It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I don't see why focusing on the sex act, in this case, is erroneous. Last night, I spent two and a half hours orally conversing with two men I had only known through their internet words. We are laying plans to meet, if circumstances allow, in some city convenient to all of us. We expect to have buffalo wings or sandwiches, beer or soda, and much more conversation.
Focusing on sex itself is erroneous. It undermines the whole issue, by not appreciating the full scope of sexual orientation. Gay people don't just want to have gay sex. They want the same things heterosexuals do. Companionship, romance, commitment, love. The freedom to have an intimate relationship. Sex, just like in heterosexual relationships, is merely a component of that. It's only one aspect of the drive underlying their orientation. Would it not be undermining heterosexuality if all we attributed to it was sex sex sex?
I suppose what I could have said was "Do homosexuals see that there is no difference between a law prohibiting certain sexual actions, and the inclination to engage in those acts?" My belief is that, legally, there is a difference.
They didn't come up with the same answer you did. Are they required to?
They have determined that homosexual activity harms their society. All of society is the victim.
Do you or I understand their culture and history well enough to tell them they are wrong? Of course we don't.
One of those definitions is the imposition of culture and beliefs on another country or people. Never mind the fact that you can't force anyone to accept a belief
Now, this brings us to the sorts of moves that people are apt to make in the moral sphere. Consider the great problem of women's bodies: What to do about them? Well this is one thing you can do about them: You can cover them up. Now, it is the position, generally speaking, of our intellectual community that while we may not like this, we might think of this as "wrong" in Boston or Palo Alto, who are we to say that the proud denizens of an ancient culture are wrong to force their wives and daughters to live in cloth bags? And who are we to say, even, that they're wrong to beat them with lengths of steel cable, or throw battery acid in their faces if they decline the privilege of being smothered in this way?
Well, who are we not to say this? Who are we to pretend that we know so little about human well-being that we have to be non-judgmental about a practice like this?I'm not talking about voluntary wearing of a veil -- women should be able to wear whatever they want, as far as I'm concerned. But what does voluntary mean in a community where, when a girl gets raped, her father's first impulse, rather often, is to murder her out of shame?
Just let that fact detonate in your brain for a minute: Your daughter gets raped, and what you want to do is kill her. What are the chances that represents a peak of human flourishing?
We are not dealing with a traditionally accepted human right upon which the world agrees. This is a case of GargIndia telling us, quite properly, to mind our own business.
Do they ever write "Imagine a world were you are allowed to be greedy, but not allowed to act it out in an observable way like theft?" Do their fingers ever type out "Imagine a world were you are allowed to be angry, but not allowed to act it out in an observable way like murder?" Can they stand up and say "Imagine a world were you are allowed to be full of hatred, but not allowed to act it out in an observable way like racial discrimination?"
In the most complete sense, I love these two men I have never met, and would rush to their aid if necessary. Any gay or straight could do the same thing. Either or both of them could move in with me, should circumstances require. I have shared sleeping quarters with men at times in my life, and have never had the slightest urge towards homosexual desire or behavior.
What, then, is left that the homosexual feels he (or she) is lacking? Only sex, and the romance that leads up to it.
Why is sex the only drive we must give free rein to?
We have to learn to put controls on our instincts and inclinations.
reply to post by GargIndia
Laws being dictated by religious thought should not be allowed, that is the supposed separation between church and state,
not everyone follows the same Dogma, for a Government to say "God doesn't believe in homosexuality" so it's outlawed and if you don't believe in the Bible sorry not sorry, that is wrong
The structuring of society that you see (conversion of a tribal/lawless society into a structured/lawful society) is due to religion.
You can always find an example - this way or that way - often that proves nothing.
The modern world has a very corrupted form of religion
However an atheist society often turns into a moral-less and lawless anarchy. You have to consider that too.
You are NOT an atheist.
You do not have to know God or believe in God.
A human that does the right things (10 rules - please read thread by VedaTruth on ATS) is a lover of God.
As regards gay people, I told you earlier that both man and woman are needed to raise a child successfully.
reply to post by GargIndia
It is my belief to have a religion or not, but one cannot use religion to set laws and rules that i don't abide by due to the diversity of belief
as far as inheritance that is something one can work out with the surrogate i am sure
The above is the issue. India has 2.5m gays out of 1bil people. Democracy and freedom is allowing the culture to govern itself not when you force the other 99% of people to bow to the demands of 1 percent.
look at it from the other side would you like it?
Which Upnishad did you read? Can you tell me the names of the Upnishad?
I would be very happy to discuss Veda with you. Let us see what you know.
So maybe in your society it works better. Not in India.
How do you know 3-10% of Indians are gay? Any references?
As regards religion, you tell me what you studied. Which Upnishad? We shall center the discussion around that.
As regards peace and harmony due to religion, it is a separate topic and we shall take that in another thread.
reply to post by GargIndia
In many societies. And thank you for clarifying you didn't mean a mother and father was always necessary for successfully raising a child, and that you meant specifically in India.edit on 19-12-2013 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)