Amos

The homosexual minority were the oppressed and used the bill of rights to gain equal status. This does not means that I am against it but I used this as an example to show how the bill of rights can reverse what at one time was considdered as normal to become just the opposite in a very short period of time.I knew that question would come [lol] and could have just told you that freedom of religion should be changed to freedom from religion. Of course, this is not possible in today's world but if the mythology is for the survival and prosperity of the tribe, it should never have been there to begin with.

Amos

I don't have a better plan and if I was a voting member of society I would even be a liberal Democrat and not a reformer.

Ah yes, but the problem is not just restricted to Catholic priests. We can call this a societal problem and now blame it on the fundamental flaws of the Democracy we soo cherish. After all, even those priests did not create themself but are also a product of society.

rdalin

This is what you said: "I for one am not in favor of it and have some major concerns about it." This certainly sounds to me like you are, if not against it, certainly dubious about the change. Slavery was at one time considered normal and now is not; presuming you're not in favor of slavery, how does this differ from the alteration in societal feelings toward homosexuality?

What's the difference?

Richard

Amos

Oh, I don't deny that I am against the freedom of gender expression. Notice that gender expression is not the same as sexual identity and my objection is based on this difference wherein the acceptance of this freedom (to be homosexual) leads to the increased occurance of sexual deviation (homosexuality). It is simply based on "essence precedes existence" and actually proves that "existence does not precede essence." If essence does precede existence it must be true that the way we direct our essence will automaticaly lead towards the conceived existence of our pre-conceived essense.

The difference is that we can resign from the national religion.

In my opinion there is more slavery today than there ever was. I should add that in my opinion humans must be enslaved to something for as long as they are not free in their own mind. The question becomes, which kind of slavery do we prefer?

rdalin

You seem to be arguing that if someone behaves as a homosexual (whatever that may mean) then he/she becomes one. It seems much more likely to me that someone behaves as a homosexual because he/she is a homosexual. Everything I've read indicates that one's sexual orientation is someone that one is born with rather than being a conscious choice. Whatever freedom exists in the United States is based on increasing legalization and acceptance of homosexual behavior (not yet universal, unfortunately), which in turn leads to homosexuals being more overt ('coming out of the closet,' IOW).

While you claim you have proved that 'existence does not precede essence,' you have presented no proof at all; you've merely asserted it.

Quote:

The difference is that we can resign from the national religion.

???

Quote:

In my opinion there is more slavery today than there ever was. I should add that in my opinion humans must be enslaved to something for as long as they are not free in their own mind. The question becomes, which kind of slavery do we prefer?

I'm talking about the actual form of slavery which was found in the United States before the Civil War. I am not discussing the type of metaphorical slavery you cite above.

I don't know what 'not free in their own mind' means; I don't know how you'd demonstrate that; I don't know how it would be apparent when someone becomes free in his own mind.

Amos

No they behave like one because they are homosexual but since they did not create themselves and were born from heterosexual parents the obvious conclusion is that the essence of the parents was procreated in them.

Well here we go: our sexual identity is not always the same as our gender identity. In other words, our sexuality is independent of our sex for if it was not so homosexual-ity would be an impossible concept.The free will argument deals with this but as long as we are divided in our own mind are we not free and likely to be a slave to our sense perception.

Wyz_sub10

If one is using a charter or bill of rights to ensure certain freedoms, they are doing so in reaction to oppression, not to further it. If they were the oppressors, they would have no need for a bill or rights.

Where have we "just seen" this? Homosexuality has been a part of society since the dawn of society, itself. In fact, homosexuality has only been socially repressed a few times in recent history - Victorian England, Puritan American, and possibly post-war America. That's about it.

BTW, we don't know the long-term affect of playing golf. What should we do about that?

Then it's best you don't practice it. What are your concerns, exactly? Tell me this - how does the presence in homosexuality afftect your security, well-being, income, freedom, or quality of life in any measureable way?

Right. That's why it makes sense to guarantee freedom of religion. You cannot outlaw religion, so you must provide that no one religion will be given preference.

rdalin

What a great argument. Let me see if I have this straight: since parents are heterosexual (not always, but we'll ignore that), then they must pass their essence (whatever that may be) along to their children, so if a child is a homosexual then he/she must have chosen to be one. I hope I have your argument straight (no pun intended). This may be an obvious conclusion to you; it's certainly not to me.

Quote:

Well here we go: our sexual identity is not always the same as our gender identity. In other words, our sexuality is independent of our sex for if it was not so homosexual-ity would be an impossible concept.

Um . . . well . . . uh . . . what?

Quote:

The free will argument deals with this but as long as we are divided in our own mind are we not free and likely to be a slave to our sense perception.

That's easy for you to say. Why is it that every time you attempt to explain something you end up being even more confusing?

Amos

Sorry I am late. If our gender identity is not always the same as our sexual identity it must be true that essence precedes existence for otherwise the essence would match the sexual identity. There can't be an argument there.

Since in homosexuals the gender identity is not the same as their sexual identity and they did not chose their own gender identity because they cannot change it, which which I fully agree, it must have been their parents who instilled this upon them. Simple and that cannot be an argument either because they created us that way. In other words, if we can't help it because we are created that way, those who created us must be responsible. The free will argument exists only because freedom of mind is possible or we would have no knowledge thereoff. With the eye of our soul we sight of that eternal freedom and are therefore in pursuit of freedom.

Bree

Let's break this down.

In homosexuals, gender identity is not the same as their sexual identity. In other words, my gender identity (I am a woman, in parts and in mindset) is not the same as my sexual identity (that of a lesbian). So for my gender identity to match my sexual identity, I'd have to become a man?

Gender identity cannot be chosen. I disagree. What you see yourself as (either male or female) can be different than what your actual physical parts are. I have several transgendered friends who feel they were born in the wrong bodies and live as the sex opposite of that which they were born into.

Those who created us were responsible for these deviances. Well, didn't God create us? Isn't He responsible?