On Homosexuality & Religion [Merged]

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I see where you could conclude that I was saying that homosexual love is similar to a man who beats his wife. I wrote,

"Love (romantic and/or sexual love) between two men or two woman fits the preceding description."

I wrote that right after talking about a man physically abusing his wife and girlfriend. I accept full blame for that but that was not what I meant. I was referring to love between homosexuals being "misdirected, misplaced love." That is what I meant. Although sincere their love is misdirected and misplaced. Do you see the two categories at the top? One is "misdirected and misplaced love" the other category is "unhealthy" love. So there are two categories right? There is a former and a latter. What I should have written was,

"Love (romantic and/or sexual love) between two men or two woman fits the FORMER description." Meaning the first category. But I used the "preceding" leading you believe that I was talking about the statement that went before what I just said.

Communcation is an undertaking and great task in itself (trying to get what I mean and what I say from my mind to paper) but I do still try.

I meant to say But I used the word preceding (instead of the word former) leading you believe that I was talking about the statement that went before what I just said.

Originally posted by Regret
I believe it is their right. I am not speaking of trying to steal followers. I am speaking of people yelling in your face that you are worshipping the devil and such, not peaceable in any way, but barely within the bounds of the law. If they are within the law, then it is their right, despite what I like or dislike.

So you would say a person has no right to just be left in peace, say? And I was not talking about the law, I was talking about social boundaries - boundaries that would be very unkind if gays started going around forcing their world view on people and trying to convert you brother or daughter. However, theoretically it is socially acceptable for an anti-gay pastor to go up to a gay person and rant and froth about abomination and hell.

Really I think people needed to consider whether people want their brand of conversion. They should keep there noses to themselves. If someone wants to convert, then they will do so. It is inappropriate, I feel, for people to feel they have a divine right to track down those who don't fit their world view and assail them with all the reasons they are doomed if they don't convert immediately.

Originally posted by Regret
I believe it is inappropriate to tell a minor that believing that homosexuality is wrong is wrong. Moral teaching is not up to homosexual groups, and this one is an agenda that I have witnessed firsthand. Any activity in a school of minors that exposes a child to discussion of sexual activity without the permission of the parent is an improper use of public resources, this includes clubs supporting sexual orientation.

Well, It is questionable. I would agree with it to an extent - of course I would expect a certain amount of understanding in general to be delivered - just as a child is taught that a black person, or a Muslim, or disabled person is not deserving of bias or ridicule then gays should be included. I would have a problem, and I think most people should, with children growing up with oppinions that gays are somehow evil or perveted or sick, just like a child growing up believing all Muslims are going to blow them up or that black people are fundamentally criminal.

I don't think gays are wanting to force their sexuality down the throats of children, but then no sexual education was allowed in schools, I thought, until a certain age.

And when sexual education is taught it should be broad in that sense and cover heterosexuality (mainly) but be accepting of homosexuality.

I believe that marriage, heterosexual or otherwise, should not be legally recognized unless there are dependant minors involved, so that part isn't a valid point, imo.

Then the legal and social benefits given to heterosexual marriages for simply being heterosexual marriages should be stripped as well and only given after the birth of a child. And homosexuals should get their marriage ceremony, but not benefits unless they to have children (adoption, IVF.)

As to being sacked, such is not a possibility any longer, at least not in the U.S.

Not generally no, though some nations yes. And even in the US it is possible for bias to be shown in recruitment. An employer might not be able to say "I am sacking you for being gay" but it does go on.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
So you would say a person has no right to just be left in peace, say? And I was not talking about the law, I was talking about social boundaries - boundaries that would be very unkind if gays started going around forcing their world view on people and trying to convert you brother or daughter. However, theoretically it is socially acceptable for an anti-gay pastor to go up to a gay person and rant and froth about abomination and hell.

I believe that people do have the right to be left in peace. But, I believe that imposed limitations would cause issue with other rights. Do I believe people should behave this way? No. But then the issue becomes intentions, and much evil has been had at the hands of good intentions.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Really I think people needed to consider whether people want their brand of conversion. They should keep there noses to themselves. If someone wants to convert, then they will do so. It is inappropriate, I feel, for people to feel they have a divine right to track down those who don't fit their world view and assail them with all the reasons they are doomed if they don't convert immediately.

I believe that everyone should attempt to change the views of those that disagree with them. I believe that healthy debate leads to a bettering of perspective, not only in secular views, but also in religious ones. If you have seen JIA's posts, I believe he is an excellent example of what would occur if a person's religious views were not adequately tested/threatened.

do i have a problem with gays? no
do i ahve a problem with gay marriage? not really
do i have a problem with gays adopting? yes

Originally posted by Regret
I believe that people do have the right to be left in peace. But, I believe that imposed limitations would cause issue with other rights. Do I believe people should behave this way? No. But then the issue becomes intentions, and much evil has been had at the hands of good intentions.

True, true. I am not so much saying legal limitations, but rather social ones - and society does limit action, and is one of the most basic ways. What I am getting at is I do not think the religious crowd concerned with this subject should feel they have some sort of divine right to seek out and interfere with the lives of people who neither want nor need them. They should not feel they have it right, and that others, be it gay or whatever, are just waiting for them.

I believe that everyone should attempt to change the views of those that disagree with them. I believe that healthy debate leads to a bettering of perspective, not only in secular views, but also in religious ones. If you have seen JIA's posts, I believe he is an excellent example of what would occur if a person's religious views were not adequately tested/threatened.

Healthy debate yes - but ones intentions and grounds for the debate should be considered. I love to debate, and I realise there is a difference between just discussing different views, and being motivated by the desire to force my opinions down another's throat. More importantly I enter into a debate with my mind open to the possibility I will learn something, that my view will be changed.

This is different from many of those motivated by religious conversion - the view that need to change people. It is not debate, it is zealotry. You mentioned JIA, and it is a good example. The problem is that so many of those who seek to change gays whatever are like him - unbelievably unthinking and set in their ways. They don't debate - they tell. This gets even worse in the fact they wont entertain the idea there is nothing wrong - morally or otherwise, with the people they are after.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
True, true. I am not so much saying legal limitations, but rather social ones - and society does limit action, and is one of the most basic ways. What I am getting at is I do not think the religious crowd concerned with this subject should feel they have some sort of divine right to seek out and interfere with the lives of people who neither want nor need them. They should not feel they have it right, and that others, be it gay or whatever, are just waiting for them.

My stance would be that one should err on the side of caution with regards to the level of interference one can legitimately make into another's life. All the same, an attempt at discussion of beliefs, unsolicited, is not inappropriate unless the person approached states that it is unwanted.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Healthy debate yes - but ones intentions and grounds for the debate should be considered. I love to debate, and I realise there is a difference between just discussing different views, and being motivated by the desire to force my opinions down another's throat. More importantly I enter into a debate with my mind open to the possibility I will learn something, that my view will be changed.

This is different from many of those motivated by religious conversion - the view that need to change people. It is not debate, it is zealotry. You mentioned JIA, and it is a good example. The problem is that so many of those who seek to change gays whatever are like him - unbelievably unthinking and set in their ways. They don't debate - they tell. This gets even worse in the fact they wont entertain the idea there is nothing wrong - morally or otherwise, with the people they are after.

I think that an open mind to the possibility that one is wrong is necessary in any circumstance where absolute knowledge is unavailable.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
do i have a problem with gays? no
do i ahve a problem with gay marriage? not really
do i have a problem with gays adopting? yes

why adopting, if your ok with them getting married and being gay?

Originally posted by Preciousdagger
I wanted 2 know what yall thought about gay people. (An no I'm not gay I just have no problems)

There is nothing wrong about being gay and gays(or male homosexuals). Love knows no bound and is in everything. LOve is the force of nature and it is God itself--the reality. Reality is formless, eternal and unchanging. As the Reality, God would not have attributes. It would be the Principle behind the process of creation. It would be the Principle and the creation the process. The Principle does not act. It does not create, it does not send messengers nor is it aware of you, me, and the entire creation. Being aware is an attribute. God has no attributes. Instead God is awareness itself. It is not knowing, but knowledge itself. It is not loving, but love itself.

Note that I did not use the pronoun "he" or "she" to speak of God, but "It"; because God is not a person. "It", is a Reality. "It", is the Ultimate Reality.

Love and hate as feelings pertain to human realm. They are manifestations of attraction and repulsion of the Single Principle or Ultimate reality. These are laws of the universe. They do not abide by our moral evaluations. Morality is relative. Principles are absolute. But moral principles are absolute.Hate per se is not bad. So with gay per se is not bad. I hate deceitfulness, I hate cruelty, I hate injustice. Equally love per se is not necessarily good. The egotistic love, love of crime, pedophilia are examples of that. What is bad, is loving what should be hated and hating what should be loved. This happens when we do not understand the Principle(or reality) underlying the creation. The evil that you see in the world is due to breaking the laws of the single Principle. As Socrates said, “ignorance is the mother of all sins”.

Diversity is one of the greatest gifts the world has to offer. Nichiren Daishonin's Buddhism elucidates this truth which states, "Cherry, plum, peach and damson blossoms all have their won qualities, and they manifest the three properties of the life of the Buddha without changing their character" (Writings of Nichiren, Gosho Zenshu,).

Simply put, each one of us contributes one own unique qualities through the role we play in society. The Daishonin uses the example of the cherry, plum, peach and damson flowers to make his point. The cherry flower is renowned for its beauty; many people enjoy seeing the cherry blossoms in the spring. The plum blooms in late in late winter--while other flowers usually bloom in the spring--and it, too, is known for its beauty. According to an old Chinese tradition, peaches are said to bring longevity and ward off evil. The damson flower’s appearance is different from the others, but it is associated with assiduousness and perseverance.

Each of these flowers is unique, that is why the Daishonin uses them as an example of how each human being is unique. As hard as it might try, a cherry can never become a plum and a plum can never become a cherry.

Attaining enlightenment or happiness does not require us to become anything other than a human being(ourselves); it is recognizing our own true value and worth exactly as we are. By being true to ourselves, we can become happy. Only we know what it is that makes us happy and only we know when we are making efforts to make ourselves happy. Comparing ourselves with others only leads to a sense of inferiority or superiority or descrimination of sex or sexualities. By focusing on surpassing our own limitations--without focusing on what others are doing--we will find it much easier to grow. No matter how much we try to become like someone else, we can only be ourselves.

Each one of us plays a valuable role in society and in the movement toward world peace. Buddhism teaches that all things have a unique beauty and mission. Every person has a singular mission, his or her individuality and way of life. That is the natural order of things.

Any belief or doctrine that undermines the supreme value of human life is entirely inferior teaching. Equality and respect are the characterictics of the teaching/beleif which is the Supreme Law of the universe. People who don't realize this are the people of ignorance--the mother of all sins.

Originally posted by Because I can
why adopting, if your ok with them getting married and being gay?

😠 because the poision the minds of their children to be mega atheist straight-haters who aren't productive members of society and they will all be f*aggots too and try to eat the souls of our children just like thos f*cking single mothers who try to raise children on their own without a mans guidance😠

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
do i have a problem with gays? no
do i ahve a problem with gay marriage? not really
do i have a problem with gays adopting? yes

Why ?

Didn't you read my response? 😆

Originally posted by mahasattva
Lotsa words.

Originally posted by Because I can
why adopting, if your ok with them getting married and being gay?

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
because of the hell the kid will go through while growing up. sooner or later word will get out that the kid had two gays as parents.

wtf? People said the smaed thing about mixed race families in the 60's. That they wouldn't feel a racial identity.

well, thats accepted now, but gays adopting...at this point in history, its not too cool. maybe 20 years from now, but not now.

wait...so equal rights are only ok in the future?

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
because of the hell the kid will go through while growing up. sooner or later word will get out that the kid had two gays as parents.

By your reasoning, mixed-race couples should not be allowed to raise children, because they may be discriminated against by antimiscegenists and racists.

Originally posted by Regret
My stance would be that one should err on the side of caution with regards to the level of interference one can legitimately make into another's life. All the same, an attempt at discussion of beliefs, unsolicited, is not inappropriate unless the person approached states that it is unwanted.

Obviously. But I would divert - a more open mind for those people who need it. They need to think "Hmmm. Maybe gays don't want to be changed. And maybe I have no right to change them. Maybe, in fact, the Bible is not legally binding and society accepts that gays are people to who should be free to live their lives. Maybe... just maybe this is something that should just be left alone because in fact, other then a little bit in the Bible there is nothing wrong with gays."

I think that an open mind to the possibility that one is wrong is necessary in any circumstance where absolute knowledge is unavailable.

I agree entirely. Which s the difference between reasonable religious people and zealots. The unfortunate thing is that many missionaries (excluding Mormon ones who seem quite nice) don't. Rather then approaching a situation "I would like to here you thoughts on religion and share mine" it is "I am here to tell you what is right, and what is what. I suggest you listen."

well, thats accepted now, but gays adopting...at this point in history, its not too cool. maybe 20 years from now, but not now.

Tosh and poppycock. There is no reason what so ever for gays not to adopt. And the "Other kids will give them hell" is an absurd argument. If that were the case, why, the government should parents having children if they have certain kinds of jobs. I mean how many kids have been teased over their parents career? And of course if they are of a certain racial group. How many kids have been teased on account of race? And of course body shape - if they do have a kid and the child becomes fat they should be kept out of school. I mean that is one of the most common forms of bullying - cruelty based upon physical appearance.

And the list goes on. And On. AND ON.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
By your reasoning, mixed-race couples should not be allowed to raise children, because they may be discriminated against by antimiscegenists and racists.