Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
.InshAllah.

Why homosexuality isn't great

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Whether it is great it is not great is irrelevant, the key point is that it is  and homosexuals (and their families and friends) have to get on with their lives and try to make the most of it. Obviously views differ on the rights and wrongs, that's normal. 

Sexuality is not really something to be proud or ashamed of since it just is what it is however heterosexuals have never lived with the bigotry, isolation, fear, violence etc that homosexuals do and have never had to stick up for themselves collectively in the way homosexuals did and still do, even in the West. That's what "pride" and celebrations are about imo. It's a daunting battle to take on alone. 

Edited by Klanky
Sense

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Homosexuality should never be celebrated. It's not something to be proud of. Having this opinion in 2018, in America, is tantamount to social suicide.

However, when I look around and see how much more debased and vile my country has become in only the past ten years; I can't just "look the other way" about it anymore.

I think that it is the celebration and pride that gets under my skin the most.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think society needs to treat homosexuality as a mental illness. The nature of this world is such that not everyone gets they want. Some people have to live through depression all those years, others are physically disabled. The same thing applies with homosexual people, they have a mental illness unfortunately and they need treatment. Acting on our animal desires will lead to more destruction, and society is brainwashing people to have this mindset. 

It's like telling everyone with depression, "do what makes you feel happy", and those with depression will reply "okay I'm gonna jump of the cliff". 

Pedophiles also have a natural desires where they're attracted to young people, and hence they have to live life all alone. Society is telling people "you act on your natural desires". Then pedophiles will also justify their disgusting behaviour.

The problem is when we take our desires to be God, as the Quran says. 

Edited by ali_fatheroforphans

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, ali_fatheroforphans said:

I think society needs to treat homosexuality as a mental illness. The nature of this world is such that not everyone gets they want. Some people have to live through depression all those years, others are physically disabled. The same thing applies with homosexual people, they have a mental illness unfortunately and they need treatment. Acting on our animal desires will lead to more destruction, and society is brainwashing people to have this mindset. 

It's like telling everyone with depression, "do what makes you feel happy", and those with depression will reply "okay I'm gonna jump of the cliff". 

Pedophiles also have a natural desires where they're attracted to young people, and hence they have to live life all alone. Society is telling people "you act on your natural desires". Then pedophiles will also justify their disgusting behaviour.

The problem is when we take our desires to be God, as the Quran says. 

Homosexuals dont jump off of cliffs. And what they do in the privacy of their own home, doesnt hurt my way of life. Pedophiles on the other-hand, of course have sex with underage children and in some cases, even babies. Which can ruin a toddlers life, as they are incapable of giving sensible consent, as the victims are just children/babies.

Yes, i might turn on TLC, and there may be gay men decorating a house. But this isnt burning the house down. There arent gangs of gays wrapped up in street gang wars. There arent gay burglars out to steal peoples home decor. Gay people are not...trying to take over the world or anything like that. So, few people are interested in wasting time, and finances, telling gays that they cant...have a relationship with the people the want to. "How dare you love this person!". Its not like we are going to finance some religious brigade to go arrest gays. Maybe in Saudi Arabia they do this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/12/2018 at 5:45 AM, .InshAllah. said:

In modern liberal societies, it's not enough to tolerate homosexuality, rather we have to celebrate it.  We have to see it as a good and positive thing, on par with heterosexuality.  Here are 2 philosophical arguments against this.  The first is that homosexuality is a kind of disability, and the second is that homosexuality requires an internal disharmony.

Disability

1. A disability is a physical or mental condition that prevents or restricts normal human activities.

2. Homosexuality prevents or restricts the normal human activity of natural sexual reproduction

3. So, homosexuality is a disability.  

Disabilities are not good things in themselves that should be celebrated.  While we should value and even celebrate the achievements of disabled people, we shouldn't celebrate their disabilities, e.g. we shouldn't celebrate not having an arm, or being wheelchair bound, or being blind, or regard being blind as on par with having sight.  Rather we should be looking for ways to cure blindness, to restore mobility, etc.

 

By this logic, i think we should also ban all contraceptives and treat people who think its a good idea to use contraceptives. These people willfully restrict and prevent natural sexual production, which is a normal human activity.

Edited by iCambrian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, iCambrian said:

By this logic, i think we should also ban all contraceptives and treat people who think its a good idea to use contraceptives. These people willfully restrict and prevent natural sexual production, which is a normal human activity.

It is a Natural Law argument (like those of St. Thomas) and that’s why the Catholic Church bans contraception.  Interestingly enough, in Shi’a fiqh (as my grand-parents told me) contraception at the very beginning was forbidden.  

 

 

Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From a naturalist perspective, speciation occurs in communities, not as individuals. In a darwinian sense, gays do not necessarily impede on the survival of a species.

But I'm not familiar with St Thomas. I'll look him up, thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, iCambrian said:

By this logic, i think we should also ban all contraceptives and treat people who think its a good idea to use contraceptives. These people willfully restrict and prevent natural sexual production, which is a normal human activity.

Wilfully restricting reproduction isn't a disability.  Its like the difference between wilfully deciding not to walk for a period of time, and actually not being able to walk.  Only the latter is a disability.  The former could be justified if there was a reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, .InshAllah. said:

Wilfully restricting reproduction isn't a disability.  Its like the difference between wilfully deciding not to walk for a period of time, and actually not being able to walk.  Only the latter is a disability.  The former could be justified if there was a reason.

If that's all you have to say in response to my words, then I'm ok with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, .InshAllah. said:

Wilfully restricting reproduction isn't a disability.  Its like the difference between wilfully deciding not to walk for a period of time, and actually not being able to walk.  Only the latter is a disability.  The former could be justified if there was a reason.

If that's all you have to say in response to my words, then I'm ok with that.

I think there is an issue with the idea that not practicing sexual reproduction is "more abnormal" than other things such as...having a short temper, or...having allergies.

It's not necessarily a disability if you have a short temper or...have allergies, or even if you're gay. And yet, these are arguably "out of the norm" qualities.

Why is it proposed that not reproducing is abnormal, while having a short temper or allergies, is not?  Or does having a short temper or having allergies also make someone disabled and worth of treatment?

What really runs against natural law more? I would say that having a short temper is a condition that hurts society more and is counter productive to normal human activity, than being gay. But I wouldn't say that having a short temper is necessarily a disability. Or that every person who has a short temper ought to be medically treated.

But they should be free to express themselves, and that freedom should be celebrated. And those who experience short temperedness or allergies ought to be free to celebrate their freedom to be as they are, as well. And we can rejoice in our allowance of their presence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe that's what it's about.  Celebration by the minority, because they are free and can be themselves and can be free without people trying to..."fix" them. They can have allergies in peace. They can live without people telling them that they have unequal rights.

And us celebrating because their disability of having allergies does not influence us to...treat them differently. Yes, maybe they sneeze around us a bit, but their allergies in large part do not bother us. And their sneezes are not worthy of our time and finances, attempting to oppress. But also we can rejoice in mutual freedom of people to have allergies and not have allergies, mutually.and we can rejoice in our ability to exercise that respect of them, despite our differences.

Hm yes...

So is it worth celebrating the freedom and rights of minorities? Yes. Not because we all want allergies nor do we want to be gay or any other minority. Not because there is something divine or special about them in particular, but because we appreciate equality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/12/2018 at 10:45 AM, .InshAllah. said:

In modern liberal societies, it's not enough to tolerate homosexuality, rather we have to celebrate it.

Our kids' Sunday madressa is held in a school which serves as an ordinary school for 11-18 year olds for the rest of the week. I noticed on the walls of the school that there was an initiative being promoted by a gay rights organisation to encourage children to read novels which presented a positive view of LGBTQ+.

We've moved from reading literature purely on its merits as literature to reading texts for their propaganda value.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, iCambrian said:

 It's not necessarily a disability if you have a short temper or...have allergies, or even if you're gay. And yet, these are arguably "out of the norm" qualities.

I agree there is a distinction between an abnormal quality and a disability.  I gave the definition of disability in my post.  Having a short temper and an allergy could be a disability.  For example, if your animal allergy was so bad that even being around people who have pets causes severe allergic reactions, then you would struggle to leave the house, or hold down a job.  Of if your anger problem was so bad you were diagnosed with a severe personality disorder that made it very difficult to perform normal functions, that would be a disability.  Are we supposed to celebrate severe allergies, and anger problems?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well you're subjectively defining severe vs not severe.

Regardless, if you grew up being told that you had unequal rights or perhaps you were treated in a negative way because you had a cat allergy, and if someone told you that you would no longer be barred from petting zoos, then yes, I absolutely would celebrate that freedom to have cat allergies and in that I could freely visit petting zoos 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, iCambrian said:

And what they do in the privacy of their own home, 

Islamic law doesn't extend to those who sin in their homes, so I don't know what your point is here. If gay people publicly commit a sin, then they are to be punished, obviously according to certain criteria defined in the Islamic law. Anyways, we're discussing the nature of the sin, how it is not moral - I don't understand why you bring unrelated points, such as "they aren't harming anyone", "they aren't jumping off the cliff", "well they are free to practice" etc.

A sin is a sin, and it needs to be condemned. 

10 hours ago, iCambrian said:

Pedophiles on the other-hand, of course have sex with underage children and in some cases, even babies. Which can ruin a toddlers life, as they are incapable of giving sensible consent, as the victims are just children/babies.

Again you failed to understand my point. Pedophiles have natural desires, and they are attracted to young children. My point is that, nature does not dictate what is moral or acceptable. Society is brainwashing people to foĺlow their animal desires. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, ali_fatheroforphans said:

Islamic law doesn't extend to those who sin in their homes, so I don't know what your point is here. If gay people publicly commit a sin, then they are to be punished, obviously according to certain criteria defined in the Islamic law. Anyways, we're discussing the nature of the sin, how it is not moral - I don't understand why you bring unrelated points, such as "they aren't harming anyone", "they aren't jumping off the cliff", "well they are free to practice" etc.

A sin is a sin, and it needs to be condemned. 

Again you failed to understand my point. Pedophiles have natural desires, and they are attracted to young children. My point is that, nature does not dictate what is moral or acceptable. Society is brainwashing people to foĺlow their animal desires. 

Do you think that a gay man holding another gay man's hand, in public, ought to be punishable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, iCambrian said:

Do you think that a gay man holding another gay man's hand, in public, ought to be punishable?

Firstly, two guys (who might even be straight) can decide to hold each other's hands in public, and that isn't the act of homosexuality. Again, irrelevant point.

If they have sex in public, just like adultery, then yeah they deserve to be punished, but only if the conditions are met in a court system.

Edited by ali_fatheroforphans

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, ali_fatheroforphans said:

Firstly, two guys (who might even be straight) can decide to hold each other's hands in public, and that isn't the act of homosexuality. Again, irrelevant point.

If they have sex in public, just like adultery, then yeah they deserve to be punished, but only if the conditions are met in a court system.

I'm going to press the line here.  What if they kiss in public? Sounds homosexual to me. Do you think they ought to be punished for this?

 

And what is the suggested punishment for two men kissing in public? Or what do you think it should be?

 

Dare I say...death?

 

Presumably your answer would be, yes, they ought to be punished. 

 

And people wonder why gays celebrate being openly gay...the common sense answer, is because they're free. And nobody is going to put them in jail for...say...kissing, someone they love in public. Straight people kiss in public, so can they. It's a sign of equality, which is something they may not have elsewhere. 

 

And we can celebrate with them, that we understand the negligence of an adverse affect due to this.  And that we can have a gay couple openly walk down the street holding hands, without having to ponder the question of if we should punished them.

Edited by iCambrian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/29/2018 at 3:45 PM, .InshAllah. said:

Wilfully restricting reproduction isn't a disability.  Its like the difference between wilfully deciding not to walk for a period of time, and actually not being able to walk.  Only the latter is a disability.  The former could be justified if there was a reason.

If we apply your argument and if we are honest with ourselves then we must also say that:

Strictly speaking, to willfully restrict reproduction (by means of contraceptives or to misuse seminal fluid) is to run contrary to the natural function of the sexual organs (it is to be disharmonious with nature).   We should therefore not celebrate our desire to be disharmonious with nature by using contraceptives or by misusing our sexual organs for what they were not intended to be used for.  One can say that God did not create seminal fluid only so that man can prevent it by means of contraceptives. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, iCambrian said:

Straight people kiss in public, so can they

Any sort of kissing in public is not acceptable, given we're in an Islamic state. I am equally against a man and woman kissing in public, compared to gay people kissing.

There is no concept of decriminalization in an ideal Islamic state. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People get the concept of "sinning in private" wrong. The criteria to be judged in an Islamic court is whether four Shi'a righteous men see you performing sodomy or adultery, it doesn't matter if it is behind doors or in the street.

Now can there be raids into people's homes or in closed spaces? That might be a matter of debate, and in Iran and other Islamic countries they allow these raids into suspected underground parties/prostitution gatherings/traphouses etc..

Edited by Sumerian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ali_fatheroforphans said:

Any sort of kissing in public is not acceptable, given we're in an Islamic state. I am equally against a man and woman kissing in public, compared to gay people kissing.

There is no concept of decriminalization in an ideal Islamic state. 

Any response to the rest of my post?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dont know about great or not so great.  Probably a lot easier to be heterosexual though.

Homosexuality is not a disability but an abnormality; that is, it is a sexual attraction that differs from the norm.  The norm is being heterosexual.  Anyone with an abnormality needs to develop life coping strategies to operate within the "normal" population.  This has led to some interesting strategies....they are many and varied.

The laws and social stigma against homosexuality have embraced some extremely punitive and often violent actions being taken against this population in direct contravention of basic human rights.  If we value human rights for ourselves, we have to promote human rights for all peoples including those with abnormalities, disorders and disablitiies.

The fight to re-criminalize or maintain the illegality of homosexuality vs the fight to legitimize it both legally and socially has led to the politicization of this abnormality and to some very extreme actions on both ends of the spectrum.  The positive of this fight is that it has created a freedom for homosexuals to lead a less clandestine life with more support, acceptance and medical intervention.  It has also perhaps has prevented some deaths from suicidal depression. The negative is that the outcome of this fight has impaired freedom of thought and speech.  Expressing negative views on homosexuality can have you be charged with "homophobia", hate speech, etc with punishments ranging from having a criminal record to being shunned, losing your job, etc.

I have never seen any literary evidence that proves homosexuality to be harmful.  The species survives despite homosexuality.  There is a lot of research to show that homosexuals are products of nature, not nurture so would not be an affliction to the general population other than that of possible discomfort.  Sexually intimate behaviour from people of all sexual orientations in public is socially and sometimes legally unacceptable.

I think that schools should teach about all abnormalities. Accurate information from a carefully developed educational curriculum source is better than ill informed or biased information.  I dont think it is health for primary students to be exposed to this (as is the push), but this information should be accessible to children before they learn it elsewhere.

Conversations about gays often includes overlapping talk of pedophilia.  Pedophilia is a psychiatric disorder where someone is exclusively attracted to children; the children are usually  defined as being under the age of 13.  There are gays who are pedophiles. However, the perpetrators of pedophilia are mainly male, and the targets of pedophiles are mainly female.  

Edited by forte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, iCambrian said:

Well you're subjectively defining severe vs not severe.

 

There are severe allergies and mild allergies, and the mild allergies hardly have an impact on normal functioning, but the severe allergies can have a huge impact on normal functioning.  Where you draw the line between mild a severe isn't clear cut, but you can't deny that severe allergies exist and have big consequences.  

 

20 hours ago, iCambrian said:

 Regardless, if you grew up being told that you had unequal rights or perhaps you were treated in a negative way because you had a cat allergy, and if someone told you that you would no longer be barred from petting zoos, then yes, I absolutely would celebrate that freedom to have cat allergies and in that I could freely visit petting zoos 

You are mixing up celebrating the right to do something with celebrating the existence of a disability.  I said nothing about the former.  My point was that a disability per se is not worthy of celebration.  You can celebrate disabled people, and celebrate their rights to do various things, but still view the disability negatively.  Now of course I also don't think we should celebrate people's freedom to have same-sex relationships, but that wasn't the argument I was making in the first post.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

If we apply your argument and if we are honest with ourselves then we must also say that:

Strictly speaking, to willfully restrict reproduction (by means of contraceptives or to misuse seminal fluid) is to run contrary to the natural function of the sexual organs (it is to be disharmonious with nature).   We should therefore not celebrate our desire to be disharmonious with nature by using contraceptives or by misusing our sexual organs for what they were not intended to be used for.  One can say that God did not create seminal fluid only so that man can prevent it by means of contraceptives. 

I presume you are referring to my second argument here, and not the first.  I dont accept that this is an application of my argument.  My argument was about the disharmony within a human being.  I said that homosexuality requires a necessary disharmony between an individuals psychology and their biology, as the psychology is directed to one sex, but the biology is directed at the opposite sex.  Your argument is that choosing to restrict reproduction is to be disharmonious with nature because it runs contrary to the function of the organ.  These are different arguments - you can accept one but reject the other.

As far as your argument goes,  I have a couple of things to say.  First is that the function of the organ is not just to produce children, but also to foster intimacy within a relationship with a woman.  Sure the main function of the organ is to make children, but temporarily restricting it for the sake of building intimacy, and for the sake of the couple preparing themselves to have kids is a good thing.  The argument you give is one that many Catholics would endorse.  They would say going against what is natural is always bad.  I dont accept that - you could have good reasons to go against nature.  But  ceterus paribus  (all things equal), it would be better to be in harmony with nature than not to be.  So ceterus paribus, it would be better not to use contraception - however things arent always equal due to individual circumstances and so contraception can be justified.  Likewise, ceterus paribus, it would be better not to be homosexual.  

Does this mean individual circumstances can justify being gay?  You have to make a distinction between being gay on the one hand, and actually acting on your desires on the other.   I dont accept there are good reasons, but bear in mind that this was not the point of the argument.  'Why homosexuality isnt great' and 'Why engaging in homosexual behaviour is a sin and might be punishable if done in public in an Islamic society' are not the same.  The former is very modest in its claims.  

Edited by .InshAllah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, forte said:

Homosexuality is not a disability but an abnormality; that is, it is a sexual attraction that differs from the norm.  The norm is being heterosexual.  Anyone with an abnormality needs to develop life coping strategies to operate within the "normal" population.  This has led to some interesting strategies....they are many and varied.

 

Being ginger is (statistically) abnormal.  But being ginger, unlike homosexuality, doesn't stop an individual from performing normal human functions such as natural sexual reproduction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, .InshAllah. said:

There are severe allergies and mild allergies, and the mild allergies hardly have an impact on normal functioning, but the severe allergies can have a huge impact on normal functioning.  Where you draw the line between mild a severe isn't clear cut, but you can't deny that severe allergies exist and have big consequences.  

 

You are mixing up celebrating the right to do something with celebrating the existence of a disability.  I said nothing about the former.  My point was that a disability per se is not worthy of celebration.  You can celebrate disabled people, and celebrate their rights to do various things, but still view the disability negatively.  Now of course I also don't think we should celebrate people's freedom to have same-sex relationships, but that wasn't the argument I was making in the first post.  

I think gays should celebrate, openly, their existence. Especially if in many societies, gays have to hide their existence out of fear of pursecution. 

Celebrating the existence of homosexuals, goes hand in hand with celebrating rights to openly be homosexual.

Edited by iCambrian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, .InshAllah. said:

Being ginger is (statistically) abnormal.  But being ginger, unlike homosexuality, doesn't stop an individual from performing normal human functions such as natural sexual reproduction.

I have never heard of a physical variation as being “abnormal”.  Ginger hair does not impact your behaviour or psychological makeup, including your sexual predisposition or orientation in either homosexuality or heterosexuality.  It is a nonvariant in homosexuality. It is unclear as to what you are trying to indicate.

Edited by forte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, .InshAllah. said:

There are severe allergies and mild allergies, and the mild allergies hardly have an impact on normal functioning, but the severe allergies can have a huge impact on normal functioning.  Where you draw the line between mild a severe isn't clear cut, but you can't deny that severe allergies exist and have big consequences.  

 

You are mixing up celebrating the right to do something with celebrating the existence of a disability.  I said nothing about the former.  My point was that a disability per se is not worthy of celebration.  You can celebrate disabled people, and celebrate their rights to do various things, but still view the disability negatively.  Now of course I also don't think we should celebrate people's freedom to have same-sex relationships, but that wasn't the argument I was making in the first post.  

 

Also I just wanted to post this.  If health issues are associated with being red haired, or having a mutation that produces red hair, this could impede with performing normal life functions.

https://www.livescience.com/39095-redhead-health-risks.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, iCambrian said:

Celebrating the existence of homosexuals, goes hand in hand with celebrating rights to openly be homosexual.

It's just spreading Evil act between people  ,because it is not something from nature ,it's more a mental state that same as killing humans &it is worst act in Quran

إِنَّكُمْ لَتَأْتُونَ الرِّجَالَ شَهْوَةً مِّن دُونِ النِّسَاءِ ۚ بَلْ أَنتُمْ قَوْمٌ مُّسْرِفُونَ ﴿٨١

Most surely you come to males in lust besides females; nay you are an extravagant people.(81)

http://tanzil.net/#7:81

مِنْ أَجْلِ ذَٰلِكَ كَتَبْنَا عَلَىٰ بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ أَنَّهُ مَن قَتَلَ نَفْسًا بِغَيْرِ نَفْسٍ أَوْ فَسَادٍ فِي الْأَرْضِ فَكَأَنَّمَا قَتَلَ النَّاسَ جَمِيعًا وَمَنْ أَحْيَاهَا فَكَأَنَّمَا أَحْيَا النَّاسَ جَمِيعًا ۚ وَلَقَدْ جَاءَتْهُمْ رُسُلُنَا بِالْبَيِّنَاتِ ثُمَّ إِنَّ كَثِيرًا مِّنْهُم بَعْدَ ذَٰلِكَ فِي الْأَرْضِ لَمُسْرِفُونَ ﴿٣٢

 

For this reason did We prescribe to the children of Israel that whoever slays a soul, unless it be for manslaughter or for mischief in the land, it is as though he slew all men; and whoever keeps it alive, it is as though he kept alive all men; and certainly Our apostles came to them with clear arguments, but even after that many of them certainly act extravagantly in the land. (32

http://tanzil.net/#trans/en.shakir/5:32

 قَالُوا طَائِرُكُم مَّعَكُمْ ۚ أَئِن ذُكِّرْتُم ۚ بَلْ أَنتُمْ قَوْمٌ مُّسْرِفُونَ ﴿١٩

They said: Your evil fortune is with you; what! if you are reminded! Nay, you are an extravagant people.(19)

 http://tanzil.net/#36:19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, that's your opinion. I'd say that while not normal, it is natural. It's not like gays are aliens. 

Isis will behead a Shia. That's evil. Gays, at worst might put gel in your hair if they're flamboyant. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/30/2018 at 9:22 PM, iCambrian said:

I think gays should celebrate, openly, their existence. Especially if in many societies, gays have to hide their existence out of fear of pursecution. 

Celebrating the existence of homosexuals, goes hand in hand with celebrating rights to openly be homosexual.

Actually, there is no need to celebrate anything at all, nor to see something as positive or negative forcibly. To each his and her own beliefs.

Prosecution, harrassment and censorship, though, is a tangible reality. I'd also like to add that the unit of measure is not "societies" per se, but families. Most people don't really care if others are gay or not, or if others have sexual relationships with people of the same sex. Importance is apparently given in (usually ignorant) idealistic debates. It only genuinely matters when the topic touches you or your family and close friends (as it happens with almost any other topic discussed).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...