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

[Buddha Dharma]

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?

 

[shunyadragon]

There are many inclinations to wrongful behavior that are understood that people have, but the acting out that behavior is not accepted.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

There are many inclinations to behavior that are understood that people have, but the acting out that behavior is not accepted.

Right, but that involves behavior that is clearly harmful. Rape for example, is clearly harmful to one of the parties involved. This is not the case with a homosexual seeking fulfillment with a mate in a consensual union.

 

[Skwim]

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.

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 agree that banning homosexual behavior, whether by law or the power of religious condemnation, is cruel and unjust. And this growing recognition is why I think more and more people are becoming more accepting of homosexuals and their behavior. I also think this growing recognition is one of the reasons religions that condemn homosexual acts, such as Christianity, are loosing members left and right.

.

 

[Foxic]

What makes accepting homosexuals, but not accepting 'the act'- an actual acceptance of gay people?

It's not. Religious people do love their apologetic arguments, don't they.

Religions want to maintain as much a stronghold on people with their ideals without sacrificing too much for the sake of progress during changing and evolving times. Unfortunately, if the religion continues to insist on its strict dogma, it ends up losing more and more followers.

 

[Naama]

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?

As a lesbian, I completely agree with you.

 

[Stanyon]

I'd say if a lesbian or gay man feels constrained by the tenets of a religion and feel they can't be true to themselves then continuing in that religion seems an exercise in masochism.

 

[Vinayaka]

What makes accepting homosexuals, but not accepting 'the act'- an actual acceptance of gay people?

It doesn't. Simple as that. Actions define people.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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?

It makes some sense, if you start from the premise that no people are naturally homosexual. That they are acting against their nature. The act is actually separate to the person.

I don't care about sexuality between consenting adults, and have no issue with homosexuality, am merely speaking from the shoes of others.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

To make a Devil's Advocate post, why does it (LGBT+ being) need to be accepted by a particular group or people?

 

[Buddha Dharma]

I'd say if a lesbian or gay man feels constrained by the tenets of a religion and feel they can't be true to themselves then continuing in that religion seems an exercise in masochism.

That would be well and good if it were simply a matter of leaving the religion meant an LGBT person was free. There are religions that would like to dictate morality to the entire world.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

To make a Devil's Advocate post, why does it (LGBT+ being) need to be accepted by a particular group or people?

If an LGBT person finds said group meaningful, like it's their family's religion/identity- it could really make them feel confused and conflicted. Puts them in the situation of having to feel like they must choose their family or being happy with someone.

I suppose another reason is that what one's religion says isn't really private when it speaks on social matters. That's a social issue then, no?

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

If an LGBT person finds said group meaningful, like it's their family's religion/identity- it could really make them feel confused and conflicted. Puts them in the situation of having like they must choose their family or being happy with someone.

Not always; granted, abuse and negative feelings are a possibility, but I'm just talking about the sort of "total acceptance" that so often seems to be pushed. Accepting as in approving of and holding nothing but flowery thoughts of, rather than just accepting as a fact.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

Not always; granted, abuse and negative feelings are a possibility, but I'm just talking about the sort of "total acceptance" that so often seems to be pushed. Accepting as in approving of and holding nothing but flowery thoughts of, rather than just accepting as a fact.

I'm not sure how one can accept homosexuality without being totally accepting- since not accepting 'the act' is in application the same as though homosexuality were sinful.

That is- a homosexual cannot act on it (be themselves), which is the case when the view is held that homosexuality isn't acceptable. I think it isn't much of a change, but people try to paint it like it were better.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

I'm not sure how one can accept homosexuality without being totally accepting- since not accepting 'the act' is in application the same as though homosexuality were sinful.

A lot of things are sinful, according to Christians. If they accept homosexuality as a fact of a person, why do they need to (practically) approve of it?

 

[Buddha Dharma]

A lot of things are sinful, according to Christians. If they accept homosexuality as a fact of a person, why do they need to (practically) approve of it?

I already explained why, I think. Because it's no different than not approving if one halfway approves. I would ask those Christians about their motivations.

Saying that a person can be homosexual, but not act on it is no different of a statement than saying people can't be homosexual. It's the same in application.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Saying that a person can be homosexual, but not act on it is no different of a statement than saying people can't be homosexual.

Are they truly saying that homosexuals can't act on those sexual preferences, or are they saying that it's a sin?

 

[Buddha Dharma]

Are they truly saying that homosexuals can't act on those sexual preferences, or are they saying that it's a sin?

It being a sin implies they shouldn't act on it, if they're a member of said religion. All I'm saying is that it's no different than calling homosexuality itself a sin. Are you agreeing?

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

It being a sin implies they shouldn't act on it, if they're a member of said religion.

That's a simple solution, as I think others pointed out. As they can just leave, (and I'm not getting into the rabbit hole of Christian politicians trying to pull strings,) why should the burden of acceptance or reformation fall on the religious party? Why can't the LGBT party just find something that works better for them?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

That's a simple solution, as I think others pointed out. As they can just leave, (and I'm not getting into the rabbit hole of Christian politicians trying to pull strings,) why should the burden of acceptance or reformation fall on the religious party? Why can't the LGBT party just find something that works better for them?

It's not as simple as that, especially when that religion is something that the person has given so much for (time, dedication, money, etc.), they major social ties to it and they truly believe in it and find solace in it but struggle with this issue. I know what that's like because of my relationship with Catholicism. You can't just easily walk away from something when nothing else really fits and you feel at home but for this issue.