
Originally Posted by perfectbody
Those all took part in this thread are gays. Come on guys admit it. At least u all had a dream abt having sex with same sex more than once. Every man has an affinity to holes.
|
|
Originally Posted by perfectbody
Those all took part in this thread are gays. Come on guys admit it. At least u all had a dream abt having sex with same sex more than once. Every man has an affinity to holes.
|
|
Originally Posted by BoneCrusher
Nope. Never dreamed of it, wanted it, or tried it. ... I speak for most of my fellow male IM members when I say that your theory is bullshit.
|
|
Originally Posted by OceanDude
Well blow me down, I am forced to agree with BC for one time...
Amazing, OD |
|
Originally Posted by BoneCrusher
Nope. Never dreamed of it, wanted it, or tried it.... I speak for most of my fellow male IM members when I say that your theory is bullshit.
|
|
Originally Posted by du510
Personally, fags freak me out. But, you do your thing, Ill do mine.
|
|
Originally Posted by Minotaur
Even the fags you don't know are fags? If you knew how many gay guys really are around you and you don't know it, it would make your head spin.
This is why I'll never have understanding or tolerance for people who think like this... you have a prejudice, plain and simple. It's not some 'opinion' you have, it's a prejudice and a preconceived idea. Sad, really. |
|
Originally Posted by du510
Ya, let me rephrase that. Homosexuality freaks me out. I honestly dont have a prejudice. I don't like it, that doesn't make it a prejudice. Not a preconceived idea.
As I said, I dont hate gays, they just weird me out. I dont care what you do. Just dont do it all up on me. You do your thing, Ill do mine. |
|
Originally Posted by Minotaur
You guys that worry about being bothered by us homuhsecshuls are usually the ones least likely to be hit on. You're safe.
|
|
Originally Posted by perfectbody
I repeat Gays are innocent. Therefore John. H is innocent.
|
|
Originally Posted by OceanDude
PB, "Innocent" is a term that is usually applied to virgins. Applying the same mis-logic I come to a different conclusion (not that I agree with your logic mind you). But as an illustration: John is no virgin, hence from a natural law perspective John is guilty of the deed. Therefore John is guilty - whatever the deed is.
Where is the "Society for the Protection of Turds" when we need them? OD |
|
Originally Posted by Minotaur
You guys that worry about being bothered by us homuhsecshuls are usually the ones least likely to be hit on. You're safe.
|
|
Originally Posted by OceanDude
Hey John are you and Minotaur a number or a possible number? Maybe we should try to play matchmaker here so everone can be confortable ?
OD |
|
Originally Posted by John H.
Hi OD,
WHY would you feel "uncomfortable" anyway? I AM A MAN and I KNOW I AM A MAN - I NEVER have a problem with another MAN "approaching me" because I KNOW WHO I AM and am perfectly fine with that. As should any other MAN. MEN can have Sex with each other and a relationship that is honest and meaningful and sincere and STILL ARE VERY MUCH MEN!!! . A MAN'S MANHOOD can NEVER "be taken away from him" EVER - that IS IMPOSSIBLE - a MAN IS ALWAYS A MAN - NO MATTER!!! Take Care, John H. |
|
Originally Posted by John H.
Hi OD,
WHY would you feel "uncomfortable" anyway? I AM A MAN and I KNOW I AM A MAN - I NEVER have a problem with another MAN "approaching me" because I KNOW WHO I AM and am perfectly fine with that. As should any other MAN. MEN can have Sex with each other and a relationship that is honest and meaningful and sincere and STILL ARE VERY MUCH MEN!!! . A MAN'S MANHOOD can NEVER "be taken away from him" EVER - that IS IMPOSSIBLE - a MAN IS ALWAYS A MAN - NO MATTER!!! Take Care, John H. |
|
Originally Posted by John H.
For more information about this book (FORBIDDEN FRIENDSHIPS by Michael Rocke) see:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...258930-8895927 There are reviews attached so you can get a better idea about this book. Reading it will help in UNDERSTANDING life truthfully. Take Care, John H. |
|
Originally Posted by John H.
For more information about this book (FORBIDDEN FRIENDSHIPS by Michael Rocke) see:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...258930-8895927 There are reviews attached so you can get a better idea about this book. Reading it will help in UNDERSTANDING life truthfully. Take Care, John H. |
if an enemy might fall lol). The point I make here is that these relationships were encouraged and a requirement for this military unit as a matter of national policy to get a tactical advantage. Certainly the state had no compelling interest in the legitimacy or even the sincerity of the relationship - it only wanted to kill enemies. In this manner their emotions were abusively used against them for the good of the state. In the case in Florence no doubt there was some kind of social or economic benefit to be had in offering one's butt to the service of the majority in the city. Funny that this practice did not stick around and survive long though? The reason is because it was a local anomaly in nature and nature has no purpose for it and let it perish. I also suspect the city found a way to tax the practice and disincentivize it.|
Originally Posted by j.h.ater
John,
What is your obsession with defending yourself as being a man? OD didn't even bring that up. Sounds like you're a little insecure about this issue. You always seem to bring this up, even when others don't even suggest it. |
|
Originally Posted by OceanDude
Hey John,
great to hear from you. I have been in solitude lately and being quiet since I am pouting since Minotaur has me on iggy and I am now suffering terrible penance for being insensitive to his perspective. So it's great to see that at least one of you two is talking to me. Since you ask a personal question I will give a specific personal reply. I'll first answer your question and then make general comments further. WHY would you feel "uncomfortable" anyway? Answer: The answer requires contextual calibration. Bear with me and try to consider my reply in the context of a very generalized expression devoid of any presumption of sexuality. Now, why would you feel uncomfortable having sex with only a woman in a committed relationship? Why would you feel uncomfortable having an incestuous relationship? Why would you feel uncomfortable that a person sexually molested children? Why would you feel uncomfortable having sex with an animal? Why would you feel uncomfortable with the notion of a lawless society? Why would you feel uncomfortable letting a person commit suicide? Why would you feel uncomfortable with anyone taking a needless risk and putting themselves at risk of harming themselves or others? It is a hard thing to answer is it not? I suspect that all or nearly all of the above things would make you uncomfortable for what I suspect is the same common reason as a practicing homosexual does. Let me see if I can distill out that one thing that is really at the heart of the matter to answer your question sincerely. I think I have resolved that a portion of the above questions resolve to societal beliefs and conditioning that were not specifically taught but just "are" inherited and intrinsic core fundamental beliefs that I seem to have just been born with. Not unlike what you claim is how you arrived at your condition of homosexuality. I am now inclined to make the fundamental jump of faith and think that these assertions are natural laws that are programmed into our "being" and are not conscious decisions. Since I believe that the majority of people resolve the above questions to nothing more intellectual than an answer of "just because it's common sense" or "because it is just not right and deviant". That I think is my answer to you John. It's "just because" I do not feel comfortable being near or associating with people who are societal deviants from core fundamental human common sense kinds of behaviors. I think I would have a different attitude if such admitted that they had a problem and wanted to change. I'd be right there trying to help and provide medial or therapy donations. But the more that these fight to force acceptance for a thing that people instinctively know is wrong the more I object and see it as offensive to my sensibilities. It's so wonderful to see that there are somethings in life that you have resolved with such absolute certainty in very specific black and white terms. "A man is a man"! That has a certain ring of euphoria to it as if a profound truth is being unleashed. I can't agree with you about the other part though of men having sex. To me it's like one of those things that you never do - like incest - molesting your brother or sister for examples. I am curious John, are you able to control yourself in the presence of other men in your own family? It's just a conceptual question John and it not intended to cause you discomfort or guilt. But hey, ya know it just kind of popped into my head. If homosexual men are able to control their urges around same sex members of their own family (like most heteros are with their opposite sex members) this implies to me the capacity to be responsible and to exercise conscious choice and restraint. I started thinking about this some and thought about how there was a similar concept in the old leper colonies. To be sure some societies forced lepers from the city to preserve the population from being infected. But I am certain that it was also a civic responsibility in those days to voluntarily remove oneself from society for the sake of loved ones. I could well imagine lepers showing compassion for their own family and friends and cloistering themselves to protect them. They knew they were different and were a danger to others. Let's not get into a debate on the implications here of what constitutes danger and instead focus on the concepts of being considerate to the comfort of loved ones and the concept of self sacrifice or denial for the benefit of society. Clearly in the days of the leper colonies it must have been cruel for society to force such from the city with threats of stoning or other compelling harsh actions. Clearly the infected could understand that such were operating out of fear for the majority and if given a compassionate heart could probably deduce it was not "personal" persecution but rather a thing that they themselves might insist on if the circumstances were reversed. Perhaps it was this ability for the victim of circumstance (or "ill chance") to empathize with his fellow citizens and conclude that he did not belong in the mainstream of things and life would be regrettably ugly for all if they did not self elect to isolate themselves. I bring it up because I see similarities in the patterns of behaviors between this group and the homosexual community and it's relationship with the rest of society. I am certain that you do not like the implication in this scenario that projects the notion that you are not normal in the eyes of society. But this is precisely the way millions of others view you. So irrespective of what the homosexual community feels this is a real perception that is important. I will not belabor that point further since you also already have my opinion in that regard. But lets focus on the compassion side of this on a human to human basis. Then I must ask, if a homosexual has the ability to exercise restraint among his own family members and is capable as any other human to isolate himself from society out of concern for their well being (mental well being is as relevant as physical) then is there not some middle ground to be had? Would it be possible to express affection through acts of kindness rather than through physical intimacy? I think this is the approach that some of the religious institutions are advocating. And you know John, I think that would be more in line with the majority of men and women's ideal of what a true man is - someone who can make a sacrifice for others. Thanks John for this dialog. I hope you have a wonderful day. Hugs, OD |
|
Originally Posted by du510
I really wish you could somehow understand that no one cares.
|
|
Originally Posted by OceanDude
Hey John,
How goes it? I went and looked at a review of this book. Sorry, I am not going to buy it or waste my time. It's nothing more than statistics and some author dialog about Florence and how half of the city's men were engaged in homosexual behaviors. So what? Does a single city in all of the planet constitute a case for normal behavior? It looks to me like more of a statistical fluke and a case where there was some kind of co-dependent social practice arising out of social necessity (perhaps the woman were all ugly or there was something weird in the Italian Bologna?). I think we could just as easily go find entire nations that were predisposed to deviant behavior by most common standards (I can think of India's Kali religion based on murder and human sacrifice that was huge - it continues to this day http://in.rediff.com/news/2004/jul/09kali.htm ). Exploiting men's anus for the purpose of self pleasure is fundamentally abusive physically and emotionally. Sorry to be so explicit - but lets call it for what it is; shit ain't pretty (although there are people starting to get into "scat" as a specialized sexual offshoot practice I am told; where does it end?). This deviant behavior is still no different than exploiting the promise of favor or attention for those with poor self images in exchange for friendship. It's nothing more than a form of relational pimping of the week of mind (sorry being brutally straight forward here). The same philosophy of relational buggery was used in earlier times but for a specific tactical advantage by countries. At the time of Alexander the Great there was a fearsome and brutally effective military unit called the Thebian Sacred Band that served him. In fact there are many records indicating that Alexander himself was a homosexual, certainly a bi-sexual (perhaps out of leadership convenience to Lead "his" men as a kindred warrior). At any rate the military doctrine created a co-dependency between two homosexual "couples" or "teams". They worked in buddy teams: a spear-men and a shield man.They were renown for their extreme closeness, fierceness, and efficiency in battle (esp. if their lover was killed!). Alexander would simply put them into the flanks of his enemy where they would be compelled to fight to the death for each other and were feared by all the armies of the time for their ferocity in battle (or perhaps because of the trophies or pleasures they might take if an enemy might fall lol). The point I make here is that these relationships were encouraged and a requirement for this military unit as a matter of national policy to get a tactical advantage. Certainly the state had no compelling interest in the legitimacy or even the sincerity of the relationship - it only wanted to kill enemies. In this manner their emotions were abusively used against them for the good of the state. In the case in Florence no doubt there was some kind of social or economic benefit to be had in offering one's butt to the service of the majority in the city. Funny that this practice did not stick around and survive long though? The reason is because it was a local anomaly in nature and nature has no purpose for it and let it perish. I also suspect the city found a way to tax the practice and disincentivize it.Abuse is abuse (even when it is self directed) and exploitation is exploitation. My advice John - be your own man and don't bend over for anyone and just look in the mirror since Narcissism is a much more acceptable devient behavior. Hugs, OD |
.|
Originally Posted by John H.
Hi OD,
First, "hugs" are reserved for those that care about each other honestly. It is not something people "just do" - at least not in my book. I am sorry that you took offense at my common non-sexual expression of human warmth. The “hug” was meant to convey that we are all humans and have the need to embrace our common humanity and this is probably the single way of expressing that in a non-intimate way. The alternative is a handshake and that can be so impersonal and it usually connotes an agreement. I find it too impersonal and legal and of course you and I do not agree on this topic so we have no basis for a handshake due to those implications. John, I am truly sorry that you imply that you do not care about me. Honesty can be brutal can it not? As for "society" - it is many times very very wrong. As for "religion" (which IS MAN-made) - it is many times very very wrong - and bigoted and biased - and certainly they love power over others and love to collect money. There TRULY IS a VERY VAST SPACE between "religion" and God - "religion" PROVES that on a DAILY BASIS. I have absolutely no problem with God (The Great Spirit, or Whoever you wish to name Him) but I sure do with "religion"! And for DAMN GOOD AND HONEST AND ACCURATE REASONS. Society has no doubt been wrong many many times but when the concept of “right” and “wrong” at the fundamental level is becoming so fuzzy anymore it seems like everyone is starting to develop their own individual opinions of what is normal. Which standard do we use and how do we recognize when we are wrong? There are now so many choices and it is starting to look like behavioral anarchy to me. I think the crux of it is you essentially are proposing your own standard or desiring to change an existing one. If you are entitled to this liberty then is not society or anyone else entitled to choose it's/their own standard? Why deny me my view? You seem to hate or disregard anything that does not agree with your own perspective John. After all John you are a “man” and suffer the same limitations and proclivities as do other men. You are just as capable of error, hatred and insincerity as the next man. In particular, judging by the bold capital letters in your post you have a loathing and hatred for religion. You seem hell bent on crucifying man for inventing it and that is insensitive to a lot of other people John. Logically I have little choice but to conclude that you hate a lot of men (people) since so many others believe in Religion. Then you claim or imply that anyone that hurts another is somehow not human. John, John, John, it hurts me to hear you talk like this but I do not consider you inhuman because of this hatred and rage and hate caused to me. We should be consistent to get the respect of equal consideration should we not? Clearly there is a notion of hierarchy in human behaviors though. For example I would assume you have a greater hate for a murderer than you would a mother that spanked her son for inappropriately touching the neighbor’s boy. In both cases harm was caused but clearly a greater harm was caused by the murderer. And everyone knows mothers over react to every sort of irrational fear about how they want their child to grow up. Can we agree on this? Now suppose that we find out that the murderer has killed a homosexual simply for holding hands with another man in the park. I am certain you really hate him even more so now. Is he any less a human that before or is he now a lower form of animal, say, dropping from a jackass to a worm? At some point we are going to have them all degraded to the form of demons and in that place you don’t believe in – Hell. For comfort, know also that I despise (not really the same thing as hate in my book) this individual and view him as less than an ideal human but I do not think that he is devoid of humanity do you? I want to ratify the notion of a hierarchy of humanity. So do you equally hate the murderer for the case of murdering any arbitrary person and a homosexual? Is the woman who spanked her young boy hated with less intensity? And finally are they both still considered humans to you? This is an important little exercise John since it will permit me to understand your values and to calibrate those with my own to see if we both consider ourselves even human and worthy of some basis of respect and dialog. Of course I suspect we all love animals too but naturally in a non-intimate way and in a less fulfilling way. The idea here is to explore if there is a hierarchy in humanity or resolve if it’s more binary in nature – like a simple matter of human and inhuman As for my Sexuality I am a BiSexual MAN - if I were Homosexual - or Heterosexual - I would still be just as fine with that as each is a natural and proper part of life and living. Remember, or if you do not know - there IS VARIETY - VARIATION - in ALL things in life and living INCLUDING Sexuality. Ask God Himself because you apparently do not have any UNDERSTANDING of this aspect of life and living. As for using and or abusing others - NO ONE has that option EVER!!!! And I might remind you that Heterosexual people are VASTLY GUILTY of abusing each other and their family members INCLUDING their children. This is NOT to say that ALL are certainly. I repeat though since you seem to have it ingrained in you that ONLY Homosexual people abuse others - NOTHING could be further from the truth! And certainly just because a person is Homosexual (or not Heterosexual) does not automatically mean they are going to abuse someone including children. I WOULD BE THE FIRST IN LINE TO FRY A PERSON THAT ABUSED ANYONE ELSE EXPECIALLY CHILDREN!!!! TRUST ME!!!!! I hold children to BE VERY SACRED AND INNOCENT AND PURE and NO ONE HAS ANY RIGHT AT ANY TIME TO CAUSE THEM HARM IN ANY WAY EVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! DO NOT EVER visit this aspect of this subject with me again please because your suggestion COULD NOT BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH as regards me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BELIEVE THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If you were trying to upset me by making this inference YOU DID and I CAN CERTAINLY TELL YOU THAT YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY VERY VERY WRONG and I HIGHLY DOUBT any HUMAN BEING would ever cause another harm in any way or fashion. I am a HUMAN BEING. On other matters John I want to put you at peace with the notion that the only thing I have engrained in me are the core fundamental belief that only God can take or give life. Hopefully you have no problem with that since even if you do not believe in God (independent of any particular religion) I doubt anyone would dispute the fundamental right to life and the right to be permitted to exist independent of another person attempting to kill us. Again, please try to understand the reality that there are many incompetent in matters of love who do things out of love or good-intent that are ultimately found to be harmful to others or even self. Sometimes this is due to just ignorance and other times it is accidental. I assert that there is an exposure to physical and mental harm (as well as spiritual) in a homosexual relationship every single time. This is not to claim that there is not a risk for same in a heterosexual relationship. But I maintain that at least in that case there is a much less case for it. I also admit current divorce rates seems to suggest it is at best a 50-50 proposition these days in the secular and general case for those that do not marry according to religious principals since the religious divorce rates are much lower for committed religious couples. By the way do you think that given the current heterosexual divorce rate that homosexuals with all their documented emotional and psychological problems and societal loathing will fare better? But I digress. John, no matter how much you love someone if you do a thing that exposes you both or one of you to risk of harm or scorn or self loathing or is fundamental abusive in nature then I question the validity, the sincerity, the maturity, the worth and the wholesomeness of the relationship. This same principal can extend of course to heterosexuals and maybe it is time to evaluate the effectiveness and value to society of non-religious civil unions. Another think I would like for you to consider is a natural hierarchy to relationships. Clearly we have a relational gambit ranging from “devils(?)”, “mortal enemies”, “enemies”, “associates”, “friends”, “best friend”, “family”, “spouse(s)”, “extramarital(?)”, “soul-mates”(?), “religious-intermediaries”(?). and “Divine Being” ( not necessarily in this order or all inclusive). Who is to say that all relationships much be at the spousal level? Only the religions seem to argue for that and it is for moral and religious reasons and the same arguments and validity that you find objectionable. Why on the one hand express loathing for religion while at the same time trying to be “complete” and attain religiously inspired ideals (that you will never effectively attain due to religious objections). The religions have always taught that good and evil have enmity against each other and that evil will attempt to artificially “emulate” the things that good produces. It would seem that what you are attempting is an emulation of what the religious fundamentally see as good only between man and women in a blessed relationship. Why try and bend religion, which you have no respect for in a way that emulates things you supposedly have no respect for? If you want the same legal rights – lobby for civil unions and fight that process. If you want the respect of society consider that much of society is religious and start respecting their values. Otherwise expect enmity all your life. You thoughts as transcribed show me your lack of an open mind and any objectivity in your thinking. You "just accept" what is shoved down your throat. Just because "many believe" that does not make it SO or TRUE or ACCURATE or HONEST. You said it yourself - the book I recommended you read (FORBIDDEN FRIENDSHIPS b Michael Rocke) as a way of UNDERSTANDING and KNOWLEDGE about an aspect of the most basic of Humanity you say you are afraid to even look at let alone read - you seem to suggest that you would then somehow become or "turn" Gay for having done so. The only thing you have to fear is fear itself. You might examine yourself deeply and thoroughly and honestly. John I can just as easily say the same thing about you. You are showing a lack of an open mind to truth. The problem is we both have a different take on what is truth and so do hundreds of millions of others on the planet. You offer up a simple book (written by men) that takes a very narrow population and presents some numbers showing that a large number of men engages in deviant behavior and try to present that as a majority and a justification for what most consider perverse behavior. This is you Bible. Why should I accept it over other teachings of mere men? How is it more enlightened than any other. What is it’s pedigree? It’s too narrow and myopic to have any relevance for general teaching. You are inventing your own Religion John. Well really just plagiarizing and re-spinning an old one and picking up the bits and pieces of deviant behavior all through history to make a case for calling yourself normal. I was blessed with a brain which God chose to give me and I utilize that to the very best of my ability and keep trying - and OBJECTIVELY and OPENLY ALL SUBJECTS without bias or prejudice. To improve yourself honestly - I suggest sincerely that you learn to do the same. So far, while you have done some learning, you have a lot more to do but need to be much more honest and accurate and complete in that learning. That is just a tad bit judgmental John. You can offer me no compelling reason to accept you as a reference standard for judgment. It all comes down to respect John and so far except for a common humanity I see little to stand up and take notice of. Sorry. The honest, sincere and complete LOVING of another has NO bounds as long as each is of age and ability of consent and give that consent freely REGARDLESS OF the Gender of each involved. You would have some think that a person MUST BE ONLY HETEROSEXUAL to be able to LOVE TRUTHFULLY another Human Being. NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH OR NOT ACCURATE IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM. And please, do NOT confuse the LOVING of another with murder, suicide, abuse, harm (mental or physical or emotional, etc.). Your suggestion that people who are BiSexual or Homosexual are the source of this and NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH. Sure SOME could be but that is also VERY TRUE OF SOME HETEROSEXUAL people as well. You really need to stop perpetuating hatred and bigotry. Something YOU LEARNED - not something you were born with. This sounds like a religion for you John. There are not even too many religious cults who integrate sexuality so deeply into their teachings as you do. What is truthful love John. Do you think that a man can not love God completely (who is projected in literature as a male) without being intimate? I claim that you can love completely and truthfully without even being intimate John. I think you need to go back and reread my posts on the matters of what projects as deviant behaviors from homosexuals. I never said that only homosexuals can be murders etc. There are plenty of evil-doing people of all kinds in this world John that are in need of change. I strongly resent that you think I am perpetuating hatred and bigotry for participating in this discussion. I could make the same claim that you do by inflaming everyone for staring all these threads and then always projecting yourself as more enlightened because you are man-enough and agile enough to have intimate physical relations with anything that walks. We are all born with the capacity for common sense and self restraint and discipline. I would urge you John to spend some time exercising that aspect. The above is not meant to slam you or anyone else - you do that to yourself really by closing your mind to reality My above comments are not meant to slam you or anyone else either – just to provoke some thought and to help you get to a more open mind about these things. Take Care, John H. |
|
Originally Posted by OceanDude
John, John, John,
You sound so flustered. I am truly sorry if you are as agitated as you sound. I honestly thought that you would be capable of expressing your thoughts man-to-man in a way that would be less emotional and more logical. But I understand that you probably have more sensitivity in this area since this is such a huge part of your current life style choice and identity. I can accept that but I just hate to see you so aroused. I accept that some are “the sensitive type”. I am as sensitive in this regard John as you are when the dialog come to core fundamental beliefs but I have learned to discipline my responses and how I respond to my environment in a way that is perhaps less dramatic. But if you prefer drama that is your freedom as an American. I have embedded additional comments within yours – ironically that seems kind of intimate to be commingling words like this in public does it not? .Take care John and Hugs again, OD |
|
Originally Posted by Stallions05
im sorry i know im a new member but its pretty obvious that about 95% of the people here just want to talk about sex and have a good time...no1 cares about your satistics and bullshit...
|
|
Originally Posted by John H.
Hi Stallion,
Statistics? Bullshit? No one cares? Sounds like you are putting yourself - at least mentally - in prison... When anyone refuses to learn honestly and completely about ALL things from ALL sources ALL the time - OBJECTIVELY - they PUT themselves in prison - mental prison - and as the old saying goes make your bed and will sleep in it... You - or anyone else - no matter how hard you try - CAN NEVER change WHAT IS FACT! That THERE IS variety in Sex - as with ALL things in life - IS FACT and is PROVEN DAILY throughout ALL of time!!! Take Care, John H. |
|
Originally Posted by thatguy
Sounds like something some gay guy made up to make himself feel more accepted. Either that, or my circle of friends here in Texas is exceptionally straight, because I have known very few gay guys, and there are also few straight ones with gay tendencies. Certainly not 50%.
|