LGBT&Q?

[Crackpot]

What the hell is the Q for and what does it mean?

[MajGenl.Meade]

"Questioning"

In case you don't know which (if any) category you belong to.

[dales]

I for inter-sexed.

[Gob]

Queer?

[Crackpot]

Wouldn't that be redundant?

[Gob]

You know, the really poofy campy type.

[MajGenl.Meade]

No you goofs - it really is "Questioning". People want to snag youth (in particular) who are wondering if they might be homosexual etc. so that they can tell them "Yes you are" and persuade them to start putting confusion into action

Torbay's got you covered from any angle:

Group tags:
all » LGBT&Q
Bi-Sexual (2)
Gay (2)
Lesbian (2)
Questioning (2)
Transgender (2)

http://www.torcom.org.uk/groupsearch/re ... onomy%3A33

[rubato]

Oh brother.

As if there are any significant group of people who have not, by that age, experienced an unequivocal sexual response.

Really General. that is just idiotic.

yrs,
rubato

[Guinevere]

No you goofs - it really is "Questioning". People want to snag youth (in particular) who are wondering if they might be homosexual etc. so that they can tell them "Yes you are" and persuade them to start putting confusion into action

Because straight people have no ability to influence youth, nor does the still significant amount of prejudice, fear, and hate directed towards gays (i.e., the comment quoted above).

[oldr_n_wsr]

I know a few people who are gay (2 guys and 1 gal) and I have yet to see where they have tried to "recruit" anyone into "gayness". Many young people "try-out" their sexuality, but sooner or later they end up what they are.

[Crackpot]

My issue is they seem to putting themselves in charge of speaking for a group that I doubt they really represent.

[Gob]

[MajGenl.Meade]

No you goofs - it really is "Questioning". People want to snag youth (in particular) who are wondering if they might be homosexual etc. so that they can tell them "Yes you are" and persuade them to start putting confusion into action

Because straight people have no ability to influence youth, nor does the still significant amount of prejudice, fear, and hate directed towards gays (i.e., the comment quoted above).

Who said that the "people" doing the snagging are not themselves straight? They probably are. It's a cottage industry for local government oiks in the UK to stick their busybody noses into everything. Ah - no fear, no hate.

Prejudice? Possibly so; I am prejudiced in favour of God's plan for marriage; one man/one woman. I am prejudiced against those who tell me what I must think to avoid being labelled prejudiced. I also am prejudiced in favour of good driving and prejudiced against drunk drivers. I am prejudiced against astrology; prejudiced for Oxfam. Prejudiced against "The Lord's Army" in Africa and prejudiced for early childhood education. I've got lots. Don't you?

Meade

[rubato]

"...

Prejudice? Possibly so; I am prejudiced in favour of God's plan for marriage; one man/one woman. ... "

Meade

You mean one man and two wives and two more servant girls don't you? (Jacob) or one wife and one servant girl? (Abraham) or a thousand wives (Soloman) or many concubines (David). Or, well there must be many more.

yrs,
rubato

[MajGenl.Meade]

Not really - more like Matthew 19:4-5a: He said in reply, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?

Are you alleging that what those four men did (and 'many more') was in accordance with God's plan for marriage? If so, that's a bit Biblically weak. There's no real need to explain away mankind's sins; only one character in the Bible was sinless and obeyed God in everything.

Abraham's wife Sarai, too impatient to trust God's promise of having a child, 'gave' her handmaid Hagar to Abraham in order that she could bear a son (perhaps) on their behalf. This was contrary to God's promise.

Jacob was tricked into marrying Leah (rather than Rachel) by the girls' father but then went along with the deal to work for Laban another seven years to win the second wife. Neither Jacob and especially Laban were particularly bothered about God's requirements (which had been clearly expressed in Gen. 2:24 quoted by Jesus, above).

David not only married often, he even violated God's prohibition against murder in gaining his way with Bathsheba - an event which heralded the moral collapse of his family. Probably murdering the husband of your desired woman is not part of "God's plan for marriage" either!

Solomon - well he asked for wisdom (very commendable) and then surrounded himself with women rather than stocking Marmite.

Was God's plan for "marriage" illustrated by these men - or was it the contravention of that plan (and consequences) which is illustrated?

edited to correct misplaced red text

[Econoline]

Solomon - well he asked for wisdom (very commendable) and then surrounded himself with women rather than stocking Marmite.

Thank you, General, for my laugh-out-loud minute of the day!