why is being gay forbidden ?

[Riverwolf]

And the forceful position of desegregation is the solution?

Not the forceful implementation of desegregation. Rather, to not prevent it from happening naturally.

 

[columbus]

And the forceful position of desegregation is the solution?

What do you mean by "forceful" in this context?
Does laughing and pointing count?
How about forbidding my daughter from dating a bigot?
Passing a law against bigotry?
Boycotting a business that discriminates?

What exactly do you mean?
Tom

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

The Israelites, from who's religion is born the many facets of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, put into place many sensible rules, such as notating which foods could be eaten and which could not; hand washing before meals; etc. When taking an objective look at these laws, we notice that they had knowledge that certain foods were safe and some were not. Pork, for instance, carries worms; and many fowl carry mites and other parasites that create a health hazard during the preparation of these foods. They were also among the first to notice that "the sins of the Father are visited among the 3rd and 4th generations". Thus, they noticed the cycles of abuse ...

The sad part is that these anomalies became mandates and curses from God; so no one questioned "why"; and under the social structure, no one was allowed to question "why"! Imagine where we would be right now in general health of all people if someone would had just asked that one question: "Why!?" Imagine if we had 2000 years of study of food safety and health; and 2000 years of practice in understanding and stopping the destructive cycles of abuse that continues to haunt our cultures! But that was not to be under a theocratic regime ...

Why was homosexuality banned? I'm sure they had a reason; and maybe even a good reason. But the problem is, when such things become mandate from deities, there is no questioning them. And as far as the reason goes, we have no definitive answers; all we have are theories: Was it that they noticed the increased health risks of anal sex? Was it because of the aversion towards this act by the 90% of the population who are not gay? Was it because of the patriarchal society of the day? Was it for another reason that we do not know?

The point is, I don't think the "Why did they" is as important as questioning, "Why should it be banned today; in any society?"

The "Family" thing I do not buy into as a good reason: available data does not support that children being raised by same sex couples are any worse off than other children in our societies; we have heterosexuals who have not procreated and homosexuals who have (and done so naturally).

No one can give me a good reason to ban gay activity or gay marriage outside of evil religion.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

In alot of the major religions being gay is a sin. Now , this makes zero sense to me , because first off there is no reason and second gays are born that way , so did God create them just so they can burn in hell ? I have heard the reason is that gay sex spreads Diseases , but so does heterosexual sex. So why do you punish people for the way they were born ?

Well, the reasoning that orthodox Catholicism uses is that it is not the sexual orientation that is sinful, it's the acts. Homosexual sexual acts are viewed as violating the natural order of the sexual function. It's based on Natural Law theory.
Trying to “Queer” Natural Law - The Catholic ThingThe Catholic Thing

So if you want to argue against Catholic teaching on homosexuality and basically the entire Catholic sexual morality, you have to argue against Natural Law theory.

 

[Jainarayan]

Hyacinth was mainly Spartan. Spartans were considered uh... nuts, in the ancient world, for their views on heterosexuality.

And there wasn't a single person in the ancient world that would say that to a Spartan's face and live to say it again.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

And there wasn't a single person in the ancient world that would say that to a Spartan's face and live to say it again.

Probably yes, because they advocated murder.

 

[Jainarayan]

Probably yes, because they advocated murder.

They were fierce warriors.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Well, the reasoning that orthodox Catholicism uses is that it is not the sexual orientation that is sinful, it's the acts. Homosexual sexual acts are viewed as violating the natural order of the sexual function. It's based on Natural Law theory.
Trying to “Queer” Natural Law - The Catholic ThingThe Catholic Thing

So if you want to argue against Catholic teaching on homosexuality and basically the entire Catholic sexual morality, you have to argue against Natural Law theory.

If one is to invoke "natural law" against same sex marriage, then one must invoke "natural law" against any marriage when either one or the other partners are sterile or barren. One must also seek to explain why the "lesser animals" are able to violate this "natural law".

 

[Kalibhakta]

I think it will be a long time before Hinduism recognizes, not to mention performs same sex marriages not because Hinduism is homophobic, it's not, but because Hinduism is pro-procreation and pro-family. Look at the importance placed on family relationships. Strangely, I don't see that as a contradiction. When it becomes clear and common practice that same sex couples can create families, whether through surrogacy or adoption, and it becomes established, I think that's when Hinduism will give its blessing to same sex marriages.

All the homophobia in India is mostly English prejudice inherited from the Victorian age, and to a lesser extent Islamic influence. Hinduism (and Islam!)has a community of Hijra's transsexual and homosexual men who are legally treated as a third gender in India, Nepal, Pakistan and Bangladesh.

There is a goddess who is a protector of the Hijra: Bahuchara Mata. She rides a Rooster, who is a symbol of innocence. Unlike most of us Shakti worshiping Hindus, she demands her people be vegertarian, because they should be as kind to all life as they expect kindness from others, because they are so outcast.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

An odd comment in a world which is becoming dangerously over-populated.

It was only a few generation ago that having 12 children was common in the U.S.A. and an economic benefit. One could argue that being an unattached single without children is an economic advantage in the U.S.A. today.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

If one is to invoke "natural law" against same sex marriage, then one must invoke "natural law" against any marriage when either one or the other partners are sterile or barren. One must also seek to explain why the "lesser animals" are able to violate this "natural law".

Indeed. Same-sex mating occurs in many species but homophobia only occurs in one. Which is unnatural now?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

If one is to invoke "natural law" against same sex marriage, then one must invoke "natural law" against any marriage when either one or the other partners are sterile or barren. One must also seek to explain why the "lesser animals" are able to violate this "natural law".

This is usually the sort of answer given:

"Infertile couples have the right to marriage because they have the capacity to perform the conjugal act that is naturally ordered to procreation, even if it can't lead to procreation for reasons unintended by them. Again, same-sex couples do not have the capacity to perform a conjugal act naturally ordered to procreation. Therefore, fertility--certain, probable, or possible--is irrelevant to the question of capacity of the ability to perform a conjugal act ordered to procreation (i.e., whose intrinsic meaning is procreative, though some accidental and unintended quality may in fact render procreation impossible)."
Answering the Question: The Right to Marriage and Infertile Couples - Marriage & Family - Home & Family - News - Catholic Online

As for animals, they're not viewed as rational beings so they're kinda irrelevant in the discussion, I suppose.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

What about, homosexuality is not equal to heterosexuality at all. That gay rights is boring homosexuality away from it's natural gayiety. That the mainstay of homosexuality is naturally flippant, and not devoted. That gay rights is just a lot of selfrighteous bores doing notthing good for homosexuality at all. That they have no understanding of the human heart, and only understand calculation. And if they calculate any difference whatsoever between homo and hetero they begin screeching about inequality. If gay right activists know the human heart then how come their romantic credibility is absent?

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

What about, homosexuality is not equal to heterosexuality at all. That gay rights is boring homosexuality away from it's natural gayiety. That the mainstay of homosexuality is naturally flippant, and not devoted. That gay rights is just a lot of selfrighteous bores doing notthing good for homosexuality at all. That they have no understanding of the human heart, and only understand calculation. And if they calculate any difference whatsoever between homo and hetero they begin screeching about inequality. If gay right activists know the human heart then how come their romantic credibility is absent?

Your words are totally meaningless, mostly because they are totally false. The way you are speaking is the same kind of speech as "All Muslims are terrorists who seek only blood of their enemies to earn 70 virgins. They all marry child brides and beat their wives".

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Your words are totally meaningless, mostly because they are totally false. The way you are speaking is the same kind of speech as "All Muslims are terrorists who seek only blood of their enemies to earn 70 virgins. They all marry child brides and beat their wives".

Which is to say that only formalistic politically correct calculation is valid. It's as if homosexuality can be replaced with an abstract X. We demand equal rights for abstract X. Abstract X is equal to heterosexuality as well. Abstract X 's should have the right to marry and have children.

 

[Riverwolf]

Which is to say that only formalistic politically correct calculation is valid.

Wrong. Things aren't binary. Political correctness is just a step up from tokenism.

It's as if homosexuality can be replaced with an abstract X. We demand equal rights for abstract X. Abstract X is equal to heterosexuality as well. Abstract X 's should have the right to marry and have children.

How does that even work? Homosexuals, bisexuals, pansexuals, asexuals, and everyone else, are human beings just like any other human being. I've seen no indication otherwise.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Wrong. Things aren't binary. Political correctness is just a step up from tokenism.



How does that even work? Homosexuals, bisexuals, pansexuals, asexuals, and everyone else, are human beings just like any other human being. I've seen no indication otherwise.

That is abstraction. And there are many sexualities still illegal, putting the lie to your abstraction.

 

[Riverwolf]

That is abstraction. And there are many sexualities still illegal, putting the lie to your abstraction.

I'm not lying, so I have no idea what you're talking about with that. I pointed to specific sexualities, so I don't know why you think that's an abstraction, or how a sexuality can be illegal. That's like shortness being illegal.

No sexuality is inherently illegal where I live, and I strongly believe no sexuality should be illegal anywhere.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Which is to say that only formalistic politically correct calculation is valid. It's as if homosexuality can be replaced with an abstract X. We demand equal rights for abstract X. Abstract X is equal to heterosexuality as well. Abstract X 's should have the right to marry and have children.

More talk that means absolutely nothing.

Heterosexuality and homosexuality are either equal or not; that is really not the point. The point is treating human beings with the equality they are entitled for the fact that all of us are human beings.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

"Abstract X" is not just any sexuality, paraphilia or sexual behavior we want it to be. Abstract X is homosexuality; nothing more.