Obviously Gay Guy goes on Religious Homophobic Rant

He loves tan too much, he's going to age horribly.

Cute but dumb and deluded religious hick. When he shared his childhood story of being at a Cracker Barrel it made so much sense.

He thought about his future prospects and it was either the porn train or the Jesus train. Either way, he'll be a nobody with terrible skin a decade from now, just like the rest of us.

[quote] he'll be a nobody with terrible skin

I’m a somebody with terrible skin!

In that picture he looks like Taylor Fritz's gay brother.

Wednesday's Child is full of woe.

In some ways I feel sorry for him, as his comments are clearly a reaction to living in a homophobic world.

That said, he seems intelligent enough to know he's talking nonsense deep down. I suspect he still looks at gay porn in private, but then repents and prays for forgiveness, so he feels he's no longer gay.

[quote]R7: In some ways I feel sorry for him, as his comments are clearly a reaction to living in a homophobic world.

I do not. It would be one thing if this was a struggle he was working out on his own, and these were merely his current conclusions, but he's propagating this shit online, creating stumbling blocks for other confused individuals (Justin Bieber is one of those). He's spreading the damage.

'Spiritual Warfare' is code for the worst set of homophobic beliefs out there.

That's quite a microphone there.

MARY!

Who has the nudes?

Carew? Did his parents plan on his being gay?

You know she’s got a faceless Onlyfans cumdump page.

How long do I have to watch until he fellates the microphone?

R8 Yeah I do get what you're saying. I'm not saying he's blameless, but if we lived in a world where homosexuality was completely accepted, men like him would just be gay without worry. But when they've been raised in socially conservatives households and are still surrounded by judgemental family, I can sometimes see why they take this road.

Like I say, I'm not defending it, as it's definitely wrong. I just view it as a bit different to your average religious homophobe.

Hopefully he'll come to his senses before he marries some gullible woman and wastes her life as well.

He’s cute, vaguely reminiscent of that Oklahoma teen football player who died after a three-day bender when he fell out of the back of a pickup truck.

But this one’s not as hot.

What a fucking mess. Religion is behind so much misery in the world

This boy is so fucked up. What boy runs around the house as a 5 yo wearing moms dress, trying to kiss other boys while carrying his little Bible.

If only he had been a straight atheist he might have had a chance in this world.

With a name like "Carew Ellington", why am I not surprised that he isn't a Black drag queen or a third-tier white country singer.

In some ways it's surprising he's even admitted to his "gay past", as I expect many of these ultra religious types wouldn't even be open about that.

So it makes me wonder if -- even subconsciously -- he's setting up his inevitable coming out at some point down the line.

But then parts of it almost seem like a parody, eg when he says "I believe the Lord is wanting to deliver you from that in Jesus' name". It just seems like one of those skits that mock overly religious language.

r20 Yeah, I'm sure he's seen those Pew and Gallup religious surveys, he knows deep down there's no future hawking religious crap. Something tells me it won't take him until his late 40s to embrace the cock again.

Future in Evangelical preaching or Republican politics.

I like that peak of his hairy legs. He'll end up going to the other extreme and doing gay porn and winning a Grabby award. Change his name to Cruise.

And it's all a lie. nobody who has read the bible could possibly believe it is antigay. Anti-woman, pro-slavery, yes. But anti-gay, nada. Hell they used conclude contracts with handjobs in ancient times.

R24 Yep. The passage they always cling to is the one that supposedly says man must not lie with another man. That's it. One sentence. If God were massively against homosexuality and if God wrote the Bible, I'm pretty sure there would be more than one sentence about it and the wording would be a lot less ambiguous.

It just seems crazy to me that, even in 2024, so many people still believe every word of their religious texts and use it to justify hatred and prejudice against living people.

I've had many exchanges with them and it always ends the same - ie every argument I make is replied to with a variant of "it's a sin because the Bible said so". And then I give up; not because their argument is compelling, but because I realise the mentality I'm dealing with.

I have not been religious in over 50 years now. Just not for me. And I don’t plan on changing as my end draws near(er)

But I have been taken back by how many threads I have seen in less than a year here on DL from depressed, sad, lonely, hopeless, looking forward to death, with no hope things are going to get better , threads from men here on DL

Therapy or religion might be an improvement but what ever they have been doing so far has not fucking worked. Many religious types might see things a little more healthy like than so many on DL seem to see life.

.

Nihl is not just a river in Egypt, R26!

Maybe things were actually getting better in the past and now they aren't. People are also having fewer babies for the same reasons. This self-loathing closet case twink making money from social media is itself a symptom of the deeper societal rot which economically underwrites his homophobia. Religions gets many new adherents each year, some of those same sad depressed people that R26 mentions, because society is fucked. It's not a nice place to be unless you become self-interested to the point of being willing to fuck other people, in almost every aspect of your life. Rewarding greed and privation looks wonderful on the balance sheet; but society has to pay for it, and no one thinks it's going to be them. Socialist utopias get laughed at, but that, happy homogenous world is the only one in which all people are accepting of homosexuality. Being nice to each other is the only sustainable solution to all problems in life.

R28

World peace and no hunger and every one being nice to everyone else.

Such a sensible plan and well stated

Gayer than me and hiding it.

OP, why do you care about a nobody?

R31, yeah. Who or what is he other than a random moron?

They are using the religion to justify the homophobia, not the other way around. It’s just a happy bonus (or an inevitable outcome with a book full of frothing legalism) that they can pull a few quotes to support that brand of hate.

[quote]R24: And it's all a lie. nobody who has read the bible could possibly believe it is antigay. Anti-woman, pro-slavery, yes. But anti-gay, nada. Hell they used conclude contracts with handjobs in ancient times.

Such oaths are concealed by euphemism, i.e. 'placed his hand under his thigh.'

R24, you once posted that the KJV is a superior version of the bible. It is not. The KJV is the version that popularized the non-biblical term "sodomite," and speaks of "abusers of themselves with mankind." Religious homophobia really stepped up its game with the KJV, likely in an effort to shame the king who ordered it.

Modern versions, however, have done worse.

[quote]R25: Yep. The passage they always cling to is the one that supposedly says man must not lie with another man. That's it. One sentence.

No, babe. If only that were the case. Since 1946, evangelicals have altered the wording of modern translations to the point that they now actually include the word 'homosexual' (and not in Leviticus, which you're citing), and there's a recent version that even creates a specific mention of it in Revelation. Religious conservatives are using the wording of the bible to wage their anti-gay culture war.

Arguing cases on a passage-by-passage basis is one approach, and I've done plenty of that in my time, but it's rarely effective with typical dyed-in-the-wool believers, who tend to distrust such arguments. Carew needs to leave his religion altogether and stop reading the bible, and that's not an easy thing to pull off. Such people have to find their own way out of it, and not all of them do.

[quote]R26: Many religious types might see things a little more healthy like than so many on DL seem to see life.—Old really Old but Happy

R26, you say you're not religious. It's kind of odd to see you attribute happiness to religious belief.

Reliance on religion is a crutch, and not a sign of mental health.

[quote]But I have been taken back by how many threads I have seen in less than a year here on DL from depressed, sad, lonely, hopeless, looking forward to death, with no hope things are going to get better , threads from men here on DL

Such threads are not really reflective of anyone's actual experience, but rather a series of poison-pen letters from trolls attempting to play on the susceptibilities of aging DLers. They're deliberately trying to inculcate hopelessness, in an effort to make someone somewhere on this board kill themselves.

^^tl;dr

▲ FYI, R36 is the trollsock OP of the 𝐃𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐡 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐫 𝐀𝐭𝐭𝐚𝐜𝐤 thread, linked below. He dedicates much of his DL time to attacking me (have a look at his posting history; I seem to live, rent-free, in his head).

He is Delivert!!!

Keep telling yourself that…

[quote] Nihl is not just a river in Egypt, [R26]!

In fact, its not a river at all in Egypt.

I have a funny file of 10 question for God (to answer some of the barbaric passages in the Old Testament.

Most of the time I don’t argue with religious people justifying their dehumanization of others because I don’t care one jack shit what their religion says. In the US we are governed by laws, not theocratic dogma.

Freedom of religion means freedom to practice any religion including none at all.

He's clearly gay.

And PD is a fucking nutcase.

I couldn’t get past the first 30 seconds. Retard.

Why does this person who keeps referring to his idininny over and over again think anyone is interested?

OK, the cute face sucked me in for a half a minute.

[quote]No, babe. If only that were the case. Since 1946, evangelicals have altered the wording of modern translations to the point that they now actually include the word 'homosexual' (and not in Leviticus, which you're citing), and there's a recent version that even creates a specific mention of it in Revelation. Religious conservatives are using the wording of the bible to wage their anti-gay culture war.

Poisoned Dragon is absolutely right about this at R34. The original passage was intended to condemn pedophilia which makes a hell of a lot more sense

[quote]R42: And PD is a fucking nutcase.

I see, in addition to following me around, you're also the troll who, in the 𝟐𝟎 𝐅𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐥𝐲 𝐏𝐨𝐩𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐫 𝐃𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐭𝐬 𝐓𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐇𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐅𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐈𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐇𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 thread, also posted, "I'm an attorney, live in Midtown, and have more $$$ than you will ever see." (Reply 37 of that thread, linked below.)

R46 PD there's a few munters and headcases in this joint mate. Sooner or later ya get one that tags onto you like a lost puppy.... but malicious

Coin slot or tight pucker?

People don't realize how the Bible has been dumbed down and desexualized since American pastors decided to rewrite it for children. It was not a children's book, nor for the general public for that matter. It was for a priestly caste and it is chock full of sex that has been euphemistically translated. Of course that didn't start with American pastors, although they were the worst of them. Even the king james version is full of "put his hand under his thigh" when the Hebrew word for penis was in the original text they were working with.

[quote]R45/v8fairy: The original passage was intended to condemn pedophilia which makes a hell of a lot more sense

When you say this, which "original passage" do you mean? Leviticus 18:22/20:13, or 1 Corinthians 6:9?

Not true. And "abominations" has a negative context today that it did not have when mistranslators used it. Wearing mixed fibers was an abomination in their eyes.

The Bible also didn't care about pedophilia. So much modern day baggage being loaded on it.

[quote]When you say this, which "original passage" do you mean? Leviticus 18:22/20:13, or 1 Corinthians 6:9?

R50 Let me check on that, it was in an article I remember reading about this when the whole 1946 thing hit the news a while back, I'd always wondered why it condemned homosexuality and not the far far worse and more damaging act of pedophilia

I am not a biblical scholar I hasten to add!

That person is no biblical scholar either. Israel got its name from hot man sex between Jacob and "an angel" who is supposed tobe god. Daniel saved Israel in captivity by whoring himself out to Nebuchadnezzar. David and Jonathan had steamy mansex. Song of Solomon was filled with mansex. Prophets all over the place were gays. You simply cannot believe anything an American Christian says about the bible because 1) they never read it; or 2) they read different parts differently; or 3) they've been misled by the "for the children" fake translations.

OK R50, found it - well not the original article I remember but another one on the same theme, here's the relevant chunk, and it mentions both those passages. Link below

[quote]Further, as Oxford shares with Forge, a nonprofit organization that "that creates space for post-evangelical conversations, which includes tools and resources for lgbtq+ inclusion in the church," "...we went to Leviticus 18:22 and [the translator is] translating it for me word for word. In the English where it says, 'Man shall not lie with man, for it is an abomination,' the German version says, 'Man shall not lie with young boys as he does with a woman, for it is an abomination.' I said, 'What?! Are you sure?' He said, 'Yes!" Then we went to Leviticus 20:13-- same thing, 'Young boys.' So we went to 1 Corinthians to see how they translated arsenokoitai (original Greek word) and instead of homosexuals it said, 'Boy molesters will not inherit the kingdom of God.'"

Again like I said, I'm an engineer, not a bible scholar!

Religion is the speed bumps towards a more perfect world. The insanity of literally believing in the myths and conceptions of these manuscripts really is puzzling for rational people.

Faith can be a rewarding personal journey.

Piously pushing an agenda is manipulative and inhumane.

R53, I doubt that 1 Corinthians 6:9 would refer to pedophilia, since it lists among the "unrighteous" or "unjust" (ἄδικοι) the πόρνοι, μαλακοί, ἀρσενοκοῖται, terms that would be more apt for the receptive male partner than the (older) dominant partner. The last term could more comfortably accommodate any male "lying" with another male, but has no reference to age difference.

Oh, I just saw your post at R55. "Boy molesters" is not a great translation for ἀρσενοκοῖται, which, again, has no reference to age.

Absalom seduced the men of Israel with his kisses, why closet case Faulkner was so keen to appropriate him. Faulkner's work is full of the sexualized gay coding of a closet case (like when he switched a gay male romp to lesbians in "Mosquitoes")

Fair enough R57, I'll have to take your word on that as I dont know ancient Greek (or whatever the language in question is).

Any idea what the original writers were trying to convey?

It's important to note that modern day theologian frauds have read physical intimacy into a system of classification that didn't include it. The Greek words for possessive selfish love (eros), mutual love (filial), and adoring selfless love (agape) could all be physical or non-physical. The scheme did not divide love into "actions" v. "platonic" love. All three could be physical and all three could be non-physical. It is the lying Christian apologists of our own day who call eros sex and filial "brotherly" and agape "divine or worshipful." It's ALL nonsense.

I'm not a biblical scholar, R59, but in 1 Corinthians 6:9 the unusual term ἀρσενοκοῖται might be chosen to reflect the Greek version of Leviticus 18:22, καὶ μετὰ ἄρσενος οὐ κοιμηθήσῃ κοίτην γυναικός. My impression is that both texts could accommodate the typical ancient Mediterranean acceptance of adult men having sex with younger, passive boys as well as women, while the boys (or women) are stigmatized in a typical double standard. But I know some scholars want to see more specific contexts like prostitution or pagan religious practice (in 1 Corinthians only the term πόρνοι specifically means "male prostitutes").

[quote]R53: Let me check on that, it was in an article I remember reading about this when the whole 1946 thing hit the news a while back, I'd always wondered why it condemned homosexuality and not the far far worse and more damaging act of pedophilia

Ah, 1946. Then the passage in question is 1 Corinthians 6:9, Revised Standard Version, which they had altered to say, "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor ℎ𝑜𝑚𝑜𝑠𝑒𝑥𝑢𝑎𝑙𝑠...". After some debate, in 1971, they changed 'ℎ𝑜𝑚𝑜𝑠𝑒𝑥𝑢𝑎𝑙𝑠' to read '𝑠𝑒𝑥𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑠', which was less explicit, permitting those who held that homosexuals were perverts to continue to believe that the passage referred to them.

As much as it might make sense to us that the passage refers to pedophilia, I must concur with R52 and R57. Pedophilia is one of the bible's blind spots (as rape is also); while we might wish to condemn it, the bible is unhelpful in that area (save possibly indirectly with Mark 9:42, cf. Matt. 18:6; Lk. 17:2; but that would be quite a stretch).

The fact is that the word in question, 𝑎𝑟𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑜𝑘𝑜𝑖𝑡𝑎𝑖, is something known as a ℎ𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑥 𝑙𝑒𝑔𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑜𝑛, a word that only occurs once, and whose meaning cannot be determined by the context in which it is used. (𝐴𝑟𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑜𝑘𝑜𝑖𝑡𝑎𝑖 occurs a second time at 1 Timothy 1:10, but is merely a copy of 1 Corinthians 6:9, intended to multiply witnesses. It too is unhelpful in defining the word.)

We don't know what it means, and probably - definitively - never will. I myself lean towards the notion that it condemns male rape and/or forced prostitution. But arguments justifying that are thin.

Once it had appeared in the New Testament, instances of its use began to multiply in other texts (Apology of Aristides, the Sibylline Oracles, Eusebius, etc), but these seem to have done what translators in every era have done with the word - project their own particular anxieties onto it.

The KJV translators worded 1 Corinthians 6:9 as though trying to have it two ways - targeting same-sex activity 𝑎𝑛𝑑 masturbation. Hence, "𝑎𝑏𝑢𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑚𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑣𝑒𝑠 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑘𝑖𝑛𝑑."

This is the 21st century. Nobody should be prostrating themselves before the idol of an early Common Era religious text, whether we understand it, or only suppose that we do. Its cultural mores are atavistic and barbaric - and that can be said of the ones we understand. It's past time to let it go.

Thanks R62. I cant say I really have a dog in this fight anyway as I'm agnostic, and I totally agree with what you said here

[quote]Its cultural mores are atavistic and barbaric - and that can be said of the ones we understand. It's past time to let it go.

[quote] Its cultural mores are atavistic and barbaric - and that can be said of the ones we understand.

And that's largely true of us as well, it's about cultural mores. I hope nobody is under some illusion that if we can only convince some bitter Baptist that it's all a big misunderstanding and mistranslation, that they will then stop hating us. They won't. They'll simply deny that the translation is wrong, because the mistranslation is there in the first place for deeply engrained cultural reasons.

It's not like everyone was all hunky-dory about us in 1945 and suddenly, OH NOES, somebody said God hates us and now everyone has to turn around and start condemning us. Hey, you know what else was happening in 1946? Newly liberated Germany was deciding that those homosexuals who had been freed from concentration camps weren't actually victims of Naziism, cause, come on, we all know they're really criminals and sinners, right? Basically, the Nazis were wrong about the Jews but oh so right about the homos.

All these mistranslations come from the same source: a desire to match the "word of God" to the hatreds the wider society already feels. (or at least the priesthood writing the books. It's a real question how much of this shit was ever put into practice, really, in ancient Israel and Judea.)

Sad to see all the other “ex-gays” and “struggling sinners” in the comments.

R65

Sad is the best reason to read at DL. It’s not just this thread. You can drink, bath, swim, and drown in sad here on the DL.

Everybody has been bitching lately about DL being sad, but it beats the hell out of the tired, smug pomposity of Reddit. DL is a fucking treasure in comparison.

It’s surprising to me that people that spend so much time on both Reddit and DL would be so often complaining about self diagnosed mental health problems and sadness in their lives..

[quote]I do not. It would be one thing if this was a struggle he was working out on his own, and these were merely his current conclusions, but he's propagating this shit online, creating stumbling blocks for other confused individuals (Justin Bieber is one of those). He's spreading the damage.

Precisely. He should be ashamed of himself.

New video

Terrible that this man can't be his authentic self and has been poisoned by religion.

Jesus had a same sex family. He instructs Beloved John to look after his mother when he is executed.

r72 just fucking kill yourself.

Does Dignity still exist That bizzaro world of gay Catholics?

R74 HOW IS LIFE IN 1974?

I mean if the LGBTQ community supports trans people and claim that they can change gender. Are ex gays any different in their belief that Jesus can change their attractions? However, why shouldn’t we support people who have homosexual tendencies to live a life according to their wishes?

It's just gay on this forum you cunt

R70

i saw Reshad Verme’s testimony and it seems like he has autogynphilia. He was most definitely bisexual. He started off by having sex with pre-transition trans women in high school. He had a girlfriend in college. It was during Covid that Reshad started to have thoughts of transitioning. He said that he converted when he was at the peak of gender nonconformity.

If he hadn’t converted, he would be another trans activist talking about queer theory and black trans women.

So from the outside looking in, Rashad is just someone looking for a meaning and belonging. It isn’t uncommon for people in cults to join away cult.

This gay conversion shit is so tired. How in 2024 are people still acting like it's possible?!

You can just tell his web browsing history would paint a wholly different picture to the words coming out his mouth.

There are two types of people who make these kind of videos:

1. Deeply in the closet and kidding themselves (the majority)

2. Those who were never gay but pretend they were because it then appears to be evidence that conversion therapy works and other right wingers can cite the video as an example

3. Those who were never gay but thought they were because they are a stereotype.

“All I wanted to do was suck dick, but the Lord Jesus Christ said there was another direction!” 🤡

R81

You personally know a lot of people who make videos like this? That’s pretty interesting if so.

R81 Nope, but I've seen several on YouTube over the years (though I hadn't seen the one linked in R78).

Oops I meant to tag R84 in my post above.

R85

Well even more impressive that you know why these men makes these videos despite not knowing any or even watching all the videos

R87 It's called having a theory. Do you disagree with either of my points? Do you think any gay man has successfully converted to being straight?

I'm with you, R88. The person who's arguing with you is just trying to be a sarcastic, argumentative asshole, which apparently doesn't require much effort.

R88

I was pulling your keg a bit. I realized it was an opinion and you had likely never once talked to any of them to ask them why.

Next time start it with——I have a theory. :-)

R88

Instead of pretending you know why people you don’t know do things try this:

A study looked at 47 different programs aimed a changing the gay to straight. Many of these programs caused damage to those that tried to flip. Only one study showed their efforts were successful. And that was a study of religious types and its minimal success was all self reports .

There is absolutely no scientific support that these conversion efforts work.

But like you I have absolutely no idea why these men make these videos.

R89 Yeah, I can always tell it's them because they always put two carriage returns after the post number they're replying to.

They seem to be a troll, as they're seemingly against conversion therapy and agree it doesn't work, yet they take issue with my post where I come up with two very valid reasons why people make videos claiming to be "ex-gay".

R92, you're probably right.

I"m sorry R73 that you haven't read the Bible or else you would know that. Who takes care of the family after you die is a big marker of family in olden times.

Tears of a clown 🤡