but my god man you sound just delusional as the teachers in that school
Why do you think that 'sex' is called 'sex', my man? A good case can be made that two men and two women cannot engage in sex, because the act of supposed sex does not involve the sexual organs of both partners.
Under this framework, 'gay' (homosexual) is not a legitimate category. Just because someone desires to do stuff with the same sex, does not make you anything but 'someone who desires that'. Well, people have all sorts of sinful desires, Christians believe.
tell them what they're doing isn't considered sex!...
I made an argument, and you don't seem to have a counterpoint.
because we say so. even if they don't get turned on by the opposite sex. we can fix them and make them normal! that'll work!
It worked for millennia, and there is no reason why it should not 'work' now. I don't care what "turns" someone on, nor do I care about people's happiness.
Before you bring out all the 'isms' against me, I am bisexual. Unfortunately, the spread of acceptance of homosexuality seems to be correlated with the absolute destruction of society. So yeah, I'd rather that it not be pushed in everyone's faces, particularly the faces of children the activists seem to be most interested in grooming.
but big ups for admitting your bi in a very hateful place for gays.
You lost? I'm the founder of this place.
it hasn't worked. so many in the closet gays back then, so many were miserable going into loveless relationships, fake happy families. and some of them couldn't take it and ended themselves.
Great, but it seems that suicides are much higher now than in the past. It seems that sowing gender confusion among children (and I'm not saying you support this) does not do much for lowering suicides, quite the contrary. What were they doing right that people now don't?
i think having moderate family views. and not pushing for this actual degeneracy could work! and without the anti gay stuff. HELL! have you even heard of gays against groomers?
Yeah, big fan. I'm also happy that nearly all of the "conservative gays" got behind the Parents' Rights Bill in Florida.
you could've been straight, gay, pansexual...
No one is 'pansexual', because that is not a thing.
i judge people by their actions and not some irrelevant trait they may or may not have.
And so do I. This does not prevent me from seeing that things are going very much in the wrong direction. There are many good gay people, like Glenn Greenwald, and David Starkey, and Dave Rubin, but that does not require one to approve of homosexuality.
and judging by you... you seem like an awful gay person and and awful straight person to boot!
All this because I explained Thomistic ideas to you? I bet you can't even tell me why exactly I'm suddenly 'awful'.
i did, you just don't consider it to be sex because you base your logic off of homophobic laws.
What laws? I explained why a good argument can be made why it's not sex, and you did not dispute, let alone refute, the arguments.
cool it doesn't exist because you don't believe in it.
I just explained it to you. Not sure why you're resistant to logic. It doesn't fulfill the final cause of sex, and can therefore be argued to not be sex.
with sexuality, you have physical proof. so you can't really much make that argument, because you have to literally tell people who can't change how they feel to... change how they feel to conform to your wants/desires.
The issue is that with all the glorification of homosexuality, and the recruitment/grooming, vastly larger numbers of people now claim to be bisexual or homosexual. So it's clear that people are changing due to incentives.
Why do you think that 'sex' is called 'sex', my man? A good case can be made that two men and two women cannot engage in sex, because the act of supposed sex does not involve the sexual organs of both partners.
Under this framework, 'gay' (homosexual) is not a legitimate category. Just because someone desires to do stuff with the same sex, does not make you anything but 'someone who desires that'. Well, people have all sorts of sinful desires, Christians believe.
I made an argument, and you don't seem to have a counterpoint.
It worked for millennia, and there is no reason why it should not 'work' now. I don't care what "turns" someone on, nor do I care about people's happiness.
Before you bring out all the 'isms' against me, I am bisexual. Unfortunately, the spread of acceptance of homosexuality seems to be correlated with the absolute destruction of society. So yeah, I'd rather that it not be pushed in everyone's faces, particularly the faces of children the activists seem to be most interested in grooming.
You lost? I'm the founder of this place.
Great, but it seems that suicides are much higher now than in the past. It seems that sowing gender confusion among children (and I'm not saying you support this) does not do much for lowering suicides, quite the contrary. What were they doing right that people now don't?
Yeah, big fan. I'm also happy that nearly all of the "conservative gays" got behind the Parents' Rights Bill in Florida.
No one is 'pansexual', because that is not a thing.
And so do I. This does not prevent me from seeing that things are going very much in the wrong direction. There are many good gay people, like Glenn Greenwald, and David Starkey, and Dave Rubin, but that does not require one to approve of homosexuality.
All this because I explained Thomistic ideas to you? I bet you can't even tell me why exactly I'm suddenly 'awful'.
What laws? I explained why a good argument can be made why it's not sex, and you did not dispute, let alone refute, the arguments.
I just explained it to you. Not sure why you're resistant to logic. It doesn't fulfill the final cause of sex, and can therefore be argued to not be sex.
The issue is that with all the glorification of homosexuality, and the recruitment/grooming, vastly larger numbers of people now claim to be bisexual or homosexual. So it's clear that people are changing due to incentives.