same-sex love

Originally Posted by blue

get disgusted when I see couples--of any sexual preference--sucking face right out in public, though.

Do you have a boyfriend? Just wondering.

Quote:

It is not that I don't believe two people of the same sex can be truly in love--it is clear that they can--but I suspect that it is love deviating from what God created.

What is the difference between the love shared between two men and love that God himself created? Be as detailed as you can.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Eleo

I have to admit that seeing a two people of the same sex holding hands or kissing would draw my attention pretty well, just because it's so unusual.

Pretty much word-for-word for me.

Maybe it's due to the fact that I don't go to the city often but I rarely see two people of the same sex having any intimate contact in public whatsoever. Rarely as in i've seen it maybe twice.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by DieSeLFueLeD

Why did this thread turn into "queers make me uneasy cause I can't look past my bigotted religion?"

It's so much easier to say that than come out with a well-reasoned argument, isn't it?

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by blue

It's so much easier to say that than come out with a well-reasoned argument, isn't it?

That is because what DieSeLFueLeD said does not need much of a argument. Many religions claim that homosexuality is morally wrong and thus spawns biggitory in the conservative believers. I bet if a religion said otherwise, then the believer would not view homosexuality as wrong or immoral.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

I think far too many people take religion far too seriously. For one, we have no way of knowing how the universe was created, and we never will. If we knew that, we'd probably know how it's going to end, and if we know that, it might as well already be over, ya dig? It's a stupid question to ask because it doesn't help anyone. To paraphrase Albert Einstein, Frank Herbert, and who knows who else: The mystery of life is not a problem to be solved, it is a reality to be experienced.

Second of all, to believe in an all-powerful, all-knowing being that is somehow offended by it's very creations is utterly ludicrous. The Creater I know likes it when her creations change and grow. She's also pretty happy whenever her creations fall in love and, against all odds, make it work and help eachother to, you guessed it, change and grow. How anyone, let alone the Creator, can look at a pair of lovers of any gender and be offended is completely beyond me.

Another point that a lot of people seem to miss is that religious traditions are meant to be a personal philosophy and set of theories that benefits the individual and aids in their development, not a rubric by which to judge those around you. The bible says that homosexuality is an outright abomination, but it also says "Judge not, lest ye be judged." "Modern" Christianity is more of an abomination than a bunch of homos ever was, IMO, because this very simple point is lost to almost all who follow it. I'll remind you that the bible was written fairly early in human evolution, in a time when reproduction was a lot more important than it is now. The big guy (or lady, whichever you prefer) was simply looking out for us at the time, and making sure we didn't die out before we reached a point of stability, but that's hardly a concern anymore. When there are six billion people consuming resources faster than they are renewed, homosexuality ceases to be a threat, and becomes a species-wide survial trait.

Fear and hatred are much bigger threats to our great species than love, don't ya think?

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by a lurker

Do you have a boyfriend? Just wondering.

What is the difference between the love shared between two men and love that God himself created? Be as detailed as you can.

Please answer my questions, blue.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Terra

I don't mind at all, be it heterosexual or not. I actually like watching couples make out - makes me happy to see they're in love, and enjoying life.

I actually feel the same way. Not to say I'm into voyeurism, but watching two people happy makes me feel good.

I don't neccessarily want to step inbetween the discussion going on with blue and the other members of GFF but I think it is important to take into account cultural context and upbringing. I was raised a Catholic by conservative Korean parents. It was over time that I developed acceptance towards homosexuality and other "liberal" views. While is easy to call my previous points of view ignorant and irrational, its hard to discount the way we were raised. I think its unfair that certain religions have a negative outlook towards homosexuality among other things, but at the same time others should understand the situation. Growing up, we are extremely impressionable especially to the sayings of high authorities such as churches and parents. Blue has admitted to being raised religiously just as I have. For the most part, I think the argument going on is pretty civil so I'm not criticizing anyone. I just wanted to bring up a consideration. Thats just my input for now.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

But it's good for the voyeurs too. If the guy is hot, for instance, I get an giddy little thrill thinking about what ELSE he might be doing if he's going this far in public. Tripleplusgood if it's two guys making out. In Italy I saw two male teenagers holding each other while on a ferry to Capri. I stared basically the entire time. I'm sure the naked longing on my face was a bit off-putting, but in no way was it condemnatory.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

To interject some life (and controversy?) into this topic, I'm most certainly philosophically, practically, and theologically against homosexuality. That stated, it doesn't affect my personal relationships any more than it does for any other person ("You regularly steal? Back, heathen!"). I was rather shocked, however, when I travelled from Wisconsin to New Hampshire (college) and discovered that people of differing opinions on politics, religion, society, and the like don't often want to associate. *sigh*

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Alice

I don't want to see anyone making out/dry humping in public - heterosexual or homosexual. Light kissing, holding hands, etc. doesn't bother me at all, whether it's a man and a woman, two men, or two women.

Alice's first post steals the thread!

I tend to recognize that romance is gender-blind and so if two guys or two girls think the other is the shit, then well let them do their thing. I only ask that I be left out of it. Keep personal business to yourself and all that. Or in other words, don't make a spectacle about it, regardless of WHO it is.

Admittedly, I don't mind as much if I see two chicks making out, but it is a bit rude to do it just in the middle of the sidewalk or something you know? That's why they have Girls-Gone-Wild after all

Quote:

What is the difference between the love shared between two men and love that God himself created? Be as detailed as you can.

While some would simply respond to that question with "Its not natural" and leave it at that, I'm going to play devil's advocate and try and come up with a fairly objective response, devoid of personal opinion regarding the morality of homosexuality: using various key points:

WARNING: PEOPLE WITH ADD, OR SHORT ATTENTIONS SPANS, DO NOT BOTHER.

Spoiler:

1:Humans as a species mate between the male and female, and this is the only natural (Test tubes & sperm banks and all of that are not methods given from birth, which is what I mean by natural, meaning abilities allowable at birth), anyone past the age of 10 probably knows this.

2:With Homosexuality, the possibility for a natural child birth is impossible, not the right equipment (Gender-Specific Organs) for such a thing.

3:In the cultures of the biblical era and beyond, creating offspring and the act of procreation for strictly that purpose was likely the normal cultural habit.

4:This notion is supported by several other cultural curiosities (From the perspective of the modern, western industrialized world, i.e., today, 2007) as seen in various ancient cultures, particularly, Homosexuality in Ancient Greece.
a.

Quote:

The ancient Greeks did not conceive of sexual orientation as a social identifier, as Western societies have done for the past century. In the ancient Greek context, the terms "homosexual" and "heterosexual" are properly used only to describe activities, not identities. Greek society did not distinguish sexual desire or behavior by the gender of the participants, but by the extent to which such desire or behavior conformed to social norms. These norms were based on gender, age and social status.

b.

Quote:

The most common form of same-sex relationships between males in Greece was "paiderastia" meaning "boy love". It was a relationship between an older male and an adolescent youth. In Athens the older man was called erastes, he was to educate, protect, love, and provide a role model for his beloved. His beloved was called eromenos whose reward for his lover lay in his beauty, youth, and promise.

c.

Quote:

Elaborate social protocols existed to protect youths from the shame associated with being sexually penetrated. The eromenos was supposed to respect and honor the erastes, but not to desire him sexually. Although being courted by an older man was practically a rite of passage for young men, a youth who was seen to reciprocate the erotic desire of his erastes faced considerable social stigma

.
- So as explained above, it would seem that they did not view gender-preference as we did, but they held the act of being sexually awakened, or breaking virginity, as something of value and worth.
As for women?
d.

Quote:

Sappho, a poet from the island of Lesbos, wrote many love poems addressed to women and girls. The love in these poems is sometimes requited, and sometimes not. Sappho is thought to have written close to 12,000 lines of poetry on her love for other women. Of these, only about 600 lines have survived. As a result of her fame in antiquity, she and her land have become emblematic of love between women.

Pedagogic erotic relationships are also documented for Sparta, together with athletic nudity for women. Plato's Symposium mentions women who "do not care for men, but have female attachments." In general, however, the historical record of love and sexual relations between women is sparse.

A look at the typical household of Ancient Greece will give more insight into the views on Marriage and love:
e.

Quote:

A household consisted of a single set of parents and their children, but generally no relatives. Men were responsible for supporting the family by work or investments in land and commerce. Women were responsible for managing the household's supplies and overseeing slaves, who fetched water in jugs from public fountains, cooked, cleaned, and looked after babies. Men kept separate rooms for entertaining guests because male visitors were not permitted in rooms where women and children spent most of their time.

And in regards to marriage specifically:

f.

Quote:

Types of Marriage: There were two basic types of marriage that provided legitimate offspring. In one, the (male) legal guardian (kurios) who had charge of the woman arranged her marriage partner. This type of marriage is called enguesis 'betrothal'. If a woman was an heiress without a kurios, she was called an epiikleros, and might be (re-)married by the marriage form known as epidikasia.
It was unusual for a woman to own property, so the marriage of an epikleros was to the next closest available male in the family, who thereby gained control of the property. If the woman were not an heiress, the archon would find a close male relative to marry her and become her kurios. Women married in this way produced sons who were legal heirs to their fathers' property.

As you can see above, Marriage was much closely tied to producing children and political alliances (Although this was more prominent in Roman culture rather then greek). Very little is mentioned of Marriage for love.

- From the above analysis, it can be surmised that Marriage for Ancient Greeks (Who were also a prominent figure of Homosexual relations) was more of a business transaction then a rite of romantic love. Thus pure romantic attachments came from men-to-boy shared love. I could not find any records of Male-to-Male marriage, so I assume that practice did not exist or was illegal.

- Now then, for the second part: Homosexual love was not seen as a method of childbearing, so it was unnatural in a biological sense. In a cultural sense its clear to see that since a love between two men or two women would never produce offspring, that it was not of value and so it should be eliminated. In the ancient cultures of Greece, China, Roman Empire, etc., the lifespan of humanity was much lower then it was today, so there was a much greater emphasis on keeping the line of fore-bearers and the "House" of a Family alive, and this was done by child begating child begating child, ad infinitum.

- Now that we have established that, we can then perhaps imagine, that the original instructions of God were perhaps, indicative of the notion that Marriage and the act of sexual intercourse was best reserved for a man and a woman, as they would produce a child and the family would continue. It would likely be a hard 'sell' to allow for homosexual love when there was no obvious 'effect' that came of it (Sex between a man and a woman gave a child, thus it had an 'effect'), so God says "Marriage is to be between a man and a woman".
Take this original transcript, and attempt to convey the context and word-for-word meaning of what was said, combine that with the human element-- translating a word as something else because "Well, god OBVIOUSLY meant Travel and not Traverse" (An example of a word being changed), and add up many many years of small changes and language translations and add to that the bigotry of biblical text which does not seem 'correct' to a powerful group of men (Look no further the the Apocrypha Texts), and have that cycle continue for well over a few centuries, and you will end up with a translation of text which is far removed from the original source in literal meaning.

Of course, for those who would scream at me 'heretic' and 'blasphemer', keep in mind that even today, translators work on a 'meaning' and the 'intent' of what is said, and not the literal word-for-word message. This is why word-play jokes, puns, culture-specific references, etc., are often vastly different then the original source.

An example from the movie "Lost in Translation", which as you might tell by the title, deals with this very issue:

Quote:

A scene in the film illustrates being "Lost in Translation" quite literally. Bob, a director (played by Yutaka Tadokoro), and an interpreter (Akiko Takeshita) are on a set, filming a whiskey commercial. The audience witnesses several exchanges where the director speaks several sentences, with passion, followed by a pithy translation. At one point a slightly exasperated Bob asks "Is that everything? It seemed like he said quite a bit more than that." The scene is played without subtitles, so those viewers who don't speak Japanese feel as lost as Bob does. Motoko Rich of The New York Times translated the scene in a 2003 article.[2] One of the exchanges translated by Rich illustrates the scene in general:

Bob: Does he want me to, to turn from the right or turn from the left?
Interpreter (in formal Japanese, to the director): He has prepared and is ready. And he wants to know, when the camera rolls, would you prefer that he turn to the left, or would you prefer that he turn to the right? And that is the kind of thing he would like to know, if you don't mind.
Director (very brusquely, in colloquial Japanese): Either way is fine. That kind of thing doesn't matter. We don't have time, Bob-san, O.K.? You need to hurry. Raise the tension. Look at the camera. Slowly, with passion. It's passion that we want. Do you understand?
Interpreter (In English, to Bob): Right side. And, uh, with intensity.

As you can see, the original meaning and the English produced were very different. The same meaning was carried across "Intensity and to the Right", but Passion may mean a whole something else to a Japanese than to an American, and while Intensity is a valid word to be used in place of Passion, Passion itself carries connotations not seen with the word 'intensity'.

So, to finally answer your question lurker, the non-emotional base reason, I feel that a lot of people do not consider Homosexual love the same as the love provided by God is thus simplified:
- Homosexuals do not have the right equipment for making babies.
- Babies are the primary reason for Marriage up until perhaps 100 years ago (Marriage out of love)
- God intended (This is my theory and not to be held as hard fact) that Men focus on producing children, and the bit about the homosexuality was probably that "Hey, homosexuality is fine, but once you get married, drop it, ok?", meaning that the priority of producing children and the sacrament of the act of sex should be reserved for people who with you share a deep emotional attachment with. One night stands and such are likely what he was trying to say was bad, and that while you can certainly have a deep emotional connection with a person of the same gender, that Marriage to that person was a symbol that they would not only be the producer of your child, but also your life-time partner and lover. THAT is what the meaning of marriage was original intended for, I hypothesize.
- and to conclude (The near-complete answer to this, covering ALL possible aspects could be a doctoral thesis in and of itself, so I will stop short) this expose on your question, lurker, I think that by a combination of Tradition, Childbearing/Biology coming first, and the over-time corruption of Church Members and Officials to fear and eliminate that which did not fall in with the teachings, is why today Homosexuality is viewed as wrong, and not of the same kind of love as the kind indicated by the Bible.

--------------
Now, for the three of you who actually read all of this, I THANK YOU. Its not everyday that I pull a Crash Landon and make something of this length, and also: This also may be subjective in that my personal beliefs are somewhat in focus with my above theories: That love (and I mean LOVE, not lust, or desperation, or sexual cravings or jealousy or mental illness or narcotics) transcends gender and identity and is pure and without restraint. God taught that his love is infinite, and so I think it is a mistake of the transcriptions of his word that has risen to the strife created today.

I hope that is a sufficient enough answer

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Wow, well said, Dark. After reading through that, I'm kind of left speechless. I don't really know what to say. I totally agree with it though. Props to you.

Except for: "Hurray for reviving old threads!" And while I know it wasn't you, it still happened. :P

I was speaking idiomatically.

Regarding natural ability to procreate as a criteria for the morality of the act, humanity has throughout history shown a great ingenuity in overcoming the restrictions placed upon it by nature. If it were possible some time in the future for two men or women to conceive, through some expensive and very involved medical procedure, for instance, does that change anything?

I ask because I don't think there's a clear line between what, with our technology, is merely working more efficiently with the natural functions that already exist, and what one would determine to be opposed. One could make the argument that advanced medical treatment of any kind is against nature. Lots of people would disagree, and then the question becomes at what level does technology change from working within the natural order to imposing our will upon it?

The objection from the gay perspective to traditional meaning of marriages and inheritance doesn't really have anything to do with love either. I think that objection stems more from an apparent contradiction between one of the founding principles of this country, that all men are created equal and everything that entails, and the idea that right now, only a specific class of couple of recognized as a single unit by the government and given all of the privileges that entails.

Granted, there's a undefined line there too between couples that are acceptable and couples that aren't. Undefined at least culturally. It is not yet a part of our cultural background, ie general things we all accept, that gay couples are ok. So really the discussion on the morality of the thing does need to come before the discussion on the rights that that entails, I agree with you there.

I realize the thread was really old, but DN's a smart guy. I want to hear him talk. ;_;

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Avalokiteshvara

Regarding natural ability to procreate as a criteria for the morality of the act, humanity has throughout history shown a great ingenuity in overcoming the restrictions placed upon it by nature. If it were possible some time in the future for two men or women to conceive, through some expensive and very involved medical procedure, for instance, does that change anything?
[/size]

Wouldn't it just be easier well not only to adopt... But to say have two lesbians accept sperm donations(Aka sperm bank) from two guys they choose from? Or that they ask for a woman they know to carry a child of her egg and thier sperm possibly from a sperm bank? I mean they would still avoid things they aren't interested but aren't we pretty much in the brink of easy ways for same-sex to concieve or are you talking about more matters out of the womb development?

FELIPE NO

I dont like over the top Public Displays of Affection whether it be hetro or homosexual couples. Holding hands, hugging and light kissing is acceptable to me. I'm not bothered what sexual orientation of the couple is if it makes them happy, why should anyone else be bothered.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

As for my stance? Well, to be honest, it was kinda like the media's influence on the imagery of drugs. A bit of the ol' propaganda brainwash effect (not TV ads, I'm referring to local. Possibly my old man). Flat-out didn't like 'em.

Then a rather bizarre thing happened. Around when I was 16, I ran into a gal that I knew from back when I was 9 until I was 13 or so. Had grown into quite a pretty gal, and I got around to talking to her. Most of it was online, since she lived 100 miles away at this point (I ran into her again when she was revisiting the old school at a friend's request). Quickly found out that we were almost entirely alike. Background, politics, humor, interest in anime (but not to the extent of being a freak), etc. Then I figured I'd finally find out if she had a boyfriend. I made a roundabout jab of someone mistaking my voice on the phone for someone else's when I tried to call her, saying "they figured I was your boyfriend I think~"

Her response was "Ahahaha. I don't have a boyfriend." Immediately I did a bit of a victory dance but I felt my feet swept out from under me when she said she was only interested in girls. I covered up my disbelief rather swiftly, continued the conversation without missing a beat, but once I hung up? Ooof. Talk about a little maelstrom of emotions. We had our long stretches of not talking simply due to schedules and what-not, but finally we did so, and I thought to myself "meh... Fuck it" and just shut her sexuality out of my mind. Kept talking to her as a buddy. Then she actually came to me asking for advice in regards to a girlfriend of hers. Made me uncomfortable, but I gave her help. Bit by bit, I found myself more and more accepting, since I knew a homosexual personally and got used to talking to them. If she one day maaaagically turned straight, I'd date her in a heartbeat. But nothing shy of a fucked up emotional experience or blunt trauma to the head will cause that. 'Till then, she'll remain as she is: most definitely one of my best friends.

I didn't think they were sodomites who would burn in eternal hellfire in the past. Never. But I'd grumble angrily about them. Now, they just strike me as bizarre (or rather unusual, being a better of choice of words) when I come across them. I visited San Francisco last year and saw two guys holding hands that walked down the street past me. I watched them for a couple seconds then looked on as if nothing happened. In addition, about a year before that, samari (former poster here) and I met up since we both attended A&M. He was homosexual, but I didn't feel even slightly uncomfortable talking to him, since I was used to him Guess I underwent conversion, thanks to my friend =o

If you ever talk to someone of the religious right about homosexuals, it absolutely startles me as to how much hate they can have for a type of person without even knowing them.

Bottom line though? It strikes me as out of place. I don't feel the urge to slit their throats or anything weird like that. It's just something I'm not used to seeing. If anyone here was exposed to the same background, you'd possibly identify. Something to compare it to? I have a pet beagle who is missing a leg. It was shot and had to be amputated. He's still a good ol' sweet beagle, but folks who haven't seen him before are really estranged by his stump/missing leg. It's just a matter of getting used to really.

[/rant]

Homosexual PDAs?:

Spoiler:

Hey, I accept them just fine. Can't stop me from making fun of them just like every other niche of society ='D

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Dark Nation, if there wasn't a tremendous risk of turning this into a theology topic, I'd aruge that point for point. Since that isn't this topic's purpose, though, I'll just compliment you on having a strikingly cogent argument, despite my total disagreement with your outcome. Nice work.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Seems like a good place to put my stance.

I'm a slightly liberal moderate living a very conservative lifestyle in one of the most conservative religions out there. And I'm gay. Most people don't understand how that works, but it's a fact of life for me.

Reconciling conservative religion with homosexuality is a huge hurdle, and most people won't even attempt it unless it punches them in the face - either through their own struggles or through the struggles of someone they're close to. I grew up believing that homosexuality in all forms was wrong, unnatural, and an abomination in God's sight. Then I realized (early on, apparently) that I was definitely attracted to guys much more frequently than girls. That was never a choice presented to me - it's my natural inclination. When it then became obvious that no amount of intense prayer, fasting, or religious worship was going to change the way I felt, I knew I had to figure out where I was going to go with things.

The way I see it, temptations are not sins. Jesus was tempted by the Devil himself - did that make Him a sinner? So my being homosexual is not a sin. Acting on that temptation - if I believe that homosexuality is a sin, then it's the acting that makes the sin. And I don't think that homosexual activity really has any place in the plan God has set up for us. I believe that one of the main purposes of life on earth is to pursue healthy family relationships, and that the natural order of things, and the conditions under which a family flourishes best, is with a father and mother who love each other, fulfilling whichever roles they have decided upon together.

This doesn't mean I condemn people who believe otherwise - how you believe is your business, not mine. Of course I think I'm right, but anyone with any measure of self esteem ought to feel convinced of their own opinion if it's thought-out.

So how do I live my life? I actively pursue the aspect of myself that isn't homosexual, but I don't ignore that aspect of who I am. Homosexuality doesn't define me, but it is part of who I am and I won't deny that. And love, for me, transcends gender and is more than just attraction and sex. I hope when I fall in love that I'm attracted to the person I fall in love with, but if that doesn't come I'll have another challenge to face. And if someone falls in love with anyone, same gender or not, I really shouldn't base my opinion on that relationship purely on 'what' they are. Concern for safety or emotional well being is one thing, concern for one's private bits is entirely another.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Sousuke

Except for: "Hurray for reviving old threads!" And while I know it wasn't you, it still happened. :P

You know, I had looked back on the thread right after I had hit "Submit", and then I saw the date of the last post, and the poster before that-- several months. However instead of wasting all of that effort, I just said fuck it and went about my business.

Responses to posters:

Souske: Thanks.

Mr. Compassion:

Spoiler:

I realized that after typing out my post, (And a particular comment you said helped affirm it) that the central problem with the division between Same Sex Love/Marriage & Traditional Marriage/Love is that while any person in the modern world (I do not of course, refer to dictatorial or societies with very strict social standards) can apply for Civil Unions, there is the Symbolism that goes along with Marriage. Its the meaning behind the meaning, the mechanical devices behind the smoke and mirrors as it were, that by pledging to give themselves only to their appointed partner, they are telling the world (And with their partner obviously! =p ) that they are willing to be with that other person through the oft-repeated vows in any situation.

That symbolism and the ceremonies that go along with it, are a unique artifact of the days of "Rule by Religion" and the historic place of the Church as a body of power and legislation, and it signifies as I stated above, a commitment.

Quote:

The objection from the gay perspective to traditional meaning of marriages and inheritance doesn't really have anything to do with love either. I think that objection stems more from an apparent contradiction between one of the founding principles of this country, that all men are created equal and everything that entails, and the idea that right now, only a specific class of couple of recognized as a single unit by the government and given all of the privileges that entails.

.
Took the words right out of my mouth: It would also seem that those gay and lesbian couples are, indirectly, being denied both the responsibilities and privileges gained by Marriage, but also the SYMBOLISM, the act of saying "I will be with you no matter what", and it is a token of that couple's affection and love (And yes I am perfectly aware of the divorce rate, I will get to that soon), and by not being allows to marry, they are also being denied the chance to show to the world their love and devotion to the other, which is, Ironically, more powerful and perhaps (With the divorce rate as it is) more meaningful that they would drive to gain that which has oft been tossed aside by heterosexual couples.

Funny enough, I think that if Marriage WAS allows for homosexuals, it would bring at least in some ways, a reknewed sense of holiness to the act of marriage. Their struggle for equality in the eyes of the Church (Vicariously being the eyes of God) is also a shout-out that they want to follows the Church's rules and doctrines, and the church is caught in a sort of catch-22: If they allows gays to Marry, then in the church's eyes the act of Marriage will not be worth as much, but if they don't allow gays to marry then they will be denying doctrines of their faith, and similarly telling otherwise perfectly law (by which I mean the laws of God) abiding believers that despite that they go to church every Sunday and particpate as much as anyone else does, that they can't marry or find true (And not hollow-surface only) acceptance from the Church. This seems to be, contradictory and in some ways, insulting.

But the sad fact of the matter (And I speak often here in opinions and theories, little of which is or can even be made fact, just educated guesses and supposes) that In reality Marriage not worth as much because of the rampant divorces and materialism that is a fact of life today (Prenuptial Agreements, anyone?).

To address your second question:

Quote:

One could make the argument that advanced medical treatment of any kind is against nature. Lots of people would disagree, and then the question becomes at what level does technology change from working within the natural order to imposing our will upon it?

That is a very interesting question you pose and I find myself without something to respond with. As far I can think of, there IS no fine line between what is acceptable and what is not, and this... erosion of Ethical and moral lines (Which I also feel define themselves through the creation of strict and easily seen 'boundaries') is not only a question of what is natural and what is unnatural, but also a deeper question of how do we define morality and Ethics when the situations they handle more often then not have NO line at all... just a fine gradient, like the filter in photoshop.

Gechmir: Funny enough I had a similar experience of my own like that. My opinons of Homosexality have flown from one extreme to another. At an early age (Of teenage years) I found an accidental exposure to the more stereotypical erotica of same-sex to be abhorent and disgusting, while on the other end I found myself seeing the viewpoints of those who were in long-term deeply committed relationships with those of the same gender, so in summary I had no defined stance on homosexuality, and to this day it remains fluid. I suppose that's a side-effect of my indecisiveness ¬_¬ Like you I had encountered a woman who I had an immediate and calm introduction to, and I felt none of the usual jitteryness or nervousness as with meeting new potential single women, and moments after I came to the conclusion that she either was taken or was a lesbian (The former happens on a scarily high level for me), it turned out that, yep, she was a lesbian... not bisexual, not bi-curious, not pseudo-lesbian, but full-blow dyke. However she was still an awesome girl and I still occasionally see her (She took a different major then I did, so our time of meeting was short) in the computer lab.

GhaleonQ: Well perhaps in the future we can debate and have an intellectual d-d-d-dual!

Drex: I had heard that you were Bi, but I wasn't aware of being full blown gay. Well I must admit if more people like you had the open mind to accept that which was traditionally shunned by your peers, perhaps this whole gay/lesbian issue would work itself out much faster.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

'The healthiest way to deal with homosexuality is to ignore it until it comes up in a game of truth/dare.'

I was speaking idiomatically.

I don't mind gay people holding hands and walking. For all I care I could be holding hands with my best friend and people could be thinking I'm a lesbian.

I only really frown when theres a couple making out/holding butts and what not. It's disgusting for little kids to see, and they raise questions that shouldn't be asking for another 10 years. I mean light kisses and hugs are nice, but if my boyfriend tries to do anything beyond that I smack him in.

I mean you gotta have control, if you want to things more adultsy do it privately, rather then doing something inappropriate in public whichever gay or straight.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Dark Nation

Drex: I had heard that you were Bi, but I wasn't aware of being full blown gay. Well I must admit if more people like you had the open mind to accept that which was traditionally shunned by your peers, perhaps this whole gay/lesbian issue would work itself out much faster.

For a long time I considered myself bi because I was much more emotionally attracted to females. Over time, I've come to understand much more about myself and have determined that while a small part of me is heterosexual (I believe that very few people are 100% either way anyway), it is a small enough fraction as to render 'bisexual' and inaccurate label. Be that as it may, I'm pursuing a heterosexual relationship right now, so I guess that shoots the 'gay' label out of the water as well. :P

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Alice

I don't want to see anyone making out/dry humping in public - heterosexual or homosexual. Light kissing, holding hands, etc. doesn't bother me at all, whether it's a man and a woman, two men, or two women.

Like Sass and many others, couldn't have said it better myself. Quite a few of my best / better friends are gay and are open about their sexuality but as long as they've kept their behaviour to what normal standard of PDA is for heterosexual couples, never really bothered me. Besides, my gay friends are picky--so seeing two cute guys holding hands and being a cute couple isn't all that horrible to witness. When they start kissing and groping, that's when I have to intervene and say "Excuse me, please get a room."

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Delete.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Why is it in quotes? I'm intrigued.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Delete.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.