Homosexuality and Religion

[Magic Man]

This is the problem; some idiots think it is a right to flaunt their 'gaydom' and that is the ill regard to others, period!

I know what you mean. Some idiots think it is right to flaunt their complete ignorance and bigotry and that is the ill regard to others, period! (Just to be clear, because I feel it's necessary in your case, I'm referring to you here.)

 

[Bishadi]

I know what you mean. Some idiots think it is right to flaunt their complete ignorance and bigotry and that is the ill regard to others, period!

Sorry to burst your bubble, but 'others' is the priority and it is simply that I cannot find compassion for the few to over run compassion for the majority...

That is your bigotry. Claiming care and compassion yet focused only on the 'feelings' of the few rather than the majority. Limited sight, limited comprehension and definitely, reduced compassion.

(Just to be clear, because I feel it's necessary in your case, I'm referring to you here.)

need any more be said or are you enjoying yourself?

You must not know very many attorneys then

only what they have done to our country. I mean heck now equality is supposed to mean, raise the selfish to the front as long as they got the money to pay for it.

 

[texan1]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but 'others' is the priority and it is simply that I cannot find compassion for the few to over run compassion for the majority....

Why do you think it is impossible to have compassion for everyone?

 

[McBell]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but 'others' is the priority and it is simply that I cannot find compassion for the few to over run compassion for the majority...

Wow.
The minority is not supposed to impose their self on the majority, but you are not only fine with the majority imposing them self on the minority, you have joined in with them in imposing them self on the minority.

That is your bigotry. Claiming care and compassion yet focused only on the 'feelings' of the few rather than the majority. Limited sight, limited comprehension and definitely, reduced compassion.

You appeal to numbers argument for justifying your bigotry does not make you any less a bigot.

only what they have done to our country. I mean heck now equality is supposed to mean, raise the selfish to the front as long as they got the money to pay for it.

I completely agree.
Though you did forget to add that it is fine for the majority to repress the minority and god forbid the minority not like being treated equally.

I agree with Mike126:

this sanctimonious crap disgusts me.
​

 

[Bishadi]

Why do you think it is impossible to have compassion for everyone?

Never said anything of the sort but the priority when identifying a pro or against upon an issue of this magnitude, is to observe life and the existence of the total thereof, as the first requisite.

Every line item suggested is pointing out that the acceptance is not what the issue is, it is the right to flaunt and openly convey a sexual preference in open public and with no care of the adversities the imposition may cause to others.

In church, most do not wear a t-back and topless; in respect of people and the total (god).

As in each and every interaction of people, that should always be the prime requisite.

If in a social group for example, a nude gatherings, then so be it, but then the only persons affected are them within the gathering.

The idea being represented is that 'we the people' are the first requisite to compassionate associations and not to 'accept' personal preferences as normal.

Each and every person should be caring for the majority and the development of our children, our future as the priority over and above their own needs of acceptance.

 

[Magic Man]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but 'others' is the priority and it is simply that I cannot find compassion for the few to over run compassion for the majority...

Then maybe you should learn what compassion is. Compassion has nothing to do with a majority or minority. You show compassion on an individual basis, caring for each person regardless of the faults you may or may not see in them.

That is your bigotry. Claiming care and compassion yet focused only on the 'feelings' of the few rather than the majority. Limited sight, limited comprehension and definitely, reduced compassion.

Again, maybe look up bigotry. Bigotry is an unreasonable and unfounded dislike of a certain group of people, kind of like yours toward homosexuals. I don't know who this majority is you keep bringing up, but the majority of people I know accept homosexuality as perfectly normal and natural. Even if they didn't, you're promoting the authority of the majority, which is not compassionate or just. At some point the majority of people thought that slavery was acceptable. Why did people stop "being compassionate" to the majority there? Probably because the majority was wrong.

the majority of people think that killing is wrong, and I agree there. It has nothing to do with whether or not they're the majority, it's whether or not the thing is right or wrong. IF the perception of the majority is wrong, then they need to change.

 

[Magic Man]

Never said anything of the sort but the priority when identifying a pro or against upon an issue of this magnitude, is to observe life and the existence of the total thereof, as the first requisite.

Every line item suggested is pointing out that the acceptance is not what the issue is, it is the right to flaunt and openly convey a sexual preference in open public and with no care of the adversities the imposition may cause to others.

In church, most do not wear a t-back and topless; in respect of people and the total (god).

As in each and every interaction of people, that should always be the prime requisite.

If in a social group for example, a nude gatherings, then so be it, but then the only persons affected are them within the gathering.

The idea being represented is that 'we the people' are the first requisite to compassionate associations and not to 'accept' personal preferences as normal.

Each and every person should be caring for the majority and the development of our children, our future as the priority over and above their own needs of acceptance.

Basically you're saying that homosexuals should not be openly homosexual because it offends some people. The problem is that it's not the homosexuals who need to change, then, it's the sensitivity of those people who are offended. It's perfectly fine for homosexuals to show their sexuality to the same degree that heterosexuals can in public, and if someone has a problem with it, then that's too bad for them. They should get used to it, or go somewhere else.

 

[Bishadi]

Basically you're saying that homosexuals should not be openly homosexual because it offends some people. The problem is that it's not the homosexuals who need to change, then, it's the sensitivity of those people who are offended.

So let’s look at normal

In behavior, normal refers to a lack of significant deviation from the average. The phrase "not normal" is often applied in a negative sense (asserting that someone or some situation is improper, sick, etc.). Abnormality varies greatly in how pleasant or unpleasant this is for other people; somebody may half-jokingly be called "pleasantly disturbed".
The Oxford English Dictionary defines "normal" as 'conforming to a standard'. This, although almost right, is not entirely correct. "A normal" is someone who conforms to the ideals of society.

So I was correct………… you want the majority to change for a minority.

It's perfectly fine for homosexuals to show their sexuality to the same degree that heterosexuals can in public, and if someone has a problem with it, then that's too bad for them. They should get used to it, or go somewhere else.

See you shared it perfectly.

You share that….Everyone else is wrong and the gays are who have it correctly…..

Then maybe you should learn what compassion is. Compassion has nothing to do with a majority or minority. You show compassion on an individual basis, caring for each person regardless of the faults you may or may not see in them

back to the basic english

Compassion

is an understanding of the emotional state of another or oneself. Not to be confused with empathy, compassion is often combined with a desire to alleviate or reduce the suffering of another or to show special kindness to those who suffer. However, compassion may lead an individual to feel empathy with another person.

Compassion is often characterized through actions, wherein a person acting with compassion will seek to aid those they feel compassionate for. Acts of compassion are generally considered those which take into account the pain of others and attempt to alleviate that pain. In this sense, the various forms of the Golden Rule are in part based on the concept of compassion, if also on the concept of empathy.
Compassion differs from other forms of helpful or humane behavior in that its focus is primarily on the alleviation of pain and suffering

Again, maybe look up bigotry. Bigotry is an unreasonable and unfounded dislike of a certain group of people,

So since you wish every one else to change for the minority, then now we all know who the bigot is on this thread.

In your own words

IF the perception of the majority is wrong, then they need to change

Now we know why the rainbow colors, maybe the intent is to paint the world to your liking.

Change everyone to be concerned with their own needs before any others.

 

[Magic Man]

Bishadi, it's just sad to me that you can't even admit that you're a bigot. If the majority thought that killing babies was the way to go, would you be all for that? If not, then you need to explain what the difference is there, and why in this particular instance it's OK to side with the majority just because they're the majority.

And, if the majority thinks like you, then I definitely want the majority to change for the minority. Kind of like I would if the majority thought it acceptable to kill babies, or blacks or tall women, etc.

 

[Bishadi]

Bishadi, it's just sad to me that you can't even admit that you're a bigot. If the majority thought that killing babies was the way to go, would you be all for that?

If the majority of gays came from pedophiles would you believe that?

If not, then you need to explain what the difference is there, and why in this particular instance it's OK to side with the majority just because they're the majority.

My focus is life. So when the majority is being shared, it is because that is the easiest recognizable form to represent for most people. But the core representation is tto the total; all of existence.

And, if the majority thinks like you,

and if the majority thought like me, all religions, all lies, and all selfshness would begin to fade and peace would begin to unfold based on knowledge rather than opinions.

 

[Tau]

and if the majority thought like me, all religions, all lies, and all selfshness would begin to fade and peace would begin to unfold based on knowledge rather than opinions.

Hehe opinions should always be based on knowledge.

So you believe in the tyranny of the majority?

So did Adolf Hitler...but good for you anyway.

Edit
I have to concur with the other posters that you may be a bigot, but don't worry you are not alone.

 

[Mike182]

Words!

yes, you can shout the word "word" and ignore the points raised. that is entirely your perogative.

The definitions of words that seem to be used out of context; i.e... same sex intercourse and normal .... or open pursuit of a mate and flaunting homosexuality.

homophobic tripe relating no actual argument

Not worried about me, it is the little people, the children, our future, that is priority concern to be reasoned through and not your own needs.

and i would rather the next generation grows up to be understanding towards gays, and not hold the backwards views that you hold.

I do every day, but you are pretty much sticking you your own... eh?

well i'm glad that comment made sense...

Gays are equal as human beings, but as shared in this thread specifically, what some selfish folk (you) do not seem to understand how definitions to words and reality, compassion and care mean are already defined and not even an attorney will ever change the truth as it really is.

i have a clear understanding of those words, and it is clear that your debauched logic and hateful mind have twisted them into pitifully trying to justify your homophobia.

 

[doppelganger]

only what they have done to our country. I mean heck now equality is supposed to mean, raise the selfish to the front as long as they got the money to pay for it.

You seem very confused. Take a deep breath and realize that "I am" is also a construct of language. That which separates you from "homosexuals" is merely an empty construct of the mind.

Yes, indeed . . . words!

If you let go of the words, Bishadi . . . then they'll let go of you. :rainbow1:

 

[Autodidact]

But the question was whether it goes against the natural law of things. The answer is yes.

What "natural law" are you referring to? How did you learn it?

 

[Autodidact]

just a simple theory any appropriate Law should be universal, If all the Humans become homosexuals mankind would extint because of reproduction, but if all Humans are straight nothing would happen.

Are you worried about this actually happening?

Actually you're wrong. Homosexuals do reproduce, just at a lower rate than heterosexuals. It would probably make the world a better place if all children were wanted and planned for, as homosexuals do. Therefore I'm going to get on your train and urge everyone to become homosexuals as soon as possible. Let's start with you.

 

[rheff78]

What "natural law" are you referring to? How did you learn it?

By the design of it. What is the end result of the act of sex? Why do we ejaculate? What purpose does it serve? Not simply for pleasure. There is a reason for it. The natural law dictates the act of sex, what the result is suppose to be. Like I said earlier, a wrench can make an effective weapon but that was not it's intent. If you use it for that you are still mis-using what it was designed for. I know this is off topic and I do apologize.

 

[Autodidact]

Bishadi :
The majority of people have no problem with gay people and gay rights. Your view, that gay people should be repressed, offends the majority of people, and makes them uncomfortable. Out of compassion for the majority, you should suppress your minority opinion. It is not normal. Others first!

 

[Autodidact]

By the design of it. What is the end result of the act of sex? Why do we ejaculate?

Please speak for yourself.

What purpose does it serve?

Sex serves several purposes.

Not simply for pleasure.

No, also pair bonding, which you may also call love. That's another important purpose.

There is a reason for it. The natural law dictates the act of sex, what the result is suppose to be. Like I said earlier, a wrench can make an effective weapon but that was not it's intent. If you use it for that you are still mis-using what it was designed for. I know this is off topic and I do apologize.

It is a fact that homosexual sex is not reproductive. So I guess what you're saying is that non-reproductive sex is immoral. Other than your religion, any reason for that? I mean, noses weren't designed to hold up glasses, but I don't see anything immoral about using them for that purpose. Lips weren't created to blow into trumpets, but there's nothing wrong with using them for that purpose. And frankly, if someone breaks into my house and the only heavy thing I have handy is a wrench, I think it might be a good idea to use it as a weapon. Why not?

 

[Rolling_Stone]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Brain scans show that when people are divided into three groups and put into a room with a piano over a period of several days, the brains of the group told to [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]think[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif] about practicing hard on the piano changed almost as much as the group that actually practiced, while the group that was instructed to do nothing showed no change at all. We can argue, then, that if the brain of a homosexual is different than that of a heterosexual, it is the thinking that alters it.[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Oops.
[/FONT][/FONT]

 

[rheff78]

Please speak for yourself.

umm, ok, sorry sex is so terrible for you

Sex serves several purposes.No, also pair bonding, which you may also call love. That's another important purpose.

so everyone who has sex is for pair bonding? onoly people in love have sex?

It is a fact that homosexual sex is not reproductive. So I guess what you're saying is that non-reproductive sex is immoral. Other than your religion, any reason for that?

I couldn't tell you, it's nature's law. Ask yourself, why was sex invented? Not just for fun.

I mean, noses weren't designed to hold up glasses, but I don't see anything immoral about using them for that purpose. Lips weren't created to blow into trumpets, but there's nothing wrong with using them for that purpose. And frankly, if someone breaks into my house and the only heavy thing I have handy is a wrench, I think it might be a good idea to use it as a weapon. Why not?

The question isn't what you would use it for, it is what it was designed for.