or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Social Life, Food & Drink, Travel › Sexuality?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Sexuality? - Page 2

post #16 of 73
Quote:
Actually, the more I think about it....I found the answer.... Straght men are attracted to women. Gay men are attracted to men. Metros are attracted to Gucci shirts, designer sales, and Kiehl's grooming products.
I wanted to laugh, but I use some stuff by Kiehl's... haha, very funny, though.
post #17 of 73
Thread Starter 
Quote:
I wanted to laugh, but I use some stuff by Kiehl's... haha, very funny, though.
There's no problem with that - everyone likes to look good, and its good to have healthy skin and body...but...when your life revolves around it, thats when you know you've come out of the Metro closet.
post #18 of 73
Quote:
I think homosexuals should have just as much opportunity as heterosexuals. What really bothers me are the devoutly religious types who claim that being gay is a sin. I am sorry, but who are you to judge people?
Pink, I don't understand your argument. First off, homosexuals do have the same rights as heterosexuals, at least when it comes to marriage (well, at the moment, Mass. rulings might change that, but anyway). Secondly, your statement about religion confuses me. My religion says "thou shalt not kill." Does that mean I am "judging" murderers if I consider them sinners?
post #19 of 73
Well I would take on anyone who claimed that homosexuals have the same rights and status as heterosexuals.
post #20 of 73
Quote:
Well I would take on anyone who claimed that homosexuals have the same rights and status as heterosexuals.
There's faulty logic, here. Any man has the "right" to marry a woman, regardless of his sexual preference. With regard to considering homosexuality a sin, I can't think of any church that does. What they consider a sin is promiscuity, or sex that occurs out of the lifelong union between a man and woman. Most religions consider homosexuality as a call to remain celibate. As to my beliefs, I think we should abandon the institutionalization of marriage all together. Let whoever the hell wants to get married celebrate any kind of ceremony they want. The government shouldn't look at them any differently than they did before they were married. There shouldn't even be a question of legality in this situation.
post #21 of 73
Quote:
With regard to considering homosexuality a sin, I can't think of any church that does. What they consider a sin is promiscuity, or sex that occurs out of the lifelong union between a man and woman. Most religions consider homosexuality as a call to remain celibate.
Most religions condemn homosexual acts. Therefore, they see gays and lesbians as people commiting sinful acts. After all, almost all churches see any sex act that cannot result in a child as promiscuous
post #22 of 73
Quote:
Most religions condemn homosexual acts.  Therefore, they see gays and lesbians as people commiting sinful acts.  After all, almost all churches see any sex act that cannot result in a child as promiscuous
Right. But homosexuals that don't commit homosexual acts aren't sinning. So I guess the question is, "can a man be homosexual without ever having had sex with a man?"
post #23 of 73
If a Freudian tree falls in the forest...
post #24 of 73
Yes, Quantum Mechanics touches every aspect of our lives, even this
post #25 of 73
Quote:
Most religions condemn homosexual acts. Therefore, they see gays and lesbians as people commiting sinful acts. After all, almost all churches see any sex act that cannot result in a child as promiscuous
Actually, the bible condemns sodomy, and at the times of the translation of the bible, the word sodomy meant specifically pedaphelia. Homosexuality has been around for thousands of years, but since the bible, it has not been "P.C." in our western society. The zealous opinions against homosexuality are more out of tradition, fear and stubbornness (sp). They tend to tie in with (excuse my generalization) non-denominational Christians (which is bull, I might add - how can a special interest group be considered non-denominational? That's against its own meaning) and Mormons the most, and this is because these groups follow strict traditions of marriage between men and women only, and the subordinate role of women in a endocentric society. Was that confusing or what?
post #26 of 73
Quote:
non-denominational Christians (which is bull, I might add - how can a special interest group be considered non-denominational? That's against its own meaning
You've misunderstood the term.  Non-denominational Christians refers to that rather large group, in the United States especially, who have no formal affiliation with a particular organization.  A lot of fundamentalist Christians, who believe in enlightenment through direct study of the Bible and other scriptures, fall under this category.  If you ask me, that's like doing medical school through the mail.  But I digress. The term is often confused with the term "inter-denominational", which refers, usually, to some organization in which two or more denominations are involved.  If you meant this, than your assertion actually makes a lot more sense, since the denominations often have fundamental metaphysical (the nature of the afterlife) and theological (the divinity of Jesus, the virginity of Mary) disagreements.   Isn't religion fascinating?   Okay, another digression, but this is a pet peeve of mine.  If you are too stupid or lazy to formulate a coherent set of religious/spiritual beliefs, maybe you shouldn't have any.  I hate it when people say that all religions teach the same thing.  It's sloppy.  What they mean is that the moral teachings are similar.  That isn't even particularly the case, and they've left out the theological beliefs altogether, which is actually a more important aspect of religion.  And unless you are an M. Div., maybe you shouldn't be making trying to interpret the Bible, or at least shouldn't be so damn sure about your ill formed conclusions.  Unfortunately, as Mark Twain observed, ignorance does in fact seem to be invincible.
post #27 of 73
Quote:
Okay, another digression, but this is a pet peeve of mine.  If you are too stupid or lazy to formulate a coherent set of religious/spiritual beliefs, maybe you shouldn?t have any.  I hate it when people say that all religions teach the same thing.  It?s sloppy.  What they mean is that the moral teachings are similar.  That isn?t even particularly the case, and they?ve left out the theological beliefs altogether, which is actually a more important aspect of religion.  And unless you are an M. Div., maybe you shouldn?t be making trying to interpret the Bible, or at least shouldn?t be so damn sure about your ill formed conclusions.  Unfortunately, as Mark Twain observed, ignorance does in fact seem to be invincible.
OK, since we're on to this: Enough of this big fad with all the "I'm not religious, but I'm very spiritual" b.s. And LAG, I think Brian does have a point with nondenominational Christians. There's groups that have their own churches and such. They gather together and are active in society as one church. So they could be seen as having an interest in their affiliations among each other and society, thereby really being a denomination in and of themselves. By that reasoning, the term "nondenominational" is misleading.
post #28 of 73
I have my views, but hell if I'm going to make them known over the Internet. I simply voted on the poll. Oh, and Versaceman: I think being gay is looked down upon in the GQ forums because 1) the GQ forums are full of 14-year-old kids, and 2) they had some "gay" people like "Biff" who'd go on and on about being gay, then retort someone else's view with "Stop acting so gay." I mean, what? Edit: Took the picture off because it contained words that may be too offensive for some.
post #29 of 73
I'm straight.
post #30 of 73
Paolo, Mabuhai. Eat much balu lately? (my Tagalog is rudimentary at best)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Social Life, Food & Drink, Travel › Sexuality?