Defining Sexuality: Why is it necessary to gauge acceptability levels?

[Grandpa Troll]

I have been readung over the years threads of Gays/Lesbians/Bisexual and straights, and have wondered, why does it matter?

Lets say I, Gramps prefer women, but the woman has to be big bossomed and have red curly short hair and green eyes, if she doesnt then I am not interested.

No one will say oh hes a redhead lover of green eyes and big bossoms, and thats horrid, why is he so against petite blondes with small breasts?

Whats wrong with leggy brunettes with big hips?

Or when it comes to being Gay or Bisexual, what is wrong (Im not talking religious views here) if a man does live for the moment to be at one with a man and then another guy defends him and the first guy says, by the way, whats your preference, and he answers: Romanian Transvestite Gymnasts

What, aghast and agast again, exclaims the man, are you a freak?

If you want a man, dont hide behind a female front elusion, just jump on in the deep end and be with a man.

But what if that man only finds the Romanian Transvestite Gymnast to his liking?

This has allways amazed me, whether a straight person mocking a Gay or a Gay mocking a straight or anything in between, why is it not all wrong, mocking one another?

Im simply asking, not judging and please, dont get too graphic or this will be closed, (I would assume)

Im more asking why is it on one hand ok to be Gay or ok to be straight for your own personal preference, but let someone else not want your particular piece of pie and lookie lookie, we got a strange fruit amongst us!

Ok, just sharing some thought provoking, self soul searching and honest opinions to be heard..............

Thanks in advance

Gramps

[MrFun]

I prefer attractive, manly men with hairy chests.

[Japher]

I like to say I don't judge people, but I do. If someone is a known murderer I will have preconceived notions about that person and will react accordingly. Similarly, if someone is a know homosexual I will also have preconceived notions about this person and will react accordingly. However, i will not the same way to a gay as to a murderer.

Personally, if someone's actions don't and won't affect/effect me than I tend not to judge. Or, more correctly, I tend not to act on my judgements.

I have no problem with gays, but I do have a problem with gay pride parades or Halloween in the Castro where homosexual parade their sexuallity in the street in a shock and awe type manner. Though my issue isn't really the fact that they are gay, but that they aren't being civil. I have similar issues with Marti Gras or people making out in public. This may be my own insecurity, but then that is why I don't frequent such places... I'm not a masochist. What happens between the sheets is none of my business, I don't want to make it my business, so don't throw in front of my face and I won't bother you about it.

I'm for gay marriage. More importantly, I'm for sexual preferences to be added to the civil rights code. Perhaps if society was more tolerant or accepting of their "illness" there won't be a need to shock and awe. Side note; just for a second assume that homosexuality is an illness, is this how a civilized society behaves in response to an illness? Imagine someone being killed, persecuted, or discriminated against because they have cancer, or MS, or alcoholism. Even if they judge, and judge wrong, their sentencing is still f'd up.

[Zkribbler]

I have enough trouble running my own life.
I am not qualified to tell other people how to run theirs.

[Blaupanzer]

Live and let live. As long as a gay man will accept "no" as an answer from me, if he thinks I worth asking in the first place, then he can be my friend as much as any other.

I really resent people telling other people how to live or judging those people based on perceptions of lifestyles. Harmful practices require intervention. Very few sexual practices require this. (The inevitable child involvement question arises here, but that has nothing to do with this thread.)

So carry on everyone. My personal preference is definitely female(s).

[Asher]

I'm having a hard time figuring what the poll is.

[Lefty Scaevola]

I also. ^

[onodera]

Originally posted by Asher
I'm having a hard time figuring what the poll is.

Old Gramps must be getting senile. Or Pekkish.

[SlowwHand]

No, if someone is Gay, its ok


What enlightened person really gives a damn? With all the real problems that mankind brings on ourself, why obsess on this subject?

[Seedle]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
No, if someone is Gay, its ok


What enlightened person really gives a damn? With all the real problems that mankind brings on ourself, why obsess on this subject?

Because this is a SERIOUS problem. God already destroyed New Orleans with Katrina because of gays and general sinfulness. Do you want him to destroy the rest of our country for our toleration of homosexuality? If you don't fight it, you are just as much a sinner as the butt-****ers themselves. Duuuuhhhh.

On a more serious note, because people are flawed and insecure, and they think if they can keep everyone pre-occupied with others "flaws" and "sins" then their own will go unnoticed.

[Grandpa Troll]

Well, I aint senile..oh snap..if I wuz I wouldnt know it

Ok, but lets for argue ment sake say i aint Senile

I purposely posed the questions to see if people would seperate sexuality by choices..i.e. saying or in this case voting its ok to be straight instead of saying its ok to be gay with no judgement

But am pleased with answers thus far, shame we couldnt mass produce most of these within all hearts, one day maybe..maybe...

[MrFun]

Onedra tends to be an ass**** sometimes, Gramps.

[Ben Kenobi]

I have been readung over the years threads of Gays/Lesbians/Bisexual and straights, and have wondered, why does it matter?

From a Christian standpoint?

Christ made our bodies for a purpose. Unlike how the world sees things our bodies are not our own, they were bought for a very dear price in the life of our Lord, who died so that each one of us may have salvation.

We look at Apostle Paul, when he talks about all manner of immorality and the necessity to treat one's own body as a temple, holy and pure.

Any conduct that is contrary to the purpose for what our bodies were made for defiles the temple, no differently then any other form of desecration.

Christ has made it very clear that our bodies were designed, male and female, to be with one another, united until death. Anything that strays from this pattern, whether it be divorce or sodomy is no different, they are abusing the purpose for which our bodies were created.

It isn't a taste issue, as it would be for the kind of women, if it were merely one of taste, why could we say that someone who desired children was wrong? It's just a taste no different from any other.

As for the rest of the world, they only have two choices, to reject the Christian understanding or to accept. They must be free to do either.

[Japher]

The sins of the homosexuals is that of lust, so why does the christian masses persecute them as though killed Jesus himself? Adulterers get far less punishment than do homosexuals. I am guilty for gluttony, as are most Americans, but we don't see the same anger and animosity thrown as us fatsos or alcoholics as we see aimed at homosexuals. There is no rank and file to sin.

However, there is rank and file to spiritual gifts, and to emotions; the greatest of all is love. And, to be honest, I see more love in homosexuals who have been faced with oppression than I do good Christians who think they are saved.

Really Ben, I go to church twice a week and bible study every other week, but if you think persecution is the best justice for sin than that is sad and not Christian. Jesus asks that those in sin repent and be forgiven, if the choose not, as the homosexuals do, than have nothing to do with them. So, obey.

[Ben Kenobi]

The sins of the homosexuals is that of lust, so why does the christian masses persecute them as though killed Jesus himself?

Persecute them? I don't see Christians nailing gay people on a tree. At most you might see mild admonishment. I've been spat at before by those who consider themselves tolerant, so I really don't see how they can consider themselves persecuted.

In fact, here in BC, they receive special treatment. I don't get oversight over the school curriculum, but gay people do, and if the curriculum isn't to their liking, they can revamp the whole thing. How is that persecution?

Adulterers get far less punishment than do homosexuals.

Do they? I don't see adultery pride parades down the streets of town.

There is no rank and file to sin.

Do you consider sodomy to be a sin Japher? Yes or no. If you are going to claim there is no sliding scale, then you have to say that sodomy is indeed a sin. Their sin is not lust, but sodomy.

Jesus asks that those in sin repent and be forgiven, if the choose not, as the homosexuals do, than have nothing to do with them. So, obey.

Where have I said they ought to be persecuted? I did say they must be free to reject Christ just as they would be free to accept him. That they sin is not something to be celebrated.

If you consider sodomy to be a sin, then you'd agree with me that we shouldn't be celebrating it, or honouring it, because you also believe that we shouldn't be honouring other forms of sin. Right now, that's not the case. Society celebrates sin and hates virtue because sin is easy and virtue hard.