|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Sep 26, 2009 1:57 pm
The only one I can disagree with on that list is Zoophilia. I think it is a pretty horrible thing to assume that an animal will want you to give it some and since animals don't speak; they can't give their consent. Fantasizing is alright, providing that I don't know what type of critter you're fantasizing about.
Though, strangely enough, I think Furries are adorable.
Love does indeed transcend all but love and sexuality, while sometimes connected, aren't always connected and never should be confused for one another.
My religion pretty much accepts all types of sexuality (except for Bestiality) and I am pretty open to it.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 26, 2009 6:36 pm
I am a heterosexual. I am only interested in guys.
Honestly, I am a little iffy about transgenders. I'm cool with being friends and all. I can call them their new gender name (they usually change their name and all). I don't think I could date a trans-guy, knowing that they were born a girl. I wish they would just accept their original gender.
Zoosexuality is just wrong to me. Of all the humans in the world, you can't find one to find attractive? Seriously, I think everything was made to stay with their species. That's really messing with nature to me.
In the Bible, God only wants us to be heterosexuals. Maybe because it's the only way to reproduce? xD
Love is supposed to conquer all, but many people do not have love and are not given it. Therefore, give someone a hug! Brighten their day! heart *huuggggg*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 27, 2009 6:35 am
Did you include autosexuality there? xp That's one that stumps me.
I'm a heterosexual female, engaged to be married to a man.
I'm Catholic, so I strongly believe that homosexual acts are wrong. Read "acts." Not "people." Just like I believe that heterosexual acts outside of marriage are wrong. The theology behind this is thorough and brilliant but is too detailed to go into here. (If anyone is interested, feel free to PM me and we can have an on-going discussion.)
That's my faith and that's what I believe. However, I will make friends with everyone, and keep my opinions to myself unless expressly asked.
I think our society makes up lots of substitutes for real love. That's not to say that anyone who feels sexual love for someone or something that is not typical is invalidated. In many cases, that love is genuine and good, in the sense that brings someone outside of oneself. But real love seeks what is best for the beloved. And sometimes that means not loving the way you want to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 28, 2009 7:51 pm
I really liked that last paragraph about love. 3nodding
What's autosexuality?...Don't feel like looking it up...>~>
Congrats about being engaged~!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2009 1:05 pm
Thanks!
Uh, autosexuality is basicly when you are sexually attracted to yourself. I . . . don't get it. It seems pretty twisted to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 2:23 pm
Wow...I was hoping it wasn't that. That's just...no. Ridiculous to me. I don't get it, either...That just leads to masturbation, I assume. =__=
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 6:52 pm
Hm.. Honestly, I'm with the school of thought that Love conquers all. (Though I'm not crazy about the whole Beastality bit though-then again I only go so far to question Apes too Still..not..yeah.. about the whole animal thing.)
Everything else, fine (As long as it's consenting adults-even then. Give me Romeo/Juilet laws but that's as far as I'll think on that.).
Quite honestly, I'm on board with the whole Pomosexuality bit. Mostly I think labels are a waste of time, but since it's all so mainstream you have to use them or otherwise people won't understand what the dickens you're talking about.
On another note- Speaking of the Almighty omniscient one. IF God (theoretically speaking) wanted everything to be straight (Male/Female) then why do fish change gender? Why do male seahorses give birth? Couldn't the female one just lay eggs like everyone else? How come there's a species of lizards that have no males (Due to them basically dying off) and it's all females? There's a report about a female Komodo dragon that laid eggs without a male. But if a male is needed, then how come in those instances it's not a requirement?
It puzzles me, if something is 'suppose' to be a certain way-who is the one to say things are suppose to be such and such? I mean during the time these things were spoken, people still believed that everything revolved around the sun and that the world was flat.
That whales and such were 'sea monsters'.
So....if all that is proven wrong- then why not this bit?
If it's suppose to be Male/female then how- if It's never wrong and such- could there be Intersexuals? - Hermaphrodites? (And yes, I found a really good Manga that addresses this. Even if the translation is sucky dX)
^ Basically, all the questions I've ever had when told things are suppose to be this and that. Who said?
Eh... v.v; Sorry. Just some things that always bothered me when I was younger and the reason I stopped attending unless I went for a wedding or a funeral.
*Claps.* Anywho!
Brings up another thought that came when I was reading manga. It's called Family Compo. The Main character is this guy who's basically orphaned. He has an uncle he's doesn't remember (His mom's younger brother). So he was invited to stay with that family. But his Aunt looks a lot like his mother.
So, here's what he found out- His Aunt is actually his Uncle and the one that's his uncle is actually his Aunt.
Basically the two switched roles. His Original Uncle(Yukari) wanted to be a woman. He didn't feel at all like a guy. Therefore he dresses and such as a woman (Even has breasts) and for the most part, he looks like a girl.
The other one (Sora) was born female, but she never felt like a girl. She was much more masculine. And looks like a good looking guy. Therefore she 'became' male. (Helps that she's taller then Yukari.)
They have a very loving relationship in face of all their oppositions and even have a daughter (Shion) together.
Question is would this be considered 'straight' or not?
Either way, I just thought it would be interesting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 8:00 pm
Honestly, I can't begin to start on the male and female roles. Too complicated for me to think about. >__> You had a lot of good questions, though.
I actually kind of think that there's a different rule (law of nature, whatever) to animals' sexuality than to ours. In the Bible (just my lil' elaborating opinion, by the way) it does say that humans have dominion over animals and are made differently from them. I believe that this makes some kind of distinction for us as to why we are supposedly supposed to be man and woman. You get what I'm saying?
The manga thing. Just, whoa. Technically it's straight, but technically it might not be because they both crossed? xD Oh, no...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 8:41 pm
Ma ne, But people are still animals. We just happen to talk and have been successful enough to make things that work. I don't really believe the whole dominion bit because Animals still kill and eat people (with a lot more sense. Kill to eat and defend. Nothing complicated.).
Either way.. >>; it's one of those thing I guess.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 7:08 am
Meh, maybe so. I guess that's something I'll have to ask God some day. x)
Luv sure is busy from college lately. D:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 12, 2009 6:50 pm
Yes yes... I got a second job... gonk
And as soon as I turned in my 6 pager paper, I was told I have an 8 pager paper due! xp --hates her night class--
I will post a new question (and update the title, which I forgot to do last time!) in the next few minutes.
(Along with post in all the threads I have been neglecting.. like the Famous Poll thread! Have I missed any polls?)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:05 pm
Ealier this evening I was watching Criminal Minds with my boyfriend and it gave me a thought for a Question. (Kind of dark but hey, Halloween is coming up after all).
The choice that was presented in the episode was this. Can you choose?
What if you were put in a situation where there were, lets say, yourself and 2 other people (two of your closest friends). Two people in your group would survive. But one of them would die. You had to decide which person in your group would die. You are given no food, water, or warmth. You are given nothing. You are locked away until you choose. Would you choose? How would you come to that decision?
Is this question clear?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:55 pm
Grabbed your booty, Luv!
Officially, I have the boring answer of: none of the above. The question you asked is dubbed in some philosophy circles as "the false alternative" question. That is, in any give situation, it is statiscly impossible for there to be literally two either/or choices. There is always a third (and usually a fourht, fifth, sixth, etc.) choice. See your favorite action movie to get the idea of how this works.
But I'll play along with the question. I would hope I would chose myself. That would be the only right thing to do. Unless, there are unknown details about one person that would make it morally wrong for me to allow that person to live over myself and the other captive. But that's getting into really tricky moral theology. xp
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:56 pm
Rei Torano Ma ne, But people are still animals. We just happen to talk and have been successful enough to make things that work. I don't really believe the whole dominion bit because Animals still kill and eat people (with a lot more sense. Kill to eat and defend. Nothing complicated.). Either way.. >>; it's one of those thing I guess. Some don't consider people animals. That changes the whole outlook. confused
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 13, 2009 6:32 am
GreenInkling Grabbed your booty, Luv!
Officially, I have the boring answer of: none of the above. The question you asked is dubbed in some philosophy circles as "the false alternative" question. That is, in any give situation, it is statiscly impossible for there to be literally two either/or choices. There is always a third (and usually a fourht, fifth, sixth, etc.) choice. See your favorite action movie to get the idea of how this works.
But I'll play along with the question. I would hope I would chose myself. That would be the only right thing to do. Unless, there are unknown details about one person that would make it morally wrong for me to allow that person to live over myself and the other captive. But that's getting into really tricky moral theology. xp
Woo! Thank you! Hope it gave you lots of gold heart
Yes... I thought of this question because the show really made me... upset? So it stuck with me for awhile. The tricky part is when you include the sensory deprivation. If left to deal with that for too long, you literally start to loose you mind. (In retrospect, this can be an unfair question since we all have our minds intact! xd )
I guess what I am really after, is your reaction to this whole situation. Does that make sense?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
