Is there an obligation for a faith believer

[Luchito Prays]

Yes, obviously, because you seem to have completely missed the point I made about you quoting me with something I didn't even say. Do you get it?

You already said that, and you keep responding.

What are you talking about? Discussion about it is fine. What isn't fine is someone just bad-mouthing and having reactions that they are disgusted and blatantly trying to use that as a tactic to try and convince others that they should be just as disgusted. I can easily have a rational discussion about homosexuality. Can you?

Sure, that is why I have never called you bad-mouthing.

This is false. There is plenty of good that comes from openly allowing and welcoming homosexual people into our societies and cultures. These are people who can be just as productive, just as hard-working, just as kind and generous, just as helpful as anyone else, after all. So, to affirm that their life choices in this regard are not some "big problem" is to welcome all those good attributes into your society. And if some of them aren't productive, and some of them aren't hard-working, some of them are not kind? Well then those are the things you chastise them for. Not the fact that they are homosexuals - which has nothing to do with those other things.

I didn't ask what good homosexuals bring to society, because even dogs, squirrels, mice and more also provide good services to society.

I asked, what good homosexuality brings to society.

You're right. So you go make a topic, and the rest of us who don't have our heads up our butts will come in and rip your garbage-bag of a thesis to shreds. The above paragraph alone should leave you without a single thing left to say.

My guess most of people because they are afraid of being pointed as anti-homosexuals won't participate. Another reason would be because the answer is "nothing" and there is no more to say.

Oh, believe me - I'd rather we keep talking about it openly, so that I can slam dunk your inferior opinions into the garbage bin where they belong.

Great.

You have an individual who is homosexual. He has crossed his eyes with a guy in a public bathroom. By inertia of morbidity the other guy pushes the homosexual inside the toilet division, closes the door, put down his pants and practically raped him.

Such an encounter leaves the homosexual bleeding plus with pain and also pain because the other guy hit him hard on the butts.

The other guy left the bathroom, and the homosexual goes to his friends and tell his experience.

OK, so the homosexual felt sexual satisfaction with such encounter. All right.

The question is, what part of that sex encounter, from the crossing of eyes between them, up to the the other guy leaving him bleeding and in pain, tell me openly, say exactly, what part of all that has made him to feel proud?

Proud of what?

Then try keeping your quote attribution in line, please. Don't quote someone and then paste someone else's name into the quote. Don't do that.

Correction taken at this time. When someone does the same with me, I just let it go, because It wasn't me the person he was directing in the first place.

But it failed, didn't it? I think that's a key thing to be taken away from that situation. They failed to make their case. And this likely because it is the inferior position to hold.

I think that regardless of any effort, no matter if you are right or not, if the plan to legalize abortion was made, then it will be.

In those years, such is what happened, the plan was settled already, it was to pass anyway. The plan was wonderful. The woman who "won" the case, in order for not to be murdered by a religious fanatic, she converted to religion and worked against abortion.

It was understood she was a heroine anyway for supporters of abortion, They won't try anything against her. Her safety was planed and fulfilled.

Your opinion. That's all this is. I hope you can realize this.

If you know better, this is to say, taking away your current understanding of why abortion was "implanted", then you will have the same opinion than mine.

Like religion has done by making people believe that there is an invisible "father" of theirs looking over their shoulder, and listening to them sing in the shower. I get it.

Good point!

And this is due to the ruling on abortion, you're saying? Or no... wait... this is the fault of the homosexuals? Actually... I am not sure why you are bringing this up. How is it related to this discussion? Please explain.

Point is knowledge. I post in base of knowledge. Your answers come from your emotions. It will be hard for you to accept you have been deceived from so many years. You just drove with the traffic, even when doing so was traveling at 80 miles per hour in a 55 miles per hour limit zone.

For you, that is OK. So be it.

And abortion gives them this ability, you think? They didn't have it before abortion was legal?

Abortion was just added. It was just one more line in the tiger's skin. The ones who pushed it have different reasons for making be legal.

And you're dead-sure this wouldn't have happened anyway, right? That the greed of corporations, after realizing they could just keep hiking prices, and people would just keep paying, that they could do things like put automated systems in place to replace workers, lower their costs, but keep prices to the consumer just as high, and keep pushing their profit margins ever-higher to get that coveted spot on Wall Street bids - none of that has anything to do with it, right? It's what? God's vengeance for people killing babies with abortions and others being homosexuals?

Look at it from a different angle.

It was a cold war. Both opponents fighting not the arrival to the Moon but showing the best technology... in order to be sold to other countries.

Business look for profit, not for reaching moons and planets. The profit comes from selling goods.

But, in order to produce goods, you must have money, funds.

NASA pulled so many billions of dollars that is one of the causes why the government fell more in bankruptcy.

Currently, the government is in bankruptcy. You see the senators voting every six months, not to balance the budget, but to increase the limit of the debt.

Like a house family man, who every six months rather than balancing his budget, will obtain a new credit card instead. Otherwise, the government and the house man won't run.

Russia decided to brake apart and secure its fallen economy after all that competence against US. But, the government here decided to keep asking for loans rather than balancing the budget.

By pride, they didn't rise up taxes and cut off social programs and etc.

The economy was surely very bad, But, the government managed to keep the government running at high cost: causing its bankruptcy in order to save the private sector.

At the end, the private sector has control over the government. At this moment, Biden can't do anything without consulting with his bosses, the private sector. If Biden goes against them, they will take him out. No doubt.

The golden rule is: The one who owns is the one who rules, the one who owes is the one who obeys.

From here, lets use just one case.

The son of a very wealthy family becomes homosexual.

Do you really think, that the rich parents will accept others to be laughing of their misery? Do you really think that?

By no means.

The rich parents will pay the psychologist, for him to say that homosexuality is "normal", and even more, that is a status with "pride".

You repeat this lie a thousand times, thru the communication media, and many will take it as true.

Then, many parents from all levels of society will copy, and they also will say that they feel proud of their son by being a homosexual. The wealthy family will order to the authorities to make laws favoring the condition of their son.

And the charade continues.

The masses are easy to be deceived. The reason is very simple: Ignorance.

And what's at stake this time? What do you get for not allowing two homosexuals to be recognized as a legal union in marriage under the law? What does that help?

Look, in my opinion I won't give a dime if homosexuals get married or not. They are adults, and free to have their own choices. And I even support that they have the right to be married if they want to.

I support not their action but their right.

However, when is about children... then forget about it. Children also have rights.

You can't ignore the rights of children in order to give priority to the rights of homosexuals.

Children are to be out of any sexual orientation. In schools reproduction must be the only acceptable curriculum.

If you teach homosexuality in schools, then pornography is next. Why not? You say that is "normal", well, pornography is also normal for millions of people, so add pornography in children class, specially to third grade students in Florida.

The point is, that homosexuality only brings harm to society. Is a sexual orientation that by principle goes against nature. And teachers are not to teach actions against nature as a good thing. Forget about it.

Little children exposed to homosexuality in homes were the couple is two men or two women, such is a crime. Children are not to be raised by homosexuals, no way. Such is against those children rights.

Exposing children to homosexuality when they have not reaching adult age, is like giving them alcohol and recreation drugs. By law such won't be allowed. Parents can't be using drugs in front of children, otherwise the authorities can take the children to another house. I don't know what the authorities are waiting for, to take away innocent children from houses were the married couples are homosexuals.

Yes. You need me to say it again? You can ask me again. Answer would still be yes.

Oh! my heart!... why are you so clueless? ... Ugh! ugh! uuughhhhh!

thumb!

I can't tell what this is supposed to mean. Also, I don't care, so don't even bother trying to explain. I am sure it will be more useless nonsense from you.

Having you responding a discussion that by mistake wasn't yours, I truly didn't expect you to read my last long message... but actually you did it...

I'm the one who thinks that nonsense was from your part.

I told you, if the same happened to me, I just let it go...

In the end - just try and keep your quotes straight, okay? Don't put my name on someone else's quote. That's dumb, and uncalled for, and dishonest and/or sloppy.

It was my bad... how is it called?... unwanted... no... oh, yes... it was an unintentional sin...

I need a clean animal for my burnt offering... perhaps a giraffe...

It won't happen again with you. You turn very aggressive... and I'm a man of peace.

 

[Bathos Logos]

You already said that, and you keep responding.

Uh... because you hadn't acknowledged the breach of etiquette you had clearly made. Initially, I don't even think you understood what you had done... you just stood up on your soap box and started talking about abortion and how terrible homosexuality is.

I didn't ask what good homosexuals bring to society, because even dogs, squirrels, mice and more also provide good services to society.

I asked, what good homosexuality brings to society.

This doesn't matter. The people are what are important.

Let me ask you - what good does a person being a skateboarder bring to society? How about a person being into roller blading? What good does that bring to society? How about a person who likes to play claw-machine games? What good does that bring to society? How about a person who likes to walk around their town and see the sights? What good does that bring to society? These are things that people are drawn to do because they enjoy them. Is it so outlandish that a male person may enjoy loving another male person? And if these people who are drawn to do this can fulfill that desire (like the skateboarder, or roller-blader, or claw-machine player, or recreational walker), does this not make them happier? And probably even more so than the skateboarder gets out of skateboarding, or the roller-blader out of roller-blading, or walker out of walking? And doesn't it stand to reason that people we treat one another better within a society if they are happier? This only makes sense.

You have an individual who is homosexual. He has crossed his eyes with a guy in a public bathroom. By inertia of morbidity the other guy pushes the homosexual inside the toilet division, closes the door, put down his pants and practically raped him.

Such an encounter leaves the homosexual bleeding plus with pain and also pain because the other guy hit him hard on the butts.

The other guy left the bathroom, and the homosexual goes to his friends and tell his experience.

OK, so the homosexual felt sexual satisfaction with such encounter. All right.

The question is, what part of that sex encounter, from the crossing of eyes between them, up to the the other guy leaving him bleeding and in pain, tell me openly, say exactly, what part of all that has made him to feel proud?

Proud of what?

This is the strangest little story and rant. What does this have to do with anything? This happen to you or something? And you weren't "proud" at the end? What does this have to do with two homosexuals who have consensual sex? You think all homosexuality is borderline rape? Do you? You can't be serious.

Correction taken at this time.

Finally, geez. Took you long enough.

When someone does the same with me, I just let it go, because It wasn't me the person he was directing in the first place.

Haha... I doubt anyone has "done the same with you". This has literally never happened to me before in all the time I have spent on forums. Not once.

I think that regardless of any effort, no matter if you are right or not, if the plan to legalize abortion was made, then it will be.

And whose plan might that be, champ? Please... enlighten me. This should be interesting.

Point is knowledge. I post in base of knowledge.

What knowledge? Please inform me how your goofy little tirade about the violent homosexual bathroom encounter is based in "knowledge". This should be hilarious. Go ahead now... please describe, in detail, how that bit of your post comes from a place of "knowledge".

Your answers come from your emotions.

Sure thing. Believe this - I don't trust a single thing you say by this point. You have an agenda, plain and simple, and you are just going to follow it. Some of the answers to my questions above should be very interesting, and I believe they will out you as a believer in all sorts of wacky things that you don't have evidential warrant and can't have "knowledge" to be believing.

It will be hard for you to accept you have been deceived from so many years.

Please tell me exactly what I am being deceived about.

Abortion was just added. It was just one more line in the tiger's skin. The ones who pushed it have different reasons for making be legal.

What "tiger"? What is this a metaphor for?

Russia decided to brake apart and secure its fallen economy after all that competence against US. But, the government here decided to keep asking for loans rather than balancing the budget.

I found it ironic in this mostly baseless story here that you hailed Russia as the one having made more practical and wise decisions. How are they doing now, do you reckon? My best guess is that Russia never had their crap together.

The son of a very wealthy family becomes homosexual.

Do you really think, that the rich parents will accept others to be laughing of their misery? Do you really think that?

What "misery"? The one that only exists for them because they, themselves have psychological issues? That's the only type of misery I could see arising just because one finds out their son is gay. Literally, the only reason I can fathom that someone would feel "misery" at finding out their son is a homosexual is if they have psychological issues over the topic. Otherwise, there is literally nothing to even fret over. Like any child, you teach them to be careful, use protection, try to instill the idea that its better with someone you love, etc. Otherwise, there is no "problem" to even be discussed. And everyone else who has an opinion about it that differs (like you) can be ignored. They don't matter. Their opinions don't matter.

Look, in my opinion I won't give a dime if homosexuals get married or not. They are adults, and free to have their own choices. And I even support that they have the right to be married if they want to.

Good then.

I support not their action but their right.

It doesn't matter if you support their actions or not. Your opinion on this doesn't matter.

However, when is about children... then forget about it. Children also have rights.

You can't ignore the rights of children in order to give priority to the rights of homosexuals.

Children are to be out of any sexual orientation. In schools reproduction must be the only acceptable curriculum.

If you teach homosexuality in schools, then pornography is next. Why not? You say that is "normal", well, pornography is also normal for millions of people, so add pornography in children class, specially to third grade students in Florida.

The point is, that homosexuality only brings harm to society. Is a sexual orientation that by principle goes against nature. And teachers are not to teach actions against nature as a good thing. Forget about it.

People aren't going to teach "pornography" in school. That's ridiculous, and shows just how little you actually have to bring to the table in this discussion and how wackadoo your thoughts on the matter are. You're being extremely hyperbolic, and making zero sense. "Homosexuality" isn't even what is taught in any school I have ever heard of. If anything, I have heard of schools teaching things to foster acceptance. Probably with the hope that exposing people at a young age to these things which are bound (let's not forget) to be present in society will see them react with less of a stupid knee-jerk reaction (like yours).

Little children exposed to homosexuality in homes were the couple is two men or two women, such is a crime. Children are not to be raised by homosexuals, no way. Such is against those children rights.

What "right" is that? Do children have a "right" to be raised by a pair of heterosexual parents? Is that what you are getting at? Then aren't single moms or divorced parents where one isn't present in the child's life also "going against children's rights"? There are no such rights. No one acknowledges or attempts to protect such a thing as a "right". It isn't practical. One parent could even die in an accident, and suddenly the single parent would be "violating their child's rights". That's just idiotic.

Exposing children to homosexuality when they have not reaching adult age, is like giving them alcohol and recreation drugs.

Not even close. If anything, it's more like informing them that such things exist. In the case of drugs and alcohol, you let them know the negative effects it can have, and warn them. In the case of homosexuality, you might let them know it exists, and inform them that there is nothing bad that is going to happen because two males or two females love one another. You equating these things is irrational, nonsensical and is only driven by your agenda, which in turn is driven by your emotions over this topic.

Having you responding a discussion that by mistake wasn't yours, I truly didn't expect you to read my last long message... but actually you did it...

I'm the one who thinks that nonsense was from your part.

I told you, if the same happened to me, I just let it go...

Well, you can "let it go" all you want. I won't. It's a bonehead move, and you made it. I'd rather not be pegged by others for words I didn't even write. Perhaps you don't even care. Actually... you probably don't, because I'd easily guess that the likelihood that anyone else's posts are of a better quality than yours is pretty darn high. To the point that you'd probably enjoy being given credit for someone else's words.

It won't happen again with you. You turn very aggressive... and I'm a man of peace.

You saying you are "a man of peace" when you have such vitriol and disdain in your words for homosexuals is extremely ironic. I don't even understand how you can think that of yourself. I, for example, can admit to being aggressive. I can be. No doubt. I highly doubt, however, that you are as easily introspective and understanding of yourself. "Man of peace". What a joke.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Being humane is the only obligation for a Hindu (Dharma).

 

[Ella S.]

Making a community a better place means to live in accord to nature.

I disagree. Benefiting a community, to me, is rigidly and narrowly defined as increasing the total health of the individuals within that community. It has nothing to do with living in accordance with nature and could actually benefit from several artificial mechanisms.

In fact, nature is generally an obstacle to this, with diseases, droughts, predators, poisons, venoms, natural disasters, and so on.

And homosexuality is a sexual behavior that goes against nature.

This does not make any sense to me. In what way is homosexuality "against nature?" It is a product of natural organisms, occurring within many observed sexual species. In what way are you defining "nature" here?

When religious people rebuke the ones who steal or practice sexual behavior other than heterosexuality, these religious people are doing their duty as believers. They are defending their husbands, their wives, their children from such a bad influence.

I don't care about their duty "as believers." I care about their duty as human beings sharing a community together. If their duty to their belief comes before that, then that's where I think they begin to act unethically. When they rebuke gay people, they are acting unethically.

"Bad influence" is subjective and I do not share your opinion that "ones who...practice sexual behavior other than heterosexuality" are a "bad" influence. At least, not as a generalization. There are gay people who do harmful things just as there are straight people who do harmful things, I just don't see the relevance.

In a near past, just five decades ago, psychologists understood homosexuality and lesbianism were indeed cases to be treat by them.

And the treatment was way justified. As an example, how an adult man, without having any mental retardation was talking like a six years old girl? An adult man talking like a girl is a case of having mental delay. A normal adult talks as an adult. And definitively all homosexuals talking like six years old girls are faking, They can talk as adults but they prefer to talk like little girls. Definitively there is something wrong with them. Don't tell me that they talking like little girls is "normal", you know that such is not true. Come on.

For something to be a "mental illness," it has to be legitimately unhealthy. It must create an impairment for one to be able to pursue their own physiological health. "Homosexuality and lesbianism" do not do this, and were rightfully discarded from diagnostic manuals. They are, objectively, not mental illnesses, no matter how unusual you might find them to be.

And, I might point out again, that mental illnesses are natural diseases and they can be treated. Even if these were mental illnesses (which they certainly are not), all you are doing here is stigmatizing the mentally ill, which is still harmful.

Believers can rebuke not only the homosexual but also the effeminate men. Of course such is the duty, the obligation of the believer. The God of the Bible laws and teachings are not exclusive for the old times only but are for the entire generations until the end of the era.

Believers can do many things, but not all of them are ethical. Believers can, and have, commit first-degree murder, but I am sure you agree that this does not make murder ethical.

Rebuking the ones who commit sin (drug addicts, alcoholic, thieves, etc) is not judging, but telling them what is right and what is wrong. When you send an alcoholic man to treatment, you are doing a good work. Then, do the same with the homosexual, you will be doing also a good work. It will be their decision to keep assisting to those places for recovery or changing of life, but you did your part.

I do not believe that "sin" is a reliable indicator of right and wrong. I believe that we evolved a sense of morality for the sake of our continued survival, and that health is a reliable indicator of how well we are surviving.

As such, I see well-being as the basis of morality, not sin.

And this is not voluntary for the believer but obligatory. The God will demand from every believer their fruits. The ones who didn't produce any will be judged according to that. The God expects the believer to be the example and the guider.

Then it is unethical to be a believer.