You have completely sidestepped my point in favor of quibbling over semantics. Your choice.
An assumption. I have a gay brother and know a lot about the lifestyle.
Please show me where I was indicating you specifically. Again, you completely sidestep my main point and focus on an afterthought.
A lot of passion in the face of claimed disinterest.
"Passion"? Talk about assumptions. I am very much interested in how this affects laws and my pocketbook; I couldn't give a damn about the issue of homosexuality per se. That you can't understand that simple distinction is understandable, seeing how you quoted every part of my response to you except the main point. Again, your choice, but it only proves you have no argument when you run away from my main points.
Ok. Let's review. Your post 34 that I originally responded to simply said :That you can't see the difference between REPENTING actions and ignoring physical urges (which are not the same as engaging in homosexual acts) says all that needs to be said about this ridiculous "ex-gay" foolishness.
My response in 108 was about urges and repentance.
Your response in 121 was also about urges.
I responded in 124 about urges and repentance.
Your response in 125 introduced new subject matter that I ignored in post 126
In post 130, you continued to try to distance yourself from post 34 with new subject matter.
If you don't wish to further discuss man having self-control while animals do not, that's ok.