Who is Wade Englund?

[_wenglund]

Obviously gay and straight people can manage to have sexual relations with anyone, given enough motivation.

Then, we are no longer in disagreement on this specific point.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_beastie]

Wow. There’s just so much in this bag o’ cr*p that Wade has deposited on our doorstep, it’s hard to know where to begin.

Wade

On principle and as a reverse object lesson. Obviously. (Hint: parodies of real bigotry would still be bigotry and offencive and warrant objection. Your silence was telling.)

Now that I have answered your question, how about answering mine:

Are women as a group, and homosexuals as a group, above and beyond criticism?

The point is that they were parodying the ridiculous nature of your grouping homosexuality with pedophilia, bestiality, and necrophilia. They were, moreover, demonstrating that you actually WOULD care if the LDS church were lumped in with Naziism, Heaven’s Gate, and the People’s Temple. You showed that you cared because you assert that my silence on their posts is “telling.”

What is telling is your lack of integrity. You DO care if the LDS church is lumped in with the social movement equivalent of pedophilia, and yet pretend – yes, PRETEND – that the gays you invited to your website were being hypersensitive to take offense to your grouping. So there was nothing to object to in the parodies, because the purpose was clear to anyone that possesses a basic ability to comprehend written text. The parodies were not seriously grouping the LDS church with Naziism, Heaven’s Gate, and the People’s Temple: they were designed to get the exactly the reaction from you which they got, which reaction betrayed your lack of integrity in pretending that it wouldn’t bother you. You, on the other hand, were serious when you grouped homosexuality with pedophilia, necrophilia, and bestiality.

Seriously, it is so painfully obvious why the gay men you invited to your website, and any other sensible person who happened upon it, found it so offensive and risible as to immediately prevent your supposed real goal of communication. And yet you still don’t get it, after it’s been repeatedly, explicitly explained to you over a period of years. It really makes me wonder what in the heck is wrong with you.

No person is “above and beyond criticism”, but when you generalize about an entire group of people born within that group, you ignore a very basic truth about human beings: there is always more variability WITHIN a given group than there is BETWEEN that group and other groups. In other words, while some women may be vain, catty, and whatever other pejorative term you used I don’t want to bother to look up, there are too many other women who do NOT possess those traits as to make it an accurate generalization. Moreover, there exist enough vain and catty heterosexual men as to further make the generalization, used to supposedly differentiate the groups, even more inaccurate.

If the majority, or even a significant enough number to trigger your generalization, of women YOU have know fit that category then either those women are in a cultural environment which ENCOURAGES vain and catty behavior, or you are a bigot who notices vain and catty behavior in women while ignoring it in straight men. Or you’re incapable of recognizing vanity and cattiness expressed in slightly different formats. Who knows.

[_beastie]

Those women - who appear to be poorly drawn sitcom characters come to life - are saying misandric things. Fortunately, the light misandry they express isn't part of a deep history of oppressive behavior towards men and we can dismiss them with an eyeroll.

Amen.

But saying that all men eat their boogers is pretty much the intellectual equivalent of Wade's statements, I'll grant him that.

[_beastie]

If the neadrathals here, with mono-dimensional views of human sexuality, are hypocritically prejudice against considering the modern, reasonable, and multi-dimensional perspective about sexual relations from men over 50 who have never married, and doubt what is said about gay men being capable of having sexual relations with women, perhaps they may cponsult several of the previously married, fathers of children, openly gay men participating on this board.

But, that may be more than your microscopic brains can handle.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

LOL. You mean the DIVORCED openly gay fathers?

Yes, most - perhaps not all, given the wide range of human sexual inclinations - human beings can hold their noses and have sex with someone to whom they're not particularly attracted for whatever reason. But that isn't exactly a recipe for a healthy and lasting relationship. And one can only hold one's nose so long.

[_EAllusion]

I mentioned nothing about sexual dimorphism. If you will look at my initial statement again, you will se that what I'm proposing is that interactions between intrinsic, internal psychological dynamics unique to females and expressing certain emphasis and de-emphasis, becomes reflected in cultural norms and assumption

That's sexual dimorphism. I think that speaks to the quality of the rest of your post, which I do not wish to encourage further.

[_thews]

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?

I didn't say that God made the man gay. And, I said nothing about "fault?" I have no idea where you got that from, but it wasn't from me.

I realize you didn't say those words... I did in an attempt to understand you. If God made the man gay, then required the man to not act on his God-given attractions, then it would, for all intent and purposes, be the fault of the man for being gay and acting on his God-given attraction towards other men.

So, you're saying that strength in conviction can override the fact one is gay?

Obviously.

You're wrong. You can pretend, but you can't change your attraction just because you want to out of guilt.

Doesn't the man's ability to "engage" in sexual relations require him to be sexually attracted to his mate?

It only requires that he be able to respond to sexual stimulation.

You're really out of your league here Wade... this notion is absurd.

Is this fair for her if he tries to suppress his natural attraction to other men?

No more so than it is unfair to her for him to suppress his natural attraction to other women.

Who said anything about a man being attracted to other women? Are you claiming it's impossible for a man to be sexually satisfied with his wife? That's not very Mormon of you to imply in my opinion.

Is God testing this man?

No.

They why did God make the man gay only to torment him? God gets what God wants, so the logical conclusion is that God wanted the man to be gay, only to disapprove of acting on how he made him. Do you disagree?

I'm finding it hard to understand your point.

That is because I am looking at this in a way that may be new and unfamiliar to you and not consistent with your current way of thinking.

You're looking at it in a way that is not realistic, but only your theory of how others should act based on your opinion of how they should act. Assuming you were "right" and a man could make himself straight, it would be based on your sexuality. One can't gauge others in one giant bucket, so your logic is only relevant to you in my opinion.

On 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?

I believe that sexual attraction may be somewhat maluable, particularly when it is put into proper perspective with things like emotional and social maturity, intamacy, and love as well as when couched in the context of a highly desirable goal that both parties are deeply committed to.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I think you're wrong. I saw a book advertised on CNN called "Born that way" that showed pictures of kids who were always gay. My niece has a friend with a boy who is fascinated with the Little Mermaid and has always been gay, and he's too young to even know what gay is. This isn't a conscious choice, and it's certainly not one a person can change based on guilt for acting on a natural attraction.

Again Wade, this must be difficult to discuss in here and I appreciate your honesty. If you would be so kind, I'd like to ask you one more question. If the current Mormon Prophet had a change revelation from God (like the one in 1978 where men of color would be allowed to hold the priesthood), which changed Mormonism to allow gay people to be Mormon, would your stance on the subject change?

Thanks

[_wenglund]

Since Beastie is once again acting like she knows me better than I know myself, and putting words into my mouth. And, since thews keeps asking me question that presuppose things I have not said not do I purport; there is evidently no need for me to be involved any longer with this "discussion." So, I will leave my part of this thread in the hands those intent on speaking for me. Perhaps, though, I will look in from time to time to see what all you have had to say for me and about me. LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Chap]

... I will leave my part of this thread in the hands those intent on speaking for me. Perhaps, though, I will look in from time to time to see what all you have had to say for me and about me. LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

A celibate man is going to stop telling us his views on sexual matters (for a while).

How much new light and knowledge shall we lose as a result of this, I wonder?

[_beastie]

Since Beastie is once again acting like she knows me better than I know myself, and putting words into my mouth. And, since thews keeps asking me question that presuppose things I have not said not do I purport; there is evidently no need for me to be involved any longer with this "discussion." So, I will leave my part of this thread in the hands those intent on speaking for me. Perhaps, though, I will look in from time to time to see what all you have had to say for me and about me. LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Judging by your internet interactions, you must be the most misunderstood person on the planet.

I suggest that it's time for you to consider that your learning disability actually does affect your ability to effectively interact through written text. It's time to stop blaming others for this problem, and accept that it's a weakness you have to live with. And perhaps the hobby of interactions on internet boards and websites is not ideal for someone with this problem.

If you persist in a hobby that apparently results in frequent miscommunication and frustration, then perhaps you ought to put a warning at the end of your posts, something like this:

WARNING: Given Wade's history of internet interactions, readers will probably misunderstand what Wade is trying to say, so responding is pointless.

[_stemelbow]

Judging by your internet interactions, you must be the most misunderstood person on the planet.

I suggest that it's time for you to consider that your learning disability actually does affect your ability to effectively interact through written text. It's time to stop blaming others for this problem, and accept that it's a weakness you have to live with. And perhaps the hobby of interactions on internet boards and websites is not ideal for someone with this problem.

If you persist in a hobby that apparently results in frequent miscommunication and frustration, then perhaps you ought to put a warning at the end of your posts, something like this:

WARNING: Given Wade's history of internet interactions, readers will probably misunderstand what Wade is trying to say, so responding is pointless.

I think the misunderstanding is due Old Testament people drawing conclusions about Wade that aren't there. I have been in the same boat. We're both faithful LDS here defending the faith, even Mak as expressed the same frustration. Misunderstanding seems evident among those who keep characterizing me as someone I'm not. This is not my problem, it doesn't seem to be Wade's either. Sadly, its the atmosphere and hostilities that are the normal fare here. But we can change that. We can be better than that. We should. We should at least try.