RE: Gay rights within the template of religion proves flaws in "religion"
October 18, 2014 at 11:48 am
Here is to prove my point with the previous person who tried to define bi-sexuality -
Attracted to men + Attracted to women = Bi-sexual
Sexual intercourse with men + Sexual intercourse with women = Bi-sexual
What is the difference of the above example, the previous poster implied?
Well, it is simply through an act which defines it. The previous example would be a proper...case study or rather illustration of the importance of (final) act to determine sexual orientation.
Despite the studies on homosexuality, the category of sexual orientation really is determined by the act.
If you separate the act from orientation, then what is suggested is like saying a man who rapes another man in prison is still defined in society as a heterosexual. Furthermore, the homosexual act makes that man a homosexual not a heterosexual.
The one who was raped is still a heterosexual. What is the difference? CONSENT!
If a heterosexual man rapes a heterosexual woman then it is rape. There is an absence of consent by both parties.
This is why the (final)Act is important to determine sexual orientation.
One thing is sexual "attraction" always lead to the act. But what if many individuals could not determine what is "attraction"? Sometimes, "attraction" is misidentified and it may be hero worship or another social phenomenon.
As for legislation against gay ... ACTS. These acts are natural, not because solely, throughout nature. The many past scholars and philosophers who were defining "natural rights" derived their conclusions through a religious prism rather than through a scientific and critical analysis of their surroundings. Through the religious prism; lies a truthful category, the results in society of sentient thinking beings,i.e. laws. These laws are not solely the results of "religion" but rather secular social interactions which have made society functional. The previous is an indication of sentiency for a thinking species. The whole difference between animals and the human race on this planet.
Therefore, homosexuals have inherent natural rights and any legislation against their "rights"(to act in a homosexual manner in society) would counter the progressive trend in society.
Attracted to men + Attracted to women = Bi-sexual
Sexual intercourse with men + Sexual intercourse with women = Bi-sexual
What is the difference of the above example, the previous poster implied?
Well, it is simply through an act which defines it. The previous example would be a proper...case study or rather illustration of the importance of (final) act to determine sexual orientation.
Despite the studies on homosexuality, the category of sexual orientation really is determined by the act.
If you separate the act from orientation, then what is suggested is like saying a man who rapes another man in prison is still defined in society as a heterosexual. Furthermore, the homosexual act makes that man a homosexual not a heterosexual.
The one who was raped is still a heterosexual. What is the difference? CONSENT!
If a heterosexual man rapes a heterosexual woman then it is rape. There is an absence of consent by both parties.
This is why the (final)Act is important to determine sexual orientation.
One thing is sexual "attraction" always lead to the act. But what if many individuals could not determine what is "attraction"? Sometimes, "attraction" is misidentified and it may be hero worship or another social phenomenon.
As for legislation against gay ... ACTS. These acts are natural, not because solely, throughout nature. The many past scholars and philosophers who were defining "natural rights" derived their conclusions through a religious prism rather than through a scientific and critical analysis of their surroundings. Through the religious prism; lies a truthful category, the results in society of sentient thinking beings,i.e. laws. These laws are not solely the results of "religion" but rather secular social interactions which have made society functional. The previous is an indication of sentiency for a thinking species. The whole difference between animals and the human race on this planet.
Therefore, homosexuals have inherent natural rights and any legislation against their "rights"(to act in a homosexual manner in society) would counter the progressive trend in society.
