Poeticus
| abhyAvartin |
... hear us? His inability to retract easily illustrates that it's not worth the trouble.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
If a gay or lesbien want to back normal?
- Thread starter Godobeyer
- Start date
Your choice, of course.
But you realize that plenty of people who hold similar ideas will gladly just call us unworthy of their own attention and call it a day, don't you?
For all that I am shocked by Godobeyer's perceptions, he is still exposing them to us and listening to what we say out of good will alone. That has considerable value in my book.
What bullcrap. I hate when people bring up some random sexual paraphilia as if it's somehow exactly the same as sexual orientation. First off, consent plays a large part in what we consider to be harmless variation. Two adult males consenting to a relationship? That's no one's business but the two in the relationship. A human having sex with a non human animal which is unable to meet the requirements of legal consent? Someone might want to call Animal Welfare groups to investigate. Second is consequences. Since gay people just........exist and have no inherent detrimental effects just by their very existence alone, then the reasonable option is to just leave them be. (This speaks to why people have objections to fertile heterosexual people in heterosexual incestuous relationships. The genetic consequences for the next generation could potentially be rather harmful.)
There's abnormality, but that in and of itself does not speak to what we should and should not reject. For instance, people prefer horror over romance. But are they the norm? There's quite a few of them, but it's not a significantly large portion of the population. Then there are the underground movements within that fan base that is largely rejected by mainstream society.
Do we reject these abnormal people who get a kick out of watching something gory and scary? And in doing so would we then exult those who do not like horror at all? No, because prevalence doesn't necessarily mean normalcy or indeed something to be celebrated. Slavery was once the norm and we've largely rejected that.
indeed shocking , no offend, i think it disgusting for many men , i will not imagine my self married to man .
btw
so there is no check doctor for kids !!!!
i am glade that 50% of Americans are with agree with me
for your opinion why it's touch young people not olders ?
sorry in this case ALL Muslims 99.99% are not moderates in your view . so automatically we are extremists ?
plus maybe huge number of Christians and plus huge number of followers of other religions , so may will get 80 % of population in the world are extremists !!!
i
Last edited:
If I had to guess, I would say it mainly has to do with young people's openness to change compared to old people in general. Modern science tells us that homosexuality is both natural and healthy just like heterosexuality, so it's easier for people who haven't spent their lives believing otherwise to accept the current scientific knowledge regarding this issue.
I think most Muslims hold extremist views concerning this issue, at least in the Middle East. So that means most Muslims in the Middle East are not really moderate compared to most people in the developed world.
Someone was arguing with me that I was generalizing because I said many if not most self-described moderate Muslims hold some extremist beliefs. You have just given a raw example of what I meant without me even asking for it; you said it as something that you think of positively, even.
Almost all of the developed world accepts equality of homosexuals. I don't think your 80% estimate is correct.
Besides, even if it were correct, that wouldn't change the scientific facts we currently have. One member here, @Thorbjorn, is a very kind, thoughtful, and helpful person, and he is a homosexual. The same goes for @StarryNightshade. @MysticSang'ha and @Drolefille are both compassionate and open-minded, and they're bisexual. Do you really think it is moderate or loving to believe that people who aren't heterosexual are messed up when there are many examples of people who prove otherwise?
Many of us can't imagine ourselves married to many other people that happen to be happily married.
I fail to see why that would matter. Isn't marriage a private matter?
Now that you mention it, that is a secondary boom of Same Sex Marriage. Any kids that arise are far more likely to have been planned and wanted. That leads to remarkably more functional families on the average.
Uh, why? Homosexuals, bisexuals and transexuals exist and are full human beings. There is essentially nothing (barring the inhumane) that can be done to change that fact.
We all end up pretty much having to choose between treating them as second-rate citizens, having as justification nothing better than our own disconfort with their existence, or instead simply accepting that they have as much right to build the best, happiest life reasonably possible for them as anyone else does.
It is barely even a choice, for it is so obvious which way we should go.
Let me ask you, how strongly do you feel at approving of other people's marriages when there is no same sex pairing involved? How much of a say to you think you should have in those situations, and why is it any different when same sex couples are involved?
If you are asking why younger Americans are more accepting of same sex marriage than their parents and grandparents, it seems to me that there are several, fairly interconnected reasons.
To be brief, I think it is fair and accurate to say that older generations have pretty much been raised to the tune that homosexuality is something to be ashamed of, and most certainly not worth of recognition in the form of marriages, while younger people have for the most part had the opportunity to actually interact openly with homosexuals and realize that there is no real justification for that discrimination.
Homosexuality is really no more than being attracted to people of one's own gender. It says nothing whatsoever about the other qualities of the homosexual person. It is a very good reason for homosexuals to seek pairings among themselves (or with bisexuals), but justifies nearly nothing else that would not be acceptable to heterosexuals as well.
That is something of a burning question these days. I personally take it very seriously indeed.
It is often unconfortable to attempt to reconcile the available signs. You and other Muslims (and Christians) I know are obviously not at all bad people, yet many of you seem to think nothing of mistreating homosexuals and some other minorities for reasons we have a hard time understanding.
That realization deserves a lot of cautious, ponderate reflection.
It was not that far ago that much of the otherwise civilized world thought of slavery as a respectable activity. Sometimes questioning and outright challenging the established majority's views is very much a moral need.
Besides, the percentage of people that actually disapproves of same sex pairings has been sharply declining in many places, so hopefully not much of a confrontation will be even needed anyway. I certainly hope so. It is very much a good auspice if people can spontaneously reach a confortable mutual understanding on this matter (and in many others), and we seem to be headed that way.
JerryL
Well-Known Member
Billions of people are also not OK with your religion.
Billions of people are not OK with gender equality.
Billions of people are not OK with inter-faith marriage.
An awful lot (don't know if it's billions but would not be surprised) are not OK with interracial marriage.
Are you consistent? Do you oppose all of those things because others do? Or have you singled-out same-sex marriage (which has a millennia-spanning history)
So is interfaith marriage. So is inter-racial marriage. So is new marriages by people over 40.
In fact: marriage by Jews is rare compared with Muslim/Christian marriage because Jews themselves are rare in that comparison.
Under your definition I agree that homosexuality is abnormal. Marrying someone the same age as you is abnormal. Marrying a red-head is abnormal. Marring a disabled person is abnormal. etc.
So is "abnormal" important?
People can be attracted to an animal. There are people attracted to a fence post. But an animal is not a person and therefore is incapable of consent and incapable of entering into a legal contract. Your analogy is inherently flawed.
Not for long. The % of people against gay marriage has been eroding significantly in recent years.
To be perfectly blunt... younger people are more educated and don't have the ignorant biases of older generations.
Triumphant_Loser
Libertarian Egalitarian
Sexuality is more than the gay/straight binary. Sexuality is not just black and white. There are a lot of in betweens.
Also, same-sex desires are likely a lot more common than you would think. It's our culture's puritanical ideals about sex and sexual expression that cause the idea that being 100% straight is the "norm."
Also, ultimately, I don't care what my future wife is attracted to, (as long as she's attracted to me as well, obviously.) Around half of the girls I have dated have been bisexual/pansexual, as am I.
Why do you even feel the need to think about this?
I don't know what you're trying to express here, but I'll take a leap and say that we can indeed make babies. Either the old-fashioned way, albeit with blindfolds and lots of fantasies, or with Dixie cups and turkey basters. Even straights do that...
Wife: "oh Eddie, oh Eddie, ohhhhh Eddddddie!!!"
Husband: "Huh, wut? My name's George".
Wife: "Oopsie daisy."
Husband storms out.
I have these serious question , it's first time i chat with gay in RF thread :
are you the husband or the wife first ? or it's depend ?
IF your "husband man cheat on , with other woman , what you would do ?
IF your man cheat on with man , what you would do ?
marriage is suppose to be between male and female , natural sex instinct to satisfy each other , and build new generation .Many of us can't imagine ourselves married to many other people that happen to be happily married.
I fail to see why that would matter. Isn't marriage a private matter?
Now that you mention it, that is a secondary boom of Same Sex Marriage. Any kids that arise are far more likely to have been planned and wanted. That leads to remarkably more functional families on the average.
Uh, why? Homosexuals, bisexuals and transexuals exist and are full human beings. There is essentially nothing (barring the inhumane) that can be done to change that fact.
We all end up pretty much having to choose between treating them as second-rate citizens, having as justification nothing better than our own disconfort with their existence, or instead simply accepting that they have as much right to build the best, happiest life reasonably possible for them as anyone else does.
It is barely even a choice, for it is so obvious which way we should go.
Let me ask you, how strongly do you feel at approving of other people's marriages when there is no same sex pairing involved? How much of a say to you think you should have in those situations, and why is it any different when same sex couples are involved?
If you are asking why younger Americans are more accepting of same sex marriage than their parents and grandparents, it seems to me that there are several, fairly interconnected reasons.
To be brief, I think it is fair and accurate to say that older generations have pretty much been raised to the tune that homosexuality is something to be ashamed of, and most certainly not worth of recognition in the form of marriages, while younger people have for the most part had the opportunity to actually interact openly with homosexuals and realize that there is no real justification for that discrimination.
Homosexuality is really no more than being attracted to people of one's own gender. It says nothing whatsoever about the other qualities of the homosexual person. It is a very good reason for homosexuals to seek pairings among themselves (or with bisexuals), but justifies nearly nothing else that would not be acceptable to heterosexuals as well.
That is something of a burning question these days. I personally take it very seriously indeed.
It is often unconfortable to attempt to reconcile the available signs. You and other Muslims (and Christians) I know are obviously not at all bad people, yet many of you seem to think nothing of mistreating homosexuals and some other minorities for reasons we have a hard time understanding.
That realization deserves a lot of cautious, ponderate reflection.
It was not that far ago that much of the otherwise civilized world thought of slavery as a respectable activity. Sometimes questioning and outright challenging the established majority's views is very much a moral need.
Besides, the percentage of people that actually disapproves of same sex pairings has been sharply declining in many places, so hopefully not much of a confrontation will be even needed anyway. I certainly hope so. It is very much a good auspice if people can spontaneously reach a confortable mutual understanding on this matter (and in many others), and we seem to be headed that way.
if it's decline it , it's not natural
because the male organ correspond to female organ in all creations (this standard situation)
this is how i see the gay .
is not new gender.
Gay is natural physically (as hardware in PC), that immpossible .
Gay is natural mental (as softwar in PC) , that probelly correct , but there is two cases :
so it's about mental changing ?
as you know that gay here , he said "had no appeal to same sex or other gender" . so his sex instinct is disable .
other gay : want sex/marry with man !! so he had mental of female (softwar of female) ?
take it easy and explain it to me paragraphe by paragraphe to understand more , ok
the modern science discover that homosex , is natural and healthy !!!!
how they found out it's natural ?
btw 50 % of the Americans are extermists and behinded in this issue ?!!
i believe the others are just tolerance with, so they agreed .
NOT because they will marry same sex .
it's not statics tells it's odd and rare marriage compared to heresex ? , so it is .
OK, that's fair enough.
It doesn't work like that. That's a stereotype. As in any relationship one partner may be the stronger one at one time, or the other at another time. As for sex [drumroll]... oh no, I ain't going there!
Seriously, sex between same sex partners is as varied as it is between any other people.
I'd probably vomit!
Seriously, I would look at it no differently than any person whose partner/spouse cheated on them. I'd be hurt (not to mention more p.o.'ed than a wet hen).
I'd ask him, who it was, why he did it, and if the guy is good-looking and has a brother.
That last comment is going to work against me, I can feel it in my bones.
I have a hunch that it might be due to a perception that it is important to have the wider society's acknowledgement and support for one's marriage.
I don't know whether that is a factor for Godobeyer, of course. But if it is, I don't think I disagree. It is however a reason for removing the discrimination, not for enforcing it.
JerryL
Well-Known Member
None of the above. That's a hetero-normative view of marriage... and even in hetero couples individual relationship roles (and there are hundreds) can go in any direction.
The word you are looking for is "spouse".
If your spouse cheats on you what would you do? That varies by relationship, and does not distinguish between homogeneous and heterogeneous marriages.
"supposed"? Says who?
So then sterile people should not marry? It's unnatural? Sterile people, post menapausal women, etc should not have sex? It's unnatural?
I'm in a heterosexual relationship. I can promise I do a lot of "unnatural" things by that definition.
And yet homosexual sex works just fine.
"all creations". Please go look at a snail again.
Answer the question for heterosexual and it's the same for homosexual.
Doesn't work that way. A person with a male body and a female gender identity is trans-sexual, not necessarily homosexual.
It occurs in nature.
Much like marrying a redhead compared to a brunette.
Yes, there does seem to be a need for acknowledgement, or rather, approval of all kinds of marriages. Think about all the arranged and forbidden marriages through the centuries. Think of the archaic phrase in wedding ceremonies ""if anyone can show just cause why this couple cannot lawfully be joined together in matrimony, let them speak now or forever hold their peace" (which is usually omitted anyway). Actually the judge who married us used the line. When there was silence, I said "c'mon people! chat it up, you're not helping me here!" The judge had to compose herself to continue.
Anyway...
In an unusual twist on that, the Norse were concerned with making sure that anyone who wanted to be wed could be. Goddess Lofn is the protectress and blesser of marriages that would be otherwise forbidden. In the Prose Edda it states She is so gentle and so good to invoke that she has permission from All-Father or Frigg to arrange unions between men and women, even if earlier offers have been received and unions have been banned. And while it specifically mentions unions between men and women Asatruars today extend it to same sex unions, which are also traditionally forbidden. The Norse really didn't care what two people did in the privacy of their own huts, only that people married to increase the population.
I beg to differ. Marriage is often between males and females, and is often involved with having children. But there is no good reason why it always has to, while there are very good reasons to instead emphasize its other roles, most of how constituting loving families and good child raisers.
That might be a significant consideration if procreation were in crisis or if it were a primary reason for being of humanity. I don't think that is anywhere near the current situation, though.
It is certainly not serious enough an issue to overrule the need to respect LGBT feelings and rights, and most likely will never be.
Quite true! The whole LGBT spectrum goes back millennia and probably is as old as human sexuality itself, if not even more ancient.
I'm not sure what you mean here.
Changing from what? People are pretty much "born" homosexual, bisexual or transgender. It has been very consistently found that attempting to "heal" them is nothing more than invasive disrespect and aggression.
There is neither reason, nor actual (humane) means, nor benefit in attempting to change LGBT people in cisgendered heteros. The only purpose that would serve is somewhat lessening the disconfort some people have due to their existence. But it is not even remotely worth the terrible price - and even if it were, it would still be no substitute to actually removing the discrimination against them.
Homosexuals have as much sexual drive as anyone else. Of course, there are variations, but the same is just as true of heteros.
Sometimes, but not particularly often. Most homosexuals do think of themselves as being of their own birth sex. They just happen to be attracted to others of their own gender.
People who feel their own bodies to be of the wrong gender also exist and are just as deserving of acceptance and respect. But that is not homosexuality. It is transgenderism instead.
Both may happen separately or together in the same person, incidentally.
take it easy and explain it to me paragraphe by paragraphe to understand more , ok
Your sincere desire to learn and understand goes a long way, friend!
I think I've said it before: when someone says "homosexuality is a choice", I hear "I act straight through sheer force of will."