Who is Wade Englund?

[_Nightlion]

You rock Nightlion... that was funny.

Please, but thanks, do not encourage me.

[_thews]

Please answer my question Wade, as you see yourself a person knowledgeable enough to give advice. What would you do, hypothetically, if you were gay?

I would, hypotheticaly speaking, take the advise that I would give to anyone who is gay, and that is: first, don't define yourself by your sexual orientation, but rather by your prevailing character; and second, for your own sake and best interest, rise above your demonstrably unhealthy inclinations and do those things, or rather work at developing those kinds of relationships that are designed to grow us in Godly love and familial joy (see Gen. 2:24 and Mt. 19:15.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Thanks. In a nutshell, you'd advise the man to reject his actual orientation, and, for the sake of Godly love, "work on developing" relationships God would approve of... interesting. Would this include taking a wife?

[_wenglund]

Oh, for heaven's sake, Wade, he was parodying YOU. As was Spurven.

Really? Ya think? LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

hanks. In a nutshell, you'd advise the man to reject his actual orientation, and, for the sake of Godly love, "work on developing" relationships God would approve of... interesting.

Close. I would advise the man to rise above his sexual inclination, and embrace his Godly orientation.

Would this include taking a wife?

It would depend on two things: 1) strength of convictions, and 2) the ability to engage in healthy sexual relations with a woman. If either or both of these things are absent, I would advise against marriage.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_beastie]

Really? Ya think? LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

So if you actually knew they were parodying you, why did you decry the fact that I, and others, did not also call them bigots like you?

[_thews]

Thanks. In a nutshell, you'd advise the man to reject his actual orientation, and, for the sake of Godly love, "work on developing" relationships God would approve of... interesting.

Close. I would advise the man to rise above his sexual inclination, and embrace his Godly orientation.

So, what you're saying is that though God made the man gay, it's the man's fault and should rise above the way God made him in order to act as God desired?

Would this include taking a wife?

It would depend on two things: 1) strength of convictions, and 2) the ability to engage in healthy sexual relations with a woman. If either or both of these things are absent, I would advise against marriage.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

So, you're saying that strength in conviction can override the fact one is gay? Doesn't the man's ability to "engage" in sexual relations require him to be sexually attracted to his mate? Is this fair for her if he tries to suppress his natural attraction to other men? Is God testing this man? I'm finding it hard to understand your point. One one hand, what I believe you're saying is that suppressing ones own SSA desire is a choice, but that doesn't mean he can choose to be sexually attracted to the opposite sex... can it?

Thanks Wade. I appreciate your honest answers.

[_schreech]

What a fantasy. Do you see yourself in green tights?

LOL

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Please answer my question Wade, as you see yourself a person knowledgeable enough to give advice. What would you do, hypothetically, if you were gay?

I would, hypotheticaly speaking, take the advise that I would give to anyone who is gay, and that is: first, don't define yourself by your sexual orientation, but rather by your prevailing character; and second, for your own sake and best interest, rise above your demonstrably unhealthy inclinations and do those things, or rather work at developing those kinds of relationships that are designed to grow us in Godly love and familial joy (see Gen. 2:24 and Mt. 19:15.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Hello,

In other words, you advise him to be:

You.

:/

V/R
Dr. Cam

[_Spurven Ten Sing]

Wade calmly explains his trouble with women online.

[_Tator]

My complaint about Society for the Study of Sexual Attraction Disorders

I have been following the stories and comments surrounding Society for the Study of Sexual Attraction Disorders, and frankly, I'm appalled. What sort of severe tunnel vision has led Society for the Study of Sexual Attraction Disorders to claim that it is a bearer and agent of the Creator's purpose? Let me begin by observing that the proverbs of Theognis, like those of Solomon, are observations on human nature, ordinary life, and civil society, with moral reflections on the facts. I quote him as a witness of the fact that an armed revolt against Society for the Study of Sexual Attraction Disorders is morally justified. However, I suspect that it is not yet strategically justified. For the most part, Society for the Study of Sexual Attraction Disorders is caught up in an irrational belief about its own powers and abilities. Still, Society for the Study of Sexual Attraction Disorders fully intends to concoct a version of reality that fully contradicts real life. But that's not enough, not for it. Society for the Study of Sexual Attraction Disorders will additionally suppress our freedom, which is why I contend that I'm at loggerheads with it on at least one important issue. Namely, Society for the Study of Sexual Attraction Disorders argues that every word that leaves its mouth is teeming with useful information. I take the opposite position, that I wish that one of the innumerable busybodies who are forever making "statistical studies" about nonsense would instead make a statistical study that means something. For example, I'd like to see a statistical study of Society for the Study of Sexual Attraction Disorders's capacity to learn the obvious. Also worthwhile would be a statistical study of how many eccentric lumpenproletariats realize that Society for the Study of Sexual Attraction Disorders keeps saying that it has a fearless dedication to reason and truth. This is exemplary of the nonsensical rhetoric and scaremongering that typifies the language of addlepated soi-disant do-gooders and other disdainful knuckle-draggers.

Interdenominationalism is the principal ingredient in the ideological flypaper Society for the Study of Sexual Attraction Disorders uses to attract picayunish, politically incorrect stirrers into its Praetorian Guard. Now I could go off on that point alone, but it's a pretty good liar most of the time. However, Society for the Study of Sexual Attraction Disorders tells so many lies, it's bound to trip itself up someday. On the issue of commercialism, Society for the Study of Sexual Attraction Disorders is wrong again. Sure, this makes its communications seem empty-headed and even a bit iconoclastic. But if you're like most people you just shrug your shoulders whenever you hear about Society for the Study of Sexual Attraction Disorders's latest squalid disquisitions. When your shoulders get tired of shrugging I hope you'll realize that if we let Society for the Study of Sexual Attraction Disorders resort to underhanded tactics, then greed, corruption, and academicism will characterize the government. Oppressive measures will be directed against citizens. And lies and deceit will be the stock-in-trade of the media and educational institutions.

Society for the Study of Sexual Attraction Disorders's bald-faced lies and growing list of material falsehoods raise some new and very disturbing issues. Why? That's easy. In asserting that people prefer "cultural integrity" and "multicultural sensitivity" to health, food, safety, and the opportunity to choose their own course through life, Society for the Study of Sexual Attraction Disorders demonstrates an astounding narrowness of vision. I have just enough stomach left to address one last instance of Society for the Study of Sexual Attraction Disorders's vindictive imbecility: Society for the Study of Sexual Attraction Disorders sincerely believes that men are spare parts in the social repertoire—mere optional extras.

Compliments of:
Scott Pakin's automatic complaint-letter generator http://www.pakin.org/complaint/

This is great. This thread needed an obvious intentional farce to put the unintentional farces into perspectrive.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade, this is pretty close to how most of most of your posts read to me. The only difference is that it didn't pretend to answer a question with another question like you commonly do.

Sorry but I don't know if your farce here is intentional or unintentional. As for perspectrive...... I don't know that it does that if I can't tell whether your posts are an intentional or an unintentional farce or even understand most of your posts.

I guess I am just grateful that you didn't put each sentence into quotes and give a rebuttal to each sentence or ask a question about each sentence.