How would you respond to seeing a same-sex couple kissing/ or holding hands ?

[Norman]

So, prejudice? Or, do you have reasoning beyond dogmatic beliefs.

Norman: Hi leibowde, no prejudice, no dogmatic beliefs in regards to the OP. I simply believe that consenting adults or teen agers should act
with dignity and modesty in the public. Why should children have to see two people in serious petting, keep it in the bedroom, that's all.

 

[Draka]

Norman: Hi leibowde, no prejudice, no dogmatic beliefs in regards to the OP. I simply believe that consenting adults or teen agers should act
with dignity and modesty in the public. Why should children have to see two people in serious petting, keep it in the bedroom, that's all.

I've never seen children have an issue with it, just adults. Children don't care. They might even giggle. They are certainly not offended. People learn to take offense over certain things. They learn to have issues with displays of affection. It is adults that teach children that there is something wrong with it. So why pretend it is an issue about what children see when they couldn't care less? It is deflecting pure and simple. The issue isn't children, it is the adults with sexuality issues that have the problem.

 

[Norman]

@Norman
"You think homosexuality Is normal and religion is not,
ok."


You are still misunderstanding me. Homosexuality is not normal, because most people aren't. Religion is normal, because most people have one. But most people are not any version of Christian, so Christianity is not normal.

The problem is with people confusing normal and/or natural with good and/or moral. They are not related things.
Is this really so hard to understand? Or are you trying so hard to justify what you already believe that you refuse to see this?
Tom

Norman: Hi Tom, I am trying to be open minded here. quote "normal and /or natural with good and/or moral. They are not related things." end of quote
Is that the same as calling good evil and evil good? By the way Tom, how do you do this @Norman I can't figure it out.

 

[Norman]

I've never seen children have an issue with it, just adults. Children don't care. They might even giggle. They are certainly not offended. People learn to take offense over certain things. They learn to have issues with displays of affection. It is adults that teach children that there is something wrong with it. So why pretend it is an issue about what children see when they couldn't care less? It is deflecting pure and simple. The issue isn't children, it is the adults with sexuality issues that have the problem.

Norman: Hi Draka, children are smarter than we adults think, they are not ignorant to serious petting in the public square. Yes and the parents who teach there children there is something wrong with it, has that right. Other parents may feel different and that is there right. Anyway, children, adults, keep it in the bedroom if it is
a bit extreme, that's all.

 

[Draka]

Norman: Hi Tom, I am trying to be open minded here. quote "normal and /or natural with good and/or moral. They are not related things." end of quote
Is that the same as calling good evil and evil good? By the way Tom, how do you do this @Norman I can't figure it out.

No. It's just that just because something may or may not be "normal" has no bearing on whether or not that thing is "good" or "moral". Look, being right-handed is "normal" as most people are right-handed. Does that make being right-handed good or moral merely because it is "normal"? Would that make being left-handed bad or immoral? Of course not. Arguing from a stance of whether something is "normal" or even "natural" in order to support a claim of it being somehow good or moral fails as they really are not connected in that way.

 

[Draka]

Norman: Hi Draka, children are smarter than we adults think, they are not ignorant to serious petting in the public square. Yes and the parents who teach there children there is something wrong with it, has that right. Other parents may feel different and that is there right. Anyway, children, adults, keep it in the bedroom if it is
a bit extreme, that's all.

Yes, children are smarter than given credit for. That is why, unless taught differently, they don't see color/race, they don't blink upon hearing that Johnny has two mommies, and they don't think anything more than "those two people really love each other" upon seeing a couple make out. We, as a society, teach way too much judgment to children. If let to their own devices, if we raised a society of children that held on to those colorblind eyes, do you have any idea how much better our society could become?

 

[columbus]

By the way Tom, how do you do this @Norman I can't figure it out.

It's easy on my phone, I assume it will be the same for you. But I don't know for sure. I just type an @ and then immediately after start typing a screen name. Usually the screen name pops up in a box and you can select it. If not, be sure to spell it exactly, caps and all. Hope that helps.
Tom

 

[Deidre]

lol!!

 

[Norman]

No. It's just that just because something may or may not be "normal" has no bearing on whether or not that thing is "good" or "moral".

Norman: Hi Draka, could you please give me an example?

Look, being right-handed is "normal" as most people are right-handed. Does that make being right-handed good or moral merely because it is "normal"? Would that make being left-handed bad or immoral? Of course not.

Norman: What is this analogy in regards to?

Arguing from a stance of whether something is "normal" or even "natural" in order to support a claim of it being somehow good or moral fails as they really are not connected in that way.

Norman: Is this in regards to public petting?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

no prejudice, no dogmatic beliefs

So you're the one

 

[columbus]

orman: Hi Tom, I am trying to be open minded here. quote "normal and /or natural with good and/or moral. They are not related things." end of quote
Is that the same as calling good evil and evil good?

No, not at all. Plenty of normal things are immoral, and saintliness is quite abnormal. Normal and moral just aren't connected.
Same with natural. It is quite natural for humans to steal. Cooking is quite unnatural, though.

I'd even go a step further, when it comes to sex. Lots of people procreate when they aren't really willing and able to provide a top quality situation for the children. In a world with 7,000,000,000 people and climbing, I would argue that gay sex is more moral than straight under most circumstances. No abortions, no neglected or abandoned children, no adding to the population problem, it's better sometimes.
But no, there is no connection between something being normal and being moral.
Tom

 

[Draka]

Norman: Hi Draka, could you please give me an example?

@Norman I thought I had. How about brown eyes are "normal" so are they good or moral and all other eye colors aren't? What about it is "normal" to eat meat? Does that mean it is moral to eat meat and vegetarians are immoral for not eating meat? Many things can be used here.

Norman: What is this analogy in regards to?

In regards to the basic argument of something not being "normal" so it is not "right" or that it is "immoral". It just simply isn't so.

Norman: Is this in regards to public petting?

Can be in regards to PDAs. Can be in regards to homosexuality in general.

Too often the argument is used that something "isn't normal" as if that alone makes a point that the thing is wrong to do or be. That it is bad or immoral. It simply doesn't fly as "normal" itself has absolutely nothing to do with the morality or "rightness" of something. The argument itself is a flawed one and fails as reasoning.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

And you would know would you. I think the word I'm looking for is 'rubbish'.

So are you claiming Jesus was a bigot and a homophobe? Let's see some supporting evidence from the New Testament then.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

He was keeping the law.

Which law? The law saying that Jesus had to hang around with men all the time and not have a girlfriend?

 

[Sand Dancer]

Equality of what? He was not for equality with murderers

Equality for the marginalized and ostracized, those that society hated.

 

[Sand Dancer]

He was keeping the law. Think about it.

Jesus took the spirit of the law, not the letter of it, like the Pharisees did. He had a big problem with those pious busybodies.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Citing the FRC to back up your argument about homosexuality is like citing the KKK to talk about black people.

I wish I could give you ten likes!

 

[leibowde84]

Norman: Hi leibowde, no prejudice, no dogmatic beliefs in regards to the OP. I simply believe that consenting adults or teen agers should act
with dignity and modesty in the public. Why should children have to see two people in serious petting, keep it in the bedroom, that's all.

Kissing is "serious petting"? I don't see why kissing is immodest.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Jesus took the spirit of the law, not the letter of it, like the Pharisees did. He had a big problem with those pious busybodies.

Yes, and they hated him for it.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Kissing is "serious petting"?

Does kissing qualify as "light petting"? Anything more would definitely put me off my fish-and-chip supper.