son comes out of the closet to his religous parents

Master Zik said:

I was never trying to sway you. I was never doing that.

I wasn't trying to convince you that you're wrong. I was just stating you were wrong and why. Everybody else can see it but you.
You're clearly a perturbed individual.
I honestly no longer care about what you're talking about. You seem unable to make sense of what you're saying or stick to one train of thought or at least make that one thing make sense in response to what I'm saying. Several ppl have told me to stop replying to you and asked me why I wasted my time on your strange ignorance. You can be more knowledgable than me but it don't mean **** if you can't convey that knowledge and express it so that others can make sense of from an English language, grammar, spelling and syntax standpoint.

I think I'm going to do that now. Feel free to keep replying to me and addressing me while I carry on discussions/arguments/debate with others though. I never really had a weirdo follow me around like that on NT despite the amount of arguments I've been in.

Click to expand...

Why you always feel compel to bring others into this argument in addition to try and undermine someone's knowledge because of their writing habits?

The sad thing is this is how a lot of Gay youth end up homeless, and strung out on drugs/alcohol.

Keko Jones said:

Master Zik said:

I was never trying to sway you. I was never doing that.


I wasn't trying to convince you that you're wrong. I was just stating you were wrong and why. Everybody else can see it but you.

You're clearly a perturbed individual.

I honestly no longer care about what you're talking about. You seem unable to make sense of what you're saying or stick to one train of thought or at least make that one thing make sense in response to what I'm saying. Several ppl have told me to stop replying to you and asked me why I wasted my time on your strange ignorance. You can be more knowledgable than me but it don't mean **** if you can't convey that knowledge and express it so that others can make sense of from an English language, grammar, spelling and syntax standpoint.


I think I'm going to do that now. Feel free to keep replying to me and addressing me while I carry on discussions/arguments/debate with others though. I never really had a weirdo follow me around like that on NT despite the amount of arguments I've been in.

Click to expand...

Why you always feel compel to bring others into this argument in addition to try and undermine someone's knowledge because of their writing habits?

Click to expand...

I ignored it at first but once this shifted to you saying ppl can't believe in GOD if they don't believe in a "holy" text, right around when you asked me to post a certain way and that you were on a phone, your posts became harder and harder to read in sentence form. I don't know if you don't care or are doing it on purpose but some of your sentences and words used didn't make sense to me. I didn't bother to quote and point out each one so I just tried to make sense of your entire posts and reply as best as I can.

This post for instance I don't know what you mean when you ask me why do I feel compelled to bring others in the argument. I'm not aware of anybody else I've brought in to this argument about ppl being able to believe in GOD without believing in a religious "holy" text. A few posters have quoted me and commented on why I've continued to reply to you, posters who I assumed have read some the argument. That's not me bringing ppl in to this, that's them commenting on it. Regardless of that, it has nothing to do with what's been discussed with in the argument, what you continually choose to ignore, and your replies not really responding to what I'm saying.

I'll just say again, since I'm not 100% tired of repeating myself yet that you can not tell ppl what they can believe in. You can not tell ppl what's not a belief and what is. Rearranging your argument so you say "it's my belief that ppl can't believe in GOD without believing in a "holy" text" doesn't constitute a belief in this context, it's just an odd bias opinion that's factually wrong since ppl do exist that believe in GOD without also believing in a "holy" text.

Peace.

am1x90xnike said:

Discussing hypotheticals is the best way to pin down your argument and decide if your principles hold true. It's how the study of law works, and since we are trying to divine 'sex law' I think it's applicable here.


I reject the 'traditional' definition because of the hard cases I've noted. The guy who is attracted to the sane sex but never acts, and the guy who performs gay acts but identifies as straight...like a guy walks up to you and says 'I just blew a guy in the parking lot, but I'm straight' y'all would really accept that?

Also, are y'all telling me, this three year old kid I'm looking at, right now (step cousin) , who is more concerned with cops and robbers and has zero concept of sex, is gay or straight?

Click to expand...

That 3 yr old knows what sex hes attracted too, you just dont know yet

Keko Jones said:

 

Master Zik said:

I was never trying to sway you. I was never doing that.

I wasn't trying to convince you that you're wrong. I was just stating you were wrong and why. Everybody else can see it but you.
You're clearly a perturbed individual.
I honestly no longer care about what you're talking about. You seem unable to make sense of what you're saying or stick to one train of thought or at least make that one thing make sense in response to what I'm saying. Several ppl have told me to stop replying to you and asked me why I wasted my time on your strange ignorance. You can be more knowledgable than me but it don't mean **** if you can't convey that knowledge and express it so that others can make sense of from an English language, grammar, spelling and syntax standpoint.

I think I'm going to do that now. Feel free to keep replying to me and addressing me while I carry on discussions/arguments/debate with others though. I never really had a weirdo follow me around like that on NT despite the amount of arguments I've been in.

Click to expand...

Why you always feel compel to bring others into this argument in addition to try and undermine someone's knowledge because of their writing habits?

Click to expand...

probably because reading and writing is fundamental to communication through text on an online message board. 

i don't know if you were trying to purposely write with terrible verb-subject-tense agreement to prove a point, but you're one of them. 

am1x90xnike said:

Discussing hypotheticals is the best way to pin down your argument and decide if your principles hold true. It's how the study of law works, and since we are trying to divine 'sex law' I think it's applicable here.


I reject the 'traditional' definition because of the hard cases I've noted. The guy who is attracted to the sane sex but never acts, and the guy who performs gay acts but identifies as straight...like a guy walks up to you and says 'I just blew a guy in the parking lot, but I'm straight' y'all would really accept that?

Click to expand...

You're trying to formulate an argument based on other people with zero empirical data, though. You're making black and white arguments for very complex topics. Unless you're a male performing oral sex on other males while claiming to be straight or have experimental evidence, the best you can do is speculate. Can you link us to any studies?

I will continue to ask you for specific examples. Can you provide specific examples of former lesbians that claim to be entirely heterosexual now? 

Lmfao pops laid the smack down on that *****

Well, I have you a few articles. Not at a proper computer, but I'll look when I get to one.

However, personal experience is all we have in life.

What more you want? I'll look up whatever you want, I just need you to specify exactly what you want.

am1x90xnike said:

Well, I have you a few articles. Not at a proper computer, but I'll look when I get to one.

However, personal experience is all we have in life.

What more you want? I'll look up whatever you want, I just need you to specify exactly what you want.

Click to expand...

Great, I'm interested to look at them.

You can't judge everything in the world solely off of your own personal experiences. That leads to ignorant world views. If you're a heterosexual male, you'll never understand a homosexual male's perspective if you only consider your personal experiences. You need to empathize and understand the views of others. 

Well, I asked you before for specific examples of women that were formerly lesbians that became entirely heterosexual. I'm also looking for specific examples of a self-proclaimed heterosexual male that engages in intercourse with other men. We need lots of details about these people, though. 

Wow, he got $93k (and still going) for this.

I should of recorded my conversation with my parents about my going out/wanting to marry with my girl that is a different race. They had all sorts of backwards comments and hate in their reaction. Crying, calling me a cheater, the usual how could you, we trusted you, etc etc. Lol. $93k would of definitely eased my mental anguish a little bit lol. Was a lot more interesting than this....since my parents are well educated even. It's ridiculous how religious and cultural beliefs can blind even the most rational intelligent people. I felt like I was listening to villagers talk.

Master Zik said:

Everybody in a general sense I meant, given there's been more ppl telling me not to waste my time. Seeing as this is kinda the first time I've seeIhangn you post or even engage in this topic I simply didn't account for lurkers.

But since you do agree with him and feel he's making more sense could you and will you possibly explain why a person can not believe in GOD if they don't believe in a religious text? I mean that question in the most literal sense. How is it possible for a person to be unable in believing in GOD if they do not also believe in a religious text?

Are you saying as a fact that the religious text came before the concept of GOD?

Click to expand...

Got it, I'm mostly a lurker.

Had to go back and read you guys debate from start and now I'm at a split. The reason for the split is because I'm interpreting what he's saying differently than you are.

And if you are saying that someone can believe in God and not believe "entirely" in "holy" scripture? Yes absolutely ...

However, I think holy and God needs to be remove from the argument as everyone identify these to religion.

The way I'm interpreting his argument is as such:

A person would not have believed in a supreme being unless they bought into some type of scriptures, whether they were text or spoken. I think this is correct as well ..

Humans believed in/or Supreme Being/s (gods and goddess) long before the Biblical stories even came into existance. We know this because it can be traced back due to literature/scriptures. Does that answer your last question?

Thus, IMHO, although you can believe in a supreme being without believing in holy scriptures, you still have to believe in some scriptures.

Diesm is not pre-biblical and IMO is not a religion but rather a perspective on religion and the belief of just a God. The fact that they believe in a God and he is the creator IMO shoes that although they don't buy into Holy scripture they believe in the first thing every religious group preach ...

Furthermore, most of the Diest were conventional Christians or Christian raised individuals that challenged the bible and Christ.

Of course I can be wrong in what he is saying but at least, the above is my interpretation.

I just don't believe, especially now a day a person can be born and believe there's a God, the creator, all in his own. He will come to the conclusion from his experiences and research on the matter. However; they will learn by literature/scriptures, meaning they will have to buy into it to an extent.

Well, just off top if you read the article they don't come to the 'im bisexual' conclusion, they explicitly say they are straight. Like, re read the article.

I understand your personal experience isn't the only experience, but, when it comes down to it, your personal experience is all you have whether that included books you've read, people you've met, argument you've had, it's all seen through the scope of your experience. I happen to have a lot of gay folks in my life, like I literally just ate dinner with two dudes who were together, wasn't 100% sure and I didn't know them that well but we had other conversation, from sports to real estate, just like I would with anyone else, so it's not an 'ignorant' view, as I'm pretty versed.

It's so crazy to me, the 'liberals' will call anyone narrow minded if the don't agree, as if they have a monopoly on knowledge, it's such a freshmen way of thinking. Life ain't black and white, and I for one am a walking example.

sex·u·al·i·ty
ˌsekSHo͞oˈalitē/
noun
capacity for sexual feelings.
"she began to understand the power of her sexuality"
synonyms: sensuality, sexiness, seductiveness, desirability, eroticism, physicality; More
a person's sexual orientation or preference.
plural noun: sexualities
"people with proscribed sexualities"
synonyms: sexual orientation, sexual preference, leaning, persuasion; More



sexual activity.


Just for those who think bat **** crazy, I can use google also, even though I think the whole thing is bs.


Here's an article contrary to my point

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4701934

However, it concedes there is no scientific proof to this gay thing. It talks about conversion therapy also, which I think is bs, it can teach you not to 'act' gay, which is the point I would assume, but who/what you want stick your wick in is all up to you, this week it's girls, next week it's dudes, but whoever you do it to is a choice you made, and should be respected.

That's my beef with attraction, none of you are willing to admit its temporal, and because it is temporal, homosexuality can be temporal, as such, it doesn't matter until you act on it because if you go through your whole gay phase but never do any gay acts, were you truly gay?

I'm trying to find articles on my phone, but all the ones I find are Christian
Based, even though the science SEEMS valid, I personally don't trust the studies methods. One big problem is this openly gay thing is really young, as such, people haven't had time to be gay, stop being gay and then study, in fact, outside of the LUG phenomenon and the 'conversion schools' there doesn't seem to be much study on the subject of former homosexuals. I'll keep looking, but, idk. However, based on the articles I've read and the personal experiences I've had, I firmly believe it is a choice, that the act v attraction distinction is an important one and that one is 'asexual' for lack of a better term, until they start doing sexual acts, no other way to tell. One, I could like dudes, flirt etc. but, when I'm in the room and he whips it out I get freaked out a dip...I mean, I was attracted to him but when it came down to the come down I ain't do it...I've done it with girls before, knew I wanted to beat, got the chance and had a change of heart, hell, I've posted stories on here like 'wtf is wrong with me' idk what this view if gay ya have is, but it doesn't seem to work. It works for the easy everyday, but what about the tough cases? The close calls?

Crazy Caballo said:

Master Zik said:

Everybody in a general sense I meant, given there's been more ppl telling me not to waste my time. Seeing as this is kinda the first time I've seeIhangn you post or even engage in this topic I simply didn't account for lurkers.

But since you do agree with him and feel he's making more sense could you and will you possibly explain why a person can not believe in GOD if they don't believe in a religious text? I mean that question in the most literal sense. How is it possible for a person to be unable in believing in GOD if they do not also believe in a religious text?

Are you saying as a fact that the religious text came before the concept of GOD?

Click to expand...

Got it, I'm mostly a lurker.

Had to go back and read you guys debate from start and now I'm at a split. The reason for the split is because I'm interpreting what he's saying differently than you are.

And if you are saying that someone can believe in God and not believe "entirely" in "holy" scripture? Yes absolutely ...

However, I think holy and God needs to be remove from the argument as everyone identify these to religion.

The way I'm interpreting his argument is as such:

A person would not have believed in a supreme being unless they bought into some type of scriptures, whether they were text or spoken. I think this is correct as well ..

Click to expand...

Yeah this part right here is what's solely disputed. To be a theist, one does not require a religion attached to it or a text or some spoken word. Being a theist simply requires the belief in a GOD or supreme being or higher power. These ppl exist without believing in a religion or a text or some spoken word handed down traditionally orally.

Humans believed in/or Supreme Being/s (gods and goddess) long before the Biblical stories even came into existance. We know this because it can be traced back due to literature/scriptures. Does that answer your last question?

Click to expand...

Yes. It's 'a fact I wanted to be established. That directly addresses the notion that a person can't believe in GOD/higher power/supreme being if they don't believe in a "holy" text or "the word"

I'd go even farther to say you don't need to make a distinction between "GOD" and higher power/supreme being for this simple fact I've been reiterating about claiming what a person can not believe.

Thus, IMHO, although you can believe in a supreme being without believing in holy scriptures, you still have to believe in some scriptures.

Click to expand...

I disagree with this unless you're talking about common things. This some stuff just seems like a compromise despite the fact that there are ppl that believe in GOD and reject all of the scripture simply by being theists.

Diesm is not pre-biblical

Click to expand...

I never said this and it doesn't matter imo

and IMO is not a religion but rather a perspective on religion and the belief of just a God.

Click to expand...

Didn't claim deism was a religion either. Deists are simply ppl who believe that the existence of the natural world warrants the beliefi8 that GOD exists.

The fact that they believe in a God and he is the creator IMO shoes that although they don't buy into Holy scripture they believe in the first thing every religious group preach ...

Click to expand...

Listen, just because someone has a belief that is also in scripture doesn't mean they now believe in scripture. You can read the bible and agree with some things in it. One of the ten commandments says thou shall not kill, tons of atheists, deists, and ppl who reject a label can agree with this and believe it should be a general rule. That idea existed before the bible and any other "holy" text just cuz the bible implements it doesn't change what happens to be the case.

Furthermore, most of the Diest were conventional Christians or Christian raised individuals that challenged the bible and Christ.

Click to expand...

Yes, the early Deisits were Christians and then they weren't. That's why they're desists. It seems you missed the part when dude ask me how someone can believe in GOD and not a religious text and I broke it down step by step. He suggested I use Catholicism as an example and then I applied that step by step to that branch of Christianity.

Of course I can be wrong in what he is saying but at least, the above is my interpretation.

I just don't believe, especially now a day a person can be born and believe there's a God, the creator, all in his own. He will come to the conclusion from his experiences and research on the matter. However; they will learn by literature/scriptures, meaning they will have to buy into it to an extent.

Click to expand...

They could come to that belief the same way early man did before religions were formed. I can understand you saying ppl in the world today being influenced by other religions but it's really not changing what I'm saying about what ppl believe and what they choose not to believe

It's as easy as can you conceive a person believing in GOD? Can you conceive that person believing in GOD and not one of the several "holy" texts that comes with the many religions that believe in GOD? If you can do that then this isn't that hard to accept. If you can't conceive of such a person well then you're kinda detached from reality. What I'm talking about isn't dealing with probability to likelihood, just that it can happen and the fact that it has and continues to.

301216baller said:

Lmfao pops laid the smack down on that *****

Click to expand...

That's pretty messed up man.

He better hop back in that ********** closet if he want a place to stay

Master Zik said:

Yeah this part right here is what's solely disputed. To be a theist, one does not require a religion attached to it or a text or some spoken word. Being a theist simply requires the belief in a GOD or supreme being or higher power. These ppl exist without believing in a religion or a text or some spoken word handed down traditionally orally.
Yes. It's 'a fact I wanted to be established. That directly addresses the notion that a person can't believe in GOD/higher power/supreme being if they don't believe in a "holy" text or "the word"

I'd go even farther to say you don't need to make a distinction between "GOD" and higher power/supreme being for this simple fact I've been reiterating about claiming what a person can not believe.
I disagree with this unless you're talking about common things. This some stuff just seems like a compromise despite the fact that there are ppl that believe in GOD and reject all of the scripture simply by being theists.

I never said this and it doesn't matter imo
Didn't claim deism was a religion either. Deists are simply ppl who believe that the existence of the natural world warrants the beliefi8 that GOD exists.
Listen, just because someone has a belief that is also in scripture doesn't mean they now believe in scripture. You can read the bible and agree with some things in it. One of the ten commandments says thou shall not kill, tons of atheists, deists, and ppl who reject a label can agree with this and believe it should be a general rule. That idea existed before the bible and any other "holy" text just cuz the bible implements it doesn't change what happens to be the case.
Yes, the early Deisits were Christians and then they weren't. That's why they're desists. It seems you missed the part when dude ask me how someone can believe in GOD and not a religious text and I broke it down step by step. He suggested I use Catholicism as an example and then I applied that step by step to that branch of Christianity.
They could come to that belief the same way early man did before religions were formed. I can understand you saying ppl in the world today being influenced by other religions but it's really not changing what I'm saying about what ppl believe and what they choose not to believe

It's as easy as can you conceive a person believing in GOD? Can you conceive that person believing in GOD and not one of the several "holy" texts that comes with the many religions that believe in GOD? If you can do that then this isn't that hard to accept. If you can't conceive of such a person well then you're kinda detached from reality. What I'm talking about isn't dealing with probability to likelihood, just that it can happen and the fact that it has and continues to.

Click to expand...

Got it my friend ...

The fact that you continue to use holy as a catch all for all scriptures turns me off and I gives me motives to stop an otherwise intellectual debate. But I guess that's my fault as scriptures majoritly known as being holy/sacred in nature, while I'm meaning scriptures as informative words, text, drawings, etc.

I also never claimed that you said or didn't, anything in regards to my conclussions of Diesm. I was simply giving my opinion on it. However, the foundation of Diesm derives from Christianity then regardless of what actual day Diest believe now ... They would not have believed in God if it wasn't from Christianity.

Lastly, of course there's always a first but from factual scientific findings, every society has always believed in a Supreme or Supreme beings.

I cannot with certainty say yes one person believed in God all by his own. Who's to say they weren't revelations that gave human the idea a God existed?

Thanks for the brief conversion ...

PS

My personal belief on this matter is that every solar system has a life form. Thus, every solar system is created by a Supreme Being. All these Supreme Beings answer to the Ultimate Supreme Being that commands what he wants it don't want to happen in the planet according to his views. If he doesn't agree or think something is out of control he extinguish that planet and recreate.

Just wanted to throw that out there not that it matters.

am1x90xnike said:

If theyre born that way, then there's a bunch if three year olds just itching to blow each other.

Click to expand...

just because you're born with or predisposed to something doesn't mean it immediately manifests itself at birth.

if that were the case then, using your own logic, there would also be a bunch of three year olds itching to have heterosexual intercourse...

Mycoldyourdone said:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progre...t-leads-the-nation-in-consumption-of-gay-porn

Click to expand...

oops. this one's on me.

Crazy Caballo said:

Master Zik said:

Yeah this part right here is what's solely disputed. To be a theist, one does not require a religion attached to it or a text or some spoken word. Being a theist simply requires the belief in a GOD or supreme being or higher power. These ppl exist without believing in a religion or a text or some spoken word handed down traditionally orally.
Yes. It's 'a fact I wanted to be established. That directly addresses the notion that a person can't believe in GOD/higher power/supreme being if they don't believe in a "holy" text or "the word"

I'd go even farther to say you don't need to make a distinction between "GOD" and higher power/supreme being for this simple fact I've been reiterating about claiming what a person can not believe.
I disagree with this unless you're talking about common things. This some stuff just seems like a compromise despite the fact that there are ppl that believe in GOD and reject all of the scripture simply by being theists.

I never said this and it doesn't matter imo
Didn't claim deism was a religion either. Deists are simply ppl who believe that the existence of the natural world warrants the beliefi8 that GOD exists.
Listen, just because someone has a belief that is also in scripture doesn't mean they now believe in scripture. You can read the bible and agree with some things in it. One of the ten commandments says thou shall not kill, tons of atheists, deists, and ppl who reject a label can agree with this and believe it should be a general rule. That idea existed before the bible and any other "holy" text just cuz the bible implements it doesn't change what happens to be the case.
Yes, the early Deisits were Christians and then they weren't. That's why they're desists. It seems you missed the part when dude ask me how someone can believe in GOD and not a religious text and I broke it down step by step. He suggested I use Catholicism as an example and then I applied that step by step to that branch of Christianity.
They could come to that belief the same way early man did before religions were formed. I can understand you saying ppl in the world today being influenced by other religions but it's really not changing what I'm saying about what ppl believe and what they choose not to believe

It's as easy as can you conceive a person believing in GOD? Can you conceive that person believing in GOD and not one of the several "holy" texts that comes with the many religions that believe in GOD? If you can do that then this isn't that hard to accept. If you can't conceive of such a person well then you're kinda detached from reality. What I'm talking about isn't dealing with probability to likelihood, just that it can happen and the fact that it has and continues to.

Click to expand...

Got it my friend ...

The fact that you continue to use holy as a catch all for all scriptures turns me off and I gives me motives to stop an otherwise intellectual debate.

Click to expand...

What would you rather have me refer to it as? I feel like your nitpicking. I'm talking about any religious text attached to a religion that believes in a GOD or GODs. Do they not refer to these texts as holy? I'm using it as a catch all if that's what they refer to them as.

I really don't see the significance in that in regards to the rest of the discussion.

I also never claimed that you said or didn't, anything in regards to my conclussions of Diesm.

Click to expand...

Ok. They're not just things I didn't say but they're also irrelevant to what I'm talking about.

I was simply giving my opinion on it.

Click to expand...

Desists once being Christian or of any other faith isn't addressing the fact of the matter.

However, the foundation of Diesm derives from Christianity then regardless of what actual day Diest believe now ... They would not have believed in God if it wasn't from Christianity.

Click to expand...

That doesn't matter. Again, did you miss the step by step process I posted which basically involved learning about he religion before rejecting it's religious text or word?

Lastly, of course there's always a first but from factual scientific findings, every society has always believed in a Supreme or Supreme beings.

Click to expand...

This is one of my main points that support the idea that one can believe in a GOD without also believing some religious text that comes after forming the concept of a GOD.

I cannot with certainty say yes one person believed in God all by his own. Who's to say they weren't revelations that gave human the idea a God existed?

Click to expand...

What's a revelation exactly? Now we're getting in to hypothetical land.

Human beings have thoughts and ideas, thousands, millions, they become more complex/sophisticated. Some of these ideas get formed in to theories in which they believe in. If you want to call thinking a revelation, fine. If you want to say they heard a voice, hallucinated an event, met this supreme being, etc. is just jumping through hoops to get around what I'm saying.

Simply put I'm not talking about revelations. As many times as I've repeated what currently is the case I don't know why you'd try to add in something not pertinent.

Thanks for the brief conversion ...

Click to expand...

You're welcome.

No no, according to my logic, three year olds don't have any sexuality. It begins in pruberty you and then it's all dependent on experience.

That post is satire.


Like man, I always ****** with Donald Glover. The stuff he says, idk if he would agree with me, but it'd be close. It's the crassness pay don't like, but the ideas are so close. He talks about gay dudes in Atlanta and man, mirrors some of my ideas.




W T F is just a damn good podcast anyway, I don't listen to many but this one is rad.

am1x90xnike said:

No no, according to my logic, three year olds don't have any sexuality. It begins in pruberty you and then it's all dependent on experience.

That post is satire.

Click to expand...

You never had a crush in elementary?

Kids know their sexuality way before puberty

Puberty goes from 9-19, which would cover elementary school....I said three for a reason. If you're born gay, you should be craving that d at age 18mos...hell day one...should come out the womb like 'this place is fabulous.'

am1x90xnike said:

Puberty goes from 9-19, which would cover elementary school....I said three for a reason. If you're born gay, you should be craving that d at age 18mos...hell day one...should come out the womb like 'this place is fabulous.'

Click to expand...

you gotta be trollin

So 3 yr olds know about sex to be "craving that d"

Cmon son idk about you but i know i had a crush on this chick in my pre-k class

My point exactly. Three year olds don't know about sex, thus they couldn't have been born with any sexual orientation. It develops later in life at different points for different people.

You dont have to know about sex to be naturally attracted to a certain sex at that age