Fad wrote: » Thing is, they dont. The church has no problem with homosexuals, the church has a problem with homosexuals having sex. I think the official line is something along the lines of being a homosexual isnt in itself sinful, but the "Act" of homosexuality is sinful.......something like that.
Davidius wrote: » However I don't see myself being all that tolerant when it comes to flaunting it. It's great that they can be comfortable with themselves but I find that sort of shíte really gets on my nerves. Keep it to yourself would my way of thinking.
Jay P wrote: » Our religion teacher pretty much told us that last year. Though it's not quite as basic as that. The church are against sexual acts where conception is prevented, so oral sex, masturbating and anal sex are all out.
RandomUserName! wrote: » Nooooooooo.... Please don't condone that logic! The church clearly does have a problem with it. Clearly the way to be a good catholic is to suppress your sexuality, get married and have kids with someone, irregardless of how many lives you fcuk up in the process.
Fad wrote: » I dont condone the logic, but feel it's unfair to state that Catholicism is an excuse for militant homophobia.
Fad wrote: » But that's the same for heterosexual couples too, the rules arent in any way different for them. In a perfect Catholic world, sex would be a procreation event only.
RandomUserName! wrote: » Hmmm, if you see a guy scoring a girl would you accuse them of flaunting their straightness? Tolerating something doesn't mean accepting it btw.
Pygmalion wrote: » In my head I swapped around the "I'm" and "is" in that sentence and it completely changed the context of everything you said above it.
RandomUserName! wrote: » It's not an excuse, but it's definitely a cause. I really do believe that the only people that'll have a problem with it are the religious or the uneducated. Which is one of the reasons I love college... pretty much nobody cares.
Jay P wrote: » Yeah that's what I meant, that it's not just homosexual sex that the church is against.
sock puppet wrote: » I'm bisexual. I only came out a couple of months ago and the 6 or so months before that were pretty rough. I didn't expect a negative reaction but I was afraid it would alter people's perceptions of me.
Davidius wrote: » Fascinating semantics old boy/girl/undetermined gender! I will have you know that I hate watching two people regardless of gender molesting each other in public. It's one of the few things that really fecking annoys me. Granted I'm more accustomed to seeing straight people at it. What I'm also talking about is the people who always go on about their sex lives. I don't like people doing it in general but it's a little less desired when homosexuality between men is involved considering that the idea of two men going at it is a bit "can't eat my lunch" to me.
RandomUserName! wrote: » Fair enough, I think everyone agrees that excessive PDA is pretty nasty. Except doggers of course, but I digress. I'm just trying to figure out what "tolerant" actually means, so you'll have to excuse the semantics! I don't know if the whole attitude of "they can do it, but not in front of me" counts. Bit too much like the whole Don't Ask Don't Tell idea in the states. Tolerance would require being able to see two guys/girls kissing and acknowledge their right to do it (PDA aversions aside) even through your own distaste. May be reading a bit too much into that one though!
Hotaru wrote: » I have been thinking about the whole 'That's so gay' insult for awhile now. 90% of its use is not intended to abuse gay people... it's more habit I think. It's thrown around casually but I really think it shouldn't be used so lightly. I'm guilty myself but am making an effort to wean it out of my vocabulary.
RandomUserName! wrote: » Oh, it more than likely will alter people's perception of you. They'll process it just like any other fact, like "That girl is tall" or "that guy is black". This isn't a bad thing, unless they're prejudiced against tall, black or non-straight people. That's their problem though, not yours.
norwegianwood wrote: » Personally, I don't have any problem with gays. It's the 21st century, and that people are still made to feel they have to defend their lifestyle choice is ridiculous. At the same time, i don't think same sex couples should be allowed to adopt, because a child should have a strong male and female influence in thier lives, but that's just my opinion.
Fad wrote: » So single mothers/fathers also shouldnt be allowed to parent?
Despite almost a century of psychoanalytic and psychological speculation, there is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that the nature of parenting or early childhood experiences play any role in the formation of a person’s fundamental heterosexual or homosexual orientation. It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment. Sexual orientation is therefore not a choice, though sexual behaviour clearly is. Thus LGB people have exactly the same rights and responsibilities concerning the expression of their sexuality as heterosexual people. However, until the beginning of more liberal social attitudes to homosexuality in the past two decades, prejudice and discrimination against homosexuality induced considerable embarrassment and shame in many LGB people and did little to encourage them to lead sex lives that are respectful of themselves and others
PlayGirl wrote: » If you think about it, if someone you know tells you they're gay , chances are they always knew they were. So if they were gay the whole time you knew them how does knowing about it suddenly change things? They're the exact same person you always knew
