To be or not to be homosexual ....making the correct choice for you

[Alzael]

You make assumptions and read your understanding into things and that causes you to make errors in your respresentation of things written by others (Me).

Then I would suggest that you make a consistent argument. As opposed to changing it everytime you get called on something. Or maybe using words properly instead of reinventing them to suit your needs. It would also help if you didn’t use logical fallacies to make your arguments (see one of the points that you ignored above) and if you actually backed anything you said instead of just reasserting it over and over again like a broken record.

Don’t blame me for your shortcomings.

I never said "one can take what someone is naturally and treat it as something else," you imply that I said that's because according to your understanding, convictions, and perhaps even misconceptions that is the case.

I never said that you did, nor did I imply that you did. I said that your view carried some bad implications. As in “a likely consequence of something”.

The post that you quoted was speculation on some of the potential consequences that could be taken from your viewpoint and how others could use it. Not a statement that they were your actual viewpoint. Ironic that you just finished talking about making assumptions.

I did however, mention what I believe the perception of individuals should be. For me, that perception is initially, not exclusively, but initially based on WHAT PEOPLE DO.

This is not what you said initially however. This is what you are trying to say now.

Nowhere did I say that the motivations behind those actions were not important or valid.

Say it, no. It was implied in your early posts however. Especially since you specifically singled out only ones actions as the means of determining sexual orientation. Up until you were called on it at any rate.

What I did purposely imply, whether right or wrong, was that those motives should NOT necessarily carry more weight than one's actions. 

Which you have still failed to justify.

In addition, I do not wish for people to believe that I am saying orientation does not matter. It can matter greatly. What I did say was that when it doesn't factor in on how one acts, then it becomes less relevant.

And to reiterate a previous point that you did not address. Exactly how does it not factor in nearly every expect of a persons life?

This is so stupid I don't even know where to begin.

Do I actually have to explain to you how a persons sexual orientation can affect their life?

Especially in a society where one can be ostracized/bullied/disowned by family just for having an orientation that is considered unacceptable.

Or we could address the fact that many people who are gay have heterosexual relationships as a means to hide the fact from society. Leading to lives filled with depression, self-loathing, and fear of being exposed. Not to mention the stress of dealing with all of those suppressed urges. and similar issues. I would say that it has quite a bit of relevance.

This is just the beginning of how these things can affect people. We could go on, but try addressing at least this one thing first.

 Are you ever going to get around to actually addressing anything? Or do I get the continued pleasure of watching you dodge and stonewall some more?

See below.

-----
Bigger picture for me is a yet to be proven hypothesis that I wish to put forth that finds flaws in the current understanding as it relates to human sexual orientation that lists hetero, homo, bi, and asexual as sexual orientations. The idea I put forth is that overwhelmingly human beings are sexually oriented creatures. With that said, a human's biological sexual orientation can truly only fall into 1 of 2 catagories those being SEXUAL or ASEXUAL. SEXUAL humans simply have an innate drive to engage in sexual activities. There are varieties of sexual activities SEXUALLY ORIENTED humans can engage in with some activities arousing greater erotic desires for individuals than others. We do not know all of the reasons why certain individuals are drawn to certain desires and other individuals are drawn in by different sexual desires.

Ok Truth, I’m going to try this one more time. Maybe this time you’ll actually listen.

Stop dodging. You are not being asked to repeat your shallow and insipid ideas over and over again ad nauseum. Even though you keep changing it every few posts, we know what you are saying. That is not the issue. You are being called out on what you are saying.

Have you not read a single thing people have been posting in this thread? You have claimed that there is no evidence for sexual orientation being biological. Evidence was shown, but you did not address it. You were asked to provide evidence to support your position, you haven’t. You were called on for redefining terms to suit your needsYou were addressed by Samothec, by Dante, by Lucifer, and DumpsterFire and others. There are about ten posts that you almost totally ignored with a lot of questions and issues raised, including the post of mine previous to the one you just quoted. Most of what you do answer is only a response to one small part of the post, ignoring almost the entirety of what was actually said.

You continually state and restate your position but fail to address the actual substance of the comments and what you are being called out to account for.

Now I am just finishing my eleventh hour at work, and I have twelve due for tomorrow, so forgive me if this sounds a little blunt but……

I have little interest in watching you continue to jerk yourself off in this thread. You’ve stated your position (repeatedly and in many different ways) now please commence in pulling your head from the portion of your ass that it’s securely lodged into and actually address the substance of what’s being said. The issues you have been called out on over the last two pages or do myself and the thread a massive favour and shut the fuck up. Nobody made you open your mouth and start spewing your opinion, nobody asked for your opinion or your input, you made that decision to get involved. So stop dodging and stonewalling and ignoring the points people raise whenever someone presents evidence against you.

Get a fucking scrotum, Princess.

(Ok, rant over)

[Truth OT]

I did however, mention what I believe the perception of individuals should be. For me, that perception is initially, not exclusively, but initially based on WHAT PEOPLE DO.

This is not what you said initially however. This is what you are trying to say now.

It is apparent my reiterating was necessary as you evidently have been misunderstanding what i've been attempting to relay.

What I did purposely imply, whether right or wrong, was that those motives should NOT necessarily carry more weight than one's actions. 

Which you have still failed to justify.   

Simply put, "being" involves at least trying to "do." Because a motive is something that causes a person to act in a certain way or do a certain thing, we are forced to admit that being without doing, like faith without works, is dead.
In sexuality, this implies that there are senses in which sexual preferences and desires are irrelevant when no action is attempted in regard to those desires. In such scenarios, the individual has disregarded their desire to the degree that that desire losses relevance. That is what distinguishes sexual identity based on an individuals erotic desire from an individuals state of being which includes categories like race, sex, handicap, etc.

Ok Truth, I’m going to try this one more time. Maybe this time you’ll actually listen.

Stop dodging. You are not being asked to repeat your shallow and insipid ideas over and over again ad nauseum. Even though you keep changing it every few posts, we know what you are saying. That is not the issue. You are being called out on what you are saying.

Have you not read a single thing people have been posting in this thread? You have claimed that there is no evidence for sexual orientation being biological. Evidence was shown, but you did not address it.

Liar! I directly addressed the evidence you provided in post 49 with my response in post 53. I quoted the same wiki article you used in my reply. I did not feel I needed to do the same with the link you provided because it said this:

In this article, I have shown that the science of human sexuality is in its infancy and that there is currently little conclusive evidence that sexuality is genetically or hormonally induced.

and this:

Given the mixed empirical evidence and dubious bioethical nature of the science of sexuality, the innateness of sexual orientation is a poor metric upon which to formulate policy or law

You were asked to provide evidence to support your position, you haven’t.

You continually state and restate your position but fail to address the actual substance of the comments and what you are being called out to account for.

Get a fucking scrotum, Princess.

(Ok, rant over)

My position that we do not know sexual orientation to be biological and therefore asserting that it is, is in fact disingenuous is evidenced by the very links you supplied as evidence to the contrary.

You should be informed of some good tidings. I found that scrotum you recommended I get! Now try to get some rest and don't overdo the work think. Overdoing it can lead to stress and frustration causing you to go on mean rants directed at nice folks that are then forced to contemplate smiting you for the unnecessarily rude personal tone at the rant's conclusion.




---------
For any man claiming they cannot choose to be turned on by another man because the claimant is heterosexual, I respectfully disagree. My premise is the total opposite view that proclaims that no sexually oriented man can choose NOT to be turned on my another male, an unattractive female, or any person or object that was in a position to arouse them.

[Alzael]

Liar! I directly addressed the evidence you provided in post 49 with my response in post 53. I quoted the same wiki article you used in my reply. I did not feel I needed to do the same with the link you provided because it said this:

No, you addressed one of them. Also failed to address Lucifers. Then went on to claim that no one had provided any. Address those and if necessary we can move onto others.

My position that we do not know sexual orientation to be biological and therefore asserting that it is, is in fact disingenuous is evidenced by the very links you supplied as evidence to the contrary.

You still haven't shown that. Your position was that there's conflicting information, so it's best to say "I don't know".

However even if you take that position, your claim is that someone should be treated as homosexual just because they act in a homosexual manner (to put it simply). So even if you say "I don't know", about orientation officially and are just talking about behaviour (as per your redefinition) you are still treating it as though it is a choice in practical terms.

More to the point, you also haven't made a single evidenced argument for your position at all. However you're certainly presenting them as something that should be a truth.

You should be informed of some good tidings. I found that scrotum you recommended I get!?

Apparently not.

Now try to get some rest and don't overdo the work think. Overdoing it can lead to stress and frustration causing you to go on mean rants directed at nice folks that are then forced to contemplate smiting you for the unnecessarily rude personal tone at the rant's conclusion.

It wasn't a mean rant. Just pointing out that I lack the patience to play the usual stupid games.

For any man claiming they cannot choose to be turned on by another man because the claimant is heterosexual, I respectfully disagree. My premise is the total opposite view that proclaims that no sexually oriented man can choose NOT to be turned on my another male, an unattractive female, or any person or object that was in a position to arouse them.

Which you have still failed to justify. Or to address most of the criticisms about (not just mine).
Are you going to do so, yes or no?

It is apparent my reiterating was necessary as you evidently have been misunderstanding what i've been attempting to relay.

I haven't misunderstood anything. I've understood what you were saying everytime it changed. What you're not understanding is that you have been stating different positions throughout.

For one example, you at first said that there was no evidence at all that sexual orientation was biological (which you  repeated later). Then once Lucifer and I started pointing out evidence you suddenly changed your opinion to "I don't know" and saying it's disingenuous to assert that it's biological.

No one is misunderstanding, you are inconsistent.

[nogodsforme]

I think TOT needs to explain what he means by "sexuality". Is it orientation/preference? Is it what physical sexual behavior a person engages in?  Is it what a person is perceived to be in their society? Is it all of those things?

Once TOT gets that straight (heh heh) he can think about what parts of sexuality are inborn or genetic, which parts are freely chosen by an individual and which parts are determined or influenced by society and culture. Then he can tell us whether most people are bisexual because they masturbate as well as have opposite sex partners....

While human sexuality is pretty flexible overall, individual people have a pretty narrow range, as determined by combined factors of genetics, upbringing and society. Also, people can behave sexually even when not really attracted or aroused: consider prostitution, exotic dancers, porn actors and criminals who rape by object.

That so many people identify and/or behave sexually in ways that are discouraged, condemned or even illegal and punishable seems to argue against the perspective that they are freely choosing to have such difficult lives.

I disagree that anyone can freely choose or choose not to be sexually attracted to anyone or anything.  To take an extreme, I would assume pedophiles (probably the most despised, hated and punished category of sexuality)  would much rather not be pedophiles. Why don't they just choose not to be aroused by children?

Another extreme: There are some situations that will not sexually arouse some people, no matter what. I don't care how long I am trapped on a desert island with Newt Gingrich, my 90-year-old mother-in-law, Mr. Ed, Bonzo the Chimp, Lassie, a three-year-old child, a mentally handicapped teenager, Godzilla, or a dead body. 

I will become Sister Nogodsforme, the atheist nun, because ain't nothing going to happen. 

[kin hell]

I don't care how long I am trapped on a desert island with Newt Gingrich, my 90-year-old mother-in-law, Mr. Ed, Bonzo the Chimp, Lassie, a three-year-old child, a mentally handicapped teenager, Godzilla, or a dead body. 

I will become Sister Nogodsforme, the atheist nun, because ain't nothing going to happen. 

You feed Gingrich's milk of human kindness to the 3 yo child (the child starves) no, don't do that
You feed the 3 yo child to Lassie to get the dog's strength up.
You send Lassie for help.
You set Godzilla to eradicating the deer infestation.
You eat the dead body  ...carving fishhooks from its bones with your 90 yo m-i-laws sharp wit.
You set the mentally handicapped teenager to look after Newt.
You plait Mr Ed's tail hairs for fishing line. (and don't forget to hang one of his shoes up for good luck)
You train Bonzo the Chimp to harvest coconuts
You fell suitable trees (with your 90 yo m-i-laws cutting comments) to build a raft
You plant a native garden in case the raft doesn't work (see Gingrich for manure)
You set your 90 yo m-i-law to cutting a huge limestone cave with her acidic tongue.
You keep Mr Ed nearby for the only intelligent conversation.
You think about sex all the time, but cannot decide of which persuasion you'd prefer to be.
You slowly go mad, from being unable to choose

Oh the decisions! .....decisions! ....decisions!

Your 90 yo m-i-law is starting to look good, but she having an affair with Bonzo the Chimp ........he feeds her bananas (she's lost her teeth) and she gives him sexual favours (she's lost her teeth)

Mr Ed stops talking to you as he and Godzilla have chosen to be homosexuals so they can have a relationship (actually they just want sex, but a romance blossoms), and Godzilla it seems is very jealous and insecure.
Mr Ed spends his time in getting Bambi paste, bones and hide out from Godzilla's claws.
Godzilla cannot help but make horse/whores comments whenever Mr Ed talks to you. They move to the other side of the island.

Newt has been trying to engage in sexual congress with the mentally handicapped teenager from day one, but she is way to smart for him saying "you are fucked already Newt" and laughs in his face. He has not been so angry and hurt since the American people ignored his 2012 presidential bid, everybody continues to ignore him.

One night they all steal the raft that you've finally finished and they (never having accepted your "it is necessary" excuse for feeding the 3 yo to Lassie) sail off to freedom leaving you behind ..............alone.

Some days later while still desperately searching in disbelief for them, you find Lassies desiccated corpse showing incontrovertible evidence of having been stomped to death under the tiny hooves of deer that had been fleeing Godzilla's persecution.

As you lay there weeping at the knowledge that there is to be no rescue for you from this hell, you hear a stumbling shuffle through the brush and a dishevelled and forlorn Newt appears saying "where is everybody????"

You run screaming into the scrub.................

[nogodsforme]

^^^^^Oh, c'mon, kin hell. You know that you would be banging Newt six ways from Sunday as soon as those little porcine eyes meet yours.  "Squeal, Newt! Squeal like a piggy!"

As for the rest of your scenarios, I have only four words: Gilligan's Island--Extreme Edition. 

[kin hell]

^^^^^Oh, c'mon, kin hell. You know that you would be banging Newt six ways from Sunday as soon as those little porcine eyes meet yours.  "Squeal, Newt! Squeal like a piggy!"

...........that is a truly horrible idea nogods, quite put me off my food 

[Samothec]

For any man claiming they cannot choose to be turned on by another man because the claimant is heterosexual, I respectfully disagree. My premise is the total opposite view that proclaims that no sexually oriented man can choose NOT to be turned on my another male, an unattractive female, or any person or object that was in a position to arouse them.

I'm going to trust the comedian Alonzo Bodden (who I quoted above), as well as others, and reject this premise since all evidence I've encountered says the opposite. While I realize you are ignoring me, I will still present a hypothesis (although not a strong one) that your defining of sexuality as only sexual and asexual plus your refutation of str8s being str8 and gays being gay indicates you are bisexual but very uncomfortable with that idea. If you can define it so you are no different than anyone else then you can continue on as you have - acting str8 because you want to be str8.

Unfortunately for your premise, there is evidence that begin gay/str8 is at least partially genetic - even though you refute/ignore it.

[atheola]

You know...those ultra conservatives always getting caught with male prostitution raps and so on are merely exercising their choices..and showing us just how 'hard' it is to make choices..

[Personal campaign ad] I'm married to my loving and EXTREMELY HOT and fasionable supermodel evangelical trophy wife of the past 70 years and our 47 ADORABLE God fearing, perfection oriented children are backing ME, Blob Barf as hour next senator to stop the queers from taking over the universe! (Applause and flags fluttering), BUT Americans have choices to make amd that's why I, Blob Barf like to suck on a big black cock once in awhile then take one for the team to prove being a queer is **wink wink* a choice! (more applause and flags) [\personal campaign ad]

Hey,...everyone needs to make choices...eh?


this ad paid for by the committee to elect then destroy Blob Barf...sponsored by YouTube and social media..(flags)

[Bad Pear]

I will still present a hypothesis (although not a strong one) that your defining of sexuality as only sexual and asexual plus your refutation of str8s being str8 and gays being gay indicates you are bisexual but very uncomfortable with that idea. If you can define it so you are no different than anyone else then you can continue on as you have - acting str8 because you want to be str8.

I tend to agree with Samothec here. It's related to what I was saying in reply 28:

I imagine when you truly believe that homosexuality is unnatural, yet you feel attracted to the same sex, you have to reconcile that in some way. If you feel that way and you know you're straight then everyone must have this same struggle. Enter silly notions about sexuality being a choice, homosexual indoctrination, demonic temptation, etc. etc.

Of course we can't back that up, so we'll just have to leave ToT to decide for himself.

[nogodsforme]

The pointing finger has four aiming back at TOT. It only takes once, baby. First one who knew it, blew it. The closet has a revolving door. And other related you-are-probably-gay cliches we used to say back in the day. 

[atheola]

GOP=gay old pervs but they're never gonna admit it. 

[Truth OT]

I will still present a hypothesis (although not a strong one) that your defining of sexuality as only sexual and asexual plus your refutation of str8s being str8 and gays being gay indicates you are bisexual but very uncomfortable with that idea. If you can define it so you are no different than anyone else then you can continue on as you have - acting str8 because you want to be str8.

I am a SEXUAL human being (as pretty much all of us are), that exclusively practices heterosexual behavior. Why is it that I exclusively practice heterosexual behavior? Simply put, I do not know. Generally speaking, I am only attracted to women. I would wager that that is the case due in part to a personal choice but has also been influenced by other factors beyond the realm of my control which led to and molded what my personal choice would likely become. Social conditioning, nurture, hormones, and perhaps other less direct influences had their part to play in who it is I would be mainly attracted to sexually. 

I tend to agree with Samothec here. It's related to what I was saying in reply 28:

I imagine when you truly believe that homosexuality is unnatural, yet you feel attracted to the same sex, you have to reconcile that in some way. If you feel that way and you know you're straight then everyone must have this same struggle. Enter silly notions about (I presume you mean sexual orientation and not sexuality) sexuality being a choice, homosexual indoctrination, demonic temptation, etc. etc.

Of course we can't back that up, so we'll just have to leave ToT to decide for himself.

I do not think a person need be compelled to justify attraction to either or both sexes as I believe that human being's innate sexuality is in an unbounded perverse sexuality that allows for all forms of sexual expression. The boundaries and labels that define the ways man expresses sexuality are what I believe to not likely to be innate.
In other words what I am saying is that NO sexual orientation has proven to be innate, not the heterosexual orientation, not the homosexual one, and not even the bisexual one (though the argument for innate bisexuality put forth by Freud is a better one than the others).

[Truth OT]

The pointing finger has four aiming back at TOT.

I never liked this saying because I found it stupid and inaccurate. (or maybe I just point weirdly). When we point, we do NOT have 4 fingers pointing back at us. We only have 3 even if we count the thumb because even it points in a different direction other than the 3 fingers that turn back to the pointer's direction.

[nogodsforme]

Okay, TOT you had to go all pedantic an' sh!t. How 'bout there be four fingers pointing back 'cause you got six fingers! Huh? Huh? Princess Bride, man. Deal wid it.

Sorry about the code switching. I was carried away watching velkyn's Key and Peele videos. 

[Truth OT]

^^^^ Me too!!! I'm in the office rollin'!

[DumpsterFire]

My premise is the total opposite view that proclaims that no sexually oriented man can choose NOT to be turned on my another male, an unattractive female, or any person or object that was in a position to arouse them.

This statement could be construed to mean either 1. A man who is inclined toward sexual behaviour cannot choose to not be attracted to someone whom he already finds attractive, or 2. Once a man becomes inclined toward sexual behaviour every person and object that could potentially arouse him suddenly becomes equally attractive to him.

Example of option 1: I find Fergie from the Black Eyed Peas to be incredibly beautiful and sexy, and would have my way with her 8 ways to Sunday were I still single and in the (very unlikely) position to do so. I cannot choose to not be attracted to her, no matter how many of my friends call her a butterface and question my sanity. In fact, I honestly cannot understand why they do not consider her to be as gorgeous as I do.

Example of option 2: I suppose when I was 15 I pretty much wanted to put my penis into any hole that it would fit into, but even then the desire for that hole to be attached to a sexy female[1]was far and away more compelling than any other option. That you included the phrase "in a position to arouse them" muddies the waters a bit, though. A man on one side of a glory hole[2]is probably more concerned with receiving pleasure than he is with who (or what) is on the other side providing it. I would think he would not be quite so turned on were he to discover that the person in a position to arouse him was a 340 pound biker dude, though.

So if option 1 is what you are trying to say, then you are simply rewording what most here have already stated, one cannot choose what one is attracted to.

If option 2 is what you mean, all I can say (and with complete sincerity) is that I do not walk down the street thinking, "Fat biker dude, blue-haired grandma, and hairy plumber, I desire to have sex and find you all equally attractive, but society would frown on our forbidden love, therefore I will choose to ogle the college girl with the big tits and tight ass."
I don't know how things work in your world, MM, but they sure don't work that way in mine.

1.	romance is not dead, right ladies?
2.	more romance, gals. Google it if you need to.

[Nick]

There was a story out today about a funeral for an 85 year old Catholic.  The daughter (who is a lesbian) was in line to get communion and the proest covered the hosts and said no because you are with a woman.  The woman was upset and later gave the eulogy for her mom and the proest walked off during it and did not show up at the grave side to do his duty there.  Pretty f*cking sad.

[Truth OT]

This statement could be construed to mean either 1. A man who is inclined toward sexual behaviour cannot choose to not be attracted to someone whom he already finds attractive, or 2. Once a man becomes inclined toward sexual behaviour every person and object that could potentially arouse him suddenly becomes equally attractive to him.

Example of option 1: I find Fergie from the Black Eyed Peas to be incredibly beautiful and sexy, and would have my way with her 8 ways to Sunday were I still single and in the (very unlikely) position to do so. I cannot choose to not be attracted to her, no matter how many of my friends call her a butterface and question my sanity. In fact, I honestly cannot understand why they do not consider her to be as gorgeous as I do.

Example of option 2: I suppose when I was 15 I pretty much wanted to put my penis into any hole that it would fit into, but even then the desire for that hole to be attached to a sexy female[1]was far and away more compelling than any other option. That you included the phrase "in a position to arouse them" muddies the waters a bit, though. A man on one side of a glory hole[2]is probably more concerned with receiving pleasure than he is with who (or what) is on the other side providing it. I would think he would not be quite so turned on were he to discover that the person in a position to arouse him was a 340 pound biker dude, though.

So if option 1 is what you are trying to say, then you are simply rewording what most here have already stated, one cannot choose what one is attracted to.

If option 2 is what you mean, all I can say (and with complete sincerity) is that I do not walk down the street thinking, "Fat biker dude, blue-haired grandma, and hairy plumber, I desire to have sex and find you all equally attractive, but society would frown on our forbidden love, therefore I will choose to ogle the college girl with the big tits and tight ass."
I don't know how things work in your world, MM, but they sure don't work that way in mine.

Once a person becomes inclined toward sexual behaviour every person or object that could potentially arouse them suddenly becomes equallycan become attractive to them in the sense that those things all have the potential to arouse the person sexually regardless of the person's preference. That may be the factor in why incarcerated individuals that that may have always had a heterosexual orientation can become willing practicing homosexuals while in prison and at times will continue that after their release effectively having transitioned from a heterosexual orientation to a homosexual orientation where they now find mn as the object of their desire. (perhaps due to habit, exposure, or other psychological factors, who can say.......).

[blue]

There was a story out today about a funeral for an 85 year old Catholic.  The daughter (who is a lesbian) was in line to get communion and the proest covered the hosts and said no because you are with a woman.  The woman was upset and later gave the eulogy for her mom and the proest walked off during it and did not show up at the grave side to do his duty there.  Pretty f*cking sad.

That priest was a dick, but at least his superiors seem to be making an effort.

http://johnshore.com/2012/02/29/father-no-communion-for-you-not-the-whole-story/

Yes, Fr. Guarnizo shamelessly refused to go to the cemetery. But immediately thereupon the funeral director (“an angel,” says Barbara) comforted Barbara with assurances that he would quickly secure a priest to perform the burial. He then turned to Fr. Peter Sweeney, who wasted no time at all stepping right out of his retirement, and right into the Johnson funeral service.

“Father Sweeney was perfect,” says Barbara. “We couldn’t have asked for a kinder, more loving priest. Both Father Sweeney and the funeral director acted as soothing balms on our very scarred hearts.”

When the head of Saint John Neumann’s, Fr. LaHood, was made aware of what had happened at the Johnson funeral, he phoned Barbara to apologize. Barbara played for me Fr. LaHood’s message. It left nothing on the table: his apology was sincere, obviously heartfelt, and accompanied by every last means to reach him, including his personal cell and home phone number.

After Barbara later met with Fr. LaHood, she reported that, “He was very kind, compassionate, and apologetic.”

Even the Archdiocese of Washington rushed to repudiate Fr. Guarnizo’s actions, via this statement released Monday:

In matters of faith and morals, the Church has the responsibility of teaching and of bringing the light of the Gospel message to the circumstances of our day. When questions arise about whether or not an individual should present themselves for communion, it is not the policy of the Archdiocese of Washington to publicly reprimand the person. Any issues regarding the suitability of an individual to receive communion should be addressed by the priest with that person in a private, pastoral setting.

The archdiocese is looking into the incident at a funeral Mass that was celebrated by Fr. Marcel Guarnizo and will handle this as a personnel issue.

Wish they'd be as on the ball when their priests are abusing kids, though.

Edit: Just realized that that's a tad off topic. Sorry. 

[nogodsforme]

I am still not clear on what you mean, TOT.

People can and do engage in sexual behavior that is not their preference. Most prisoners in jail are not bisexual or gay, and might not even consider what they did in prison with other inmates to be sex. They don't seek out gay sex outside of prison.

That is why AIDS workers can't just ask a man if he is gay or bisexual. (Most men will say no.) Health workers have to be really clinical and specific:"Have you ever had oral or genital contact with another man's penis or anus?" Then you get the info you need to screen for AIDS.

Porn actors and prostitutes do it with men or women, old or young, animal, vegetable or mineral. For pay. But the same person may be exclusively hetero, gay and/or humanosexual in their "real life". Even monogamous aside from the sex work. They are not attracted to and aroused by everything. But the majority of their physical sexual contacts may be with people/things not of their choosing.[1]

I understand that people don't always say what they are, or even know what they are. (Someone mentioned that homophobic men are more aroused by male gay porn then non-homophobic men.) But I see no point in labeling people something other than what they consider themselves to be.

1.	It just occured to me: non-porn actors are always kissing and fooling around with people not of their preference on screen. If a person plays a gay character, but is married to the opposite sex, does that make them bisexual? And vice versa?