OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 02, 2014, 06:44:41 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Being gay is a choice?  (Read 6710 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #225 on: May 10, 2013, 04:24:25 AM »

If people are born gay then being gay - which gay say is part of their identity - then their identity is based on a medical condition

Is black a medical condition?
One can prove a person is born black.  One can not prove a person is born homosexual.  They can, at best, assume and claim they know what they are talking about. 

One can also not prove that God exists, nor that I am anything but a computer program.  One can also not prove that the black death ever really happened, as opposed to merely being a conspiracy by historians to confuse us for their own amusement.
This is some serious stretching, which isn't bad if you are about to go on a run, but not here.  In a short period of time you have attempted to twice stray from the main topic.  Lets try to stay on topic and no more grabbing at straws.
Logged
jmbejdl
Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Romania
Posts: 1,480


Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava


« Reply #226 on: May 10, 2013, 04:33:09 AM »

If people are born gay then being gay - which gay say is part of their identity - then their identity is based on a medical condition

Is black a medical condition?

Being gay is behavioural. Being black is not. You are comparing apples and oranges here. You'd be much better off comparing being gay to a paraphilia (I'd argue, on psychological grounds, that homosexuality remains a paraphilia actually, politically motivated changes to the DSM notwithstanding) or some other behavioural condition, but of course doing such would instantly defeat your own argument.

And people do base their identity on medical conditions which we (those who do not suffer from them) would think we ought to fix. Take deaf people for instance who would not wish their deafness to be fixed because it would change who they are. I've known one person who will happily state as much, even to the point of saying that they wouldn't fix their children's deafness if it was possible (which frankly seemed quite mad to me - and likely would to almost any hearing adult for whom deafness would be seen as an unwelcome impairment rather than as a positive aspect of someone's identity). Just because a homosexual says that their orientation is part of who they are doesn't mean that it can't also be an abnormal psychological condition.

James
« Last Edit: May 10, 2013, 04:33:22 AM by jmbejdl » Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #227 on: May 10, 2013, 04:35:20 AM »

If people are born gay then being gay - which gay say is part of their identity - then their identity is based on a medical condition

Is black a medical condition?

Being gay is behavioural. Being black is not. You are comparing apples and oranges here. You'd be much better off comparing being gay to a paraphilia (I'd argue, on psychological grounds, that homosexuality remains a paraphilia actually, politically motivated changes to the DSM notwithstanding) or some other behavioural condition, but of course doing such would instantly defeat your own argument.

And people do base their identity on medical conditions which we (those who do not suffer from them) would think we ought to fix. Take deaf people for instance who would not wish their deafness to be fixed because it would change who they are. I've known one person who will happily state as much, even to the point of saying that they wouldn't fix their children's deafness if it was possible (which frankly seemed quite mad to me - and likely would to almost any hearing adult for whom deafness would be seen as an unwelcome impairment rather than as a positive aspect of someone's identity). Just because a homosexual says that their orientation is part of who they are doesn't mean that it can't also be an abnormal psychological condition.

James

I believe it's behavioural too. However there are people saying we're born a particular way. If this were true then in theory one could be medically treated to be another way.
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #228 on: May 10, 2013, 04:54:56 AM »

If people are born gay then being gay - which gay say is part of their identity - then their identity is based on a medical condition

Is black a medical condition?

Being gay is behavioural. Being black is not. You are comparing apples and oranges here. You'd be much better off comparing being gay to a paraphilia (I'd argue, on psychological grounds, that homosexuality remains a paraphilia actually, politically motivated changes to the DSM notwithstanding) or some other behavioural condition, but of course doing such would instantly defeat your own argument.

And people do base their identity on medical conditions which we (those who do not suffer from them) would think we ought to fix. Take deaf people for instance who would not wish their deafness to be fixed because it would change who they are. I've known one person who will happily state as much, even to the point of saying that they wouldn't fix their children's deafness if it was possible (which frankly seemed quite mad to me - and likely would to almost any hearing adult for whom deafness would be seen as an unwelcome impairment rather than as a positive aspect of someone's identity). Just because a homosexual says that their orientation is part of who they are doesn't mean that it can't also be an abnormal psychological condition.

James

I believe it's behavioural too. However there are people saying we're born a particular way. If this were true then in theory one could be medically treated to be another way.
Additionally, one could argue any or every condition is from birth taking all responsibility from people and what they do, how they act, etc.  It's insanity to think this way.
Logged
jmbejdl
Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Romania
Posts: 1,480


Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava


« Reply #229 on: May 10, 2013, 05:04:21 AM »

If people are born gay then being gay - which gay say is part of their identity - then their identity is based on a medical condition

Is black a medical condition?

Being gay is behavioural. Being black is not. You are comparing apples and oranges here. You'd be much better off comparing being gay to a paraphilia (I'd argue, on psychological grounds, that homosexuality remains a paraphilia actually, politically motivated changes to the DSM notwithstanding) or some other behavioural condition, but of course doing such would instantly defeat your own argument.

And people do base their identity on medical conditions which we (those who do not suffer from them) would think we ought to fix. Take deaf people for instance who would not wish their deafness to be fixed because it would change who they are. I've known one person who will happily state as much, even to the point of saying that they wouldn't fix their children's deafness if it was possible (which frankly seemed quite mad to me - and likely would to almost any hearing adult for whom deafness would be seen as an unwelcome impairment rather than as a positive aspect of someone's identity). Just because a homosexual says that their orientation is part of who they are doesn't mean that it can't also be an abnormal psychological condition.

James

I believe it's behavioural too. However there are people saying we're born a particular way. If this were true then in theory one could be medically treated to be another way.

I wasn't disagreeing with you. I'm not a fan of the medical model of mental illness at all, so I wouldn't tend to refer to psychological conditions as such, but I knew what you meant. It is possible to be born with a condition which would predispose us to violence. I don't believe that the people who try to compare homosexuality to being black (quite ridiculously, in my opinion) would say 'that's OK, we shouldn't treat them because they were born like that', yet that is the equivalent of what they do with homosexuality.

We don't actually have a good treatment for homosexuality (paraphilias in general are very hard to treat) but if we did, these sorts of people would say to us that we shouldn't offer it to those who want it - in fact these sorts of people would actively agitate against research into treating homosexuality. This is all political. There was no scientific evidence whatsoever to remove homosexuality from the list of paraphilias and I believe removing it from the DSM did a disservice to those (and they exist) who are unhappy with their sexuality because now we aren't even allowed to try and help them - that would be intolerant, right?

Whether or not a person feels they were born homosexual or feels that their homosexuality is a part of their identity is irrelevant in determining whether homosexuality is normal or a disorder and it certainly doesn't mean that it's in some way equivalent to race. A deaf person can certainly be born deaf and they can also feel their deafness is integral to their identity. Deafness remains a medical condition nonetheless. Why should homosexuality be treated differently?

James
Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos
Santagranddad
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: ROCA
Posts: 1,047



« Reply #230 on: May 10, 2013, 05:07:44 AM »

If people are born gay then being gay - which gay say is part of their identity - then their identity is based on a medical condition

Is black a medical condition?

Being gay is behavioural. Being black is not. You are comparing apples and oranges here. You'd be much better off comparing being gay to a paraphilia (I'd argue, on psychological grounds, that homosexuality remains a paraphilia actually, politically motivated changes to the DSM notwithstanding) or some other behavioural condition, but of course doing such would instantly defeat your own argument.

And people do base their identity on medical conditions which we (those who do not suffer from them) would think we ought to fix. Take deaf people for instance who would not wish their deafness to be fixed because it would change who they are. I've known one person who will happily state as much, even to the point of saying that they wouldn't fix their children's deafness if it was possible (which frankly seemed quite mad to me - and likely would to almost any hearing adult for whom deafness would be seen as an unwelcome impairment rather than as a positive aspect of someone's identity). Just because a homosexual says that their orientation is part of who they are doesn't mean that it can't also be an abnormal psychological condition.

James

No one should rely upon any of the American Psychiatric Association's DSM as their whole methodology appears to lack any science to back up the ever increasing lists of conditions and supposed symptoms. The Oxford trained Medical Anthropoligist James Davies' book, Cracked: why psychiatry is doing more harm than good, Icon Books 2013, gives chapter and verse on why not.

That some individuals and groups saying this or that is part of their identity is an assertion unless they can factually back it up. And this debate appears most times to adopt a binary view of human sexuality as regards something referred to as sexual orientation, I.e. heterosexual or homosexual. So is bisexuality or transgender 'orientation' an immutable aspect of identity or is it evidence in the case of the former simply lust without discrimination and the latter a psychological disorder?
Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #231 on: May 10, 2013, 05:14:06 AM »

My major concern is not with what society claims but what Christianity teaches.  Christians who ignore, deny and/or alter what Christianity teaches play in very dangerous waters.  It doesn't matter what they want or what they think.  What matters is what does God have to say about it, what does the Church teach, nothing else.
Logged
jmbejdl
Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Romania
Posts: 1,480


Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava


« Reply #232 on: May 10, 2013, 05:45:20 AM »

No one should rely upon any of the American Psychiatric Association's DSM as their whole methodology appears to lack any science to back up the ever increasing lists of conditions and supposed symptoms. The Oxford trained Medical Anthropoligist James Davies' book, Cracked: why psychiatry is doing more harm than good, Icon Books 2013, gives chapter and verse on why not.
I agree (though I don't know that particular book). The whole medical model of mental illness is flawed, however, not just the DSM. Interestingly enough it was a psychiatrist rather than a clinical psychologist who was most adamant about this in his lectures back when I was studying abnormal psychology for my degree. And one should certainly never underestimate the degree of political/societal influence on the classification of abnormal psychological conditions.

Quote
That some individuals and groups saying this or that is part of their identity is an assertion unless they can factually back it up. And this debate appears most times to adopt a binary view of human sexuality as regards something referred to as sexual orientation, I.e. heterosexual or homosexual. So is bisexuality or transgender 'orientation' an immutable aspect of identity or is it evidence in the case of the former simply lust without discrimination and the latter a psychological disorder?
It's all necessarily subjective. We're just supposed to roll over and accept it if someone says 'I was born this way' or 'It's part of who I am'. I don't doubt that's how these people feel but, as my experience with some deaf people illustrates, it simply isn't relevant to determining whether or not homosexuality is a disordered behaviour.

James
Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #233 on: May 10, 2013, 07:53:23 AM »

If people are born gay then being gay - which gay say is part of their identity - then their identity is based on a medical condition

Is black a medical condition?

Being gay is behavioural. Being black is not. You are comparing apples and oranges here. You'd be much better off comparing being gay to a paraphilia (I'd argue, on psychological grounds, that homosexuality remains a paraphilia actually, politically motivated changes to the DSM notwithstanding) or some other behavioural condition, but of course doing such would instantly defeat your own argument.

And people do base their identity on medical conditions which we (those who do not suffer from them) would think we ought to fix. Take deaf people for instance who would not wish their deafness to be fixed because it would change who they are. I've known one person who will happily state as much, even to the point of saying that they wouldn't fix their children's deafness if it was possible (which frankly seemed quite mad to me - and likely would to almost any hearing adult for whom deafness would be seen as an unwelcome impairment rather than as a positive aspect of someone's identity). Just because a homosexual says that their orientation is part of who they are doesn't mean that it can't also be an abnormal psychological condition.

James

I believe it's behavioural too. However there are people saying we're born a particular way. If this were true then in theory one could be medically treated to be another way.

I wasn't disagreeing with you.
I know, that's why I agreed with you by saying I also believe it's behavioural

I'm not a fan of the medical model of mental illness at all, so I wouldn't tend to refer to psychological conditions as such, but I knew what you meant. It is possible to be born with a condition which would predispose us to violence. I don't believe that the people who try to compare homosexuality to being black (quite ridiculously, in my opinion) would say 'that's OK, we shouldn't treat them because they were born like that', yet that is the equivalent of what they do with homosexuality.

We don't actually have a good treatment for homosexuality (paraphilias in general are very hard to treat) but if we did, these sorts of people would say to us that we shouldn't offer it to those who want it - in fact these sorts of people would actively agitate against research into treating homosexuality. This is all political. There was no scientific evidence whatsoever to remove homosexuality from the list of paraphilias and I believe removing it from the DSM did a disservice to those (and they exist) who are unhappy with their sexuality because now we aren't even allowed to try and help them - that would be intolerant, right?

Whether or not a person feels they were born homosexual or feels that their homosexuality is a part of their identity is irrelevant in determining whether homosexuality is normal or a disorder and it certainly doesn't mean that it's in some way equivalent to race. A deaf person can certainly be born deaf and they can also feel their deafness is integral to their identity. Deafness remains a medical condition nonetheless. Why should homosexuality be treated differently?

James

I agree with this, and the post above yours.
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #234 on: May 10, 2013, 07:55:31 AM »

If people are born gay then being gay - which gay say is part of their identity - then their identity is based on a medical condition

Is black a medical condition?

Being gay is behavioural. Being black is not. You are comparing apples and oranges here. You'd be much better off comparing being gay to a paraphilia (I'd argue, on psychological grounds, that homosexuality remains a paraphilia actually, politically motivated changes to the DSM notwithstanding) or some other behavioural condition, but of course doing such would instantly defeat your own argument.

And people do base their identity on medical conditions which we (those who do not suffer from them) would think we ought to fix. Take deaf people for instance who would not wish their deafness to be fixed because it would change who they are. I've known one person who will happily state as much, even to the point of saying that they wouldn't fix their children's deafness if it was possible (which frankly seemed quite mad to me - and likely would to almost any hearing adult for whom deafness would be seen as an unwelcome impairment rather than as a positive aspect of someone's identity). Just because a homosexual says that their orientation is part of who they are doesn't mean that it can't also be an abnormal psychological condition.

James

No one should rely upon any of the American Psychiatric Association's DSM as their whole methodology appears to lack any science to back up the ever increasing lists of conditions and supposed symptoms. The Oxford trained Medical Anthropoligist James Davies' book, Cracked: why psychiatry is doing more harm than good, Icon Books 2013, gives chapter and verse on why not.

That some individuals and groups saying this or that is part of their identity is an assertion unless they can factually back it up. And this debate appears most times to adopt a binary view of human sexuality as regards something referred to as sexual orientation, I.e. heterosexual or homosexual. So is bisexuality or transgender 'orientation' an immutable aspect of identity or is it evidence in the case of the former simply lust without discrimination and the latter a psychological disorder?

There's a growing medicalisation of things. Where once someone might have just been a little sad, they now offer a pill for that

It's because of money. The more conditions they can invent the more they can treat, and make money from
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
TheMathematician
Banished and Disgraced
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Serbian
Posts: 1,430


Formerly known as Montalo


« Reply #235 on: May 10, 2013, 09:31:06 AM »

Before we address the question, let us define what the question is.

Is "being gay" having attractions to members of the same sex or it is acting on these desires? Or, is it becoming part of the gay culture, regardless of the preferences of the person?
Logged

SCREW BON JOVI!
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,360


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #236 on: May 10, 2013, 10:01:26 AM »

Being gay, IMO is simply an attraction to someone of the same sex. Which is not a sin. I dont know where it is, but Fr. Hopko had something to say on this topic that was quite good not too long ago.
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine
Posts: 10,032


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #237 on: May 10, 2013, 11:58:45 AM »

Being gay, IMO is simply an attraction to someone of the same sex. Which is not a sin. I dont know where it is, but Fr. Hopko had something to say on this topic that was quite good not too long ago.

I remember Fr. Tom discussing this to some extent in his excellent talk, "Sin: Primordial, Generational, Personal".  He said that homosexual orientation (aka "same sex attraction") is sinful but not culpable, unless it results in homosexual activity.  At that point it is a sin and there is culpability. 
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,360


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #238 on: May 10, 2013, 12:02:18 PM »

Being gay, IMO is simply an attraction to someone of the same sex. Which is not a sin. I dont know where it is, but Fr. Hopko had something to say on this topic that was quite good not too long ago.

I remember Fr. Tom discussing this to some extent in his excellent talk, "Sin: Primordial, Generational, Personal".  He said that homosexual orientation (aka "same sex attraction") is sinful but not culpable, unless it results in homosexual activity.  At that point it is a sin and there is culpability. 
I think that was the one. He's had a few things to say about it. The talk I was listening to talked about a conversion story with a guy who slept with some Episcopal priests and all that. It was a great lecture.

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,491



« Reply #239 on: May 10, 2013, 12:05:51 PM »

Being gay, IMO is simply an attraction to someone of the same sex. Which is not a sin. I dont know where it is, but Fr. Hopko had something to say on this topic that was quite good not too long ago.

I remember Fr. Tom discussing this to some extent in his excellent talk, "Sin: Primordial, Generational, Personal".  He said that homosexual orientation (aka "same sex attraction") is sinful but not culpable, unless it results in homosexual activity.  At that point it is a sin and there is culpability. 
I think that was the one. He's had a few things to say about it. The talk I was listening to talked about a conversion story with a guy who slept with some Episcopal priests and all that. It was a great lecture.

PP

You are probably thinking about the talk he gave explicitly on the subject sometime last year. If this thread pops again and I am somewhere where I could link the talk, I will.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine
Posts: 10,032


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #240 on: May 10, 2013, 12:29:40 PM »

Being gay, IMO is simply an attraction to someone of the same sex. Which is not a sin. I dont know where it is, but Fr. Hopko had something to say on this topic that was quite good not too long ago.

I remember Fr. Tom discussing this to some extent in his excellent talk, "Sin: Primordial, Generational, Personal".  He said that homosexual orientation (aka "same sex attraction") is sinful but not culpable, unless it results in homosexual activity.  At that point it is a sin and there is culpability. 
I think that was the one. He's had a few things to say about it. The talk I was listening to talked about a conversion story with a guy who slept with some Episcopal priests and all that. It was a great lecture.

PP

You are probably thinking about the talk he gave explicitly on the subject sometime last year. If this thread pops again and I am somewhere where I could link the talk, I will.

Yes, please do.

I found a brief article by him about it here: http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles2/HopkoHomosexuality.php
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,491



« Reply #241 on: May 10, 2013, 01:16:51 PM »

Being gay, IMO is simply an attraction to someone of the same sex. Which is not a sin. I dont know where it is, but Fr. Hopko had something to say on this topic that was quite good not too long ago.

I remember Fr. Tom discussing this to some extent in his excellent talk, "Sin: Primordial, Generational, Personal".  He said that homosexual orientation (aka "same sex attraction") is sinful but not culpable, unless it results in homosexual activity.  At that point it is a sin and there is culpability. 
I think that was the one. He's had a few things to say about it. The talk I was listening to talked about a conversion story with a guy who slept with some Episcopal priests and all that. It was a great lecture.

PP

You are probably thinking about the talk he gave explicitly on the subject sometime last year. If this thread pops again and I am somewhere where I could link the talk, I will.

Yes, please do.

I found a brief article by him about it here: http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles2/HopkoHomosexuality.php

Here are the links, whether these were the talks or not, they are the most explicit and lengthy treatment of homosexuality by Fr. Thom that I know of other than his published text, which he would admit is problematic, I believe:

Quote
Orthodox Christian Synergy’s Annual Symposium 2011
October 2011

The topic of Synergy’s 2011 Symposium was “Orthodox Christianity and Homosexuality,” and featured was Fr. Thomas Hopko, Dean Emeritus of St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Seminary and the author of Christian Faith and Same-Sex Attraction: Eastern Orthodox Reflections. The gathering took place at St. George Antiochian Orthodox Church in Cicero, Illinois, on Saturday, October 15, 2011.

http://ancientfaith.com/specials/orthodox_christian_synergys_annual_symposium_2011
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Marc1152
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,658


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #242 on: May 10, 2013, 01:28:03 PM »

No more than being straight is a choice.  I didn't make the choice to be straight it is simply who I am. The choice comes in how one behaves and what one does, not in who one is.  If a person is gay, they should confront it lovingly and then make choices.

You are straight until you get sent to prison for 20 to life.. After that, one thing may  lead to another  Smiley
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
Marc1152
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,658


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #243 on: May 10, 2013, 01:30:18 PM »

If people are born gay then being gay - which gay say is part of their identity - then their identity is based on a medical condition

Is black a medical condition?

Being gay is behavioural. Being black is not. You are comparing apples and oranges here. You'd be much better off comparing being gay to a paraphilia (I'd argue, on psychological grounds, that homosexuality remains a paraphilia actually, politically motivated changes to the DSM notwithstanding) or some other behavioural condition, but of course doing such would instantly defeat your own argument.

And people do base their identity on medical conditions which we (those who do not suffer from them) would think we ought to fix. Take deaf people for instance who would not wish their deafness to be fixed because it would change who they are. I've known one person who will happily state as much, even to the point of saying that they wouldn't fix their children's deafness if it was possible (which frankly seemed quite mad to me - and likely would to almost any hearing adult for whom deafness would be seen as an unwelcome impairment rather than as a positive aspect of someone's identity). Just because a homosexual says that their orientation is part of who they are doesn't mean that it can't also be an abnormal psychological condition.

James

No one should rely upon any of the American Psychiatric Association's DSM as their whole methodology appears to lack any science to back up the ever increasing lists of conditions and supposed symptoms. The Oxford trained Medical Anthropoligist James Davies' book, Cracked: why psychiatry is doing more harm than good, Icon Books 2013, gives chapter and verse on why not.

That some individuals and groups saying this or that is part of their identity is an assertion unless they can factually back it up. And this debate appears most times to adopt a binary view of human sexuality as regards something referred to as sexual orientation, I.e. heterosexual or homosexual. So is bisexuality or transgender 'orientation' an immutable aspect of identity or is it evidence in the case of the former simply lust without discrimination and the latter a psychological disorder?

There's a growing medicalisation of things. Where once someone might have just been a little sad, they now offer a pill for that

It's because of money. The more conditions they can invent the more they can treat, and make money from
+1
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #244 on: May 10, 2013, 08:46:04 PM »

Being gay, IMO is simply an attraction to someone of the same sex. Which is not a sin. I dont know where it is, but Fr. Hopko had something to say on this topic that was quite good not too long ago.

Jesus said if a man looks on a woman with lust in his heart he's already committed adultery. Why then would looking on a man with lust not be a sin?
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #245 on: May 10, 2013, 09:00:04 PM »

Before we address the question, let us define what the question is.

Is "being gay" having attractions to members of the same sex or it is acting on these desires? Or, is it becoming part of the gay culture, regardless of the preferences of the person?

As with what is sin, it depends on who you ask, but in reality it only has one definition.
Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #246 on: May 10, 2013, 09:02:32 PM »

Being gay, IMO is simply an attraction to someone of the same sex. Which is not a sin. I dont know where it is, but Fr. Hopko had something to say on this topic that was quite good not too long ago.

Jesus said if a man looks on a woman with lust in his heart he's already committed adultery. Why then would looking on a man with lust not be a sin?

Because that makes people who do this uncomfortable.  But, those who do not think this is not sinful explains how some of them think it is ok to watch pornography with no guilt.
« Last Edit: May 10, 2013, 09:03:47 PM by Kerdy » Logged
TheMathematician
Banished and Disgraced
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Serbian
Posts: 1,430


Formerly known as Montalo


« Reply #247 on: May 10, 2013, 10:32:37 PM »

Before we address the question, let us define what the question is.

Is "being gay" having attractions to members of the same sex or it is acting on these desires? Or, is it becoming part of the gay culture, regardless of the preferences of the person?

As with what is sin, it depends on who you ask, but in reality it only has one definition.

I fail to see how acting flamboyant, having a lisp, or even honestly, carrying a purse would be considered sinful.
Logged

SCREW BON JOVI!
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #248 on: May 10, 2013, 10:33:09 PM »

Before we address the question, let us define what the question is.

Is "being gay" having attractions to members of the same sex or it is acting on these desires? Or, is it becoming part of the gay culture, regardless of the preferences of the person?

As with what is sin, it depends on who you ask, but in reality it only has one definition.

I fail to see how acting flamboyant, having a lisp, or even honestly, carrying a purse would be considered sinful.
Not our species bro.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #249 on: May 10, 2013, 10:47:02 PM »

Before we address the question, let us define what the question is.

Is "being gay" having attractions to members of the same sex or it is acting on these desires? Or, is it becoming part of the gay culture, regardless of the preferences of the person?

As with what is sin, it depends on who you ask, but in reality it only has one definition.

I fail to see how acting flamboyant, having a lisp, or even honestly, carrying a purse would be considered sinful.
The first step would be to stop using the word "gay" and start using the word homosexual.  Once to have committed yourself to this, you will better understand what I have posted.

Flamboyancy is not homosexual, artwork can be flamboyant.  The Church of Saint-Maclou in Rouen, France, is flamboyant.  Speaking with a lisp is an impediment.  Carrying a purse means your wife’s arms are full from shopping and you don’t want to carry a bunch of stuff you never wanted to purchase in the first place.  If people are focusing on these things rather than on what homosexuality really is, they will never, ever understand much of anything about it.
Logged
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,970


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #250 on: May 10, 2013, 11:41:24 PM »

It is acts which are penanced, not temptations. Anyone not believe me? Read the Exomologitarion, the Manual for Confession. It's very illuminating reading.

I could be wrong, but I do not find that the concepts of homosexuality and heterosexuality are patristic--that is, they do not appear, to me, to reflect Orthodox anthropology. And if we choose to abandon Orthodox anthropology-who we are according to God's revelation and not according to mere human reasoning--then, really we have nothing much to offer the rest of the world, for we are no different from it.

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
William
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Posts: 4,306


« Reply #251 on: May 11, 2013, 01:44:51 AM »

I have known several people who were Gay ( one fellow was "Mr. Maryland" at one time) and then decided to drop it and not be Gay anymore. Go figure.

Not me. Nobody "drops" being gay, unless they weren't really gay to begin with.

This is what is called a No True Scotsman fallacy.
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant

Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. - Matt. 5:24
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #252 on: May 11, 2013, 07:59:51 AM »

There's all manner of new words; metrosexual, bisexual, trisexual (as in try everything)





My understanding is that homophobia literally means fear of man
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #253 on: May 11, 2013, 08:00:24 AM »

Anyone seen this site...?
Homosexuality and science

http://homosexualityandscience.wordpress.com/
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #254 on: May 11, 2013, 08:04:20 AM »

There's all manner of new words; metrosexual, bisexual, trisexual (as in try everything)





My understanding is that homophobia literally means fear of man

The newest one I have heard was polysexual.  It is getting ridiculous.
Logged
Daedelus1138
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 315


« Reply #255 on: May 11, 2013, 08:31:48 AM »

Yes, homosexuality is a choice. If it was not a choice, then "conversion therapy", which tries to change one's sexual orientation would be nonsensical. The arguments for homosexuality not being a choice are the same as the arguments that autism cannot be cured. BTW, autistic people can change and live as normal people. If they are married and have a normal lifestyle, they are non-autistic for all practical intents and purposes, and should not have any impediments based on their former state. It is a choice whether to act on a homosexual orientation if one exists.

Autism consists of a very wide range of disorder, hence it is clinically referred to as autistic spectrum disorder. Some, a few, will live very successfully, others will struggle.  

     I have Asperger's, which is a subtype of autism.  It's actually very deeply rooted in "who" I am, probably not unlike being gay.  It's not something you can really cure without me ceasing to be me.   I've improved through therapy but I will always have Asperger's to some extent, it wll constrain what I can do to some extent and it is disabling for me in some ways. But then again that's part of what being a human being is about, we all have those burdens.  Being gay is very similar, I'd imagine (I'm actually bisexual, or fluid in my sexuality, but disinterested in a relationship with the same sex, and mostly attracted to women anyways).  You can "change" somewhat but it is always going to constrain what you can do and set limits on things.  If i push myself too hard to act normal eventually I melt down.  I require alot of down time alone to function.

Quote
Sexual attraction and sexual activity involve many factors, and this is not a simple arena which merits more than simplistic responses.

  Many people are bisexual and/or their sexual orientation is fluid but there is a small minority of the population, especially among men, that has an exclusive attraction to the same-sex and it doesn't change, or changes very little, over the course of their lifetimes.  These individuals often are gender-variant as children as well- they don't engage in typical behaviors for their gender as children.  They don't choose to be who they are and its not rebelling against society or their religion's teachings.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2013, 08:34:11 AM by Daedelus1138 » Logged
Santagranddad
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: ROCA
Posts: 1,047



« Reply #256 on: May 11, 2013, 08:37:05 AM »

Anyone seen this site...?
Homosexuality and science

http://homosexualityandscience.wordpress.com/

Very interesting, especially Justice Quenton Loh's statement on equality being misleading argued for when so-called activists argue for equality when they want the 'institutionalisation' of their relationships and equality applying when comparing like with like. The 'love' argument is the weakest and simply emotive. Various people may profess to love each other but may not be allowed to marry, even under legislation favoured by the so-called gay lobby.

As for the labels, homophobe is possibly the silliest social construct. Still totalitarian ideologies love write off labels that simply mean you avoid any debate with views at variance with your own. For myself if I don't want to debate recalling that my hair desperately needs washing or my toe nails need filing is sufficient. The labelling is best left to the experts - usually intolerant liberals, Marxists, neo-fascists, and the belligerent 'canonical' New Calendarists. Roll Eyes
« Last Edit: May 11, 2013, 08:40:47 AM by Santagranddad » Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #257 on: May 11, 2013, 09:03:32 AM »

 They don't choose to be who they are ...
This is a misleading and untrue statement.  We make choices everyday which determine who we are.  Without providing detail, when I was younger I was headed in a very specific direction.  I chose to alter my destination and now am about as opposite as one could be.  My life turned out nothing like what I imagined it could be.  I chose who I am.  I could have said I was born a particular way and I'm sure some would have believed me, but I would have know it was untrue and the lazy, weak way to travel.  We do chose who we are to a high degree.
Logged
TheMathematician
Banished and Disgraced
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Serbian
Posts: 1,430


Formerly known as Montalo


« Reply #258 on: May 11, 2013, 09:12:16 AM »

Before we address the question, let us define what the question is.

Is "being gay" having attractions to members of the same sex or it is acting on these desires? Or, is it becoming part of the gay culture, regardless of the preferences of the person?

As with what is sin, it depends on who you ask, but in reality it only has one definition.

I fail to see how acting flamboyant, having a lisp, or even honestly, carrying a purse would be considered sinful.
The first step would be to stop using the word "gay" and start using the word homosexual.  Once to have committed yourself to this, you will better understand what I have posted.

Flamboyancy is not homosexual, artwork can be flamboyant.  The Church of Saint-Maclou in Rouen, France, is flamboyant.  Speaking with a lisp is an impediment.  Carrying a purse means your wife’s arms are full from shopping and you don’t want to carry a bunch of stuff you never wanted to purchase in the first place.  If people are focusing on these things rather than on what homosexuality really is, they will never, ever understand much of anything about it.

See Kerdy, there is my point. There is something that is called a gay culture, which the acceptance of which is what I call being gay, and just like choosing to do the polka, or jhaving a preference for the Greek food and language, is a choice, and is not inherently sinful(with all the normal constraints of course, such as excess and gluttony)

Now, being homosexual is something else. That implies an attraction to members of the same sex, which could lead to dating, or even being married in the eyes of the law, depending on the laws of the jurisdiction.

I know people who are most assuredly not gay, but are involved in homosexual relationships. Is being gay a choice, of course it is, but, is being homosexual a choice? I honestly do not know the answer to that question.
Logged

SCREW BON JOVI!
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #259 on: May 13, 2013, 01:09:13 AM »

There's all manner of new words; metrosexual, bisexual, trisexual (as in try everything)





My understanding is that homophobia literally means fear of man

The newest one I have heard was polysexual.  It is getting ridiculous.

Anything to do with parrots?
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #260 on: May 13, 2013, 01:10:24 AM »

Anyone seen this site...?
Homosexuality and science

http://homosexualityandscience.wordpress.com/

Very interesting, especially Justice Quenton Loh's statement on equality being misleading argued for when so-called activists argue for equality when they want the 'institutionalisation' of their relationships and equality applying when comparing like with like. The 'love' argument is the weakest and simply emotive. Various people may profess to love each other but may not be allowed to marry, even under legislation favoured by the so-called gay lobby.

As for the labels, homophobe is possibly the silliest social construct. Still totalitarian ideologies love write off labels that simply mean you avoid any debate with views at variance with your own. For myself if I don't want to debate recalling that my hair desperately needs washing or my toe nails need filing is sufficient. The labelling is best left to the experts - usually intolerant liberals, Marxists, neo-fascists, and the belligerent 'canonical' New Calendarists. Roll Eyes

Well said!
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
Daedelus1138
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 315


« Reply #261 on: May 13, 2013, 09:10:22 AM »

Here are the links, whether these were the talks or not, they are the most explicit and lengthy treatment of homosexuality by Fr. Thom that I know of other than his published text, which he would admit is problematic, I believe:

http://ancientfaith.com/specials/orthodox_christian_synergys_annual_symposium_2011

  I listened to those... compared to the book he wrote, he makes some thoughtful points about the issues around homosexuality.  Conservative Christians have little credibility on that issue and he acknowledges that. I think Fr. Hopko is really struggling to come up with a unique Eastern Orthodox way to approach those questions without doing what alot of Orthodox in the US have done- simply to ape the dubious theology of Protestant Evangelicals or Roman Catholics or to fall back to Orthodox traditional understandings of sexuality which cannot always easily speak to contemporary social issues (there are significant differences in culture, after all, a culture that cannot just be turned aside if the Orthodox Church has any desire to be taken seriously in the US).
Logged
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine
Posts: 10,032


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #262 on: May 13, 2013, 09:29:34 AM »

Anyone seen this site...?
Homosexuality and science

http://homosexualityandscience.wordpress.com/

Very interesting, especially Justice Quenton Loh's statement on equality being misleading argued for when so-called activists argue for equality when they want the 'institutionalisation' of their relationships and equality applying when comparing like with like. The 'love' argument is the weakest and simply emotive. Various people may profess to love each other but may not be allowed to marry, even under legislation favoured by the so-called gay lobby.

As for the labels, homophobe is possibly the silliest social construct. Still totalitarian ideologies love write off labels that simply mean you avoid any debate with views at variance with your own. For myself if I don't want to debate recalling that my hair desperately needs washing or my toe nails need filing is sufficient. The labelling is best left to the experts - usually intolerant liberals, Marxists, neo-fascists, and the belligerent 'canonical' New Calendarists. Roll Eyes

Well said!

+1!!
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian
ilyazhito
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 864



« Reply #263 on: May 14, 2013, 07:00:02 PM »

Before we address the question, let us define what the question is.

Is "being gay" having attractions to members of the same sex or it is acting on these desires? Or, is it becoming part of the gay culture, regardless of the preferences of the person?

As with what is sin, it depends on who you ask, but in reality it only has one definition.

I fail to see how acting flamboyant, having a lisp, or even honestly, carrying a purse would be considered sinful.
The first step would be to stop using the word "gay" and start using the word homosexual.  Once to have committed yourself to this, you will better understand what I have posted.

Flamboyancy is not homosexual, artwork can be flamboyant.  The Church of Saint-Maclou in Rouen, France, is flamboyant.  Speaking with a lisp is an impediment.  Carrying a purse means your wife’s arms are full from shopping and you don’t want to carry a bunch of stuff you never wanted to purchase in the first place.  If people are focusing on these things rather than on what homosexuality really is, they will never, ever understand much of anything about it.

See Kerdy, there is my point. There is something that is called a gay culture, which the acceptance of which is what I call being gay, and just like choosing to do the polka, or jhaving a preference for the Greek food and language, is a choice, and is not inherently sinful(with all the normal constraints of course, such as excess and gluttony)

Now, being homosexual is something else. That implies an attraction to members of the same sex, which could lead to dating, or even being married in the eyes of the law, depending on the laws of the jurisdiction.

I know people who are most assuredly not gay, but are involved in homosexual relationships. Is being gay a choice, of course it is, but, is being homosexual a choice? I honestly do not know the answer to that question.
What is the difference between being gay and homosexual? Gay is merely a recent synonym for homosexual. The word gay means happy, if you look it up in the dictionary. Do you differentiate between inclinations and choices? If you do, then you can have homosexual inclinations but not act on them, or try to have a heterosexual relationship. There may be no choice in terms of having inclinations, but if you act contrary to your inclinations, then your inclinations might eventually weaken, and then this question might become a moot point.
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,075


« Reply #264 on: May 14, 2013, 07:22:50 PM »

I've heard "gay" sometimes used to refer exclusively to male homosexuals, with female homosexuals being, of course, "lesbians". This distinction is supported by many observed differences in male and female homosexual culture and behavior. See Steve Sailer's article "Why Lesbians aren't Gay".

http://www.isteve.com/lesvsgay.htm
Logged
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #265 on: May 15, 2013, 03:44:13 AM »

What is the difference between being gay and homosexual? Gay is merely a recent synonym for homosexual. The word gay means happy, if you look it up in the dictionary. Do you differentiate between inclinations and choices? If you do, then you can have homosexual inclinations but not act on them, or try to have a heterosexual relationship. There may be no choice in terms of having inclinations, but if you act contrary to your inclinations, then your inclinations might eventually weaken, and then this question might become a moot point.

Sometimes 'gay' represents all homosexuals, as in "I don't support gay rights". Other times it just represents male homosexuals.

Even 'gay' isn't inclusive enough because they talk about LGTR (Lesbian, Gay and, Trans-sex Rights)
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,491



« Reply #266 on: May 15, 2013, 03:56:27 AM »

I'm a self-styled expert on what is gay and what is homo, I'll gladly let you know where you stand.

To be clear, about 97% of men I've met are both gay and homo.

Then there are are the 2% who have sex with men who aren't nearly as queer as nearly every guy who claims to sleep with women that I've met.

Wearing a sports jersey with another guy's name on it: homo.
Wearing it to the game where said guy is playing: really homo.

Is that a choice? Given my experience with such persons, their ability to reflect on about anything approaches absolutely nil, so I would say it is not a choice as such.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,491



« Reply #267 on: May 15, 2013, 03:59:59 AM »

There's all manner of new words; metrosexual, bisexual, trisexual (as in try everything)





My understanding is that homophobia literally means fear of man

You doing schtick from 1989?
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,491



« Reply #268 on: May 15, 2013, 04:02:19 AM »

I've heard "gay" sometimes used to refer exclusively to male homosexuals, with female homosexuals being, of course, "lesbians". This distinction is supported by many observed differences in male and female homosexual culture and behavior. See Steve Sailer's article "Why Lesbians aren't Gay".

http://www.isteve.com/lesvsgay.htm

I didn't read the link, but I agree. One of the least gay groups around are lesbians.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
JamesRottnek
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Anglican
Jurisdiction: Episcopal Diocese of Arizona
Posts: 5,108


I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine


« Reply #269 on: May 15, 2013, 04:16:58 AM »

I've heard "gay" sometimes used to refer exclusively to male homosexuals, with female homosexuals being, of course, "lesbians". This distinction is supported by many observed differences in male and female homosexual culture and behavior. See Steve Sailer's article "Why Lesbians aren't Gay".

http://www.isteve.com/lesvsgay.htm

Don't show this to the bear community; they might maul you.
Logged

I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice.  Can you guess what it is?

The greatest tragedy in the world is when a cigarette ends.

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 »   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.175 seconds with 72 queries.