How is 'not accepting the act' a true acceptance of homosexuality?

[Buddha Dharma]

That's a simple solution, as I think others pointed out. As they can just leave, (and I'm not getting into the rabbit hole of Christian politicians trying to pull strings,) why should the burden of acceptance or reformation fall on the religious party? Why can't the LGBT party just find something that works better for them?

Well I already pointed out two reasons why saying they should just leave arguably doesn't cut it. The chief being that they may be in a family situation where disassociation from the religion means they're seen as betraying the family.

Also, that such beliefs of said religions are not truly private. They influence the way the adherents act in society.

 

[Sanzbir]

My premise for this question stems from the fact that most human beings are not asexual and need fulfillment from a relationship as a part of life.

There are among the religions of the world and their sects, a view that homosexuality can be accepted- just not acting on it.

My view is that this is only half-hearted and incomplete, given that homosexuals are going to reasonably want romantic fulfillment like any heterosexual does- in a partnership with a mate.

If a homosexual embraces said worldview that doesn't accept 'the act'- they're going to be fighting against themselves, which is exactly the same as if the religion were actually calling it a sin.

In either case, a homosexual must fight against themselves according to certain religions and/or sects.

I am not convinced that this half-hearted acceptance of homosexuals still requiring them to fight against any desire for fulfillment with a mate is actually too accepting.

I think it is still cruel to homosexuals, and that is my position on the subject.

What makes accepting homosexuals, but not accepting 'the act'- an actual acceptance of gay people?

Could be explained by... eh I'll call it "libertarian apathy" for a lack of better term.

Like while my theological beliefs don't weigh in on "homosexual acts", there are certain actions that I don't believe are beneficial, like sexual relations outside of a marriage, for mostly hygiene reasons.

But when it comes to other people: I don't care. If you want to sleep with every single consenting adult you can find, I don't care. I don't wish to put myself at risk for STD and other concerns with such actions, and I'm not going to partake in such things myself, but if you want to do that, I don't care in the slightest. My moral code is for me and for my personal benefit, I have no stakes in other people following it.

Likewise I don't care if you don't fast regularly, don't pray regularly, don't study scriptures, I don't care if give in to emotions over reason, indulge in attachment, become a politician, or do any other thing that would violate my own personal moral code. My practice is concerned with my own spiritual development and transmutation, I have no cares about whether-or-not anyone else deviates from my own standards of behavior.

So I imagine there could be people of similar mindsets to myself who believe, whatever their reasoning is, that homosexual acts are immoral, but have that sort of "libertarian apathy" where they simply don't care if other people fit their own moral code or not.

If a homosexual embraces said worldview that doesn't accept 'the act'- they're going to be fighting against themselves, which is exactly the same as if the religion were actually calling it a sin.

This bit of your statement confuses me, though. For a number of reasons.

A homosexual person freely choosing to adopt an moral code that views homosexual acts as wrong is their own choice, and again, I don't care if they want to do that. That's their choice, their action, and the consequences of it are theirs.

Likewise if a person must fight their own urges to take up my moral code, that's on them, not me. I certainly didn't ask someone to take up any of my own moral standards. As long as this moral system isn't being forced on someone, then any homosexual person within it is in it as a result of their own choices. I don't see what the problem is.

Also, and of only minor comment, it is bizarre to me that a person dubbing themselves "Buddha Dharma" has a negative view of the idea of fighting against the self.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

A homosexual person freely choosing to adopt an moral code that views homosexual acts as wrong is their own choice, and again, I don't care if they want to do that. That's their choice, their action, and the consequences of it are theirs.

Alright, I'll try to be more clear. I'm sorry if that was vague.

I'll break it down more into specifics:

If a religion teaches homosexuality is a sin- a homosexual cannot actually act on it. Meaning they cannot be homosexual.

If a religion teaches being homosexual is not a sin, but the act is- all they've done is restated the same position differently.

In either case- being homosexual is sinful. Because being homosexual gives you attractions you're going to want to act on.

It is a very clever form of trying to pass themselves off as more tolerant of homosexuality.

 

[Vinayaka]

It is a very clever form of trying to pass themselves off as more tolerant of homosexuality.

Not all that clever. I don't think anyone is fooled, unless of course themselves, which could well be. There are many psychological factors at play here.

 

[Sanzbir]

Alright, I'll try to be more clear. I'm sorry if that was vague.

I'll break it down more into specifics:

If a religion teaches homosexuality is a sin- a homosexual cannot actually act on it. Meaning they cannot be homosexual.

One who freely chooses to join such a religion, sure. In which case its their choice and their agency, which I would not want to rob from them. I don't see the problem unless this theoretical religion is imposed on others.

Meaning they cannot be homosexual.

Ick, please don't reduce sexual identity down to just acts of sex.

In either case- being homosexual is sinful. Because being homosexual gives you attractions you're going to want to act on.

Statements like this come dangerously close to portraying GLB people as sluts without the ability of self-control. Just saying.

If a religion teaches being homosexual is not a sin, but the act is- all they've done is restated the same position differently.

Maybe its because I'm bisexual and monogamous, but I do see a huge difference between sexual attraction and sexual action. I have an attraction to both genders, and this does not mean that I am going to go out and sleep with people of both genders, as I find monogamy highly preferable. I'd find the assumption I was actively sleeping with multiple partners due to my orientation insulting. There is a fairly big gap between the people I am attracted too (who are fairly numerous) and the people I am willing to have sexual relations with (which is just one).

In my own moral code, which again, is not applied to anyone other than myself, I understand sexual attraction to be a healthy, normal part of human biology. And at the same time I think that always acting on it would be self-destructive and is behavior I personally want no part of.

There is a big difference between my desires and my actions. Hell, there's a big difference between my attractions and my desires.

Maybe for people who are more impulsive, for whom the lines between desire, attraction, and action are blurry, this is not the case, but I see a big difference between groups saying to me "Acting on your desires is wrong" and groups saying to me "Even having your desires is wrong."

The statements aren't close to being the same thing, even if I disagree with both, and reconciliation with the former seems possible whereas the latter, not so much.

And, just again, I see some irony in "Buddha Dharma" making statements seeming to imply that one must be a slave and act on one's desires.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

It's not as simple as that,

It is as simple as that, it's just not easy.

Well I already pointed out two reasons why saying they should just leave arguably doesn't cut it.

I saw where you indicated Christians wanting to dictate morality on a global scale. That really goes far beyond homosexual issues, don't you think? You also mentioned as well that leaving a religion could make them confused and conflicted, etc etc. Again, no one said it would be easy, but those aren't exactly indestructible chains. They can still leave.

For a different issue, I know how hard it is to leave such a religion. I know the family effects that it has, and lasting social connotations and blames. For all practical purposes, they mean nothing. Even effects of family. Especially if it's a conflict of "stay and be a sinner, leave and be a sinner".

I still don't see it being explained or shown why the Christians should change their opinions for sake of the few, when the few have every opportunity and ability to leave and improve their own lives. Why must they rely on the actions and changes of others (in such a situation) to make their own lives better?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

It is as simple as that, it's just not easy.


I saw where you indicated Christians wanting to dictate morality on a global scale. That really goes far beyond homosexual issues, don't you think? You also mentioned as well that leaving a religion could make them confused and conflicted, etc etc. Again, no one said it would be easy, but those aren't exactly indestructible chains. They can still leave.

For a different issue, I know how hard it is to leave such a religion. I know the family effects that it has, and lasting social connotations and blames. For all practical purposes, they mean nothing. Even effects of family. Especially if it's a conflict of "stay and be a sinner, leave and be a sinner".

I still don't see it being explained or shown why the Christians should change their opinions for sake of the few, when the few have every opportunity and ability to leave and improve their own lives. Why must they rely on the actions and changes of others (in such a situation) to make their own lives better?

People promoting homophobia and transphobia with religion effects not only those in the religion but without, by influencing society. It promotes discrimination up to violence against LGBT people. So it is in the best interest of society and especially for the safety and well-being of LGBT people if they stop promoting such bigotry. These things don't just exist in a vacuum or in the abstract. It causes real pain, ruins families and inspires violence.

After all, it's not much of a leap from believing that homosexuality or being transgender is a sin worthy of hell (that God destroyed a city over, as that interpretation usually goes) to believing that it should be made illegal and LGBT people are sexually perverted, sick, diseased, depraved, etc. It tends to follow a line of dehumanization. When you dehumanize people, you open them up to all kinds of mistreatment and abuse.

 

[suncowiam]

It is as simple as that, it's just not easy.


I saw where you indicated Christians wanting to dictate morality on a global scale. That really goes far beyond homosexual issues, don't you think? You also mentioned as well that leaving a religion could make them confused and conflicted, etc etc. Again, no one said it would be easy, but those aren't exactly indestructible chains. They can still leave.

For a different issue, I know how hard it is to leave such a religion. I know the family effects that it has, and lasting social connotations and blames. For all practical purposes, they mean nothing. Even effects of family. Especially if it's a conflict of "stay and be a sinner, leave and be a sinner".

I still don't see it being explained or shown why the Christians should change their opinions for sake of the few, when the few have every opportunity and ability to leave and improve their own lives. Why must they rely on the actions and changes of others (in such a situation) to make their own lives better?

Promoting fear without any facts is irrational. That is why it must stop.

Religion promotes much fear without rational logic. It's not forcing Christians to change for a sake of few because the foundation of this is not just rooted in homophobia. It's forcing Christians to change for the sake of all and for a better society.

Otherwise, it's defending irrational fear simply on what a book says. On top of that, it's an interpretation of what the book supposedly says.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

People promoting homophobia and transphobia with religion effects not only those in the religion but without, by influencing society.

Only we're not exactly talking about the various "phobias", the topic (as I've read it) is "acceptance but not really," being a social acceptance of LGBT, but still believing it to be a sin. To which my question still remains... so what?

You were a Catholic. You know that they practically think everything is a sin. They call themselves sinners. So really, an active homosexual doesn't even need to leave; just go to confession. Bet the priest would get tired of hearing the confession over and over, but so what? It's forgiveness.

To simplify my question, if they (individual or group) doesn't actively persecute LGBT, and accepts it as a fact of the person, why must they change their opinion on it?

There are a lot of things that promote discrimination to violence against a lot of different peoples - not just LGBT - so I'm seeing that as really a non-answer bordering on slippery-slope. Especially when globally we're seeing overwhelming support for LGBT despite these beliefs, to the point where one can't even be critical of LGBT; to which I'm questioning here.

It's not forcing Christians to change for a sake of few because the foundation of this is not just rooted in homophobia. It's forcing Christians to change for the sake of all and for a better society.

When Christians make up 72% of the population, it absolutely is forcing Christians to change their beliefs and opinions for sake of the few. As above, when their opinion is just that, why should they change it?

 

[Buddha Dharma]

I saw where you indicated Christians wanting to dictate morality on a global scale. That really goes far beyond homosexual issues, don't you think?

I don't think all Christians wish to do that, just to clarify before we continue. I wouldn't want to give that impression. Many Christians are wonderful, actually caring people.

I think the homosexual issue as you call it can't be separated out from the wider purview. It's part of it.

Again, no one said it would be easy, but those aren't exactly indestructible chains. They can still leave.

That's a lot easier typed in an online forum than done. I think you probably know that

I still don't see it being explained or shown why the Christians should change their opinions for sake of the few, when the few have every opportunity and ability to leave and improve their own lives.

I don't see how the greater good of society isn't enough, but let's knock it up a few more notches if that isn't convincing.

Are Christians obligated to care about truth? Their claims would certainly have us think so. What if everything I've said about homosexuals is the truth, which I see no reason to accept isn't?

They are then not only oppressing a group of people unjustly, but they arguably don't care about truth.

 

[suncowiam]

Only we're not exactly talking about the various "phobias", the topic (as I've read it) is "acceptance but not really," being a social acceptance of LGBT, but still believing it to be a sin. To which my question still remains... so what?

You were a Catholic. You know that they practically think everything is a sin. They call themselves sinners. So really, an active homosexual doesn't even need to leave; just go to confession. Bet the priest would get tired of hearing the confession over and over, but so what? It's forgiveness.

To simplify my question, if they (individual or group) doesn't actively persecute LGBT, and accepts it as a fact of the person, why must they change their opinion on it?

There are a lot of things that promote discrimination to violence against a lot of different peoples - not just LGBT - so I'm seeing that as really a non-answer bordering on slippery-slope. Especially when globally we're seeing overwhelming support for LGBT despite these beliefs, to the point where one can't even be critical of LGBT; to which I'm questioning here.


When Christians make up 72% of the population, it absolutely is forcing Christians to change their beliefs and opinions for sake of the few. As above, when their opinion is just that, why should they change it?

You are suggesting this is a homosexual issue with religion. It is not. It is an irrational fear that religion can promote on a whim. It is based on a flawed process of representing the ideals of God. If no one can prove the existence of God, then no one should be able to prove the ideals of God. It is this process that is the root of much hate, fear and bigotry from not religion specifically but from those that use religion to justify their hate, fear and bigotry.

Again, this is why we must not accept such ideals even at its face value of appearing to only target homosexuals. It is much more rooted in the thought process of religion which affects everyone from theists to non-theists, alike.

Homophobia in religion just really an arbitrary topic. Again, I want to emphasize that the real underlying topic is discrimination, hate, fear and bigotry. This must absolutely stop.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

That's a lot easier typed in an online forum than done. I think you probably know that

I do know that. And I also know that it's 100% possible for a person to do.

I don't see how the greater good of society isn't enough

I don't see how an individual's opinions regarding sin truly affects society at large.

Are Christians obligated to care about truth? Their claims would certainly have us think so. What if everything I've said about homosexuals is the truth, which I see no reason to accept isn't?

Their beliefs on Truth - as uttered by their god and recorded in his book - contradict what you've said about homosexuals. To them, it's truth that homosexuality is a sin--so what?

 

[Ponder This]

Alright, I'll try to be more clear. I'm sorry if that was vague.

I'll break it down more into specifics:

If a religion teaches homosexuality is a sin- a homosexual cannot actually act on it. Meaning they cannot be homosexual.

If a religion teaches being homosexual is not a sin, but the act is- all they've done is restated the same position differently.

In either case- being homosexual is sinful. Because being homosexual gives you attractions you're going to want to act on.

It is a very clever form of trying to pass themselves off as more tolerant of homosexuality.

You have to clarify in what way homosexual desires are different from heterosexual desires or the desire to eat pork or the desire to eat beef or the desire to drink beer.

Some people take vows of celibacy (forbids heterosexual actions).

It seems you are saying there is no difference between a religion that regards it as a sin to have adulterous desires and a religion that only forbids the act of adultery.

It seems that you are saying that forbidding the eating of beef is 'cruel'. And the forbidding the eating of pork but not the desire to eat pork is 'half-hearted'.

Is there really any question that the one form is more tolerant than the other? But since neither is particularly tolerant, you lump them together. On the other hand, I don't think anyone regards adultery as 'truly accepted' (whatever that means) in any religion that forbids adulterous actions but allows adulterous desires.

I don't see how the greater good of society isn't enough, but let's knock it up a few more notches if that isn't convincing.

Are Christians obligated to care about truth? Their claims would certainly have us think so. What if everything I've said about homosexuals is the truth, which I see no reason to accept isn't?

They are then not only oppressing a group of people unjustly, but they arguably don't care about truth.

Perhaps you aren't simply interested in a discussion about tolerance. Do you crave capitulation to the 'truth' (which you have already arrived at).

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

You are suggesting this is a homosexual issue with religion. It is not. It is an irrational fear that religion can promote on a whim.

If they're accepting homosexuality as a fact-of-self, then they're not too irrationally fearful of it, are they? They just think that it's a sin - it among many other things. Why should they change?

 

[suncowiam]

If they're accepting homosexuality as a fact-of-self, then they're not too irrationally fearful of it, are they? They just think that it's a sin - it among many other things. Why should they change?

You're defending the actions of all hate groups now with that argument. You are suggesting because of perspective it no longer becomes irrational from the view of the discriminator.

Do YOU believe that their fear or hate of homosexuality, a rational one?

 

[LuisDantas]

To make a Devil's Advocate post, why does it (LGBT+ being) need to be accepted by a particular group or people?

Because the alternative is to have people who are not capable of truly accepting each other's existence and dignity.

 

[LuisDantas]

If they're accepting homosexuality as a fact-of-self, then they're not too irrationally fearful of it, are they? They just think that it's a sin - it among many other things. Why should they change?

If they do not, they will end up in a situation where the simple expression of some very fundamental rights by those people that they deem to be sinners will become offensive to them.

That does them no favors, and it is hardly respectful or convenient for anyone else either.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Because the alternative is to have people who are not capable of truly accepting each other's existence and dignity.

We have that literally all the time, but that's not quite what I was asking. If they believe that everyone is a sinner, what does one more sinner matter? They literally accept sinners, and recognize one another as sinners. Objection to this seems like objection born from a desire for special treatment - and again, I'm not talking about actual abuse of people. I'm purely talking about their beliefs and sin re: homosexuality.

If they do not, they will end up in a situation where the simple expression of some very fundamental rights by those people that they deem to be sinners will become offensive to them.

Touched on above. You're going to get those who take things way too far, of course, but by and large I wouldn't say Christians are offended by sinning. Yet even if they look down on homosexuality disapprovingly, why should that opinion be denied? It's their right, and you can't please everyone; there are bound to be people out there that don't like you for who you are, but that's life.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

It is a very clever form of trying to pass themselves off as more tolerant of homosexuality.

Not all that clever. I don't think anyone is fooled, unless of course themselves, which could well be. There are many psychological factors at play here.

I can understand that those that do not believe in an eternal life, in God and His Messengers, could see this as a problem.

It is up to the person if they want to follow the laws of God in the Faith they have chosen. They can not expect the Faith to change to cater for their needs.

The Faith and Laws are above our own desires and wishes. The greatest love, the greatest peace of mind, the greatest strength, the greatest certitude we can find is in God and His Laws. Submission to God and His Laws, is Faith. This acceptance can take many years to find.

In the end, people attracted to each other can still share a great Spiritual connection and that will be eternal.

Regards Tony

 

[LuisDantas]

We have that literally all the time, but that's not quite what I was asking. If they believe that everyone is a sinner, what does one more sinner matter? They literally accept sinners, and recognize one another as sinners. Objection to this seems like objection born from a desire for special treatment - and again, I'm not talking about actual abuse of people. I'm purely talking about their beliefs and sin re: homosexuality.

I guess that we have to verify what actually happens. While the idea that literally everyone is a sinner may sound fair and tempered, in practice it is selectively forgotten and ignored.

Christian doctrine can't really help but selectively ignore parts of its own scripture, of course. Matthew 6:5 comes to mind, as do Numbers 25 and 31.

And there are certainly subgroups within Christianity that treat LGBT+ with the same fairness and love that they might have towards their own heterosexuals. But that, quite simply, isn't the mainstream stance. Far from it. Heterosexual sex outside of marriage may be technically discouraged by most Christian groups, but it certainly exists and is often met with various degrees of acceptance and even lenience. Meanwhile, LGBT+ are nearly always encouraged to feel guilty of having LGBT+ cravings; taught to perceive their own longings to marry the people that they actually feel attracted to / in love with as unnatural and shameful; and to accept being treated as (and even to think of themselves as) abnormal due to being LGBT+.

Touched on above. You're going to get those who take things way too far, of course, but by and large I wouldn't say Christians are offended by sinning.

See above.

Yet even if they look down on homosexuality disapprovingly, why should that opinion be denied?

The opinion would be fine in a vaccuum. The behavior as it actually exists is hypocritical and discriminatory and should be acknowledged as criticized for what it is.

It's their right, and you can't please everyone; there are bound to be people out there that don't like you for who you are, but that's life.

That works two ways. People who discriminate would better expect being called out for it.

 

[suncowiam]

I can understand that those that do not believe in an eternal life, in God and His Messengers, could see this as a problem.

It is up to the person if they want to follow the laws of God in the Faith they have chosen. They can not expect the Faith to change to cater for their needs.

The Faith and Laws are above our own desires and wishes. The greatest love, the greatest peace of mind, the greatest strength, the greatest certitude we can find is in God and His Laws. Submission to God and His Laws, is Faith. This acceptance can take many years to find.

In the end, people attracted to each other can still share a great Spiritual connection and that will be eternal.

Regards Tony

Until you have other people denying their ability to practice religion because of their sexual orientation.

That's discrimination.