Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Instead of gay are you G0Y?

Expand Messages
  • xaipete_adelphe
    Actually, the pretty well fit my definition of gay: The ability to fall in love with members of the same sex. After all, I m not gay out of sexual desire
    Message 1 of 5 , May 28, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Actually, the pretty well fit my definition of gay: "The ability to
      fall in love with members of the same sex." After all, I'm not gay
      out of sexual desire alone. I mean, that's a big part, but I also
      bond emotionally only to men in most situations. I've had good
      friendships with a girl, though its been quite a while. I was once
      truly in love with one years ago at band camp. Not sure if it would
      have lasted (one of those spur of the moment things). Yet, deep down
      I crave affection from a man. Just how I am.

      I love the Lord. He's given me the Holy Spirit and Peace in my heart
      through my Faith in Jesus Christ. It is hard to get around the New
      Testament passages, but those who receive the Spirit have already
      been granted "repentance unto life" in their Faith. Oh well. All I
      know is my partner was with me when I got the Holy Ghost (he was
      driving the car).

      I alo do detect a little homophobia in some of the stuff they're
      saying, or at least a deep repulsion at the idea of anal sex.
      Perhaps, but I really don't see why that one act is so unclean when
      they're discussing all the other sex acts possible. Yet, I'll admit
      this WAS the early rabbinic interpretation of Leviticus (no
      connection with idolatry, but rather with mixing of kinds). In other
      words, Gentile converts could play with all the boys/guys they wanted
      as long as no penetration took place.

      I commend them. They're brave. The gay community will never, ever,
      ever accept them into its arms, at least not swiftly. The
      Conservative Christian community will be just as slow, as they'll
      label them the same pariahs as us. Masculine intimacy is taboo in
      our society. I mean, it really is. In certain contexts its sweet--
      no dry eyes between the love of Sam and Frodo. The church needs this
      more than any other organization (I don't mean the sex, but the
      connections). Friendship is one of the greatest gifts to men given
      by God, its also intimately connected to marriages (that work). When
      the Church gets over its moral indignation and starts loving people
      again, we'll see a lot of our rebellion and problems go away. Gay
      people can't help how they feel. Men repulsed sexually by women are
      just that way. God can surely heal them, but we shouldn't tempt God
      by putting burdens on the necks of men that others don't have to bear
      (ie, don't make a gay man hold to celibacy or someone he's not
      sexually attracted to when you yourself go to home to your lovely
      wife every night).

      I could probably do well with that group. Sex-sex has never been a
      big deal to me. It is the intimacy I crave. I still think they're
      real--and I mean real--judgmental about gay men who do engage in it.
      I mean, what's the true difference? Sex is sex or so I thought?
      We'll have to see, though. Oh well.

      Anyone else's opinion?
    • dixibehr@aol.com
      ... I read what they said. It s interesting, but it s also obvious that the founder of this sight is laboring under the usual minconceptions abuot gay men. I
      Message 2 of 5 , May 28, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        In a message dated 5/28/04 3:12:52 PM, jwbrashe@... writes:


        > Actually, the pretty well fit my definition of gay: "The ability to
        > fall in love with members of the same sex."  After all, I'm not gay
        > out of sexual desire alone.  I mean, that's a big part, but I also
        > bond emotionally only to men in most situations.  I've had good
        > friendships with a girl, though its been quite a while.  I was once
        > truly in love with one years ago at band camp.  Not sure if it would
        > have lasted (one of those spur of the moment things).  Yet, deep down
        > I crave affection from a man.  Just how I am. 
        >

        I read what they said.

        It's interesting, but it's also obvious that the founder of this sight is
        laboring under the usual minconceptions abuot gay men.

        I had a discussion with an old time, RC priest whowas told that anal
        intercourse was "the defining act" and you weren't really homosexual unless you did
        that.

        I pointed out that, contrary to what many heterosexuals think, this is
        acutally a MINORITY practice among gay men, and there are some who just flat out
        refuse to do it!

        <<Yet, I'll admit
        this WAS the early rabbinic interpretation of Leviticus (no
        connection with idolatry, but rather with mixing of kinds).  In other
        words, Gentile converts could play with all the boys/guys they wanted
        as long as no penetration took place.>>

        Actually, ther ewas never any belief in Judaism that the comandments of
        Leviticus were ever obligatory on the goyim! There still is not today, beyond the
        "Law of the Sons of Noah," which is basically stated in Acts 15.

        And my udnerstanding tht the interpretation of Genesis 19 giving the sin of
        Sodom as homosexuality was something the Crusaders brought back with them from
        the Moslems; Muhammed was the first one to do so (despite the words of Ezekiel
        16:49).

        Of course, if Genesis 19 means that all homosexual acts are sin, then the
        parallel story in Judges 19 means that all heterosexual acts are sin. Nobody
        seems to think of that.


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Bob Griffith
        A whole lot of anti-homosexual/ex-gay people make a point of being against homosexual practice, as Robert Gagnon states in the title of his book. The
        Message 3 of 5 , May 29, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          A whole lot of anti-homosexual/ex-gay people make a point of being against
          "homosexual practice," as Robert Gagnon states in the title of his book.
          The assumption is that all gay men engage in anal-sex, and as the website
          states anal-sex is the definition of homosexual/gay to many people. I
          read a "conservative" commentary pertaining to Romans 1 a good while back.
          The author stated unequivocally that homosexuality is wrong, but at the
          end of the piece he states that really all that can be condemned is anal
          intercourse between men.

          I guess this demonstrates that not all gay men are interested in
          intercourse, which is fine with me. I wonder whether there would be many
          anti-homosexual people who might make this kind of distinction? I could
          even say that I'm "ex-gay" using these definitions and still be in a
          relationship with another man! G0Y it is.

          Bob
        • Scott Cruse
          Yeah, I found the G0Y website a might homophobic, too. To me, it sounds like they re gay, but don t want to be seen as gay or think of themselves as gay. I
          Message 4 of 5 , May 29, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            Yeah, I found the G0Y website a might homophobic, too.

            To me, it sounds like they're gay, but don't want to be seen as gay or think of themselves as gay. I don't fit in much with the "gay lifestyle" either, but don't consider it necessarily wrong or evil. (But it could be, just as a promiscuous straight lifestyle could be.) The same with anal sex, which seems to be their biggest issue.

            Frankly, who really cares? If people are acting out of love and taking the necessary precautions, what difference does it make?




            ---------------------------------
            Do you Yahoo!?
            Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.