Good job, Mississippi

[KSB2424 3,086]

Gay marriage is an entirely different universe than this silly prom date thing. Marriage is a legal contract that involves money, insurance pay outs, pensions, etc. We're talking about tow high schoolers wanting to go to a dance.

Well sure, but it is based on a lot of the same principals and belief systems. It's not a "backwoods" thing. I'm with you (sorta). This is a public school and they shoulda just let the damn girls go for crying out loud.

 

But I am not gonna get all in a tizzy about "losing their rights" and whatnot. It's a dance party, that is a privilege. Give me a break on the ACLU discrimination stuff.

[Lackman 0]

The case has been filed to a federal court. I'm not a legal expert but I'm pretty sure there will be no jury to decide this. I think it will go before a judge that will force the school to put the prom back on and allow McMillan to come with whoever she wants.

 

Yes, the government and/or judge should force a school into holding a prom. Maybe the government can legislate a theme, tax the punch bowl, and have a army battalion enforce a curfew.

[NewbieJr 541]

are you really this dense? it's less about the girls that it is about EVERYBODY else. You're pointing out that Mississippi is 30 years behind the rest of the world, then wondering why it is that people there would feel strongly about two girls attending prom as a couple. It doesn't matter what I think, or what anybody else here thinks for that matter. It matters what the people who are directly affected by it think. And those "behind by 30 years" people still have conservative beliefs, and they make their rules and laws according to what the majority of the people believe there. If you don't like it, you can leave. But don't ask someone to change something just for you at the expense of what the vast majority wants. I don't believe I should be limited to driving 55 mph, perhaps I should call the ACLU and get them to point out how I'm being discriminated against because I'm a speed freak.

 

Face facts, you and your metrosexual frosty tips are offended by anybody wanting to regulate the gay meter.

Dude, the people 'directly affected by it' are all the poor students that don't get any prom at all now. All because a few discriminating asswholes didn't want a girl wearing a tux.

 

If you really think the end result was equal to the problem, then you're at Recliner Pilot-level intelligence.

[jgcrawfish 232]

A friend of a friend went to Disney World a few years back. He's a very religous man who doesn't like anything he's told not to like. Anyway, he contacted Disney and arranged to stay at one of their nice hotels on the grounds. Booked his reservations for various other things and was all set to bring the family to Disney for the first time. He gets there and it's gay week. When he was checking into the hotel, he complained to the desk clerk that no one told him it was gay week when he made his reservations. Had he known, he wouldn't have come that week with his family. A gay guy checking in next to him pinched him on his ass and told him, "It's a small world after all." He freaked the fawk out. He demanded to know why he wasn't told about gay week. He was told then that it was not Disneys policy to do so. He demanded he be reimbursed and was denied. They told him to enjoy his vacation and deal with it. He ended up settling with Disney and they now let straight vacationers know it's gay week.

 

Is it Disneys obligation to tell straight folks that 100,000 gays will be there?

 

Yes, yes it is. I'd have done the same thing if I were in his shoes and I'm neither remotely religious nor remotely conservative. If I had to explain to my 3 little boys why there were a whole fockin gaggle of guys sitting around hold hands and smooching on other guys at the pool, fock yeah I'd raise hell.

 

I also can completely relate to his reaction to the pinch on the ass part, I almost got fired from a job when I was young and almost ended up in jail another time over the same thing.

[Chronic Husker 85]

Can you even imagine this happening, or even being an issue, in NYC, Chicago, Philly, etc? It blows your mind when you read about these backwoods places and their antiquated ways of thinking.

What cracks me up is the clowns that take a stance behind a Christian anti-gay agenda (surferskin, jets24, RP, crawfish) but won't come out and simply say they don't believe homosexuality is moral (because the Bible tells them so). They'll ask how the gays are being discriminated against and try to keep poking holes in law from every angle ("It's the fact of the tux wearing from the girls."), etc. Or they'll do like jets did and lump homosexuality in with polygamy and beastiality. Patent Christian anti-gay tactic.

 

When they realize they're beat and there is no legal basis for discrimination, they'll claim there isn't enough money to fight the big, bad ACLU.

[jerryskids 5,286]

Masturbation was....hell, probably still is considered a deviant form of behavior....I'm looking at you Mississippi. And yet it's completely natural.

 

Sorry, but that is non-responsive. The fact that other deviant behaviors do or do not exist is irrelevant.

[jerryskids 5,286]

Or they'll do like jets did and lump homosexuality in with polygamy

Since males need only impregnate females for the propagation of the species, would you say that in the natural order of things, homosexuality is less "deviant" than polygamy?

[jgcrawfish 232]

Dude, the people 'directly affected by it' are all the poor students that don't get any prom at all now. All because a few discriminating asswholes didn't want a girl wearing a tux.

 

If you really think the end result was equal to the problem, then you're at Recliner Pilot-level intelligence.

 

but that hasn't been your point all along. you just conveniently grab for the "poor students" piece when it suits you.

 

No, I don't think the other students should have been punished for the self aggrandizement of the selfish little thing that started all this. But I commend them for not backing down from their beliefs when faced with a no-win situation. If the had asked the kids in the school, most would likely say "whatever, let her go with whoever she wants", but that's putting the power in the hands of a bunch of teenagers who don't have the benefit of years of life experiences and wisdom. It's our responsibility as parents to help protect our children, in and turn it's the schools responsibility to afford that same level of protection when acting in the stead of the parents. The beliefs of their town, community, etc are obviously different than your gay beliefs.

[FeelingMN 273]

Yes, yes it is. I'd have done the same thing if I were in his shoes and I'm neither remotely religious nor remotely conservative. If I had to explain to my 3 little boys why there were a whole fockin gaggle of guys sitting around hold hands and smooching on other guys at the pool, fock yeah I'd raise hell.

 

I also can completely relate to his reaction to the pinch on the ass part, I almost got fired from a job when I was young and almost ended up in jail another time over the same thing.

 

Yeah, it'd be terrible to have to explain to your children that....gasp....there's such thing as gay people. In your example above, would you raise hell if a guy and a girl were doing the same things? Be honest....and if you say yes, will you convert to Amish in order to shield your boys from the real world?

[Chronic Husker 85]

You're pointing out that Mississippi is 30 years behind the rest of the world, then wondering why it is that people there would feel strongly about two girls attending prom as a couple. It doesn't matter what I think, or what anybody else here thinks for that matter. It matters what the people who are directly affected by it think. And those "behind by 30 years" people still have conservative beliefs, and they make their rules and laws according to what the majority of the people believe there. If you don't like it, you can leave. But don't ask someone to change something just for you at the expense of what the vast majority wants.

 

Wrong. If they don't like it, they can follow federal law or let the feds come to their state and force them to follow it.

 

 

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1294680

 

(click on "listen")

[FeelingMN 273]

But I commend them for not backing down from their beliefs when faced with a no-win situation.

 

Only if they're straight though.

 

[jgcrawfish 232]

What cracks me up is the clowns that take a stance behind a Christian anti-gay agenda (surferskin, jets24, RP, crawfish) but won't come out and simply say they don't believe homosexuality is moral (because the Bible tells them so). They'll ask how the gays are being discriminated against and try to keep poking holes in law from every angle ("It's the fact of the tux wearing from the girls."), etc. Or they'll do like jets did and lump homosexuality in with polygamy and beastiality. Patent Christian anti-gay tactic.

 

When they realize they're beat and there is no legal basis for discrimination, they'll claim there isn't enough money to fight the big, bad ACLU.

 

honestly, i don't give a ratsass about the Christian anti-gay agenda. For a guy somewhat raised Catholic, married that way, and the father of kids Baptized that way, I'm about the least religious guy around. I'm just a make a rule for the majority, not the exception, kind of guy. You have it ass-backwards, as usual, regarding law. Most of the laws in the country are already there which tend to support people of my position, it's the liberal "you're robbing me of my rights" tards like you that poke holes into the established legislation. Your next argument will be that the same people who clamor for sexual-preference equality, gay marriage and gay rights were the people who 50 and 60 years ago lead the fight for women's rights and against segregation, and fought against slavery before them. but you'd be off on that one too. the vast majority of people during those time thought women should have those rights, segregation was wrong and slavery was wrong as well. But the vast majority of people right now realize that marriage is a religious institution and that most religions condemn homosexuality and that the laws governing legalized marriages are nothing more than a reflection of those same beliefs.

[BunnysBastatrds 1,940]

Dude, the people 'directly affected by it' are all the poor students that don't get any prom at all now. All because a few discriminating asswholes didn't want a girl wearing a tux.

 

If you really think the end result was equal to the problem, then you're at Recliner Pilot-level intelligence.

 

 

Have you ever lived in a small town like Bumfock, Ms? I'm pretty sure everyone in town knew she was a clam bumper. Everybody knows everybody elses business. Doesn't sound like she just came out of the closet. I'll be willing to bet if she would have shown up wearing a dress with her date, no one would have given a sh!t. The millitary has had a don't ask don't tell policy for years now and it seems the rest of the country as a whole has adopted this idea when it comes to gays. Even in Bumfock.

 

I'm sure she didn't expect the scool to cancel the prom altogether. But I bet she learns a lesson from it. Go with the flow (except going down when aunt flow is there).

[jgcrawfish 232]

Wrong. If they don't like it, they can follow federal law or let the feds come to their state and force them to follow it.

 

 

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1294680

 

(click on "listen")

 

without even clicking the link, i'm assuming you're talking about the Federally recognized right of gays to marry? no? boy, did i ever call that in my previous post. it's like you gay backers have a script you follow or something.

[FeelingMN 273]

Sorry, but that is non-responsive. The fact that other deviant behaviors do or do not exist is irrelevant.

 

Irrelevant to what? To the notion of what is considered deviant? Acutally, I think it is pertinent....it shows that certain behaviors deemed deviant at one point in history can come to be accepted...even promoted as part of upholding some standard of health later.

 

Since males need only impregnate females for the propagation of the species, would you say that in the natural order of things, homosexuality is less "deviant" than polygamy?

 

Again, with the masturbation.....where would this "rank" on the spectrum since it does not lead to propagation of the species. Is it therefore more deviant than male-female intercourse?

 

Sexuality <> Reproduction

[jgcrawfish 232]

Have you ever lived in a small town like Bumfock, Ms? I'm pretty sure everyone in town knew she was a clam bumper. Everybody knows everybody elses business. Doesn't sound like she just came out of the closet. I'll be willing to bet if she would have shown up wearing a dress with her date, no one would have given a sh!t. The millitary has had a don't ask don't tell policy for years now and it seems the rest of the country as a whole has adopted this idea when it comes to gays. Even in Bumfock.

 

I'm sure she didn't expect the scool to cancel the prom altogether. But I bet she learns a lesson from it. Go with the flow (except going down when aunt flow is there).

 

exactly, the girl could have had her pie and ate it too (thank you, thank you, i'll be here all week) if she just would have gone along. there are girls in my high school prom pictures from 20 yrs ago that took pictures together as friends, and took them with their dates. She could have had all the prom fun she wanted, but she had to push it by going public about going with a girl then take it a step farther by wanting to wear a tux. then she went totally "look at me" by dialing up the ACLU.

 

Screw her and screw you who seem to think the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many.

[FeelingMN 273]

But I bet she learns a lesson from it. Go with the flow

 

Then why won't you fill out your Census form?

 

[FranksTanks 0]

Then why won't you fill out your Census form?

 

[FranksTanks 0]

Stay classy Mississippi! & all you freedom loving bigots!

[jgcrawfish 232]

wow, the majority have spoken again, and we want the word "God" in our schools...

 

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/11/ple...dex.html?hpt=T2

[Frank M 181]

but that hasn't been your point all along. you just conveniently grab for the "poor students" piece when it suits you.

 

No, I don't think the other students should have been punished for the self aggrandizement of the selfish little thing that started all this. But I commend them for not backing down from their beliefs when faced with a no-win situation. If the had asked the kids in the school, most would likely say "whatever, let her go with whoever she wants", but that's putting the power in the hands of a bunch of teenagers who don't have the benefit of years of life experiences and wisdom. It's our responsibility as parents to help protect our children, in and turn it's the schools responsibility to afford that same level of protection when acting in the stead of the parents. The beliefs of their town, community, etc are obviously different than your gay beliefs.

 

But you think the gay girl who wouldn't back down from her beliefs is focked up. Interesting.

[FranksTanks 0]

wow, the majority have spoken again, and we want the word "God" in our schools...

 

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/11/ple...dex.html?hpt=T2

Sure you shouldn't have just started your on thread for something so unrelated?

[BunnysBastatrds 1,940]

Stay classy Mississippi! & all you freedom loving bigots!

 

 

Are you as feminine as Forrest Gump?

[jgcrawfish 232]

But you think the gay girl who wouldn't back down from her beliefs is focked up. Interesting.

 

dense much? big difference between "their" beliefs and "her" beliefs. when gays are the majority let them vote in their people and their laws. and if when/if that happens, I'll either live with it, or I'll leave...simple as that.

[Frank M 181]

dense much? big difference between "their" beliefs and "her" beliefs. when gays are the majority let them vote in their people and their laws. and if when/if that happens, I'll either live with it, or I'll leave...simple as that.

 

 

Why not just leave now and avoid the rush?

[SUXBNME 1,348]

I like to dine on living human flesh. WHERE'S MY FOCKING RIGHTS ?

[jgcrawfish 232]

Sure you shouldn't have just started your on thread for something so unrelated?

 

the leap from gay rights to religion isn't even a leap, it's more of a step. fact is that most people who have some semblance of religious beliefs also have some semblance of an aversion to gay rights...they tend to go hand in hand.

 

my reasoning is less spiritual and more primal...i simply have no interest in dudes and don't really see how any guy can. conversely, I completely get lesbians because I like girls. It's simple math. however, had I any daughters my viewpoint would likely not be the same because my preference would be not to have a gay child, either way (not that my preference has any bearing on my child's choice). That being said, with MY point of view, my preference is also not to have my children exposed to that style of life, now or in the near future. The basis of my belief is very elementary. God or Mother Nature or evolution or whatever mechanism you believe in put down some irrefutable facts: Their parts were made to bear the young of the species, and our parts were made supply their parts with the ingredients necessary to accomplish that. In short, woman was made for man and man for woman.

[jgcrawfish 232]

Why not just leave now and avoid the rush?

 

based on the sheer # of you in this thread, you might be right...

[FranksTanks 0]

Are you as feminine as Forrest Gump?

How insecure are you really?

[jets24 6]

Wrong. If they don't like it, they can follow federal law or let the feds come to their state and force them to follow it.

 

 

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1294680

 

(click on "listen")

 

Funny, I don't remember hearing the feds coming into the school and forcing anything.

[jets24 6]

What cracks me up is the clowns that take a stance behind a Christian anti-gay agenda (surferskin, jets24, RP, crawfish) but won't come out and simply say they don't believe homosexuality is moral (because the Bible tells them so). They'll ask how the gays are being discriminated against and try to keep poking holes in law from every angle ("It's the fact of the tux wearing from the girls."), etc. Or they'll do like jets did and lump homosexuality in with polygamy and beastiality. Patent Christian anti-gay tactic.

 

When they realize they're beat and there is no legal basis for discrimination, they'll claim there isn't enough money to fight the big, bad ACLU.

 

Hey look! It's Chronic Husker and his broad sweep of people! You don't know sh!t about me or my feelings. If it makes you feel better to call me a clown who does what the Bible tells me to do, then feel free. You're focking wrong but don't let that stop you. How about rather than name calling and pushing your hidden agenda, you comment on the polygamy question for once? What's that? Don't have an answer. OK. Gotcha. Don't kid yourself CH. Polygamists are discriminated against every day. How soon until we have to allow them to be married, etc.?

[FranksTanks 0]

the leap from gay rights to religion isn't even a leap, it's more of a step. fact is that most people who have some semblance of religious beliefs also have some semblance of an aversion to gay rights...they tend to go hand in hand.

 

my reasoning is less spiritual and more primal...i simply have no interest in dudes and don't really see how anyone can. conversely, I completely get lesbians because I like girls. It's simple math. however, had I any daughters my viewpoint would likely not be the same because my preference would be not to have a gay child, either way (not that my preference has any bearing on my child's choice). That being said, with MY point of view, my preference is also not to have my children exposed to that style of life, now or in the near future. The basis of my belief is very elementary. God or Mother Nature or evolution or whatever mechanism you believe in put down some irrefutable facts: Their parts were made to bear the young of the species, and our parts were made supply their parts with the ingredients necessary to accomplish that. In short, woman was made for man and man for woman.

Dude I completely understand! I'm not gay for good reasons and I don't understand why all people don't dig chicks.

While we're at it, I'm also against fat people getting it on too. Its revolting. As far as I'm concerned fat focks shouldn't be allowed anywhere near me or other normal people that just want to live their lives without their sweaty stinking godforsaken morbidness.. But fock, unfortunately they're still people and as long as they are human, I guess I'm all for human rights. I just hope they're happy.

[jgcrawfish 232]

Dude I completely understand! I'm not gay for good reasons and I don't understand why all people don't dig chicks.

While we're at it, I'm also against fat people getting it on too. Its revolting. As far as I'm concerned fat focks shouldn't be allowed anywhere near me or other normal people that just want to live their lives without their sweaty stinking godforsaken morbidness.. But fock, unfortunately they're still people and as long as they are human, I guess I'm all for human rights. I just hope they're happy.

 

oh fock, don't even get me started on fatasses and airplane seats!

 

ok, i get the gist. and if you want to get technical and adapt them biblical and all that, then those gluttony fockers are probably headed to hell with the homos!

 

[jerryskids 5,286]

Irrelevant to what? To the notion of what is considered deviant? Acutally, I think it is pertinent....it shows that certain behaviors deemed deviant at one point in history can come to be accepted...even promoted as part of upholding some standard of health later.

Again, with the masturbation.....where would this "rank" on the spectrum since it does not lead to propagation of the species. Is it therefore more deviant than male-female intercourse?

 

Sexuality <> Reproduction

Again, I get your point. I was pointing out that homosexuality is "deviant" by the definition of the word. To your point I suppose, let's accept that masturbation is "deviant" although I don't think it is, by the definition I provided. Where it "ranks" is that it is less deviant than homosexuality. I'm married, I have 3 kids, and I occasionally masturbate. I would put it slightly more "deviant" than, say, driving a car or playing golf, neither of which contribute to propagating the species. I say "slightly more" because if you did it right before trying to impregnate someone, it is detrimental to the attempt.

 

HTH

[jgcrawfish 232]

Again, I get your point. I was pointing out that homosexuality is "deviant" by the definition of the word. To your point I suppose, let's accept that masturbation is "deviant" although I don't think it is, by the definition I provided. Where it "ranks" is that it is less deviant than homosexuality. I'm married, I have 3 kids, and I occasionally masturbate. I would put it slightly more "deviant" than, say, driving a car or playing golf, neither of which contribute to propagating the species. I say "slightly more" because if you did it right before trying to impregnate someone, it is detrimental to the attempt.

 

HTH

 

i like your logic skids...i'll keep in mind just in case i ever get arrested in your neck of the woods and need slimy attorney help!

we'll work on the "slightly less deviant" defense! it's just too bad you're a Cards fan.

[jets24 6]

Since males need only impregnate females for the propagation of the species, would you say that in the natural order of things, homosexuality is less "deviant" than polygamy?

 

[jerryskids 5,286]

i like your logic skids...i'll keep in mind just in case i ever get arrested in your neck of the woods and need slimy attorney help!

we'll work on the "slightly less deviant" defense! it's just too bad you're a Cards fan.

Thanks. My brother always hated arguing with me; he'd say stuff like "just because you are good at arguing doesn't make you right#@!"

 

I don't have any skin in the game on this topic; as I said earlier I don't really care what others do, unless it impacts others. Pretty libertarian that way. But I find this topic fascinating and like playing devil's advocate because I don't think the "anti-ghey" crowd presents a decent argument against it, yet I think there are such arguments.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Can you even imagine this happening, or even being an issue, in NYC, Chicago, Philly, etc? It blows your mind when you read about these backwoods places and their antiquated ways of thinking.

 

Yeah, cuz New York is sooooooo cosmopolitan.

 

 

Gay Marriage Bill Killed By New York Senate

 

By Frank James

 

New York is the latest state to deal a setback to gay-marriage proponents as the state senate voted down legislation that would have legalized gay marriage.

 

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/

 

 

'I thought I died': Gay man Jack Price, beaten in Queens, talks about attack

 

 

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2...his_ordeal.html

[Frank M 181]

the leap from gay rights to religion isn't even a leap, it's more of a step. fact is that most people who have some semblance of religious beliefs also have some semblance of an aversion to gay rights...they tend to go hand in hand.

 

my reasoning is less spiritual and more primal...i simply have no interest in dudes and don't really see how any guy can. conversely, I completely get lesbians because I like girls. It's simple math. however, had I any daughters my viewpoint would likely not be the same because my preference would be not to have a gay child, either way (not that my preference has any bearing on my child's choice). That being said, with MY point of view, my preference is also not to have my children exposed to that style of life, now or in the near future. The basis of my belief is very elementary. God or Mother Nature or evolution or whatever mechanism you believe in put down some irrefutable facts: Their parts were made to bear the young of the species, and our parts were made supply their parts with the ingredients necessary to accomplish that. In short, woman was made for man and man for woman.

 

You don't need to justify your bigotry. We get it. You don't like gays. Unfortunately for you, given the fact that many animal species practice homosexuality, your argument holds little water.

 

And LOL at "I get lesbians unless they're my daughters." Nothing like consistency.

[naomi 347]

What cracks me up is the clowns that take a stance behind a Christian anti-gay agenda (surferskin, jets24, RP, crawfish) but won't come out and simply say they don't believe homosexuality is moral (because the Bible tells them so). They'll ask how the gays are being discriminated against and try to keep poking holes in law from every angle ("It's the fact of the tux wearing from the girls."), etc. Or they'll do like jets did and lump homosexuality in with polygamy and beastiality. Patent Christian anti-gay tactic.

 

When they realize they're beat and there is no legal basis for discrimination, they'll claim there isn't enough money to fight the big, bad ACLU.

 

Not to say those four don't (I don't know), but I attribute the aversion in the community to not wanting to openly accept what they see as immorality.

 

People who find it wrong that morality is being injected into the picture are overlooking that morality is a basis all the time when it comes to rules and laws (doesn't breach Sep. of Church and State but that's another discussion. Some people think recognition of morality...period means a breach there). We might appeal to different sources of it (inward, relative to culture at this moment in time, divine) but everybody has moral considerations.

 

Opponents of the apparent majority in this girl's community disagree with the morality in question (homosexuality is immoral), so they recognize it as being 'pushed' and bearing with it a personal vendetta.

 

WHY aversion to homosexuality comes off as less rational than say aversion to 40-year-old men marrying 12-year-old girls is because people see harm stemming from one and not the other. In order to see the harm in society embracing homosexuality, it means you'll have teleological (design and purpose, in this case for mankind) and theological/philosophical presuppositions of truth.

 

We can immediately see how the pairing of the average 12-year-old in our society, and a 40-year-old means the 12-year-old is being exploited and oppressed. We don't immediately see how rejecting the recognition of God's intent for his creation (...if God and an intent of his exists obviously) divides us as a people from him, and we become hardened and further established in our own ways which lead to destruction. The much preferred outlook is that people are inherently good, and as we evolve we are continually closer to being the "better angels of ourselves" like it's put in American History X. What's "right" is right because of our will and our declaration. Or our quest to survive and survive well is a determiner.

 

The very idea people hold to "what God intends" and don't actually see or converse with said God infuriates them. It's in our natures to be at emnity with God according to the bible. It also talks about God revealing to man what is good, and man willfully rejecting it. You might be very skeptical that someone who claims to know/be known by God actually is (if there's a God). If the bible is his word, according to God you too (general you) have knowledge of truth. In what esteem you hold that truth in is another story.

 

For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

 

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

 

Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

 

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

 

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

 

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

 

And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

 

Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

 

Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator.

 

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

 

And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

 

And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

 

Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

 

Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

 

Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

 

Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

 

Anyway, I know that struggles like this are losing struggles for those with aversion to homosexuality.