son comes out of the closet to his religous parents

[dipsetgeneral]

Your personality is determined within 6 weeks of birth? And being a homosexual is your personality? Hmmm, that's news to me..

His parents are filled with shame, I can see how they would react like this, honestly. If my son/daughter came out to me & my spouse. I would also be disappointed. I would like my family name & lineage to multiply and live on...

 

[jaysrcrak]

@Keko Jones still on my meat. I see ya bruh. I know you want my attention. Every time you type "buahahaha" I laugh Son over here laughing like a vaudeville villain. Maybe if you didn't comprehend so poorly this wouldn't be so pathetic?
Women can grow to dislike most men or at least avoid any.

The same way you can suppress homosexual urges, you can suppress hetero urges and commit to being homosexual and a specific lifestyle. I've met these same chicks too, banged some of them. I know a chick that was hardcore lesbian in college, turned out mad chicks, now she wifed up with a dude in the BX and she straight on that penis since.

The kids thing don't really matter. Are you saying they went out and banged dudes and got pregnant? or did it the other way? I mean there are plenty of lesbians without a lot of money or don't have the time to go through that process that will bang a dude to have a child. That's beyond sexuality. Some females just really want to be mothers.

I don't know what aliens got to do with this fam

Lets use your story as an example. The chick you banged was supposedly "hardcore lesbian." So at that point, by the "born this way" logic she was born to have an attraction for women. Then for some reason later on in life she decided that she would go against the attraction she was born with and be attracted to men to the point of gettin wifed up.

So either she was hetero the whole time and chose to go against that and be attracted to women for a period of time, or she was born a lesbian and chose to go against that and be attracted to men. Point is, at one point in her life, she made a decision about her sexuality. And i dont think Im going too far out on a limb when I say that when she was hardcore lesbian, she was probably saying this is how she was born.

All Im saying is that some people choose.
I dont see how saying some people choose is an attack on the born that way logic.
Seems to me both exist.

 

[boris]

Do you choose what you are attracted to?

What does that question have anything to do with the fact that these women did? That question is pointless.
The simple fact that these women have told me out of their own mouth that they chose to be with women , tells me that there is a certain percentage of people
who choose who they are sexually attracted to. They exist. Regardless of what that classifies them as they made a conscious choice.

Does that mean that all people choose? Of course not.
But just because there are alot of people that say they didnt choose who they are attracted to doesnt automatically mean that no one ever chooses.

It's a very relevant question. You're saying with certainty that people can choose who they are attracted to. I'm just wondering if you're one of these people.

I choose to be with a woman as well, that doesn't mean I choose to be attracted to women.

 

[heliumclinton]

Why is everything else we do in life a choice but not our sexuality?

Mans further, why is that idea so offensive?

it's just semantics at this point. i think we're closer to the same side than i previously thought.

let's start with this: can we both agree that i didn't choose to be attracted to men? I'm not talking about sex yet, or whether or not I'm classified as a homosexual at this point. i simply am asking if you agree that my attraction to men is an innate part of me that was never something i consciously decided on.

-waits for answer

 

[Master Zik]

@Keko Jones still on my meat. I see ya bruh. I know you want my attention. Every time you type "buahahaha" I laugh Son over here laughing like a vaudeville villain. Maybe if you didn't comprehend so poorly this wouldn't be so pathetic?
Women can grow to dislike most men or at least avoid any.

The same way you can suppress homosexual urges, you can suppress hetero urges and commit to being homosexual and a specific lifestyle. I've met these same chicks too, banged some of them. I know a chick that was hardcore lesbian in college, turned out mad chicks, now she wifed up with a dude in the BX and she straight on that penis since.

The kids thing don't really matter. Are you saying they went out and banged dudes and got pregnant? or did it the other way? I mean there are plenty of lesbians without a lot of money or don't have the time to go through that process that will bang a dude to have a child. That's beyond sexuality. Some females just really want to be mothers.

I don't know what aliens got to do with this fam

Lets use your story as an example. The chick you banged was supposedly "hardcore lesbian." So at that point, by the "born this way" logic she was born to have an attraction for women. Then for some reason later on in life she decided that she would go against the attraction she was born with and be attracted to men to the point of gettin wifed up.

So either she was hetero the whole time and chose to go against that and be attracted to women for a period of time, or she was born a lesbian and chose to go against that and be attracted to men. Point is, at one point in her life, she made a decision about her sexuality. And i dont think Im going too far out on a limb when I say that when she was hardcore lesbian, she was probably saying this is how she was born.

All Im saying is that some people choose.
I dont see how saying some people choose is an attack on the born that way logic.
Seems to me both exist.

Or she was born bisexual?

I'm finding it hard getting past the statement of the chick I banged was a hardcore lesbian Was she strictly just letting me bang, not in to it at all? Not horny, no orgasm?

Past that, I don't see why she can't still be attracted to both but commit to one for a relationship.

If you were simply saying a chick chose who to be with I wouldn't call it in to question but if you're saying she literally chooses who she's attracted to I don't get that. The science behind it or the logic.

Like peep any gay dude that goes to those be straight bible camps and comes out "cured" and engages in hetero relationships. That Dodson dude for instance (not saying he went to a camp), but dude says he's straight now and his past homosexual activity was a mistake and wrong. Now I'm not saying a person can't do something in their past and look back at it as if it's wrong or a mistake even if sexuality is involved but I feel there's dishonesty present when you say you did those things solely cuz you chose to be attracted and do those things and are now choosing not to be attracted.

It's like choosing to no longer love the taste of ice cream on your own with no outside manipulation. Straight up tasting ice cream, saying it's horrible, when you know it's not.

 

[heliumclinton]

I wish i could choose who I'm attracted to, I'd be a extra faithful perfect boyfriend

 

[am1x90xnike]

http://www.samesexattraction.org/biological-causes-homosexuality.htm

Here's one that says I'm wrong

http://www.redstate.com/diary/patri...ls-same-sex-attraction-a-biological-disorder/

 

[boris]

http://www.samesexattraction.org/biological-causes-homosexuality.htm

Here's one that says I'm wrong

http://www.redstate.com/diary/patri...ls-same-sex-attraction-a-biological-disorder/

Has there not been anything published on the topic in the last 10 years for the first website to use? The most recent publication they quote is from 1999. Seems pretty suspicious. 

 

[am1x90xnike]

No there haven't been, why would studies from 1999 seem suspicious? The La Guardia report is from the seventies yet is still the authority, the Stanford prison excitement is still am authority and a slew of other examples.

Like man, what more do y'all want from me? Posted some logic, hated it, posted some science, hated it...if it doesn't fit in your box, you find a way to reject and discredit, whether it's the speaker or the idea, idk, but, the evidence/logic seems to fall on the choice side. Idk what the tv/Internet tells you. Stop living so much in the twitter age, think freely, social media shapes thoughts in opinions to the point science/logic isn't valid, break that. Drop your conditioning. Stopping pointing fingers across the aisle and start pointing then at yourself. Stop thinking their side is always wrong, choose your own truth...like got damn it's 2014, in the age of infinite information, yet both sides use that confirmation bias while accusing the other side. Passion rules over logic, emotion over evidence...break that, cooler heads will prevail.

 

[boris]

No there haven't been, why would studies from 1999 seem suspicious? The La Guardia report is from the seventies yet is still the authority, the Stanford prison excitement is still am authority and a slew of other examples.

Like man, what more do y'all want from me? Posted some logic, hated it, posted some science, hated it...if it doesn't fit in your box, you find a way to reject and discredit, whether it's the speaker or the idea, idk, but, the evidence/logic seems to fall on the choice side. Idk what the tv/Internet tells you. Stop living so much in the twitter age, think freely, social media shapes thoughts in opinions to the point science/logic isn't valid, break that. Drop your conditioning. Stopping pointing fingers across the aisle and start pointing then at yourself. Stop thinking their side is always wrong, choose your own truth...like got damn it's 2014, in the age of infinite information, yet both sides use that confirmation bias while accusing the other side. Passion rules over logic, emotion over evidence...break that, cooler heads will prevail.

Interesting because taking three seconds to search in Google has led me to more current information on the subject. What's suspicious is that the article isn't citing current information. Have you never written a research paper?

Stop posting if you're just going to whine and complain when your ideas are rejected. You have this strange idea that what you say is logical. You're obviously not interested in a discussion. 

You're telling me in the present day where genetic research is more advanced than it has ever been, there are zero recent studies on genetic traits linked to homosexuality? That sounds lazy. 

 

[jaysrcrak]

Or she was born bisexual?

I'm finding it hard getting past the statement of the chick I banged was a hardcore lesbian Was she strictly just letting me bang, not in to it at all? Not horny, no orgasm?

Im just going off what you said in your post about her being hardcore.

If you were simply saying a chick chose who to be with I wouldn't call it in to question but if you're saying she literally chooses who she's attracted to I don't get that. The science behind it or the logic.

Like peep any gay dude that goes to those be straight bible camps and comes out "cured" and engages in hetero relationships. That Dodson dude for instance (not saying he went to a camp), but dude says he's straight now and his past homosexual activity was a mistake and wrong. Now I'm not saying a person can't do something in their past and look back at it as if it's wrong or a mistake even if sexuality is involved but I feel there's dishonesty present when you say you did those things solely cuz you chose to be attracted and do those things and are now choosing not to be attracted.

So where is the line drawn between choosing who to be with and what you are sexually attracted to then? Im pretty sure if you are sexually attracted to women, then you are not going to be out here blowin dudes. It doesnt line up with what you are sexually attracted to.
You choose who you want to be with based on what you are sexually attracted to.

So in that sense, how can a woman be sexually attracted to ONLY men for a long period of time, then at some point down the road, for some odd reason, change to being attracted to women?
And once the change is made, they swear up and down that they dont F with men. On some I dont want no peen type steez. In other words, they not bi-sexual (in their mind)

I know if the two young ladies that I am referring to did, that there are others in the world that have done it too.
And whether its BS or not, in their mind their attraction to ONLY women is real.
So who am I to tell them that they are not being genuine about their true sexuality?
Wouldn't that be the same as telling a gay dude that his sexual attraction to men isnt genuine even if in his mind it is, and he is happy?

 

[deleted]

Like man, what more do y'all want from me? Posted some logic, hated it, posted some science, hated it...if it doesn't fit in your box, you find a way to reject and discredit, whether it's the speaker or the idea, idk, but, the evidence/logic seems to fall on the choice side. Idk what the tv/Internet tells you. Stop living so much in the twitter age, think freely, social media shapes thoughts in opinions to the point science/logic isn't valid, break that. Drop your conditioning. Stopping pointing fingers across the aisle and start pointing then at yourself. Stop thinking their side is always wrong, choose your own truth...like got damn it's 2014, in the age of infinite information, yet both sides use that confirmation bias while accusing the other side. Passion rules over logic, emotion over evidence...break that, cooler heads will prevail.

This is the most offensively sanctimonious thing I've ever read on NT. :x

 

[am1x90xnike]

Interesting because taking three seconds to search in Google has led me to more current information on the subject. What's suspicious is that the article isn't citing current information. Have you never written a research paper?

Stop posting if you're just going to whine and complain when your ideas are rejected. You have this strange idea that what you say is logical. You're obviously not interested in a discussion. 

You're telling me in the present day where genetic research is more advanced than it has ever been, there are zero recent studies on genetic traits linked to homosexuality? That sounds lazy. 

Men lie, women lie, numbers don't.

Quick google search huh? Post it.

Wanna know why what I say is logical? Because even without evidence my argument meshed with the empirical evidence...it's called critical thinking.

 

[Belgium]

Expected to hear some back of the woods hilbilly accents and wasn't wrong.

It's beyond me how people can still believe homosexuality is a sin etc.

 

[boris]

Interesting because taking three seconds to search in Google has led me to more current information on the subject. What's suspicious is that the article isn't citing current information. Have you never written a research paper?

Stop posting if you're just going to whine and complain when your ideas are rejected. You have this strange idea that what you say is logical. You're obviously not interested in a discussion. 

You're telling me in the present day where genetic research is more advanced than it has ever been, there are zero recent studies on genetic traits linked to homosexuality? That sounds lazy. 

Men lie, women lie, numbers don't.

Quick google search huh? Post it.

Wanna know why what I say is logical? Because even without evidence my argument meshed with the empirical evidence...it's called critical thinking.

Now you want me to do the research you claimed to do for you? Just go to Google Scholar. I'm interested to see if you can find anything on your own.

Wait, which empirical evidence do you think your views mesh with? Can you post a specific article or are you referring to the website with publications that are no less than 15 years old? I haven't seen you link directly to any publications yet. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[deleted]

Don't forget that he's saying all this stupid stuff after demanding that the definition of sexuality be changed to better fit in with his own personal interpretation.



He is not a person to be taken seriously.

 

[Master Zik]

Or she was born bisexual?

I'm finding it hard getting past the statement of the chick I banged was a hardcore lesbian Was she strictly just letting me bang, not in to it at all? Not horny, no orgasm?

Im just going off what you said in your post about her being hardcore.

I didn't bring that up. I was going off somebody else bringing up a hardcore lesbian choosing to be in straight relationships and that meaning she chose to now only be attracted to men.

If you were simply saying a chick chose who to be with I wouldn't call it in to question but if you're saying she literally chooses who she's attracted to I don't get that. The science behind it or the logic.

Like peep any gay dude that goes to those be straight bible camps and comes out "cured" and engages in hetero relationships. That Dodson dude for instance (not saying he went to a camp), but dude says he's straight now and his past homosexual activity was a mistake and wrong. Now I'm not saying a person can't do something in their past and look back at it as if it's wrong or a mistake even if sexuality is involved but I feel there's dishonesty present when you say you did those things solely cuz you chose to be attracted and do those things and are now choosing not to be attracted.

So where is the line drawn between choosing who to be with and what you are sexually attracted to then?

It varies and depends on each individual case.

Some ppl ignore their feelings and choose the more practical/prudent/safe choice.

There were most likely thousands of homosexuals that chose to be in heterosexual relationships and marriages in places where they'd get killed for openly being homosexual, or shunned, or imprisoned. I'm sure those ppl still exist today, peep the current state of countries in Africa with their laws against homosexuality and Russia's.

Im pretty sure if you are sexually attracted to women, then you are not going to be out here blowin dudes. It doesnt line up with what you are sexually attracted to.

Unless you like blowing dudes and eating out women.

You choose who you want to be with based on what you are sexually attracted to.

Exactly. So if you're attracted to both but are only engaging in monogamous relationships. You can only choose one sex each relationship at a time.

So in that sense, how can a woman be sexually attracted to ONLY men for a long period of time, then at some point down the road, for some odd reason, change to being attracted to women?

Like I said, she most likely wasn't only attracted to men for a long period of time. Chances are she was always attracted to both or it could just be like some homosexuals they try to fake it until they make it. There's gay men and women that'll engage in hetero relationships to the point they get married and form a family. Don't mean they aint gay. Then they'll want to come out the closet in their mid 40s.

Peep the movie "But I'm A Cheerleader" or that other one with Ewan McGregor where his old *** father comes out the closet before he dies or after his wife dies and spends his 70s in gay relationships/flings.

And once the change is made, they swear up and down that they dont F with men. On some I dont want no peen type steez. In other words, they not bi-sexual (in their mind)

Well they would have to say that if they want to be taken seriously. There's a lot of doubt and issues placed on the sexual identifying with bisexual. Many don't consider that a real label and that the ppl that do just want the best of both worlds, they're greedy, and/or they're still confused.

You can still be attracted to men but be attracted to women and commit to only being in relationships with women and vice versa.

This is a good point though and you should keep it in mind as well. No matter what the person says (w/e they're swearing up and down), we do not know what they're actually thinking or how they actually feel (whether they're completely aware of it themselves). I'm not gonna tell a person they're this or that outright as a fact but if we're conversing about sexuality and they say I was attracted to females for 20 years and now I've stopped and am now attracted to males (with no specific event occurring that could actually explain that) I'm gonna call bull **** on that every time. I'll simply tell them I don't believe that they can just decide to stop being attracted to a person. I'd say to them perhaps you're not 100% clear on this or at least with the issue of attraction. Perhaps you're still attracted to this sex but something happened in your personal experience to have you swear them off for good?, etc. Cuz if it's not that, the case would have to be they were never attracted to that sex or aren't being honest about their current state of attraction. So they were either lying then or lying now.

I know if the two young ladies that I am referring to did, that there are others in the world that have done it too.
And whether its BS or not, in their mind their attraction to ONLY women is real.
So who am I to tell them that they are not being genuine about their true sexuality?
Wouldn't that be the same as telling a gay dude that his sexual attraction to men isnt genuine even if in his mind it is, and he is happy?

If that gay dude claimed he was attracted to females and isn't anymore then yeah you could call it in to question but just because he's also attracted to men and is happy doesn't mean that he's not. Like I've been saying you can be both

IMO, you kind of just repeated yourself in this post and haven't really explained the logic of how attraction is like a light switch that can be turned on and off for each sex or how a person chooses who they're attracted to.

Like man, what more do y'all want from me? Posted some logic, hated it, posted some science, hated it...if it doesn't fit in your box, you find a way to reject and discredit, whether it's the speaker or the idea, idk, but, the evidence/logic seems to fall on the choice side. Idk what the tv/Internet tells you. Stop living so much in the twitter age, think freely, social media shapes thoughts in opinions to the point science/logic isn't valid, break that. Drop your conditioning. Stopping pointing fingers across the aisle and start pointing then at yourself. Stop thinking their side is always wrong, choose your own truth...like got damn it's 2014, in the age of infinite information, yet both sides use that confirmation bias while accusing the other side. Passion rules over logic, emotion over evidence...break that, cooler heads will prevail.

This is the most offensively sanctimonious thing I've ever read on NT. :x

Coming off like a real pompous *** with these widespread assumptions. He gets challenged for his ideas and immediately associates that with something he can view in a negative light. The ppl disagreeing with him can't possibly be freely thinking not heir own, it must be something. It's sad. Not to mention the **** he's bringing up makes no sense, just a bunch of hollow buzz words to throw out there as distractions. Twitter age, claiming social media is shaping the thoughts of ppl that disagree him, while still pretending he's on the side of science and logic when there's no validity in his arguments at all

 

[am1x90xnike]

I still demand that sexuality be changed.

The links I posted said there is no scientific evidence that sexuality is genetic, they further claim there is no scientific basis for any (non disorder) human behaviors.

Thus, we choose...except for mental disorders.

Like, take the shots you want. Post your sources, I've posted mine.

It's so funny, cats are so I'm there kind they sound like Fox News...but for liberal causes. Reread what y'all posted, it's fresh off the fix need TelePrompTer.

Because it's an opinion you don't like, y'all challenge it, despite them being reputable. Y'all find anyway to discredit.


It's like when y'all argue against someone that...pot isnt bad. The latest/most credible American study is the La Guardia report, last official state report. Y'all post the report, then someone is like 'well it's forty years old' ...but, when the scientific method was followed, and the results are trusted, then history doesn't matter unless something to the contrary was found.

Then the classic 'why don't you find it yourself, if you're so good' ...



then the name calling 'google scholar' I'm a real live scholar, studied three of the most respectable majors in the academic profession. I try to be cordial, but when folks call me stupid my inferiority complex shines, so I use the tools and language I've learned that will excite passions, but, it's dies sound douchey. Idk man, idk what more y'all want...arguments, dumb, whatever, so I post the type y'all said y'all respect, scientific evidence, which supports my earlier argument...but then it's old...idk man. This is why I get mad, confirmation bias and y'all don't recognize it.

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/17/science/gay-men-in-twin-study.html


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...ly-partly-due-to-gay-gene-research-finds.html


I know I shouldn't post these, cats are going to read bits and pieces, then selectively quote. But, with all the evidence, y'all determine how y'all feel.

 

[iYen]

 

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/019538928X/ref=wms_ohs_product?ie=UTF8&psc=1

 

[deleted]

Because it's an opinion you don't like, y'all challenge it, despite them being reputable. Y'all find anyway to discredit.

You LITERALLY want the way that we define sexuality to be changed because it doesn't fit your interpretation.

What's really funny is that you like to toss out the Fox news comparison when your views fall almost exactly in line with those of Fox's primary demographic.

You're a hypocrite of biblical proportions and the total opposite of a scholar.

 

[boris]

I still demand that sexuality be changed.

The links I posted said there is no scientific evidence that sexuality is genetic, they further claim there is no scientific basis for any (non disorder) human behaviors.

Thus, we choose...except for mental disorders.

Like, take the shots you want. Post your sources, I've posted mine.

Well, one link references articles from the 90s and the other is a popular press article that concludes that homosexuality is biological. So, how you are jumping to the conclusion that we choose is still beyond me.

Like, I'm not arguing one way or the other. I'm pointing out that your arguments aren't sound and your sources are way outdated or do not support what you are saying. If you're getting butthurt over the criticism of your arguments, don't post. 

then the name calling 'google scholar' I'm a real live scholar, studied three of the most respectable majors in the academic profession. I try to be cordial, but when folks call me stupid my inferiority complex shines, so I use the tools and language I've learned that will excite passions, but, it's dies sound douchey. Idk man, idk what more y'all want...arguments, dumb, whatever, so I post the type y'all said y'all respect, scientific evidence, which supports my earlier argument...but then it's old...idk man. This is why I get mad, confirmation bias and y'all don't recognize it.

Google Scholar is a database. I was suggesting you use it since you were having trouble finding current information. 

Sure, you provided a website's opinion that references publications that are 15 years old or more. Did you read any of the references, or are you blindly posting what this website tells you? You still haven't posted for me a specific  journal article that is current and provides empirical evidence that supports your opinions. 

How am I guilty of confirmation bias here? Please explain.

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/17/science/gay-men-in-twin-study.html


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...ly-partly-due-to-gay-gene-research-finds.html


I know I shouldn't post these, cats are going to read bits and pieces, then selectively quote. But, with all the evidence, y'all determine how y'all feel.

Didn't you just get done telling me that there have been no recent studies? It looks like that second article is current and does not support what you are saying. More interesting would be if we were using scientific articles. 

 

[offbad]

Originally Posted by am1x90xnike  

I still demand that sexuality be changed.

The links I posted said there is no scientific evidence that sexuality is genetic, they further claim there is no scientific basis for any (non disorder) human behaviors.

Thus, we choose...except for mental disorders.

Like, take the shots you want. Post your sources, I've posted mine.

It's so funny, cats are so I'm there kind they sound like Fox News...but for liberal causes. Reread what y'all posted, it's fresh off the fix need TelePrompTer.

Because it's an opinion you don't like, y'all challenge it, despite them being reputable. Y'all find anyway to discredit.


It's like when y'all argue against someone that...pot isnt bad. The latest/most credible American study is the La Guardia report, last official state report. Y'all post the report, then someone is like 'well it's forty years old' ...but, when the scientific method was followed, and the results are trusted, then history doesn't matter unless something to the contrary was found.

Then the classic 'why don't you find it yourself, if you're so good' ...



then the name calling 'google scholar' I'm a real live scholar, studied three of the most respectable majors in the academic profession. I try to be cordial, but when folks call me stupid my inferiority complex shines, so I use the tools and language I've learned that will excite passions, but, it's dies sound douchey. Idk man, idk what more y'all want...arguments, dumb, whatever, so I post the type y'all said y'all respect, scientific evidence, which supports my earlier argument...but then it's old...idk man. This is why I get mad, confirmation bias and y'all don't recognize it.

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/17/science/gay-men-in-twin-study.html


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...ly-partly-due-to-gay-gene-research-finds.html


I know I shouldn't post these, cats are going to read bits and pieces, then selectively quote. But, with all the evidence, y'all determine how y'all feel.

shut up

3 4 5

 

[Master Zik]

My son don't even know what google scholar is Took it as a jab.

 

[jaysrcrak]

This is what you said in response to what I said. I thought you said you banged the chick that you knew who was hardcore lesbian.

I've met these same chicks too, banged some of them. I know a chick that was hardcore lesbian in college, turned out mad chicks, now she wifed up with a dude in the BX and she straight on that penis since.

I keep telling you that chick is NOT bi-sexual, and your answer to that is that she was "probably" or "most likely" bi-sexual.
Maybe thats why you feel like Im repeating myself. You keep getting hung up on maybes and might have beens.

In any case,I was never explaining how one can change attraction like a light switch. I was simply sharing an example, from my own personal experience,
of a woman (more than one actually) who was sexually attracted to ONLY men and is now sexually attracted to ONLY women.

If you choose not to believe what Im telling you that is your prerogative.
But like I said earlier, how is that any different from telling a gay man, that he aint gay? Or he must be confused or not 100% sure about their sexual attraction.

 

[heliumclinton]

I still demand that sexuality be changed.

So go argue to Webster and leave us alone