Has anyone else noticed this discrepancy?

[RiverSeed]

True unconditional love is a very rare thing.

ahem *cough*Shakyamuni*cough*:meditate:

All kidding aside, there is a story about shakyamuni buddha, where an angry man who wanted to test him hurled all sorts of violent insults at him. All through the tirade, the buddha patiently listened to the man's filthy curses. Then, when the man finished and said, "Well?", the buddha responded:

"Do you have friends and family?"

"Of course!"

"And if you take a gift to them, and they refuse it?"

"Then I take it home and enjoy it myself!"

"Well. You have brought me a gift of insults. I do not want them. Take them home and enjoy them yourself."

:candle: Darn kids! :slap: :foot: *laughs*

 

[.lava]

For most of us as children we are taught by our parents, teachers, pastors, and leaders that love is an unconditional emotion. If two people are in love with one another...why should their outward extremities prevent them from being "allowed" to love? We have for the most part (although there are still and will always be some bigots out there) accepting of interracial relationships, so why are we still so close minded to the thought of homosexual relationships?

In my opinion most of society is extremely hypocritical in this matter. So my question is mainly to religious heterosexuals (however, anyone can chime in). How would you like it if the majority of the population was made up of homosexuals and you were faced with the hatred from people because you were not a part of the majority?

hi can you explain to me why we should be classed according to our sexual choices or why our sexual orientations should be our identity among others?

i can't see love and sexuality one and same. i could not have sex with anything or anyone i love. cos list is too long. every single human i've met has a certain place, a unique place. so i can love same sex person very much but i would not think of sexual expression and why should i? and even if i was a lesbian, why would i need acceptance from others? why should they even know how i experience my sexuality?

.

 

[beniah]

Considering that it was Christianity that put those wrongs in place in the first place, nothing really to crow about.

True Christianity does not promote racism. Your information is wrong.
Are all witches the same? How about those that claim to be Satanists but don't walk the walk. The same thing sometimes happens in Christianity, if they claimed to be Christian but promoted racism then they never really knew God at all.

 

[McBell]

True Christianity does not promote racism. Your information is wrong.
Are all witches the same? How about those that claim to be Satanists but don't walk the walk. The same thing sometimes happens in Christianity, if they claimed to be Christian but promoted racism then they never really knew God at all.

No True Scotsman Fallacy.

Care to try again?

 

[McBell]

and even if i was a lesbian, why would i need acceptance from others? why should they even know how i experience my sexuality?

So you would be ok with lieing to everyone about it?
How would your god feel about your lies?

Sometimes it is not about acceptance.
Sometimes it is about tolerance.

You do not have to accept that someone is gay to let them live.
I stand firm in my belief that killing someone simply because they are gay is flat out wrong.

I care not what any ones deity claims.

 

[beniah]

Care to try again?

Intresting point! Not all racists are Christian. Is that better?

 

[.lava]

So you would be ok with lieing to everyone about it?
How would your god feel about your lies?

Sometimes it is not about acceptance.
Sometimes it is about tolerance.

You do not have to accept that someone is gay to let them live.
I stand firm in my belief that killing someone simply because they are gay is flat out wrong.

I care not what any ones deity claims.

Mestemia, i've never said gay people should be killed. can we get over this someday?

i would not tell lie, no. but i still don't understand why i should get in a conversation where my sexuality was discussed. it is a private matter not a debate subject

.

 

[EverChanging]

Exclusivism cannot be claimed as spiritual or enlightening.

How this is relevant to what I said, I don't know. I said that they are not exclusively Christian values, not that the spiritual message itself is exclusive. That they are not exclusively Christian values does not mean they are not values that have importance within Christian tradition, even though of course religious people do not always adhere to their own values.

I didn't say it was bad, I was just disagreeing that they were "Christian" values.

And I didn't say that you did.

And yet they are Christian values. Not exclusively Christian, no. They can and do exist outside of Christianity and outside of religion, too. But they are Christian values nevertheless, in that they have come to have importance in the Christian tradition, even though many Christians are hypocritical and do not live up to their own values. Consider the Unitarian Universalist principles, for instance. None of those principles are exclusive to UUism. For instance, valuing the worth and dignity of every person or the right of conscience and the use of the democratic process. Those principles existed before UUism in its modern form. And yet they are UU values because they have come to hold importance in our community.

Considering that it was Christianity that put those wrongs in place in the first place, nothing really to crow about.

Racism was a cultural development, and it impacted religion, but religion isn't what put it there in the first place. Racism became a way to justify slavery which was further justified for economic purposes. Christian denominations in America picked up this racism -- any religion will be affected by the surrounding culture. And yet Christianity has long existed in many cultures among many races. It started out as a Jewish sect and then spread outward to the Gentiles. The history of Christianity and its core values are not in line with racism.

 

[McBell]

Mestemia, i've never said gay people should be killed.

I never made any claim that you did.
I was merely pointing out that in some places you can be killed simply for being attracted to the opposite sex.

There is a difference between accepting that someone is gay and tolerating that they are gay.

can we get over this someday?

I do not know.
Are you ever going to stop assuming I am accusing you of things I do not accuse you of?

i would not tell lie, no. but i still don't understand why i should get in a conversation where my sexuality was discussed. it is a private matter not a debate subject

So you would not marry?

Cause if you did, it would be a lie.

If you do not marry, how do you not lie when asked why you are not married?

 

[.lava]

I never made any claim that you did.
I was merely pointing out that in some places you can be killed simply for being attracted to the opposite sex.

i believe you meant same sex. yes, this is true. but why bringing it up?

There is a difference between accepting that someone is gay and tolerating that they are gay.

I do not know.
Are you ever going to stop assuming I am accusing you of things I do not accuse you of?

but i am just one person and you are replying to me. how could i not take what you say personal?

So you would not marry?

Cause if you did, it would be a lie.

If you do not marry, how do you not lie when asked why you are not married?

i am not married, never been married. if someone asks me why, i don't think i am obligated to expose my sexual preferences. IMO it is not even necessary. whoever wants to know about it is basically crossing the line

.

 

[McBell]

i believe you meant same sex.

Yes I did.
Thanks for the catch, sorry for my screw up.

yes, this is true. but why bringing it up?

Because you were asked why would you need acceptance were you a lesbian.

I am saying that there is a difference between acceptance and tolerance.
Most gay/lesbian people I know care not one crickets fart if they are accepted, they do however, want to be tolerated. I.E. not killed simply because they are attracted to the same sex. Not discriminated against simply because they attracted to the same sex.

but i am just one person and you are replying to me. how could i not take what you say personal?

You were the one who started the theoretical line of discussion "even if f I was a lesbian"...

i am not married, never been married. if someone asks me why, i don't think i am obligated to expose my sexual preferences. IMO it is not even necessary. whoever wants to know about it is basically crossing the line
.

Why the avoidance?

 

[AxisMundi]

True Christianity does not promote racism. Your information is wrong.
Are all witches the same? How about those that claim to be Satanists but don't walk the walk. The same thing sometimes happens in Christianity, if they claimed to be Christian but promoted racism then they never really knew God at all.

Considering that there are over a thousand Christian sects & denomination in North America alone, and getting two Christians of the same denomination in one room still means you have two versions of Christianity, "True Christianity" is a No True Scotsman fallacy.

Chattel slavery in this Nation's early history, as well as the reprehensible treatment of the First Nation's people, was justified in the bible, as well as biblical concepts like Manifest Destiny.

 

[AxisMundi]

No True Scotsman Fallacy.

Care to try again?

Oh, sorry.

Replied before I read your reply.

 

[AxisMundi]

hi can you explain to me why we should be classed according to our sexual choices or why our sexual orientations should be our identity among others?

i can't see love and sexuality one and same. i could not have sex with anything or anyone i love. cos list is too long. every single human i've met has a certain place, a unique place. so i can love same sex person very much but i would not think of sexual expression and why should i? and even if i was a lesbian, why would i need acceptance from others? why should they even know how i experience my sexuality?

.

Firstly, a person is "classed" according to what is being discussed, yes? If one's religion is being discussed, one is "classed" either a Christian, Muslims, etc. If gender is being discussed, male or female. If sexual orientation is being discussed...

Well, you get the picture.

Secondly, there are many types of love. The love between a parent and child, the love of siblings for one another, and, of course, the intimate love spouses have for one another. The latter is what is being debated.

 

[Infinity3]

If you're a believer in God and his Word as His perfect revelation, then you believe that God created man and woman to enter into the legal status of marriage, and for two opposite sexes alone to perform sexual activities (only inside the marriage relationship). This is natural. If God had not directly prohibited such activities (as He does in Romans 1:26-27 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10), then there would not be such profound intolerance to homosexual relationships.

However, God has made it clear that He wants humans to restrain themselves from homosexuality. I don't consider myself worthy to question the all-knowing creator of the universe. You might feel differently.

Obviously if you don't believe in God, a "God made it this way" argument won't satisfy the question for you. But that's why I'm on a religious forum that discusses religious beliefs and doesn't solely question the existence of God.

 

[.lava]

Yes I did.
Thanks for the catch, sorry for my screw up.

Because you were asked why would you need acceptance were you a lesbian.

I am saying that there is a difference between acceptance and tolerance.
Most gay/lesbian people I know care not one crickets fart if they are accepted, they do however, want to be tolerated. I.E. not killed simply because they are attracted to the same sex. Not discriminated against simply because they attracted to the same sex.

You were the one who started the theoretical line of discussion "even if f I was a lesbian"...

OK now i understand you better. IMO in a society people should not be mentioned by their sexuality. it should not be a subject at all. does not matter if one was hetero or homosexual. it is completely personal. in Western societies people tend to share their sexual ID openly with others in the name of freedom. as a result someone else's homosexuality (or heterosexuality) is a subject even i find myself discussing about. i think it is wrong. for me it is a private matter that should be shared with your mate in your bedroom. no other person has a place there. when it is public then we need tolerance, acceptance. that's my point. if someone makes my sexual life public, no way i can respect that person. that's what i was trying to ask. why should my sexuality be public so that people should tolerate my preferences?

Why the avoidance?

why not? i am not obligated to answer questions by exposing my privacy. i can refuse to answer as well. i think it is my personal right to do so. matter of fact if i was forced to open up and share my sexual life with people who has nothing to do with it could make me vomit. i'd consider it as an attack to me personally. i would fight against it. it is my private matter and it should remain that way

.

 

[AxisMundi]

If you're a believer in God and his Word as His perfect revelation, then you believe that God created man and woman to enter into the legal status of marriage, and for two opposite sexes alone to perform sexual activities (only inside the marriage relationship). This is natural. If God had not directly prohibited such activities (as He does in Romans 1:26-27 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10), then there would not be such profound intolerance to homosexual relationships.

However, God has made it clear that He wants humans to restrain themselves from homosexuality. I don't consider myself worthy to question the all-knowing creator of the universe. You might feel differently.

Obviously if you don't believe in God, a "God made it this way" argument won't satisfy the question for you. But that's why I'm on a religious forum that discusses religious beliefs and doesn't solely question the existence of God.

On the oe hand we have peer reviewed sciences stating, unequivocally, that homosexuality is an inherent and natural part of humanity, unchangeable in those among the human community who are, indeed, homosexuals.

On the other hand is a collection of two thousand year old writings that claim there is enough water on this flat, geocentric, 6,000 year old planet to completely inundate the surface so that some 700 (or 900) year old guy can somehow shoehorn millions of animals, birds, fish and insects, enough food (including raw meat) for over a year, and tons of plant seeds onto one wooden craft so that said "loving" god can drown everything else from kids to kittens.

Sorry, but even if one does believe in Jehovah the Creator Deity, any rational mind should see that to oppress and persecute an entire minority merely on the word of what amounts to nothing better than a poorly written fiction is simply asinine.

And that is ignoring, for the moment, that your Christ figure never once stated anything negative about homosexuals in said fiction.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

OK now i understand you better. IMO in a society people should not be mentioned by their sexuality. it should not be a subject at all. does not matter if one was hetero or homosexual. it is completely personal. in Western societies people tend to share their sexual ID openly with others in the name of freedom. as a result someone else's homosexuality (or heterosexuality) is a subject even i find myself discussing about. i think it is wrong. for me it is a private matter that should be shared with your mate in your bedroom. no other person has a place there. when it is public then we need tolerance, acceptance. that's my point. if someone makes my sexual life public, no way i can respect that person. that's what i was trying to ask. why should my sexuality be public so that people should tolerate my preferences?

Wait... I keep a photo of my wife on my desk. I'll happily mention her in conversation. I hold her hand when we're out walking, and I'll give her a goodbye kiss in full view of everyone when I drop her off at the train station. We have a government-issued marriage license and I declare her as my spouse on my income tax forms.

I know that kissing or holding hands might not be considered appropriate in all cultures, but don't people where you are sometimes mention things that hint at the fact they're heterosexual?

why not? i am not obligated to answer questions by exposing my privacy. i can refuse to answer as well. i think it is my personal right to do so. matter of fact if i was forced to open up and share my sexual life with people who has nothing to do with it could make me vomit. i'd consider it as an attack to me personally. i would fight against it. it is my private matter and it should remain that way

But some aspects aren't private. For instance, if your spouse is unconcious in the hospital and you want to make medical decisions on his/her behalf, you can't do this and still keep your sexual orientation a private matter that's kept in the bedroom.

 

[.lava]

[/font]
Wait... I keep a photo of my wife on my desk. I'll happily mention her in conversation. I hold her hand when we're out walking, and I'll give her a goodbye kiss in full view of everyone when I drop her off at the train station. We have a government-issued marriage license and I declare her as my spouse on my income tax forms.

I know that kissing or holding hands might not be considered appropriate in all cultures, but don't people where you are sometimes mention things that hint at the fact they're heterosexual?

in Istanbul? well, here people openly say what they are including gay people. but i get what you are saying. after certain point there is o escape from exposing your sexual choice. so toleration is needed. i think i would have to agree with that. it makes sense.

But some aspects aren't private. For instance, if your spouse is unconcious in the hospital and you want to make medical decisions on his/her behalf, you can't do this and still keep your sexual orientation a private matter that's kept in the bedroom.

yea i get it you're right. it all comes to ignorance level of individuals of society. if i had to visit my "girlfriend" at hospital, it is still a private matter IMO. but my privacy would be depend on people who work there for example

.

 

[Zorro1227]

Homosexuality attacks different people diferently, but it does so quite deeply.

It can attack people's religious beliefs and/or the very sexual identity of the unsure.

Throw in the heavy use of human sexuality by the Abrahamics as a powerbase control device, and we have a recipe for concrete hatred, and also results in people thinking that love between adults is a matter of genetalia, and not the heart.

I agree with you. This is why I have never been able to understand why genetalia or other extremeties are used to "define" love. Love is an emotion, it is not something conditional. For anyone to say that love is conditional is in my opinion extremly ignorant.