Please enable it in your browser's preferences.
You can visit our support center if you're having problems.
Please try one of our supported browsers.
Chrome | Firefox | Safari | Internet Explorer
James O'Brien speaks to a woman who believes that she can - and the conversation was fascinating!
LBC Best Bits
- almost 4 years ago
I never said "The only difference between live and friend ship is sex". of course that's groundless. Love AND attraction are choices. period. To make them some genetic event is simply Alice in Wonderland. Reality is harsh. no matter who or why someone what's to believe otherwise. sex, love and attraction are all choices we make. Homosexual people choose to have sex, love and have affection for the same sex. The preposterous idea that they could NEVER make the conventional choice to love, have sex with, and place their affections on a person of the same sex is naive.
- almost 4 years ago
@rthomasfrench Sorry I didn't see your comment until now. I find your theory, that the only difference between love and friendship is sex, to be completely groundless.
Likewise this idea that you have that sexuality unites people and allows them to have one voice and share one opinion. You can not say that gay people as a group are for or against divorce or marriage or anything like that, the only thing they have in common is that they are gay.
You don't seem to understand what gay means so I will explain it:
It means loving someone who is the same gender as you. It means being sexually attracted to someone the same gender as you.
It doesn't mean anything else. It has nothing to do with the other things you talked about.
- over 5 years ago
Hello rabbitwho, I do hope this site isn't going to deteriorate into the same juvenile attack banter that other sites do, like Twitter. I much prefer to keep a spirit of respect and intelligent discourse. Although I do so appreciate your pop logic. Sort of like Meatloaf sells lots of records so it must be good music.... I too have had close male friends for 40 years, does that mean we're homosexual? I am happy to support your uncles God given right to have that relationship and I am glad he has managed to have found happiness in it. More than can be said for many of your uncles detractors. Isn't it funny that the same group that will support the right to have multiple partners, and no fault divorce, is the same group that will use the argument that the length of their relationship is virtuous proof that homosexuality is genetic. Try to connect those dots in anthropology, sociology or biology class. Sad & failed logic I'd say. Your argument is very weak. Almost as weak as O'Briens. Can we get someone who can address the ethos & morays question? No one is refuting the God given right of people to engage in homosexual behavior by choice. I am so sorry that nature is so ruthless and self promoting that homosexuality would breed itself out of existence…rather quickly. It's the silly notion that the extremely small homosexual community would try to redefine science, Love, marriage and family for the rest of the population of the world. Just because they want to believe that the sun rises in the west won't make the rest of us, who know otherwise, believe it. Reality is such an unforgiving bugger. Sorry, that particular emperor has no clothes.
- over 5 years ago
@rthomasfrench My uncle has been with his partner for 40 years, you think they stayed together for 40 years because of sex rather than love? You must think gay sex is amazing.
I cured my gay uncle! He had a sore throat and a blocked nose and I told him to drink hot tea and lemon with a spoon of honey and he said the next day he felt much better. I think it works on straight people too, try it!
O'Brien's premise is preposterous. His ridiculous notion that you should be able to" turn" a straight person into a homosexual if you could "turn" a homosexual straight is just plain silly and designed to defame the whole point. His condescension to her premises was insulting and her patience speaks to her character, and his. There IS a standard of overall social & mental health. Until the last 2 or 3 decades the totality of history deemed homosexuality abhorrent behavior. Sexual intimacy is NOT love. To compare homosexual affection as healthy love, although politically correct and becoming more "socially acceptable", is beyond comprehension, scientifically unsupportable and intellectually dishonest. His ignorance and blurring of the lines of ethos and morays exposes his ignorance and pop cultural ideology. His abstract approach to religion, which he portrays as a sort of Voo Doo shell game is the standard talking points that paint the tender Mercies of God as hate. This precious woman has compassion on homosexuals when even Darwin would deem homosexuality a defective gene. How sad to be O'Brien.