🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <jDZz2.3938$pE6....@server1.news.adelphia.net>, 
tabm...@geoshitties.com says...
[snip]
> But then why was the term "surprised" used?  I'll answet that one...
> She was surprised that she actually wanted to do it, not that she was
> finally able to.

And your point?

The attraction and desire was always within her. It was suppressed 
through peer pressure and upbringing etc. She was never in a situation 
where it was deemed normal let alone on offer. When the situation came 
about, she happily went with it. Had she not suppressed the feelings at 
an early age and had recognised them for what they were, she would 
probably have had a much more enjoyable time. 

Many people suppress many feelings for many reasons. Never it is to their 
advantage. If you suppress feelings of abuse in childhood, they 
invariably affect your adult life until they are brought out into the 
open and "dealt" with. 

If people were more tolerant to each other and people could be free to be 
themselves, we would all be a lot better off. 

> > I will not deny that some people try homosexuality through curiosity or 
> > maybe they do have some small element of same sex attraction within them. 
> > It all stems from the same origin, I.e. genetic. 
> 
> Possibly, there are several explanations to this but even if it were
> a gene it is possible to supress it without anything "bad" happening.

Why should it be suppressed? Should heterosexuals suppress their 
feelings? No, and the same for homosexuals.

Suppression will lead to "bad" things happening. Not only misery and 
depression but problems dealing with people socially. Intimacy issues. 
The list goes on. 

> Or the gene remained dormant, until a certain situation brought it
> out...  which is just what I was saying!  

It is not quite like that. Genes are not generally like switches which 
get "turned on" by experiences. Suppression of feelings does not hold a 
gene in abeyance it just creates an internal struggle which will 
adversely affect a person's life. 

> That it was a combination
> of genes and an experience (whether perceived positively or
> negatively).

Many homosexuals, even today, are afraid to voice or admit to their 
feelings in their early years. Look at Jenn's recent message about what 
she went through at school. It is easy to see why most people hide their 
feelings until they are in an environment where the feel it is "safe" to 
express themselves. If it were not for the original suppression we would 
not have so many marriages broken because one partner is homosexual and 
was trying not to be. We would not have so many people miserable with 
their life because they are afraid of the things people will say/do to 
them. People like you who have done nothing but add to their misery. 

Hardly consideration of their feelings. And as for saying that you do 
consider their feelings and then demand they get help. How hippo critical 
is that!

> Do you remember saying this:
> 
> "As a 'Christian' you should be able to appreciate the advantages of
> not running and hiding since your very religion has throughout history
> only come about from people not giving into threats and fighting back."

Yeah so? We had a conversation about Christianity so obviously the term 
came up from time to time. In you quotation I was illustrating a struggle 
in the history of Christianity so how else were I to describe the group. 
Those people that all the weird cults attach themselves to. "Your" 
people. Can't think of any more but I am sure you get the idea. In the 
same way I may use the word females and women to describe well, females, 
I will use the term Christian to describe, guess what, Christians. 

Why is this a problem for you?

> > Not *actively* bisexual, maybe. Not *knowingly* bisexual, maybe. Not 
> > bisexual, unlikely.
> 
> Then what you're saying is that some people can go their whole
> lives being bisexual and not know it.  This just goes to show
> that they can get therapy and get better.

How does it show that? 

Besides, they have no problem so why would they need to "get better"?

And using your opinion, if it were a "treatable" condition and they were 
not aware of it how could it get cured? 

Your argument seems so very thin. No wait a minute. You do not have one.

[snip]
> I assume you mean I think that they should get psychiatric help, in
> which case you are right but that does not mean I haven't considered
> how they feel.

OK. Let's go back to an example of genetic disorder. A person is born 
blind through a genetic reason. Should this person seek psychiatric help? 

-- 
Mark