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

[Saint Frankenstein]

Folkish to me represents my people and heritage. Do you have a specific issue with that?

And why don't I have every right to defend myself when being insulted and threatened by a complete stranger? A stranger who happens to be making assumptions about me based upon my affinity to an historical symbol, to which I apply a much, much different meaning than it was used for originally, and whom is also trying to dictate to me how I should define my own religion. Now please stop this foolishness and lets just go our separate ways if you feel this strongly about who you believe me to be?

Just so you know how it feels let me make some assumptions about and suggestions to you too:

Stop being such a stereotypical Luciferian, the adversary act you're trying to pull is dull and boring and in a LHP context the way you're emulating the archetype is stagnant and lacks individuality.

I haven't threatened you or insulted you. I don't have any powers on this site, so how can I threaten you? In fact, I was kind of being nice to tell you what your profile is making you look like and you got all uppity with me. The mature thing to do would be to admit the controversial nature of those things and be ready to explain yourself when questioned about it. Or stop using neo-Nazi symbols if you don't like the attention it brings. That's another option. Plenty of other sun wheels.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Procreation is hardly the only purpose of the sex drive. Human females are only fertile a few days a month, for example. We're not like dogs or cats who only mate while in heat.

Yes good point. I’m not in touch currently with homosexual people but my nephew who has sexual moral laxity has 4 children to 3 different mothers. His life and his children’s lives are in ruins because there is no stable home.

These days it’s free to enter or leave any relationship in the name of freedom so that can and does break up and hurt families and wreck children’s lives.

We must not only think of the right of the adult to enjoy sexual pleasure but also of the rights of children to a proper home environment of a mother and father as nature designed.

I think sexual laxity breaks up the family which I consider to be the bedrock of society and with broken homes it eventually affects society. I came from a broken home due to sexual desires of my father wanting to have a fling with other women. This disrupted my entire life. I ended up in a boys home and got a step father who’s brother sexually abused me as he was a homosexual resulting in me being unable to have children. After my home was broken up I tried to suicide 6 times, drugs - mainly sleeping tablets.

My whole life was ruined by my father’s desire for sex rather than remaining with my mother. My nephew and his children their lives are becoming decimated by the fact they have 3 mothers that all hate each other.

The healthiest idea from my experience is to have a mum and a dad faithful to each other giving the child a stable home and upbringing.

It’s not just all about the sex but the children too.

Sex can make us compromise our allegiances, betray faithfulness which is why I believe that it should be only between a married man and woman as it can be the cause of untold suffering if a man betrays his wife for sex with another woman, so marriage to me is extremely important to protect.

With homosexual tendencies they can break up marriages too leaving the children in a once stable marriage without a home and family.

And in a same sex marriage the children are deprived of either a mother or a father.

I can’t imagine not having my wonderful mother. It would be an injustice to me and even cruelty to force me not to have a mother or a father which is what a same sex marriage is when children are adopted.

So apart from sexual pleasure, a same sex marriage denies children if adopted, the right of a mother or a father and also cannot procreate. So I think we must consider the rights of the children too not just our pleasures right?

If we just want to be single and play around then that is our own choice but where children are involved the child has rights not just the adults and sexual behaviour needs to be responsible and I think it has its best chance within a faithful male and female marriage and society will gain from children reared and educated in a stable home with a mum and dad.

 

[Jakob Steinmetz]

I haven't threatened you or insulted you. I don't have any powers on this site, so how can I threaten you? In fact, I was kind of being nice to tell you what your profile is making you look like and you got all uppity with me. The mature thing to do would be to admit the controversial nature of those things and be ready to explain yourself when questioned about it. Or stop using neo-Nazi symbols if you don't like the attention it brings. That's another option. Plenty of other sun wheels.

Alright then, I'll concede to your attempt to resolve this with civility. I apologise for the defensiveness I have displayed, though it is a poor excuse, I am very tired and perhaps taking things out of context a bit. Just hit a nerve I guess, but you're right, I should have been willing and will endeavor to do a better job of explaining my reasons for adopting such a symbol in the future, if you should ever wish to discuss it more in the near future we can. I think at this point it's probably best that any misunderstandings are cleared up. Unless we can both agree to just avoid each other from now on. Which to be honest would seem like a waste if that were to be the case. Debate is always a good thing after all.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Yes good point. I’m not in touch currently with homosexual people but my nephew who has sexual moral laxity has 4 children to 3 different mothers. His life and his children’s lives are in ruins because there is no stable home.

These days it’s free to enter or leave any relationship in the name of freedom so that can and does break up and hurt families and wreck children’s lives.

We must not only think of the right of the adult to enjoy sexual pleasure but also of the rights of children to a proper home environment of a mother and father as nature designed.

I think sexual laxity breaks up the family which I consider to be the bedrock of society and with broken homes it eventually affects society. I came from a broken home due to sexual desires of my father wanting to have a fling with other women. This disrupted my entire life. I ended up in a boys home and got a step father who’s brother sexually abused me as he was a homosexual resulting in me being unable to have children. After my home was broken up I tried to suicide 6 times, drugs - mainly sleeping tablets.

My whole life was ruined by my father’s desire for sex rather than remaining with my mother. My nephew and his children their lives are becoming decimated by the fact they have 3 mothers that all hate each other.

The healthiest idea from my experience is to have a mum and a dad faithful to each other giving the child a stable home and upbringing.

It’s not just all about the sex but the children too.

Sex can make us compromise our allegiances, betray faithfulness which is why I believe that it should be only between a married man and woman as it can be the cause of untold suffering if a man betrays his wife for sex with another woman, so marriage to me is extremely important to protect.

With homosexual tendencies they can break up marriages too leaving the children in a once stable marriage without a home and family.

And in a same sex marriage the children are deprived of either a mother or a father.

I can’t imagine not having my wonderful mother. It would be an injustice to me and even cruelty to force me not to have a mother or a father which is what a same sex marriage is when children are adopted.

So apart from sexual pleasure, a same sex marriage denies children if adopted, the right of a mother or a father and also cannot procreate. So I think we must consider the rights of the children too not just our pleasures right?

If we just want to be single and play around then that is our own choice but where children are involved the child has rights not just the adults and sexual behaviour needs to be responsible and I think it has its best chance within a faithful male and female marriage and society will gain from children reared and educated in a stable home with a mum and dad.

Homosexuality has nothing to do with "sexual laxity" and broken homes and it is quite offensive for you to make that comparison. Yeah, I come from a broken home, too. My dad slept around and left my mom for a 14 year old girl. What the hell does that have to do with homosexuality? Nothing!

The reason why some gay people live in sham marriages prior to coming is because of homophobia in society. If they were allpwed to express their orientation and find a suitable partner like their heterosexual peers, they never would've married the wrong person. Since your beliefs contribute to that negative social atmosphere, it is quite disingenuous of you to use that as an argument against gays.

Gay couples don't deprive a child of anything. There's nothing two men or two women can't offer a child that a man and a woman can. I find that view based on gender stereotypes. Not all men or women are the same. People are individuals with unique personalities. There is no evidence that the children of gat couples are disadvantaged in any way. In fact, there's studies saying they do better than the average child of hetero parents. Perhaps it's because most gay couples have to work extremely hard to be parents. They have to overcome the prejudice of society and jump through many hoops to adopt, whereas all a hetero couple just needs some spread legs, a couple minutes and semen in the vagina. Let's not act like making babies is some sacred thing to heteros. Probably most of us weren't even planned and many were unwanted. But you dare to look down on loving people who actually want to take in a kid and give them a loving home? For shame.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Alright then, I'll concede to your attempt to resolve this with civility. I apologise for the defensiveness I have displayed, though it is a poor excuse, I am very tired and perhaps taking things out of context a bit. Just hit a nerve I guess, but you're right, I should have been willing and will endeavor to do a better job of explaining my reasons for adopting such a symbol in the future, if you should ever wish to discuss it more in the near future we can. I think at this point it's probably best that any misunderstandings are cleared up. Unless we can both agree to just avoid each other from now on. Which to be honest would seem like a waste if that were to be the case. Debate is always a good thing after all.

No worries. I can be like an attack dog at times. I really wasn't trying to insult. It's okay to drop it for now. I wouldn't mind discussing your views on it later on if you're willing. I'm willing to listen to your interpretation. It's an interesting subject to me.

 

[Jakob Steinmetz]

No worries. I can be like an attack dog at times. I really wasn't trying to insult. It's okay to drop it for now. I wouldn't mind discussing your views on it later on if you're willing. I'm willing to listen to your interpretation. It's an interesting subject to me.

Yeah no worries there, I'm up for such a discussion whenever time permits. Same here with the attack dog thing (well probably guard dog would be more fitting in my case). Anyhow, I think sleep is to be my immediate agenda, think the way I handled all of that proves it's probably the logical course of action. Peace to you and everyone else here.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Yeah no worries there, I'm up for such a discussion whenever time permits. Same here with the attack dog thing (well probably guard dog would be more fitting in my case). Anyhow, I think sleep is to be my immediate agenda, think the way I handled all of that proves it's probably the logical course of action. Peace to you and everyone else here.

Understood. Peace and good night.

 

[SomeRandom]

Yes good point. I’m not in touch currently with homosexual people but my nephew who has sexual moral laxity has 4 children to 3 different mothers. His life and his children’s lives are in ruins because there is no stable home.

Being promiscuous is not really the same as being gay, though.
Just like it's not the same as being straight. Sure gay and straight people can be promiscuous, but it's not some inherent fundamental part of either sexual orientation (or indeed bisexuality.)
So what does having multiple children to different partners have to do with anything, except paint monogamous relationships as ideal for raising children? Which is usually supported by most people, I'm sure. But what does that have to do with being gay? How do they connect?

These days it’s free to enter or leave any relationship in the name of freedom so that can and does break up and hurt families and wreck children’s lives.

Well one could use condoms and you know act like mature adults.
Also I'm pretty sure polygamy is a thing that exists and has done for a long time. Usually in remote religious communities. Are you arguing that religious offshoots (usually of the Christian variety) that practice polygamy are also damaging to children? I mean I'm not sure of the data, so it's possible.

We must not only think of the right of the adult to enjoy sexual pleasure but also of the rights of children to a proper home environment of a mother and father as nature designed.

Lol, mother and father only households are like barely 100 years old. Even in the West it wasn't uncommon for parental responsibility to be shared among multiple generations. "As nature designed?" You just described a very young (relatively speaking) model adopted randomly by humans, which was more to do with disease, changes in life expectancy and resources than any real consideration to what is and isn't "natural." The whole Nuclear Family is but a mere baby of a model for raising kids. Hardly some big statement on nature.

In the East this multi generational household is still relatively in affect and thousands of years old. And probably more natural, if you like, since many of our ape relatives in nature actually use this model. Actually many of my own family who are second or even third generation immigrants still hold to this model, albeit a tad more loosely than their forefathers. And they too lament the lack of respect of parents, grandparents or uncles/aunties among the youth, though usually directed towards the "white man." Usually.
I find their sense of community a tad stronger and more tight nit than the West's ideas, but that's really just personal preference.

I think sexual laxity breaks up the family which I consider to be the bedrock of society and with broken homes it eventually affects society. I came from a broken home due to sexual desires of my father wanting to have a fling with other women. This disrupted my entire life. I ended up in a boys home and got a step father who’s brother sexually abused me as he was a homosexual resulting in me being unable to have children. After my home was broken up I tried to suicide 6 times, drugs - mainly sleeping tablets.

That is an awful experience. I'm sorry you went through that.
But do you not think that maybe fighting/arguing against kids in loving homes just because both carers of the same sex might be actually depriving them of a loving environment just as you were denied?
Just something to ponder.

My whole life was ruined by my father’s desire for sex rather than remaining with my mother. My nephew and his children their lives are becoming decimated by the fact they have 3 mothers that all hate each other.

Well broken homes are indeed toxic to children. Again not sure how that relates to homosexuality specifically though. They're completely different things.

Sex can make us compromise our allegiances, betray faithfulness which is why I believe that it should be only between a married man and woman as it can be the cause of untold suffering if a man betrays his wife for sex with another woman, so marriage to me is extremely important to protect.

Well monogamy is indeed something to strive for. Not sure how it's suddenly different if both members are of the same sex. Cheating in a relationship still hurts people, gay straight or otherwise. Seems more a human problem than a specific gay or straight problem. Also again not sure how making marriage only a straight thing helps the situation. Wouldn't encouraging monogamy in all relationships be a much better way to discourage broken homes?

With homosexual tendencies they can break up marriages too leaving the children in a once stable marriage without a home and family.

Well not to be "that guy" but can I just point out that if people (particularly of the religious kind) didn't pressure gay people to be in heterosexual relationships to begin with, this would not be a problem in the first damned place?
This is like forcing someone to live like a child all their lives and then blame the very concept of childhood when they are unable to live like a mature adult in the real world, when they come of age.
They're not really at fault here.

And in a same sex marriage the children are deprived of either a mother or a father.

Well depends really. Not all situations are the same, just saying.

I can’t imagine not having my wonderful mother. It would be an injustice to me and even cruelty to force me not to have a mother or a father which is what a same sex marriage is when children are adopted.

Actually, studies consistently show that the children of same sex parents do just as well or even better than their counterparts in opposite sex parents.
https://aifs.gov.au/publications/same-sex-couple-families-Australia
Also sorry for it being Australian, Google tends to isolate searches. Damned algorithms.

Also kids have one upped you here. I happen to have a few nieces and nephews with gay parents, they seem pretty well adjusted and understand what "roles" if you like, each parent fulfills for them.

So apart from sexual pleasure, a same sex marriage denies children if adopted, the right of a mother or a father and also cannot procreate. So I think we must consider the rights of the children too not just our pleasures right?

Sorry, couldn't resist.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Regarding the "black sun" - off topic though it is - there's no definitive proof one way or the other as to whether it was placed in the Wewelsburg castle by the Nazis or not. It is certainly a sunwheel based off earlier Alemannic brooch designs. Contemporarily, it's actually one of the lesser-used symbols of white supremacists; they either straight-up use a swastika, the Othala rune, Mjolnir itself, or sometimes even the Tyr rune. With the term "folkish", it does not always denote racism or nationalism. It really just means "of the people", and for many Folkish Heathens that's whoever is within their Kindred and faith community.

 

[LuisDantas]

With this subject, there is Faith in Gods Laws, or neglect of them. I can not change the Law, be I rigid or flexible, it is already set by the Message given.

That is what you believe. Even if it was somehow know that it is an accurate belief, the fact remains that it is not shared by many other faiths and you should not attempt to speak on their behalf while also so casually and so completely disregarding their own messages.

 

[Ponder This]

I already defined 'what I mean' by fulfillment. I'm not playing this game.

If you are not willing to explain how homosexuality differs from heterosexuality, then I consider the matter settled.

I wasn't dictating. I was asking a theoretical question.

I take this to mean that you agree that your belief may not be imposed on others simply because you regard it as the 'truth'.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

That is what you believe. Even if it was somehow know that it is an accurate belief, the fact remains that it is not shared by many other faiths and you should not attempt to speak on their behalf while also so casually and so completely disregarding their own messages.

It is what we can now know with confidence.

The Older the Faith, the less likely the original Word has been passed down in its pure form, the less likely we will know what was said on this subject from the source.

So for the last 2000 years we have records that contain the original word being the Bible and are confirmed as 100% accurate being the Koran and the Baha'i Writings.

Thus Morality, Marriage between a Male and Female and prohibition of sex outside of Marriage has been Gods guidance in all this time. The Bible, Koran and Baha'i Laws are set in the writings.

We also now know this law will continue.

You are free to show that this is not the case in the Holy Books.

Regards Tony

 

[Ellen Brown]

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?

I'm not supposed to judge.

 

[SomeRandom]

It is what we can now know with confidence.

The Older the Faith, the less likely the original Word has been passed down in its pure form, the less likely we will know what was said on this subject from the source.

So for the last 2000 years we have records that contain the original word being the Bible and are confirmed as 100% accurate being the Koran and the Baha'i Writings.

Thus Morality, Marriage between a Male and Female and prohibition of sex outside of Marriage has been Gods guidance in all this time. The Bible, Koran and Baha'i Laws are set in the writings.

We also now know this law will continue.

You are free to show that this is not the case in the Holy Books.

Regards Tony

Well for the Abrahamics, sure. Pretty sure other religions exist though.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Homosexuality has nothing to do with "sexual laxity" and broken homes and it is quite offensive for you to make that comparison. Yeah, I come from a broken home, too. My dad slept around and left my mom for a 14 year old girl. What the hell does that have to do with homosexuality? Nothing!

The reason why some gay people live in sham marriages prior to coming is because of homophobia in society. If they were allpwed to express their orientation and find a suitable partner like their heterosexual peers, they never would've married the wrong person. Since your beliefs contribute to that negative social atmosphere, it is quite disingenuous of you to use that as an argument against gays.

Gay couples don't deprive a child of anything. There's nothing two men or two women can't offer a child that a man and a woman can. I find that view based on gender stereotypes. Not all men or women are the same. People are individuals with unique personalities. There is no evidence that the children of gat couples are disadvantaged in any way. In fact, there's studies saying they do better than the average child of hetero parents. Perhaps it's because most gay couples have to work extremely hard to be parents. They have to overcome the prejudice of society and jump through many hoops to adopt, whereas all a hetero couple just needs some spread legs, a couple minutes and semen in the vagina. Let's not act like making babies is some sacred thing to heteros. Probably most of us weren't even planned and many were unwanted. But you dare to look down on loving people who actually want to take in a kid and give them a loving home? For shame.

No same sex couple could ever have replaced my mother.

Depriving a child of a mother or a father is loving?

It is their natural birthright that we are tampering with. Nature has provided and intended a balanced male and female upbringing for children.

 

[Vinayaka]

No same sex couple could ever have replaced my mother.

Depriving a child of a mother or a father is loving?

It is their natural birthright that we are tampering with. Nature has provided and intended a balanced male and female upbringing for children.

Nothing about love? So you would rather have heterosexual parents that beat the crap out of each other and you, than a gay couple that provided for your every need in a loving caring way? That's sad.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

It is their natural birthright that we are tampering with.

I'm curious, then, of your opinion of foster parents.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Nothing about love? So you would rather have heterosexual parents that beat the crap out of each other and you, than a gay couple that provided for your every need in a loving caring way? That's sad.

I would much rather the love of both a mother and a father than to be deprived of the love of a mother or a father.

 

[Vinayaka]

I would much rather the love of both a mother and a father than to be deprived of the love of a mother or a father.

As with the usual pattern, you sidestepped the question. Lots of mothers and fathers neglect their children, beat their children, etc. But as far as I can tell, you'd far rather have that than gay parents. The extent of the homophobia in the Bahai faith is at times just overwhelming. It is obvious to most of the world, child psychologists, teachers, etc. that gay parents make wonderful parents.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Well for the Abrahamics, sure. Pretty sure other religions exist though.

Yes they do indeed. All those that still have teachings founded in God's Word, will have the same Law. All those that man has had input into, might not reflect this as clearly.

Regards Tony