A Debate on Homosexuality

[fable]

If I understand the question correctly, you're not asking for my opinion of homosexuality, but whether modern nations can accept it as lifestyle choice equal to but different from heterosexuality.

I don't think so. First, because any given nation is a group of societies, some urban, mostly rural, and rural culture is notoriously conservative (and I'm being judgemental, here, just stating the obvious) on all fronts. Whatever isn't commonly accepted, simply isn't acceptable, at all.

Of course, it's possible for a national culture that's largely urban-based to drag its rural and more conservative elements along in passing laws, but that's a dodge: it only deals with the legal aspects of the issue, not the issue of acceptance, itself.

Bottom line: I'm not convinced that homosexuality has been accepted by modern Amero-European society, though there are pockets within the culture where a sufficient number of people have established it either as a tolerated minority culture, or as a tensely accepted alternate culture of substance and power.

[Avatar]

I am asking for your opinion on whether it should be more accepted in society or not.

My 2 and a half cents on the topic is,
A: Live and Let live
B: no special rights or protections for or against
C: no children allowed as the best environment for a child is 1 mother and 1 father (In MY OPINION)
D: no recognition of marriage or priveledges there of, since the institution of marriage is to further the best interest of society (ie the propogation of the species). Since a non-reproductive union wether homosexual or heterosexual does not increase thepopulation of the society there is no need to promote that particular type of union.


Just the way I see it, and how I would vote given a choice, no need to get angry with me for my view as I have the same right to it as anyone who is Pro-Gay unions has to their views.

[fable]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Avatar:
I am asking for your opinion on whether it should be more accepted in society or not.

---

Sure. I'd draw the line at homosexual couples adopting children, though. I happen to feel that a good, psychologically balanced environment requires two parents of different genders, encompassing a variety of gender-delineated social functions. (That doesn't mean they have to follow traditional gender dilenations, but it's easier to include all of the social requirements if the parents include the social "rites" associated with both sexes.)

Hmmm so I answered the wrong question ...the real question is "Should Homosexualtiy be more accepted by nations"

In that case I would say no, I think that nations should follow what the dictates of their respective peoples believe. If the majority do not want to include smaller groups or subgroups thats their choice, in this case it comes down to...Live where the laws and customs are most conducive to your beliefs. In most cases homosexualtiy does not benefit the state any more than any other non-reproductive union so basicly I think that Governments and nations should stay out of the equation.

The puritans who emmigrated to the USA for example moved here so they could get away from laws and a belief system that was incompatible with their own. So people DO move to suit their life style.

[Cerek the Barbaric]

To answer one of Avatar's original questions - the Bible calls homosexuality an abomination (King James Version). God created Eve to be a companion to Adam. It was His will that a man "cleave" to a woman, and vice versa.

The term "abomination" is some of the strongest language used in the Bible when talking about a specific sin. It doesn't leave any grey area in God's eyes.

Unfortunately, the use of such strong language has led many Christians to interpret the Bible as meaning that it is OK to persecute homosexuals, which it is NOT. God considers homosexuality to be a sin - but is no greater or lesser than any other sin mentioned in the Bible.

Can a homosexual go to Heaven when they die? Absolutely...if they accept Jesus Christ as their Saviour. Their final reward will be no different than that of any other Christian.

As for the question of whether or not society should do more to accept homosexuality....I personally don't think so. I firmly believe that we should "live and let live" (as others have stated), but I also agree with Magik's assertion that there should be "no special rights or protections for or against" homosexuals.

[Avatar]

But a great deal of bible's words on the role of women is considered out of date not only by society but by the church.
Can teh same be applied to this??

[Axil]

quote:

---

Originally posted by fable:


Sure. I'd draw the line at homosexual couples adopting children, though. I happen to feel that a good, psychologically balanced environment requires two parents of different genders, encompassing a variety of gender-delineated social functions. (That doesn't mean they have to follow traditional gender dilenations, but it's easier to include all of the social requirements if the parents include the social "rites" associated with both sexes.)

---

Do you feel as strongly as this, about single parents?

[Istaron]

Since no one else has dared to say it (I can't be alone understanding this), I will!

Homosexuallity is a sin; not against some god that exist only inside peoples head, but to mankind and even nature herself.

Since I am good at subjects as biology, I can state that the meaning of life is as simple as spreading your genes (doing nasty that is [img]smile.gif[/img] , secure the survival of your species.
To do that, it takes a male , and a female. A | and a 0.
| + | wont do it. Neither will 0 + 0.
Since no genes can be spread with those combinations, the meaning of life will be lost; their life becomes meaningless. Something life is too complex for to be allowed to be.

About socity: I think homosexuals should be dealt with in some way. Since it isn't natural, it must be some kind of decease, illnes or something like that. Homosexual people should get help, like people that are addicted to drugs are.

My two cents

quote:

---

Originally posted by Avatar:
But a great deal of bible's words on the role of women is considered out of date not only by society but by the church.
Can teh same be applied to this??

---

You know I have given the role of women in the Bible vs the role of women in the real world a lot of thought, I think that altho the Bible may in some places actually be incorrect and inaccurate, I also think that in many ways it is right, women ARE different from men, not just in physical ways but in emmotional ways as well no matter what anyone says. And to that end, the biblical way and the nuclear family does actually appear to be the "best" way to rear children. To date there has been no other successful solution, while single parents do an amazing job in some cases, it is still by far better for a child to be raised by 2 loving parents (one of each sex). Sure individual children may show great strides coming from non-traditional families but as a whole this has not been the case.

Since women have moved out of the household and into the work place I believe children as a whole have suffered from the deprivation of the traditional family structure. No I don't think women should be kept "Barefoot and pregnant" I just lament for children who are forced to grow up with strangers instead of a full time attending parent be it Mom or Dad parenting should not be approached as a part time job...in my opinion at least.