Granted, homosexuality is not “normal” behavior

According to the DSM homosexuality is within a given range of "normal human behavior" - I do not accept that edict but I do believe the largest group of people who do accept it are White population in Western Culture. Blacks, Hispanics (don't know about Asians) commonly and often times violently reject homosexuals when closely encountered.

however it does not mean we cannot tolerate, allow and accept it as part of human behavior
This does not necessarily mean if we accept this “lie”, that we will self destruct a decade later

I agree with that and I believe the vast majority of people in Western Culture believe it and act accordingly.

*The fact that homosexuality has been accepted now for some 7 decades in western countries

7 decades? Really? I don't think that's true. Nevertheless Homosexual behavior is not so much "accepted" as it is tolerated by the majority of Western Population. Meaning that the vast majority of people do not harass or attack homosexuals. There will always be a few (proportionally VERY few) idiots who do attack and abuse homosexual people.

For example, we accepted the lie that gods exists for millennia and even though religion has caused tremendous harm to mankind, it did not cause us to self destruct

Is that an attempt to "trigger" some folks? Although I believe "God" or a "Creator of all things" does exist and that belief in Gods existence is not a belief in "a lie" as you put it. The question about the existence of God can neither be proven to be true or untrue. Right?

This woke business will pass. And do less harm than what we think.
The real harm we don’t see coming

@iThink
What I mean with religion is that is arbitrary if you believe it or not.
Same with homosexuality being “normal” or not.
Homosexuality exist in nature in animals. However I also think it is not “normal” since if it is allowed fully it is a evolutionary dead end.

In any case you believe in ONE god and believe ALL the others are a lie right?
So my statement in your view must be true for 6 out of the 8 billion people on earth.
Irrespective which god actually exist, the majority is accepting a lie.

Not trying to trigger, just explaining that humans are resilient to lies and made up truths.

@iThink Given homosexuality has been present throughout human history, in all cultures and races, I would assert it IS a normal human variant. Making them a scapegoat for some ideological or religious reason is prima facia evidence of the ideology or religion's lack of validity.

@tracycoyle I disagree. Just because certain behaviors have been around since ancient times does not make that behavior "normal". I would say that homosexuality is aberrant behavior.
There are a lot of other behaviors that have been noted in the historical record from the ancient past that we see today that also can and should be seen as an aberrant behavior. Incest for one; Stoning people to death is another; Sexual intercourse with very young females and males. Pregnancy in very young females. Ritual sacrifice of animals and human beings (not currently in practice that any of us know of but certainly practices in the 20th century. Slavery...The thing about all of these behaviors and practices is that NONE of them are positive, productive or beneficial in any way to the human race. The same can be said for homosexual activity. Not only is homosexual activity non-productive it is a "risky behavior". It can cause serious physical harm such as damage of the sphincter - anus and the spread of diseases such as hepatitis and other infections in and around the mouth.
As for the influence of "religion" on sexual activity I observed a very long time ago that those things deemed "sinful" are all things that are seriously harmful to individuals as well as to greater society.

Lying - is counter productive and erodes Trust

Stealing - obviously harmful to the person or persons from whom property is stolen

Lust and or Marital Infidelity - obviously foments anger, jealousy, destroy the marital bond, unplanned and unwanted pregnancy, children of unknown parentage, spread of venereal disease, potential for corrupting the gene pool...
Hedonism - leads to an ever increasing need to find more and greater pleasures and neglect of familial and communal duties.
Sloth or Laziness - obviously causes dutiful labors to be neglected and unpreparedness when hardship and difficulties arise.
Gluttony - obviously physically harmful - obesity, diabetes, heart disease...
Greed - like hedonism there never can be enough money or property to satisfy and often leads to theft, social and political corruption...etc.

There are more but by now I think I have made my point.

Sin isn't some abstract black mark on ones soul so much as it has very real negative consequences in the lives of the sinner, his family, his community and his progeny.
The scriptural line "the sins of the father are visited upon his son" does not mean that the "son" is born with a soul that is "stained" by his fathers sins. No - it means that if the father is a drunkard, a drug addict, an irresponsible sot, depraved in some ways those things cause really harm - real suffering upon his progeny. - and his wife I might add.

Religion is not all about some nebulous abstraction of "sin" . It is genuinely applicable and practical in the daily lives of the human being.
Basically it is saying to all mankind - restrain your base impulses - don't do these things and everyone will all the better for it.

How does any of this apply to homosexuality you might ask. I think the answer to that question is as obvious as all the rest. One more thing about homosexuality - homosexual men although often efiminate in their speech and body movement - even in manner of dress and general presentation - oftentimes in womens clothing and makeup are STILL men with the male libido. Promiscuity is rampant in the homosexual culture. Even in proclaimed "committed relationships" there is impulsive and opportunistic infidelity to the relationship or marriage now a days. Hence the rampant spread of AIDS in the homosexual culture with some victims (to a much lesser degree) in the heterosexual population. Like it or not AIDS is a disease that is absolutely connected to the behavioral practices of anal intercourse and shared syringes. I know it is "politically incorrect to say it but that is the truth of the matter.
There have been a number of claims made that someone was infected with HIV from having sex with an infected female. Those stories are not truly substantiated. There is not a case that shows definitively that it happened the way that Ervin "magic" Johnson claims.
There are however cases where heterosexual females were infected by closeted homosexual husbands and male lovers.
AIDS ran rampant through the males who frequented the "bath houses" and then spread out from there.
The spread of AIDS was greatly mitigated by the people who faithfully followed the advice to wear condoms during anal intercourse. This served to greatly mitigate the occurrences of new infections.

One last thing to add to my discussion of "religion and sin" -

Sin is that which is harmful (in reality and NOT abstractly) to the self and to other people.

@Hanno
What I mean with religion is that is arbitrary if you believe it or not.

I see

Same with homosexuality being “normal” or not.

I disagree with this statement - the very act of homosexual sex is abarent behavior. Objectively so.
Your comment on religion is subjective and therefore cannot be characterized and "true or untrue"

Homosexuality exist in nature in animals. However

animals are NOT sentient beings. their behaviors including those of a sexual nature in no way makes the act itself evidence of "normal" sexual behavior.

I also think it is not “normal” since if it is allowed fully it is an evolutionary dead end.

Not only is anal intercourse non-productive it is a perversion of the act of sexual intercourse between a man and a woman. Not to mention all of the potential harm it can do and often does.

You believe in ONE god and believe ALL the others are a lie right?

That is not right - I do believe in One God but I also believe that other "gods" are NOT lies but are an expression of more primitive cultures human NEED to believe in something - some power greater than themselves - which is basic human behavior. All humans regardless the primitive or the advanced character of their civilization intuitively KNOW that there is something - some "force" that cannot be seen that is 'Greater than themselves" - So those more primitive civilizations fill that space with images made of stone and sticks and sometimes fire and they ritually chant, and drum and in some cases make musical sounds and dance in ritualistic masks and other "vestments" in order to please or to appease their "god" of the sun or the forest or the volcano...etc
None of that is a "lie" - all of it is "normal" human behavior - The sentient nature of humanity demands some kind of explanation or answer for their own existence and that of everything they see. Especially things of which they have no control over. And by the way therein lies a major difference between human beings and animals.

So my statement in your view must be true for 6 out of the 8 billion people on earth Irrespective which god actually exist

No I would not say that either. Although my background and my education are of the Christian - Catholic tradition I do NOT believe that Christianity holds a Truth that is exclusive to any or all other Religions. I think that God knows and loves all mankind and that He sees and understands that there are those who at least attempt to live their lives by one basic and universal moral code. I believe that all human cultures / civilizations at least attempt to develop a "moral code" that they can live in peace and cooperation with each other. I believe this "basic moral code" is universally intuitively understood - don't lie, don't steal, don't be prideful, don't covet your neighbors wife nor his oxen, don't do anything that you know in your heart that you will have to conceal what you may have done...etc

This Universally understood moral code had to come from someone somewhere and I believe it is Gods presence in every living thing - especially the human being.

@iThink
Generally you are good to have discussions with and you have thought about things.
However sometimes you say some really ignorant things.
For example. The weird aids claim that men do not get infected from infected females.
Seriously?
This has been studied in depth in Africa and elsewhere and we know the transfer probabilities.
Female prostitutes are known as super spreaders in Africa.
Heterosexual transfer of aids far exceeds homosexual transfer.

Then your comparison of stoning and animal sacrifice (both command by your god) with homosexuality.
You appear to believe that homosexuality is merely a choice…. Like the decision to stone someone is a choice.
Do you actually believe homosexuality is a choice and they can just be different or be “cured”?
Explain that one to Tracy please.
Not to mention that you directly contradict yourself by saying how useful religion is and then also say how useless stoning and animal sacrifice is…. Both commanded in the Bible. Not to mention slavery….

Then the weird supposition that animals behaviour can not be seen as “normal” because they are not sentient?
You have a strange definition of normal then which makes it difficult to discuss.

Then the very strange expression of Christianity that contradicts directly the teachings of the Bible. Jesus was very clear that he is the only way.

You can believe where morals come from that is ok. I disagree, but won’t say your belief is without foundation.

However to say that Christian faith allows the existence of other gods. No. The Bible through Moses and Jesus and Paul is very clear.
In any case, you may believe that. However the vast majority of religious people belief their religion is the only true one and everyone else is blasphemy.
Wars have been fought and people tortured to death for that exact reason.

@iThink You use the term 'sin' in the same way that I use 'violation of another's rights'. Yours however carries with it a religious context - ie there will be punishment from God for engaging in that behavior. I prefer a more immediate and secular response to violations of my rights. That said, too much of the Old Testament has instances where the immediate world response contradicts the dogmatic rules. As @hanno notes, they call into question the consistency a philosophy or ideology (or religion) should have.

I will harp on the homosexuality part because most of your issues with it seems to be man on man relationships. Women have relationships with women too with NONE of the negatives that man/man sexual relationships have. While they may not be 'fruitful', they are often positives to their communities - spinsters that 'share' a home were often icons in their communities for their public service. While you focus on the SEX, you ignore two things: love, and individual rights. People in relationships (of all kinds) usually LOVE their partner. While society imposes constraints - many I agree with such as preventing incest and sex with minors - sometimes those constraints are arbitrary (what is the difference between allowing a 17 yr old and a 16 yr old to marry (in many states 16 is the minimum age for marriage) and NOT allowing them to ...vote?

Individual rights - include the right to do things you find objectionable yet cause you no personal harm. My relationship with Victoria was beneficial to our daughter (abandoned in China and given a good home here), our neighbors and our community. YOU should not have a say in whom I can love and involved with, no more than I should have a say in your choices. If you state it is a sin, a judgment on your part, you are seeking to influence the perception of others against me - why would you think that was GOOD?

I believe 95% of people NEED a belief in 'a god', or higher power. It is fundamental to their view on justice (people need to be punished for doing things they think are wrong but society allows).

Homosexuality IS a normal human variation - you use aberration, I could use deviation from the mean. People that are born without the ability to procreate are not treated any differently from those that can. Homosexuality is NOT a choice. Who I choose to have a relationship IS. You would punish (assign sin to) those who were born with a characteristic they had no control over.

I'm going to stop on homosexuality - we will not come to an agreement over it. Except to say in our society, today, it is generally accepted even if individually that often falls short of the ideal. If you consider it a sin, don't engage in it. Odds are, you were born heterosexual - congrats, you are part of a majority. If you are also white, you are part of a minority of the species. Neither did you have any control over being born into.

Your dogma guides your life into what you consider being a good person. As does mine. In our secular society that is all that is needed to get along.

@Hanno
Generally you are good to have discussions with and you have thought about things

Thank you

sometimes you say some really ignorant things

I won't argue with that one

For example. The weird aids claim that men do not get infected from infected females
Seriously?

Yes seriously - what I said was that there is not a single substantiated documented case where a man contracted AIDS from a Female.

This has been studied in depth in Africa and elsewhere and we know the transfer probabilities

If it were "true n Africa it would be true everywhere - don't believe everything organizations like WHO (World Health Organization) tells you. They are part and parcel of the Globalist Great Reset agenda and nearly everything they say and do is informed by the tenets of that Agenda.

Female prostitutes are known as super spreaders in Africa

As I said above - if it were true in Africa it would be true everywhere.

Heterosexual transfer of aids far exceeds homosexual transfer

Not true

Then your comparison of stoning and animal sacrifice (both command by your god) with homosexuality

My comments about sacrifice mentioned human sacrifice and my point is that such macabre behavior is NOT "normal" and that if practiced today it would still be NOT "normal" behavior. Ritual sacrifice of humans and of animals is NOT normal and although it was accepted and practiced and regarded as a good and righteous way to "please their god. All of that notwithstanding sacrificial slaughter of animals and especially humans (like Abrahams young first born son) WAS an act of depravity and contorted interpretation of "Gods Will and demands"
As it relates to the arguments at hand my ultimate point in referencing ritual sacrifice and the act of "stoning people to death" is that the argument that homosexuality (like the things I mentioned) has "been around since ancient times does NOT make a valid argument for its practice in modern times to be "normal" behavior.
That is an invalid argument.

You appear to believe that homosexuality is merely a choice…. Like the decision to stone someone is a choice
Do you actually believe homosexuality is a choice and they can just be different or be “cured”?

I believe that homosexual behavior like heterosexuals' behavior is although difficult to restrain, is "voluntary" except in cases of rape or other kinds of coercion. Nevertheless I also do NOT agree that homosexual people should be, for lack of a better way to put it, put to task with the stupid idea of "conversion therapy".
My opinion of homosexual behavior is that, again, like heterosexual behavior is a choice that people make and when it comes to individual sexual proclivities I say its their bodies its their personal business and it is NOT acceptable to attempt to intervene in any way.

Explain that one to Tracy please

Who is Tracy and why do I owe her an explanation?

Not to mention that you directly contradict yourself by saying how useful religion is and then also say how useless stoning and animal sacrifice is

You fail to comprehend the point of my comments. That being the ancient practices (whether ordained by God or "the Bible" or not) is not a valid argument defending homosexuality as a "normal behavior.

This thread is NOT about the Bible nor is it really about God or religion in particular. It is a discussion about anthropological behaviors and the "argument" as to whether or not homosexuality is "Normal behavior" God and religion notwithstanding.

Then the weird supposition that animals behavior can not be seen as “normal” because they are not sentient?

That is NOT a "weird supposition" - what is strange is that some people often make that assertion in defense of aberrant and depraved human activity. ONLY in the biological sense are Human beings "like or similar to animals"
Although Humans are indeed capable of behaving in animalistic ways such behavior is a departure from (see the definition of the word "aberrant" ) from NORMAL and acceptable Human behavior.
Being sentient Humans are capable of emulating and displaying , imitating animalistic behavior. NOT the other way around. Animals con only behave in ways that are "normal" to their species.

You have a strange definition of normal then which makes it difficult to discuss.

The fact that you don't like my commentary on the meaning and usage of the word "Normal" does not invalidate my argumentation on that topic.

Then the very strange expression of Christianity that contradicts directly the teachings of the Bible. Jesus was very clear that he is the only way

All "religions teach that theirs is the one true path to salvation" - I beg to differ with that dogmatic assertion. I developed this opinion as far back as 6th grade.
It seemed absurd for my teachers (Nuns) to say that "The Roman Catholic Faith" is the ONLY path to Gods salvation. That would mean that ALL people who lived and died prior to the establishment of Catholicism could never be saved and nor could anyone who lived and lives and who does NOT practice Catholicism is also unable to be saved and will never meet Gods Grace and love.
Even at that young age it seemed utterly absurd to say that a teeny tiny minority of the entire population of practicing Catholics were to the exclusion of the billions and billions of non-Catholic people who would be redeemed by Jesus. That idea simply did not calculate in my young 6th grade brain. I saw that idea as arrogant hubris and I have held on to that opinion all my life (I am 71 BTW - definitely a "Boomer" LOL)

You seem to have an "all or nothing" approach to these things we talk about. It would be good to consider the reality that in life as we know and experience it there simply are NO ABSOLUTES. There are always exceptions. The human mind, in order to function productively as we navigate our path through life must be flexible - As he saying goes - "there is an exception to every rule".

No question about this. Sometimes I am mistaken but I am open to arguments that challenge my opinions. Given good evidence (NOT based upon emotions / feelings) that may be valid counter arguments I will "stand corrected".

Objectivity is difficult - Emotional argumentation is the default position in the vast majority of human beings. Objectiveness is demanding Emoting is easy and more often than not invalid opinions are formulated when a person is unable to set their feelings aside and to look at a problem objectively.

***You can believe where morals come from that is ok.

Thanks - very generous of you***

However to say that Christian faith allows the existence of other gods

I never said any such thing. What I said was that there is one basic morality and that people of many Faiths / Religious traditions operate within its framework. I do NOT speak for Christianity.

Wars have been fought and people tortured to death for that exact reason

Warfare is about power and conquest regardless how it is rationalized. To invoke Godly righteousness as rationalization (see "excuse" ) for going to war is a perversion of the very idea of Godly Faith and Worship.

Live long and prosper!

DS

@tracycoyle I am tired - I need rest. I will respond to you on this comment later sometime. Bye for now

@iThink

To state that something happens in Africa it must happen every where just means you don’t know much about Africa.

I am from Africa and lived and worked there for decades. There are many things unique about it.

There are millions of HIV positive men in Africa. In some areas the fraction positive men are in the 10s of percentage points. The fraction of homosexuals is tiny.
I personally new many heterosexual men who died of aids who definitely never had bloods transfusions or homosexual sex.
Statistically it also is not possible for the larger population.
20-40 % of men do not have sex with other men. Not in Africa. Blood transfusions are very rare.
20-40% of men however sleep around with multiple woman. And many of them have HIV.

How did they get infected?
Ah, they had affairs with other woman. Infected woman. We even know who they were.

This is not WHO or WEF or NATO or UN or whoever.
This is straightforward medical observations. Confirmed by medical science.

There are thousands of studied cases.

The aids epidemic in Africa only slowed down when condom use among heterosexuals became accepted in the early 2000’s.

Infection rates among homosexuals already decreased in the 1990’s and are only a tiny fraction of the total infections.

@iThink
“ To invoke Godly righteousness as rationalization (see "excuse" ) for going to war is a perversion of the very idea of Godly Faith and Worship..

You really need to read the Bible a bit.
See Joshua, Judges, 1 & 2 Kings.
The conquest and destruction of Palestinians by the Hebrews was ordered by god. Even their property had to be destroyed and god severely punished those who would not do that.
Read the story of the man who hid some loot in his tent.

You cannot cherry pick the parts of the Bible you like and pretend the rest did not happen.

In any case, I do agree that with a long discussion such as this the original post and responses have been lost and why we said things are no longer in context.

I merely tried to explain how the majority of people believe that other religions are a lie, and even if it did cause all kinds of hardship and wrong doing, we did not self destruct.
You have your own personal understanding of god and beliefs and that is fine, however you are a tiny minority and not what I meant.

@iThink
Other than that I agree with many of the points you made and will not discuss them further other than to say you are mostly right.

You know who Tracy is and I just used her as an easy example as someone we both know and respect for her views even if we don’t always agree with her.

And yes, I do fail to comprehend some of your points. It is difficult with such a limited medium we are using here.
I do the best I can.

@Hanno oh yes - ok Tracycoyle got it

@tracycoyle

You use the term 'sin' in the same way that I use 'violation of another's rights

I only used the concept of "sin" because @Hanno initiated the subjects of God, The Bible and religion in the thread - Not I.
When talking (typing) about the matter of homosexuality and what is or is not "normal" I do not believe I invoked God...etc.
My intent was merely to illustrate the point that behaviors and practices in ancient history of mankind is not a valid argument for treating any of those things as within the framework of "NORMAL" human behavior.

Yours however carries with it a religious context - ie there will be punishment from God for engaging in that behavior

No; that is not what I said nor implied at all. In my content about "sin" NEVER did I mention Gods punishment nor wrath. I was merely explaining the practicality of that which religious scripture calls sins.
Explaining it in secular language - there were no thee's and thou's and no mention of punishment.

prefer a more immediate and secular response to violations of my rights

I would agree with that position if and when anyones Constitutional "Rights" have been violated or "denied". But the thing about that is that if what is perceived as a "Right" is NOT in the Constitution then it is not a "Right" - This is precisely how the Supreme Court arrived at the decision to overturn R v W...There is NO "Constitutional Right" to abortion. That subject is a matter for the State Legislatures.

If you can show where you have been denied or otherwise "violated" regarding ANY Constitutional Rights then indeed there should be legal action taken on your behalf and your Constitutional Rights if being denied would be Confirmed. BTW - The Constitution does NOT provide for anyone to be "NOT OFFENDED" By speech of another person or organization. If and when such "speech" crosses a proverbial line where there is a realistic threat to your personal safety (which is not the same as hurting your feelings) then legal action should be taken against the person or organization that is doing you real harm.

That said, too much of the Old Testament has instances where the immediate world response contradicts the dogmatic rules. As @hanno notes, they call into question the consistency a philosophy or ideology (or religion) should have

I don't understand this sentence.

I will harp on the homosexuality part because most of your issues with it seems to be man on man relationships

I do focus mostly on m - m homosexual relationships because of the penis and semen they exchange with sexual partners. Anal intercourse is a very risky business. That is how HIV / AIDS is spread to anyone male of female who allows anal penetration without a condom on the penis of the person doing the penetration. AIDS / HIV is not the only disease that are communicated via anal intercourse. All bad enough but there is also the damage to the anus itself that can happen if the penetration of the anus is particularly aggressive or violent. Anal penetration is just an all around bad idea. But hey - as I have always maintained - it's your body, your health that you are putting at risk..do as you will in privacy - no one (or dam'd few) cares really. Unless of course you happen to be my son, or a husband to a wife or a boyfriend/lover to a a woman...because you are not only putting your own anus at great risk you are exposing you female sex partners to great risk as well...and it that is not already a criminal act - it should be.

Women have relationships with women too with NONE of the negatives that man/man sexual relationships have

True!

While they may not be 'fruitful', they are often positives to their communities - spinsters that 'share' a home were often icons in their communities for their public service

also True

While you focus on the SEX, you ignore two things: love, and individual rights. People in relationships (of all kinds) usually LOVE their partner

Not True - I acknowledge the F to F intimate relationships as harmless to society. The only diseases that could be transmitted to others - outside of the proverbial F to F relationships would be things like herpes, Chlamydia, genital warts...but those things are as easily transmittable in heterosexual and M to M gay sex as well.
However, there is another factor relative to the M to M homosexual relationships. That being promiscuity - I believe this is less common in the lesbian dynamic but it is definitely a common - behavioral characteristic among the homosexual men. They really are hypersexual.
After all, the male of the species is hard wired (no pun intended - LOL) to have sex with as many partners as possible. While it is the nature of the human female to be more selective about sexual partners.

While society imposes constraints - many I agree with such as preventing incest and sex with minors - sometimes those constraints are arbitrary (what is the difference between allowing a 17 yr old and a 16 yr old to marry (in many states 16 is the minimum age for marriage) and NOT allowing them to ...vote?

I would not call them "arbitrary constraints" - I would say that regulations on "age of consent" varies from State to State. That is not arbitrariness at all. It is true democracy in action. Citizens in each State vote on those things - that is a perfect example of democracy. The citizens get to decide on those things. Each State gets to decide for themselves what rules and regulations on these things they want to codify and what they don't wish to codify. Things like growing and sale and distribution of Marijuana for example - then there is alcohol and tobacco. Other things like: legal age to drink beer and alcohol, marriageable age, age of consent to have sexual intercourse, curfews, gambling...etc. Not only do those things vary from State to State they also vary from County to County, Municipality to Municipality. Again - that is not arbitrariness

I do not know if there are any laws left on "the books" that regulate or prohibit homosexual behavior. I suppose there probably is. Nevertheless, I highly doubt that such laws have been enforced going back at least 5 decades.

Individual rights - include the right to do things you find objectionable yet cause you no personal harm. My relationship with Victoria was beneficial to our daughter (abandoned in China and given a good home here), our neighbors and our community

I agree with that in practice and in principle. Although, again there needs to be a determination as to whether or not there is a State or Federal Constitutional "Right" to live as you do in order to be able to claim the "Right"

To me it would be ridiculous to try prohibiting people living their lives in that manner.
My problem and overarching belief is relative to the too often spoken and written words:

I HAVE A RIGHT TO DO xxx...or "THERE IS A RIGHT TO xxx...when in fact there may not be any such Rights to be claimed. "the word "Rights" is really a legal term.

YOU should not have a say in whom I can love and involved with, no more than I should have a say in your choices

I agree completely

If you state it is a sin, a judgment on your part, you are seeking to influence the perception of others against me - why would you think that was GOOD?

If I say that this or that is sinful I might only be pronouncing a personal opinion and not necessarily "trying to influence anyones life choices" at all.
Anyhow I am sure you know the saying - Everyone has opinions and most of them smell like...

It would never occur to me to tell somebody that their lifestyle is sinful. Well, let me qualify that. If the lifestyle is harmful to children in the household I would indeed try to influence it by notifying CPS. Otherwise It isn't my business and besides I have my hands full just trying to live my own life

I believe 95% of people NEED a belief in 'a god', or higher power. It is fundamental to their view on justice (people need to be punished for doing things they think are wrong but society allows)

Not sure I understand this sentence. It seems irrelevant to the topic in this thread so I won't address it.

Homosexuality IS a normal human variation - you use aberration, I could use deviation from the mean

Yes I should have used the word "deviancy" but I could not find it in my brain when I was writing. I went with aberrant as a fallback selection. Sometimes some words in my vocabulary escape my "RAM" - LOL! I agree "deviancy" is better than aberrant.

Not true. Statistically untrue - I believe the statistical percentage of population IN USA alone -who are homosexual is 4.6% according to Gallup. I would be wiling to wager that on the Global scale the number is much smaller than the 4.5% number in America
I may be mistaken but I also believe that certain ideologies and behaviors are more or less "luxuries" in the comparitively developed , and wealthy "First World" as compared to so called 3rd world nations. Things like feminism, homosexuality for example. In all of the current falderal over the idiocy of people saying that "men can be pregnant" a reporter who happened to be working in Africa went to a tribal village and asked the question "can a man have a baby" - The tribesmen were obviously very confused by the question itself. The very premise was beyond the scope of their conscious relationship with reality. They could barely believe that the question was asked. The very thought was an absurdity to the tribesmen

Such ideas are absolutely foreign to more primitive cultures

In biological terms "reproductive organs are there for reproduction - The propagation of a species or life form

People that are born without the ability to procreate are not treated any differently from those that can

True but the way they are "treated and generally accepted" has no relationship to "normalcy" - A barren woman or a sterile man are NOT living with so called "normal" physical attributes

Homosexuality is NOT a choice. Who I choose to have a relationship IS. You would punish (assign sin to) those who were born with a characteristic they had no control over

Not True

I'm going to stop on homosexuality - we will not come to an agreement over it. Except to say in our society, today, it is generally accepted even

As it should be. But acceptance does NOT confer "Normalcy"

If you consider it a sin, don't engage in it

I never said any such thing

Odds are, you were born heterosexual - congrats, you are part of a majority

Majority vs Minority - another statistical factor that can be used to indicate Normal vs Not Normal.

If you are also white, you are part of a minority of the species. Neither did you have any control over being born into

You are talking about "immutable characteristics. Things like sex, race, hair and eye color...
I do not believe that sexual preferences are an immutable characteristic. Regardless, I would NEVER deign to tell anyone what they can or can't do nor what they "ought to do" with their own bodies.
I believe in a mostly "live and let live" world. Unless the behaviors of some people are negatively effecting me I couldn't care less what they do in their own homes nor with whom they do it so long as "it" ONLY involves consenting adults.

Your dogma guides your life into what you consider being a good person. As does mine. In our secular society that is all that is needed to get along

@iThink

Just because certain behaviors have been around since ancient times does not make that behavior "normal". I would say that homosexuality is aberrant behavior.

Yea, it does. If we never had red hair, and then it started appearing in the population, in small numbers, we would call that 'abnormal', a deviation, aberration. But because it has ALWAYS been in some part of the population we consider it normal.

Now, you ascribe "behavior" but it is the fundamental characteristic, sexual preference, that is the issue and THAT has been around since the earliest recorded history. It didn't just show up 7 generations ago. It is a 'normal' variation of the genome. And the behavior that goes with it is simply the expression of the fundamental characteristic.

BUT! what I find interesting is your next comment:

According to the DSM homosexuality is within a given range of "normal human behavior" - I do not accept that edict

People thought those with epilepsy were insane, or possessed of the devil - until the late 1800s when it was found to be a functional issue in the brain that could be dealt with medically. We learned, we destigmatized it. We learned to treat it. Likewise, we learned that sexual preference was an innate characteristic, not just some aberrant behavior of deranged individuals. And we destigmatized it.

I do believe the largest group of people who do accept it are White population in Western Culture.

Because we have 1) the greatest freedom from outside influences affecting individual rights; 2) we embrace individual differences rather than tribalize EVERYTHING. And yes, we still have too many of those triggers that cause tribal actions - but we are learning.

I don't NEED an emotional appeal to support acceptance of homosexuality. There is sufficient SCIENCE to support it's innate human characteristic. The fact you reject the medical community's finding puts the onus on you provide evidence they are wrong. How much else of DSM are you willing to reject because of some animus?

And finally:

Women have relationships with women too with NONE of the negatives that man/man sexual relationships have

True!

While they may not be 'fruitful', they are often positives to their communities - spinsters that 'share' a home were often icons in their communities for their public service

also True

While you focus on the SEX, you ignore two things: love, and individual rights. People in relationships (of all kinds) usually LOVE their partner
>
Not True - I acknowledge the F to F intimate relationships as harmless to society.

So, it is NOT homosexuality that you have a problem with, only MALE sexual behaviors you find personally repugnant. Before you reiterate your scientific evidence to support your position, I will note that men that have HUNDREDS of female partners, or sire dozens of children, MAY not be an issue for you. I've not seen you compare the situations, doesn't mean you haven't. Such male behavior is equally detrimental to the women, the children and the community at large.

So, it seems MALE sexual behavior would be the root of your concerns. Mine too! Kinda goes (unfortunately from my ideological point of view) with the feminist hateful "rape culture" claims.

Maybe with the ideal of marriage being embraced within the homosexual community, some of that abhorrent male behavior could be somewhat controlled? Too bad you are not pushing for it's embrace in the black community where there is 70% of children born out of wedlock. Or the Hispanic community where it is over 40%. But of course both of those communities reject acceptance of homosexuality....so they are helpful in your position.

Oh, one PS: The reason homosexuality is accepted in the West and not elsewhere is the same reason democracy is accepted in the West and not elsewhere. Personal liberty.

@tracycoyle

Please understand - I am not arguing that homosexual behavior is either good nor bad. Nor am I saying that it should be somehow banned or prohibited by law nor by pressures within the general human population. I have always believed and acted accordingly with the attitude that what consenting adults do with one another in privacy is their business - with exception regarding cases where a "closeted" and STD infected male homosexual transmitted disease to his wife, girlfriend and other random sexual partners.

Physical Sexual activities whether hetero or homo are not for public viewing. I am also not talking about PDAs - hugs and kisses and touching are all normal and acceptable things when done in view of the public. It is perfectly good and normal for people to show affection for one another which is really a very different thing from groping and passion etc. I think you get what I am saying.

I also will say that you are precisely right when you say that m - m homosexual behavior I find particularly revolting. As a man the very idea of sexual contact with another man is something I would NEVER consent to doing. I think it is unarguably a very risky act full of potential for physical harm.
Not so much when women lie together because there is not an exchange of fluids between women as there is with a man. I see F - F sexual behavior as very low - almost no risk of a physical health nature. But there is emotional risk and that is something the women have to work out between themselves and their counselors. Right?

@iThink

I am not arguing that homosexual behavior is either good nor bad.

Oh, I think you are doing exactly that:

The thing about all of these behaviors and practices is that NONE of them are positive, productive or beneficial in any way to the human race. The same can be said for homosexual activity.

And while YOU may have no understanding or experience with female on female sex, I can ASSURE you there is an exchange of fluids! TMI, I know, still. It is clear that your personal revulsion over male on male sex leads to an extreme bias (nay, I say PREJUDICE), you at least (maybe?) don't let it affect your political choices or attitudes towards individual rights.

However, I do have a bone to pick with you over the concepts of individual rights and how the Constitution fits into their scheme. I will put that into a different post because it becomes far removed from the original post - or maybe not. Still.

@tracycoyle
Well, I am not - I do not have to agree to say that an objective falsehood is in fact "True" It isn't true and anyone who agrees to accept a falsehood as truth has sold out their personal integrity. There is no such thing as "almost normal" or "somewhat deviant, or "acceptable as normal"...etc. Certain behaviors may well be "accepted and or tolerated" but that belies the fact that said behaviors are either one or the other - True or False. Homosexuality is a case in point.
As long as behaviors are not generally a threat to the health and well being of others not who themselves do not engage nor indulge in that behavior then like almost everyone else I really ignore it.
As for treating each other with respect I do that too. I think I told you before that I have conversed, interacted in work and play and dining...etc with homosexuals both male and female. The are always very cordial, and we have never had any negativity in our interactions. Two houses on my cul-de-sac (possibly a 3rd) are occupied by male homosexual couples. There are no problems here in he neighborhood.
I had a brother 5 years younger who was homosexual. He was a mentally emotionally tormented person. He was self destructive for most of his teen to adult life. He had been married (to women) several times and he tried dating women and understandably those relationships failed. He and I did not see eye to eye on many things - especially on politics and other cultural things. Nevertheless, we saw each other often - we played golf, tennis together _ a lot! we dined out and we went to clubs together...although we never did visit a "gay bar" together. He died in 2013 just about a week after mom died (she was 94). He died by his own hand - not violently but by his own self-destructive habits. Drugs mostly. He had been hospitalized and in "rehab" many times over the years and it finally caught up with him. When discussing his death with other brothers and sisters I said "we all knew about his problems over the decades. We all knew of his self-destructive habits and lifestyle. I think of his death really as a decades long slow motion suicide. And I think that is accurate to say.

I think of him often and I would like to see him again. I did not "reject him" in life. He was my brother. I know this is a rather common narrative within the homosexual community about a particular group - we might say a sub-culture - who live an ab-normal lifestyle.

I also do not and will not accept any responsibility for anyones feelings over my comments. If there is an objective counter argument I am happy to accept the challenge and I am open to sway if it is a sound argument.

Feelings - emotional comments and responses are antithetical to objectivity. I would say that emotions and objectivity are in fact mutually exclusive - at least in open forum debate. Debaters may mutually disagree and are perfectly free and able (nobody is stopping them) to state their counter arguments objectively otherwise they are not "debating" at all.

The instant one party begins using emotional argumentation and body language and tears..etc. They have lost the debate. From that point there is no point in going on with any more argumentation on the topic or subject at hand - The debate is over.

We all know that "a male cannot be pregnant - A female cannot fertilize an ovum - physical markers indelibly identify the sex (which has no relationship to "gender" relative to the body itself. A person can easily present as opposite sex and nevertheless that person remains the sex that they are ("are" NOT "were) from fertilization, gestation and ultimately to end of their life. Even after death a skeleton is easily identifiable as that of a female or a male - there is nothing else - no third or 4th...>
conclusion or "option."
I will never agree to accept a falsehood as truth - not in order to avoid hurting feelings and not even to appease anyone nor to protect them from themselves (self harm) - I have no power over that. Like any sane person I would not want nor like bad things to happen to homosexual persons anymore that I would any "straight" person. One thing I learned early in life is that A: it is impossible to protect people from themselves and B: It is a ridiculous idea to try to "legislate" emotionally offensive language, and morality.

Converse to the 1st amendment Right to speak, NO ONE has a "right" to be heard or "understood" or accepted...Nor does anyone have a "Right" to NOT be offended.

Any time anyone espouses an opinion (and these days objective FACTS) they run the risk of offending somebody. In some cases they risk "offending" large demographically identifiable groups as well as people of certain political and religious ideologies.
It is utterly stupid and ridiculous to make up laws whereby a person can be charged with a crime of "offending" others. Homosexuals, Muslims, Blacks...pretty much EVERYONE who is NOT a heterosexual White Male is in a "protected class" - protected from being "subjected to offensive speech" - which is utterly arbitrary from the beginning. To make it even more stupid and ridiculous it is entirely up to the "protected persons) to decide whether or not the "verbal offense" was egregiously offending enough that they have a choice whether or not to press criminal charges against the "offending person" - the offending person is rarely "NON-WHITE" and statistically is almost always heterosexual and male.
We are living in a proverbial "ideocratic" bizarro world now.

@iThink I agree. With virtually everything you just said. As for your brother, my condolences. I have met many similar people in my life, my brother was schizophrenic but as there had been no history in our family, a decade of abusing drugs may have been directly causal. Who knows. Both our brothers died too soon, and had lives that were a disaster. Ultimately, it was on their choices.

I have often said you (the generic) have the right to speak, you do not have the right to demand I listen, or agree. And 'being offended' is the most over-used bludgeon against free speech. Politically you and I are very much on the same side - I just am more 'intense' with regard to personal liberty and freedoms than most on the Right. Which is too bad, as it is a natural fit. Personal prejudices (and often religion, traditionalists and fundamentalists) are used to oppose individual freedoms. That you don't agree with laws that enshrine those prejudices is good. I wish more on the Right recognized that requirement.

If there were a way for me to change my chromosomes, I'd do it in a heartbeat. I have accepted that whatever happened to my development in vitro that caused my dsyphoria, there is nothing I can do about it. I have done all that medicine can to 'repair the damage', and am content with my life. Many others like me still struggle with 'why was I born this way'. It is a question that can never be answered. My response is "God doesn't make mistakes". For whatever reason, He made us this way. The alternatives, being born blind, deaf, without legs, genetically infertile, mentally infirm, were on the table and I for one am glad I was born with a defect that can largely be addressed medically AND SOCIALLY. My brother had muscular dystrophy, my sibs and I have osteogenesis imperfecta (fortunately very mild). We have to live with those TOO.

Unlike the Left, I don't need you to believe their stupid assertions against reality. I also don't need people walking around demanding my genetic papers. Unless everyone is required to carry them and even then NO ONE needs to know. I don't demand you believe a lie. I'm not even asking you. The Left wants to destroy 'normal'. Normal: any system or organism that functions in the environment for which it was created, without modification. I oppose them. They do not benefit ME, or my community in any way.

@tracycoyle

Tracy none of the things I say here are accusatory nor directed at you. At least that has been my intention. They are merely ideas and opinions that I believe need to be said and so I write them

I agree. With virtually everything you just said. As for your brother, my condolences. I have met many similar people in my life, my brother was schizophrenic but as there had been no history in our family, a decade of abusing drugs may have been directly causal. Who knows. Both our brothers died too soon, and had lives that were a disaster. Ultimately, it was on their choices

Politically you and I are very much on the same side

Yes I know this

I just am more 'intense' with regard to personal liberty and freedoms than most on the Right

I would not say that you are more intense about it. I would say your feelings and attitude over those things is commensurate with the seriousness of their fundamental importance in American life. There are a LOT of people who talk a good "conservative fight" that do all their fighting behind a curtain of appeasement. On another of my posts a man whose name I will not reveal actually said something along the lines of: Today it is necessary to turn a blind eye toward the outrageous things said and done coming from the left

I had to restrain my impulse to calling that comment out as a rationalization for cowardly inaction. I shook my head and let it lie. Calling him "cowardly" would have been unhelpful

Which is too bad, as it is a natural fit. Personal prejudices (and often religion, traditionalists and fundamentalists) are used to oppose individual freedoms. That you don't agree with laws that enshrine those prejudices is good. I wish more on the Right recognized that requirement

For anyone to espouse the idea that only those who believe and participate in any singular religious tradition can find a pathway to eternal salvation is incredibly narrow minded and arrogant. - not to mention an illogical and immoral position to hold.

If there were a way for me to change my chromosomes, I'd do it in a heartbeat

I have no doubt

I am content with my life

as all of us ideally would be

Many others like me still struggle with 'why was I born this way'. It is a question that can never be answered. My response is "God doesn't make mistakes". For whatever reason, He made us this way. The alternatives, being born blind, deaf, without legs, genetically infertile, mentally infirm, were on the table and I for one am glad I was born with a defect that can largely be addressed medically AND SOCIALLY. My brother had muscular dystrophy, my sibs and I have osteogenesis imperfecta (fortunately very mild). We have to live with those TOO.

Another thing I learned fairly early on in my life is that NO MAN or WOMAN gets through life unscathed. Human life is intrinsically difficult.
One of the wisest aphorisms I ever learned is that - Everyone you meet is fighting a battle you know nothing about. Be kind. Always

I don't know who said it but I think about that quote often. One more thing about that thought. I recognize that all of us can only attempt to live by it at all times. Sometimes it takes a lot of self restraint and willpower to NOT say mean and cruel things.

I also don't need people walking around demanding my genetic papers

I know that's right! And we both know there are people who would do that if they could get away with it. Such people mostly cannot conceal such extremely negative values - sooner than later they expose themselves - which is good so I can know to avoid them.

Unless everyone is required to carry them and even then NO ONE needs to know

No one needs to know in any case. Not so long as we live by the supreme value of "free speech and freedom of expression" - and even at that no one needs to know.

I don't demand you believe a lie. I'm not even asking you

I know you don't

The Left wants to destroy 'normal

The left (marxists) are actively trying to destroy literally every facet of American Institutions - including our fundamental value system as informed by our basic belief that God imbued us with a set of moral values and Rights as we are His "children".
If they could do so the Marxists would literally leave America in a rubble of no stone left stacked one upon another. They are that nihilistic and they HATE that much.

If anyone believes in good and evil - love and hate - God and Satan then there can be no question as to the Communist Marxist political systems are inarguably and fundamentally evil and informed by Satan himself.
If a person asks for evidence of that accusation they need look no further than the mass graves and the furnaces in Auschwitz and Treblinka. There are modern examples of this kind of evil but the ones I mentioned remain more well known and shocking to the very psyche and the consciences of modern civilization.

Homosexuals bodies were among the corpses of Jews, Gypsies, and others that were piled into mass graves, tossed into furnaces and piled high in gas chambers.

I know someone will come along and say "but that was done by Nazis - not by Marxists or Communists" - To anyone feeling the impulse to say it I will simply remind you:

Nazism IS a fundamentally Socialist ideology. The word Nazi is an Acronym - It stands for - National Socialist German Workers' Party

See that word "socialist" in there? Yes? so don't go there.

Thank you very much

I do appreciate you sharing your perspective here.

I saw her testimony and continue to wonder where CIS people get off telling the world how TRANS people should be treated. Why couldn't we have a trans person up there? Because most of the trans people willing to put themselves on such a stage are TERRIBLE representatives of the community!

Agreed

We all know my background, so I say this as to a crowd that doesn't know me

Acknowledged

You have NO CLUE as to the 'biological sex' of the thousands of people you come across on an average day in a major city

Unquestionably true!

YOU don't have to do anything but treat a person as they present themselves PROVIDED that such presentation is within societal norms

Agreed!

And yes, I know a LOT of trans people are purposefully distorting those norms to make others conform to their beliefs about how society should be

IMHO it is mostly "CIS" people who are doing that. My perception is that Trans people only do it at the behest of the CIS presuming to fight of the Trans just as they do with regard to Blacks and other non-whites.
You are a cause-celeb to the woke who are desperate to present themselves as possessing the "higher moral ground"

Such as the "man" wearing a dress and makeup (nicely done) yet wearing a beard and speaking in a deep voice. I will treat them as they 'present' but I am not going to think about them in any other than as a gender non-conforming (GNC) MALE.

I suppose it depends on what is meant by "how to TREAT that person. Suppose you own a small business - say a diner - I don't believe you as the owner and proprietor of the business should be threatened by legal action for NOT hiring this man in womens clothing and makeup. However, if he walks into the diner and buys his meal and does not foment some kind of confrontation he should be left alone and not disturbed while enjoying his meal. Also I think it would be interesting to converse with such a person.

And there is lots of talk in my community about trans men that get pregnant. Most of us can't imagine the huge amount of destructive dsyphoria such an act would entail. They are an aberration, not just to you, but to US. Most are so horrified at our natal sex organs that ANY such use is beyond us.

I can see that

So. We, specifically I, say: you should just treat us as we present. Until we are required to offer our genetic history to everyone we meet, it is the only appropriate way for society to behave. And to the GNC that are demanding acceptance? They can demand away, and society can tell them, choices have consequences.

Which I do.

And I believe most "Cis" people either do so or simply walk away (flee) because they don't know how to deal with it. Which is somewhat understandable.

So. We, specifically I, say: you should just treat us as we present

That may be difficult in some cases which are so obviously a pretense. If I tried to do that would it be taken as a type of mockery of them? Why wouldn't they treat me as I present?

Anyway this is all irrelevant. Western society is under attack. It is pretty liberal now and the best place for anyone that presents as different. The places that should be of concern to you all are Muslim and communist nations. If anyone thinks they have a place in the future reserved for them by organizations that want to reduce the population by about 8 Billion people you can forget that.

The globalist elite don't hold any special place in their heart for any religion - let alone Islam who are also helping to tear down western civilization. Whether it's "Death to America" or "fundamentally transforming America" or CRT it is an attack. You are not quite on board with the attack, in my opinion, and you should be warning those agreeing with the Death to America mindset they are being duped and will themselves eventually turn from tool to target.

@FrankZeleniuk I won't treat a GNC as anything other than GNC. I would NOT consider the MAN in the beard and a dress telling me to use 'she/her', a woman. I wouldn't even use those pronouns, relying on sentence construction to limit things to their name.

I don't require others to twist themselves into knots for my benefit, nor will I twist myself into knots. To many people have co-opted the transsexual community for their hatred of civil society's "norms". I won't join them.

@FrankZeleniuk And yea, I tell ANYONE that considers the West horrible to pay attention to their own support of Islam - because THAT really does kill us upon coming upon us. I know transsexuals in Moslem countries and they are terrified.