Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Gay marriage is a threat to humanity, claims Pope

page: 19
23
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Animal
 


I am sorry if my post lacked presentation as english is not my native language.
I am an Indian who follows western media.
In two years of following, those are my observations.
I feel that your society is changing from one extreme to another, which i dont approve of if you pardon me.
I feel, whenever the Pope is mentioned or any religious statement is made, people just start making hate comments.
While i dont like the dogmas and improper use of trust, be it religion,politics or any other institution,i think becoming anti of that particular institution isn't correct.
What people fail to understand is that everything which starts with good intentions is manipulated over time and misused, with no exceptions..
People lose trust and drift towards other extreme which neither has good intentions nor has a chance of avoiding misuse as i said, everything is manupulated over time.
This is the general trend in the society today which we need to be careful about.
Both 'judgemental' and 'anything goes' approaches are wrong imo.
While former has a good intention based on morals but wrong implementation; other has neither good intentions as it is a form of irresponsibility towards social cause and is sure to destroy society in quicktime.
Returning to the point of same-sex relations,it is the same thing happening.
I am dead sure that everyone except fundamentalists is busy promoting LGBT unions which is unfortunate imo.
Particularly, America, which i admire and envy, is going the same path.
It is a Hindi idiom-" when someone's end is near,the first ability to part him is the ability to differentiate between right and wrong".
I will reiterate that i oppose evil not the evil doer.Sex is not a sin but do'nt make it cheap.Creation is the only justification of sex, one deluded by lust can make different definitions.
Truth never changes....
Its just my personal opinion,if you dont like it,just ignore it but my opinion will not change...
Thanks.
'He cannot be mocked,you will reap what you sow'.




posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 04:34 PM
link   
oh gag me.... Who's the pope again???



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by ReefMan

Originally posted by Garfee
reply to post by PharohGnosis
 


You prove your god exists and hates homos and I'll stop buttfking guys right that very second.


Yup your right, the Pope should not say the things he does about the gays.
it's not the gays fault they have a sickness and chemical imbalance.


Yeah, that's God's fault.

Not the sort of God people should be worshiping IMHO.



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by deepankarm
reply to post by Pinke
 

2-an uncivilized homo sapien is an animal.
'humanity' isnt exclusive to homo sapiens in my view. a dog can be more 'human' than a homo sapien.
3- stop taking examples of animals for your benefit. you would not want to follow majority of their habits. we evolved from them and i certainly want to be more human than become an animal again.


I suppose we can stop that comparison once people stop saying that it's not natural or normal. There are so many examples of it in nature and civilization that it can't be ignored. So, we'll stop using that argument, if you stop saying it's not natural or normal.



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by deepankarm
reply to post by Animal
 


I am sorry if my post lacked presentation as english is not my native language.

I am an Indian who follows western media.


Not a problem, my apologies if I offended you.



In two years of following, those are my observations. I feel that your society is changing from one extreme to another, which i dont approve of if you pardon me


I think it is interesting you think so. My opinion formed from my view from the 'inside' is quite the opposite.



I feel, whenever the Pope is mentioned or any religious statement is made, people just start making hate comments.


I don't think I made a single hate comment. I dont agree with his beliefs or his churches but I am not feeling a smidge of hate.


I am dead sure that everyone except fundamentalists is busy promoting LGBT unions which is unfortunate imo.


I disagree. I think there is a very active group on either side of the issue and then the other 90% of americans who are in the middle, sitting on their hands doing nothing.



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Animal
 

Dear Animal,

Well, this is certainly mushrooming. It's a little more volume than I care to take in in one sitting, so I think I'll try to pare it down. I may end up using fewer words than clarity demands, but I will rely on your good will to fill in any gaps I may inadvertenly leave.


I think the pope did quite clearly state that gay marriage is a threat to humanity as I quite clearly pointed out.
Can we at least agree that the Pope did not say "Gay marriage is a threat to humanity," and you believe that's what he meant because that's where your logic leads you?


You may continue to disagree however I suggest this is a result of your personal bias.
This is the first of your ad hominem attacks One, accusing me of reaching a conclusion based on bias, and two, disregarding the argument and shifting to the "messenger."

Our next disagreement may be only semantics.

Among these, pride of place goes to the family, based on the marriage of a man and a woman.
It appears that you take it to mean only a man and woman can make a family, while I take it to mean that the best place out of many possible educational settings is the man-woman family. The "pride of place" comment makes me believe he is thinking of many other possibilities. Of course I believe that my interpretation is more likely the one that a seasoned diplomat would have in mind.

But if our discussion comes down to "What did the Pope mean? I'd have to say this isn't the place where it will be resolved. I'd also be reluctant to base everything on the assumption: "I know what the Pope meant."

Out of this disagreement necessarily follows our disagreement over your First Premise, that is "Family = the Marriage of a Man and Woman." Your position is that the Pope sees only one possible form of family, I think he is more open minded and realizes that "family" has many different definitions depending on context.

I must confess to some surprise when you contimue using the word "clearly." Even if you are right, there is no way to say it is "clear" and "undeniable" Unless, of course, what you are really saying is "It is clear and undeniable to all educated, informed individuals who think like me." Not only is your position not undeniable, I do deny it, as stated above.

Recall your Conclusion:

Any Policy (Read LGBT Rights / Equality) Threatens Not Only Human Dignity but Apparently Our Survival As Well.
Are you not saying "LGBT Rights. . . Threatens not only our Human Dignity but Apparently Our Survival As Well?" How can you then say

We are not talking about the LGBT's ability to vote here,
I can think of no other interpretation than you think the Pope believes that giving LGBTs rights threatens human survival. That is beyond reason, unless you have some extraordinary definition of rights that includes killing everybody else off. (Yes, I know that's extreme, but threatening human survival? You think that's the Pope's position? Rights=humanity's destruction?)

By saying

you can study ANYTHING and prove NOTHING.
You take an interesting position. If no study can prove gay marriages are bad (for the children), then no study can prove gay marriages are good (for the children). So people who take your position go into same-sex marriages with no idea whether it will hurt any potential children or not. It doesn't enter their calculations. They don't care. That lack of caring isn't what gay marriage was supposed to be about, was it? But by adopting your position on studies, why not reach that conclusion? You can follow the chain. It's not a position I'd care to defend.

And here's your second ad hominem:

You don't see the problem imho because you are believer and supporter of the Catholic Church. Not a problem in and of itself however blindly supporting and defending the churches assault on the LGBT crowd, imho, is.
Blindly? Discussing me, instead of the argument?

Anyway, I did want to keep this to one panel, so it's time to stop. If you want to keep going, I suppose we can. If you want to stop this, that's ok, too.

Another suggestion? Just say we can't agree on definitions, and we can go out and get a beer together.

Best wishes,
Charles1952



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by orangetom1999
Wow!!! I am gratified to see that at least two people out here get the point I was trying to make.


I've been trying to say this all along! Why are we so concerned with who people are having sex with?


Bingo. glad to hear it kaylaluv. I am not interested in your sex life or whom you are with ...no matter whom. I don't think it is a thing to be plastered all over the front pages. I think this should be your business..not mine.....nor anyone else's business.
I also think it is not a thing which should be merchandised or put on the evening news for all to see.

Glad you understand this.



Great! Then we are in agreement that a man should be able to marry a man, and a woman should be able to marry a woman, and both couples should be able to raise children in their homes, because what kind of sex they have in the privacy of their own bedroom doesn't matter!

I'm glad you understand this as well.


No..I don't think we are in agreement. I was speaking of people being stupid...somehow you have pyramided this into your belief system. I said I am glad to see that at least two people get the point I made about sexuality.
I was speaking in particular about people being stupid..

This does not translate into gay marriage for me.

What I said that it was equally stupid for people, gay or not, to define themselves by their sexuality as the only standard by which to bring glory and recognition to who they are. This is not the same thing as the quantum leap you are attempting to make. I just don't buy into it.

Gay people are going to get married no matter who or what you or I think. It is none of my business. I just get insulted when I run into people for whom this is all they know or can talk about. I think it stupid and ignorant.

I am not interested in a gay persons sexuality nor a straight persons sexuality. I think both should be discrete about it and not use it to bring glory or force others to accept them.

I also know straight people for whom I do not favor their marriage. I think they are trouble and don't know it., But that is their marriage and life..not mine. Gay people do not have any extra favor from me on this. Nor do straight people. Understand now??

I don't believe in todays popular default settings or belief systems allowing them to play through unquestioned or unchallanged. Alot of it is todays educated stupid once you think it through. For educated stupid you can substitute ...a television and movie education majoring in emotions..which is what much of pubilc education is become today. It is also what politics is become as well. And this issue is become pure politics/emotions. No thinking required. Just pull the lever in the voting booth based on emotions.

Also this does not change my statement that people are so much more than their sexuality which is also a concept that is not taught either in politics, nor public school funded by the body politic, nor by a whorish media.
For this is a knowlege which will never be allowed to be taught or known. People might begin to think for themselves and the king would be naked..the king would have no clothes.

Thanks,
Orangetom
edit on 13-1-2012 by orangetom1999 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 03:38 AM
link   
From my being, I say to you: God is not against homosexuals.

Rather, God is for the liberation of each and every man, woman and child from the specious and contrived sophistry that only serves to enslave, demean, divide and cheapen that which is essentially good, chaste, true and divine.

See with your heart and not with your eyes. This world is illusory, profane, a vulgarity unworthy of our attention. It is a third-rate imitation of what truly is. We are so much more than what we are made out to be.

Know your enemy for he is persuasive. The adversary is a trickster by trade: his unholy mission is to distract us from truth and righteousness; to conspire a fall from grace into abysmal depravity.

Awaken! Be that which you were born to be. Love and be loved, for we are One.
edit on 14-1-2012 by 1nOne because: (no reason given)
edit on 14-1-2012 by 1nOne because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
Can we at least agree that the Pope did not say "Gay marriage is a threat to humanity," and you believe that's what he meant because that's where your logic leads you?


Yes, I can agree that the pope did not say the words: "Gay marriage is a threat to humanity".

Looking at what the pope did say:


[Education] thus represents a task of primary importance in this difficult and demanding time. In addition to a clear goal, that of leading young people to a full knowledge of reality and thus of truth, education needs settings. Among these, pride of place goes to the family, based on the marriage of a man and a woman.


Can we agree that here the pope is clearly saying that a family unit comprised of a MAN + WOMAN is the #1 or ideal family unit?


This is not a simple social convention, but rather the fundamental cell of every society.


In this portion is it not clear that the pope is saying that the family unit comprised of a MAN + WOMAN is more than convention but fundamental?

Can we also agree that the pope has ONLY addressed the MAN + WOMAN family unit in this speech?


Consequently, policies which undermine the family threaten human dignity and the future of humanity itself.


Can we not also agree that in the sentence above, after having only defined and addressed one type of family unit (MAN + WOMAN), that when the pope talks about "policies that undermine the family" he is talking about policies that threaten the one type of family unit he has addressed, the family unit comprised of a MAN + WOMAN?

It reads plainly to me and to a host of others. In fact this Link will take you to 375 articles reviewing the same speech all coming to the same conclusion as the OP and me, that the pope is clearly saying that gay marriage is a threat to humanity.

This is clear here and it is also supported through other statements of the pope on the issue:


"Above all, we must have great respect for these people who also suffer and who want to find their own way of correct living (also including those who wish to try to be gay and celibate). On the other hand, to create a legal form of a kind of homosexual marriage, in reality, does not help these people."



"The various forms of the dissolution of matrimony today, like free unions, trial marriages…by people of the same sex, are rather expressions of an anarchic freedom that wrongly passes for true freedom of man."


And most importantly for its relation to the topic at hand, that being the pope's belief in the importance of the MAN + WOMAN family unit for educating children, which when threatened in turn threatens humanity:


"Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. "


Link

Having once again broken down the statement in question for you and having brought in other supporting material that directly supports the conclusions that the OP, myself and at least 375 news organizations have all come to, I ask you again Charles, is it not quite clear that the pope is talking about how gay families are a threat to humanity?


Originally posted by charles1952

You may continue to disagree however I suggest this is a result of your personal bias.

This is the first of your ad hominem attacks One, accusing me of reaching a conclusion based on bias, and two, disregarding the argument and shifting to the "messenger."


I suppose you are right. Perhaps I am stubborn but I really did not say this as an attack but more as a prod to get you to reflect upon your stance on the issue at hand and perhaps uncover any potential bias that was preventing you from seeing what IMHO I think many would deem as obvious.

My apologies for attacking you in any way this really was not my intention.

... continued ...

edit on 14-1-2012 by Animal because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 10:26 AM
link   
... continued ...


Originally posted by charles1952
Our next disagreement may be only semantics.

Among these, pride of place goes to the family, based on the marriage of a man and a woman.
It appears that you take it to mean only a man and woman can make a family, while I take it to mean that the best place out of many possible educational settings is the man-woman family. The "pride of place" comment makes me believe he is thinking of many other possibilities.


Oh I quite agree with you Charles that the pope is clarifying what he believes to be the superior form of family unit as I have already laid out above. Furthermore, what I see the pope do in this passage is to gloss over any other type of family unit but one, which is the pope's ideal family unit comprised of a MAN + WOMAN. The pope clearly defines his ideal family without ever touching on any other (we must read 'inferior') type of family unit and in so doing clearly defines his following statements to be reflecting on the MAN + WOMAN 'family' unit.

At this point I am going to stop responding to your other points Charles as I believe that only rehash bits and pieces of what I have already clarified above. In the end Charles I have to say if you, based on the evidence I have given you here and in other posts want to continue to support the notion that the pope did not make the case for gay marriage being a threat to humanity I leave you to your belief albeit a lonely one.



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by rubbertramp
 

The pope is practicing slippy-slope thinking. The problem with this kind of thinking is that it's fear-based and projects flawed ideas into the far future. Generally, the more flawed your ideas are from the start, the more extreme your predictions will fail the further in time you project. Just because gays do not produce children does not mean that any recognition of them will damn our civilization. All of this assumes that gays are indisputably bad. Some research I've seen suggests that gays serve a role in society by helping their families and others in ways that others do not. It turns out that male gays have brains very much like hetero-women and lesbians have brains similar to hetero-men. I think it's called kin selection or it's related to it. It could also be a way that nature controls the population. One link I have describes how during prenatal pregnancy if a mother is exposed to stress she will produce more androgen (is similar to testosterone) and this will ("evidently") lead to a baby that's more likely to be gay (male and female). This is nature's way of reducing the population in times of stress so that the overall society is not overburdened.

Everybody seems to think we can reproduce into infinity. But have you ever heard of the tragedy of the commons? Animals, humans included, are not infinitely smart. We have limits, you know.

Find it here:
en.wikipedia.org...

Personally, I don't think tragedy of the commons can lead to our extinction. But I do think it leads to the deaths of many things and, in general, is a very savage and ruthless character.

One can say that life is savage and ruthless as it eats and kills its own. History is a repeated story of suffering and war and famine and gold. Much, much death. It might be that many of hte things we view as bad are actually just as belonging to life as those things we consider good.

Another thing I'd like to say is that the older we get the more cemented our brain is. I remember reading research about this. The sum of the research was that an old brain changes slower than a young brain. I don't need to tell anyone how fast this world changes and how fast our knowledge-base changes. We have ot be able to keep up with these changes. If you ever find yourself being too comfortable with your viewpoints then you're probably in need of an upgrade or a big shift in consciousness. This is a eternally changing world. Don't let yourself be sucked into your comfort zone. I know how tempting it's. I let myself slip into that zone far, far too much.

Just remember: the kiss of death is sweet.
edit on 14-1-2012 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by deepankarm
 


What an achievement it is to be able to speak with somebody in India from the other end of the world. Hi!
I actually agree with what you have said but let me ask you:
If the truth doesn't change...do you know that for God (according to His written word) are you Hindus in the same bag with gays and all pagan nations with their man-made (blue) gods, religions and habits?



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by deepankarm
reply to post by Pinke
 

10- i have watched the emergence of western civilization. though i envy your wealth and resources, i dont envy your declining society......
as Krishna said in Gita-
''only lucky men get a chance to fight a
righteous battle for morality, you should'nt put down your weapons''.
And i am not going to give up my morality for any pleasure....


Just a point of interest: en.wikipedia.org...

I don't think the modern issue with homosexuality is a purely Western one. Maybe you don't notice it where you are, maybe you don't know where to look. I'm not sure.


Returning to the point of same-sex relations,it is the same thing happening.
I am dead sure that everyone except fundamentalists is busy promoting LGBT unions which is unfortunate imo.


I would completely disagree.

Fundamentalism is often based on the fear of the 'other' which means they need an enemy. If you're a fundamentalist you're often of the belief that everyone is out to get you, and there's a legion of evil opposing you. The fairly high LGBT suicide rates etc ... completely oppose this notion. If everyone is so accepting and promoting homosexuality then why would this be happening?


Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by Animal
 
Out of this disagreement necessarily follows our disagreement over your First Premise, that is "Family = the Marriage of a Man and Woman." Your position is that the Pope sees only one possible form of family, I think he is more open minded and realizes that "family" has many different definitions depending on context.


Hi Charles,

I wouldn't mind seeing such a quote if one exists? 'Pope Benedict' has been quite out spoken about his disapproval of homosexuality. At times, the pope may dress it up as praise for heterosexual families, but that's no different from dressing up disapproval of homosexuality by saying you hate the act not the sinner. It's semantics.

I just can't imagine the current pope making a single positive statement about homosexuality or unique family situations.



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 06:11 PM
link   



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Pinke
 

Dear Pinke,

Good question. (Does anybody ever ask a "bad" question? I don't even know why I said "good question." Probably time for my meds. Oh, look, a squirrel.)

And may I thank you for your kindness in your manner of asking? I will respond as openly and plainly as I know how. You certainly deserve that. Are ATS "fighters" always this nice?

But it is a hard question, for several reasons. I don't have a quote from the Pope saying good things about homosexual activity. I haven't looked for one, or heard of one, I don't even expect that one exists, but I don't know. I assume there isn't a quote like that.

Second, you've already said that "hate the act not the sinner" holds no appeal for you, as you see it as a polite way of attacking homosexuality.

I think that with those statements I've answered your question, and conceded defeat. But if you don't mind, I'd like to babble a bit. I'm tempted to couch this in moral terms, feel free to just ignore it if you'd like.

I assume that each individual has his personal weakness or "sin." In this country gluttony seems to be a big one, but there is also anger, hatred, impatience, greed (another big one in the US?) and more. I am grateful that mine don't seem to be the obvious ones like excessive gambling, lust, drug or alcohol abuse, or greed (Yes, I think those are "sins.") But I have them.

Let me use, as an example, hatred. I can imagine, nope, no quote for this either, the Pope saying to me "Charles, you're a good man and God loves you. I love you, and the Church treasures you. But we both know you're not the man you could be. I know it's hard to overcome your hatred for others, hatred is powerful, but that's not what God wants for you. I saw you get furious with that street vendor this morning. God doesn't want that. In your heart, Charles, you don't want that. The Church offers you strength and the experience of millions of people over thousands of years. We want you to be the holy person God wants you to be. Stop doing hateful things and replace that hate with love. It can be done. You can turn away if you want, that's your choice, but that hatred will poison your soul, your life and your relationships. Come on in to my study, we'll pour out some wine and talk about it."

Positive.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1nOne
To Captaintyinknots:

You make bold claims about the human condition. You do realise that your statements contradict man's historical understanding of metaphysics and theology..."Leading a good life" based on what standard of morality? Your own?
You speak of respecting life and of being non-judgemental yet in the same breath denounce the Judeo-Christian faith as being nothing more than a fairy-tale. I trust my intuition.

edit on 13-1-2012 by 1nOne because: (no reason given)
edit on 13-1-2012 by 1nOne because: (no reason given)


I didn't denounce anything. I stated an opposing point of view to the idea that humans do and should strive to emulate god.

The thing you are missing here is that you seem to ignore the glaring question that comes with that claim: who chooses which god to emulate? What of those who don't believe in god?



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 05:54 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952 You can turn away if you want, that's your choice, but that hatred will poison your soul, your life and your relationships. Come on in to my study, we'll pour out some wine and talk about it."


I don't believe most persons wake up in the morning, puts their clothes on (and highly amusing hat if you're a pope), looks in the mirror and says ... well, time to ruin some people's day today.

I believe the vast majority of people believe what they are doing is right. I also believe the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and there's nothing worse than someone out to do the world some good. A Muslim asks me to convert, because they honestly believe they're doing the right thing and being nice. They're honestly concerned that I'm going to hell. A Christian asks me to take my partner to rehab and at least visit the alternative to my 'life style'. It's not exactly the same as politely imploring a person to change the color of their car.

Its one thing to ask a person to give up a highly destructive behaviour like compulsive gambling or heavy drinking, but I think there's a heavy line to be drawn for me at telling someone exactly who they should date when it's not destructive; especially when the evidence for it being destructive is quite flimsy.

People are also right when they say there are other bigger problems to deal with. I think people have enough on their minds without being blamed for breaking up the family unit, but I do see where you're coming from. It's just not my thing.

And I generally try to be nice >.



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Pinke
 

Dear Pinke,

Absolutely fine with me. I have no intention of converting anyone. Nor am I even saying that you're wrong. Let me give you one statement that is a quote. "Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters." Straight from the Catechism, doesn't get much more authoritative than that.

Of course you have to have a well informed conscience, but that's another issue.

My whole point from the beginning of the thread was to argue that the Pope is not a crazy cretin. I'm satisfied with my results.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Pinke
 


I am well aware of the subject in hinduism.
Anyway,thanks for the link.
Since you have challenged my knowledge about Indian religious views,let me explain.
The 'karmic impressions' define the nature of the soul.
These impressions are the result of the karmas of our previous lives be a human,animal,etc.
So in a way, homosexuality is natural,similar as to be born with intents of murder,violence and other bad acts.
When Rigaveda says, ''what seems unnatural is natural'', it implies that if a person acts in a way which you dont find natural like homosexuality,violence,etc, it is natural for that particular soul because of soul's karma.
People get generally confused with this statement and use it to validate homosexuality.
What Rigaveda says is that whatever qualities,feelings,etc you have is natural to you and only you due to your karma.
You cant stop a murderer as its in his nature to kill.
As Krishna says, lust is an enemy for you.
mind and intellect get deluded by lust due to which we cant decide what is wrong or what is right.

We all are born with imperfections. you can see it in yourself and everyone.
It is natural.
But if we treat it as an excuse and say that we were 'born that way', we will further fall into the trap of karmas.
While it is in nature of a homosexual to have gay feelings,he/she also has the 'free will' to engage or not.
Generally we get deluded by lust and forget that we have free will. we think we have no control over our actions which is wrong.
We should try to overcome our imperfections, not use it as an excuse to further indulge in those.
Regarding sexuality in hinduism, the scriptures which deal with this topic, discuss it in context of kama or sexual pleasure. they discuss the various types of it as sexual pleasure can be obtained through different means as you are well aware of. But they dont tell what is moral or not as their only context is kama.
'kama' is the part of four aims of life in hinduism others being dharma or duty, artha or wealth and moksha or salvation.
There are many ways to earn wealth but only one path is correct.
What i mean to say is that there are many ways for sexual pleasure, from toys to porn to masturbation. But there is only one path which is original and correct and that is sex between a man and woman which bears the fruit of a child.
others are just ways invented by animals,deities and humans whose intellect is deluded by lust.
If your mind and intellect are impure,you will not be able to tell right and wrong.
I hope you get my point which is that there are many ways to do things, but there is a way which is better than others.
If you chose other ways due to delusion,you will incur sin.
Problem is you will say you were 'born this way' but you forget that you are solely responsible for that and if you dont change your ways, you will be again 'born that way' with more sins and karmic bondage.
Regarding sexuality in deities in Hindu gods Krishna says - " there is no being in heaven and hell who is free from three features namely goodness,passion and ignorance".
we have to strive for goodness which is pure and happiness.
You have a chance to correct yourself in this life but its your free will to change or not.
thanx.





new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join