Reasoning showing homosexuality is evil.

[Edwardo Piet]

I don't think that calling homosexuality a mental illness is anywhere near as bad as calling it evil.

Bipolar is a mental illness . . . and saying Bipolar was "evil" would be a lot worse.

And not just because Bipolar actually is a mental illness. Imagine someone who thought all mental illnesses were "evil" that would be a lot worse.

Again . . . that's not just because the reality is actual mental illness are actually mental illness. Imagine if someone thought wearing top hats was a mental illness. It's obviously not. But that's not as bad as thinking anyone who wears top hats are evil and should be punished.

The fact Atlas thinks homosexuality is an illness makes him ignorant and it means he has prejudiced and bigoted views... but I don't think it's as bad as someone like MK who says it's "evil".

It's still bad to think it's a mental illness because that's to say that homosexuality needs curing or fixing when it's just as healthy as heterosexuality. It's definitely bad and harmful for Atlas to have that view . . . and it discriminates against homosexuals. But I do think that believing such a thing is a lesser evil than thinking homosexuals are evil. Perhaps Atlas's heart is in the right place and he really does believe homosexuality is unnatural and unhealthy. That's a harmful view but you can't say someone who thinks homosexuality is evil has their heart in the right place. The difference is that saying homosexuality is "evil" is to demonize homosexuals and treat them as subhuman.

And at least viewing homosexuality as an illness is a view more likely to be corrected by scientific indicates otherwise and demonstrates that homosexuality is completely healthy. But it's hard to make a logical argument or provide scientific evidence against anyone who says something is "evil" because their premise is often just their own aversion rather than being ignorant of the facts. You can correct any facts they like and they'll just assert that it's evil because magic book or whatever.

It's still a very immoral, bigoted and prejudiced view of course. But I wouldn't argue that it's as bad.

[Joods]

It's bad enough that society likes placing labels on as many people as possible. The last thing the gay community needs is a label announcing to the world that gay people have a mental disorder simply because of who they are. So no - I do not buy the argument that calling it a mental disorder isn't a bad as saying it's evil. Both are unnecessary in my opinion.

[Edwardo Piet]

Yeah it's still awful because discriminating and being intolerant against gays under the label of "treatment" isn't much better. It's still discrimination and intolerance.

I just think that labeling homosexuality as "evil" is even worse because that kind of attitude is more likely to lead to violence and hate. Which is a step further than intolerance and discrimination.

[Whateverist]

But it is a slippery slope this classifying of differences as normal.  On the one hand, you have movements to classify deafness and dwarfism as "normal human variation'.  Those who grow up with the conditions find them familiar and the familiar is comforting.  But really?  Toss out hearing and that isn't a defect?  Those two seem a bridge too far, and the "pathological" label seems justified.  Dwarfism less so, but I believe there are at least mobility disadvantages.

But homosexuality seems as clearly a part of "normal human variation" as left handedness.  It would only count as a defect if an entire population were homosexual and unable to survive for lack of procreation.  But with runaway over population,  that clearly isn't our situation.  So where are the negative consequences which would justify the "defect" or "pathological" label?

Whether or not some backward group of camel fuckers thinks it is objectively immoral in the eyes of their God is completely irrelevant.

[emjay]

I see what you're saying but the problem with that is that the majority of people in your religion don't see it that way. And arguably... and I'm not saying it's necessarily the case with you but it could be... the reason you interpret it that way could have a lot to do with your sexuality. Just as I also grew up trying to make sense of the Bible in relation to my sexuality and making similar liberal arguments about what it said... which ultimately didn't take and caused a lot of cognitive dissonance. But your contemporaries have no such impetus/bias to see it that way, and in fact their bias is the complete opposite (ie homophobic), so I don't see anything changing any time soon in the way it is generally viewed by Muslims.

Lots of Muslims, and by lots I mean lots; follow bigoted opinions represented in the two main sects composing the majority: Shiite Islam and Sunni Islam.
Despite the severe disasters these terminologies brought upon Muslims; Muslims followed them still.

The problem is with the religion itself... it is pure hate and judgment, so it producing/encouraging bigotry on a large scale comes as no surprise.

There are lots and lots of hypocrite bigots who practice sodomy, then go criticize gays. The Muslim society is crawling with people like this: it's a no no in public; but from below and in secret, it's totally fine.

That doesn't surprise me in the slightest; wherever there is oppression there will always be resistance and/or people partaking in that which is prohibited; the forbidden fruit syndrome as it were. And the first word that comes to mind for me when I think of Islam is 'oppression'; a religion whose singular aim seems to be to prohibit pretty much everything, require total and absolute conformity from its members, and create a mass of people who are all exactly the same, with any non-conformists severely, and often brutally dealt with. What possible good you see in such a religion is beyond me.

For me, it wasn't sexuality to be honest that made me part ways with the Islamic sects. Sexuality was just a part of the dilemma which included politics, history, women rights, and so many other things.
The "word of God" shouldn't break in front of reason. And I must be 100% fair to compare my own view and understanding, to the actual meaning the author of the book I'm using was meaning; and to compare other views against all of that.

The problem is, as fair as you want to be to it, IMO you can never really succeed; because whatever you do, you'll always give more weight to some parts than others... and this goes for any religious book.

For instance, say the Bible was reduced to a single word: GOD... you'd still end up with a million different sects/schisms fighting over its true meaning; you'll have G-ians who think the G is all important but the O and D are less so... "God", O-ians who think the O is all important... "gOd", and D-ians who think the D is all important... "goD". Then on top of that you'll have people like Neo who thinks it makes more sense if you read it backwards... DOG-ians. That may seem a silly example, but as far as I'm concerned, it sums up the problem perfectly. The possibities are endless, and that's just for three letters, so imagine how exponentially worse it can be, and is with the religious books that exist... the Bible and the Quran for instance. You may try to be fair to it, but with something so vague and with so many different things you could focus on IMO you can't fail to introduce your own bias into its interpretation, no matter what you do.

I don't think the majority of Muslims are doing so; so yep; nothing is changing soon if they kept on practicing the same belief.
The Bible is very different in structure from the Quran; that's all I can say about the book.

But the difference between Christianity and Islam, is that with Islam, these beliefs actually result in murder, torture, and terrorism on a massive scale. Christianity produces it's fair share of suffering in the world, but nowhere near on the scale of Islam. As I said, I have no idea what possible good you can see in it.

---

It's bad enough that society likes placing labels on as many people as possible. The last thing the gay community needs is a label announcing to the world that gay people have a mental disorder simply because of who they are. So no - I do not buy the argument that calling it a mental disorder isn't a bad as saying it's evil. Both are unnecessary in my opinion.

I hope I haven't offended you with my views here Joods? I don't run around saying I have a mental disorder when I talk about my homosexuality, but I do see it as having it's roots in psychology rather than - or more than - genetics.

[Joods]

Lots of Muslims, and by lots I mean lots; follow bigoted opinions represented in the two main sects composing the majority: Shiite Islam and Sunni Islam.
Despite the severe disasters these terminologies brought upon Muslims; Muslims followed them still.

The problem is with the religion itself... it is pure hate and judgment, so it producing/encouraging bigotry on a large scale comes as no surprise.

There are lots and lots of hypocrite bigots who practice sodomy, then go criticize gays. The Muslim society is crawling with people like this: it's a no no in public; but from below and in secret, it's totally fine.

That doesn't surprise me in the slightest; wherever there is oppression there will always be resistance and/or people partaking in that which is prohibited; the forbidden fruit syndrome as it were. And the first word that comes to mind for me when I think of Islam is 'oppression'; a religion whose singular aim seems to be to prohibit pretty much everything, require total and absolute conformity from its members, and create a mass of people who are all exactly the same, with any non-conformists severely, and often brutally dealt with. What possible good you see in such a religion is beyond me.

For me, it wasn't sexuality to be honest that made me part ways with the Islamic sects. Sexuality was just a part of the dilemma which included politics, history, women rights, and so many other things.
The "word of God" shouldn't break in front of reason. And I must be 100% fair to compare my own view and understanding, to the actual meaning the author of the book I'm using was meaning; and to compare other views against all of that.

The problem is, as fair as you want to be to it, IMO you can never really succeed; because whatever you do, you'll always give more weight to some parts than others... and this goes for any religious book.

For instance, say the Bible was reduced to a single word: GOD... you'd still end up with a million different sects/schisms fighting over its true meaning; you'll have G-ians who think the G is all important but the O and D are less so... "God", O-ians who think the O is all important... "gOd", and D-ians who think the D is all important... "goD". Then on top of that you'll have people like Neo who thinks it makes more sense if you read it backwards... DOG-ians. That may seem a silly example, but as far as I'm concerned, it sums up the problem perfectly. The possibities are endless, and that's just for three letters, so imagine how exponentially worse it can be, and is with the religious books that exist... the Bible and the Quran for instance. You may try to be fair to it, but with something so vague and with so many different things you could focus on IMO you can't fail to introduce your own bias into its interpretation, no matter what you do.

I don't think the majority of Muslims are doing so; so yep; nothing is changing soon if they kept on practicing the same belief.
The Bible is very different in structure from the Quran; that's all I can say about the book.

But the difference between Christianity and Islam, is that with Islam, these beliefs actually result in murder, torture, and terrorism on a massive scale. Christianity produces it's fair share of suffering in the world, but nowhere near on the scale of Islam. As I said, I have no idea what possible good you can see in it.

---

It's bad enough that society likes placing labels on as many people as possible. The last thing the gay community needs is a label announcing to the world that gay people have a mental disorder simply because of who they are. So no - I do not buy the argument that calling it a mental disorder isn't a bad as saying it's evil. Both are unnecessary in my opinion.

I hope I haven't offended you with my views here Joods? I don't run around saying I have a mental disorder when I talk about my homosexuality, but I do see it as having it's roots in psychology rather than - or more than - genetics.

 No, squishy, you haven't offended me. I guess this topic is really sensitive for me, given that not only is my son gay, but he's been diagnosed with at least four mental health issues. He's been labeled enough and we, as a society, really need to stop using such labels if we are ever to move forward in our acceptance of everyone - gay or straight. I always come back to saying that what two people do behind closed doors is none of anyone else's business and those two people don't deserve to have a mental health label placed on them simply because certain members of society can't handle what they do in private.

[emjay]

I hope I haven't offended you with my views here Joods? I don't run around saying I have a mental disorder when I talk about my homosexuality, but I do see it as having it's roots in psychology rather than - or more than - genetics.

 No, squishy, you haven't offended me. I guess this topic is really sensitive for me, given that not only is my son gay, but he's been diagnosed with at least four mental health issues. He's been labeled enough and we, as a society, really need to stop using such labels if we are ever to move forward in our acceptance of everyone - gay or straight. I always come back to saying that what two people do behind closed doors is none of anyone else's business and those two people don't deserve to have a mental health label placed on them simply because certain members of society can't handle what they do in private.

That's good to know The last thing I wanted to do was hurt you or your son... or his boyfriend... with my views. It's very very difficult to talk about these sorts of things because there is so much baggage associated with these words... these labels... so even if it's meant in some technical or benign sense, that's rarely how it's taken by people not interested in the finer points of an argument; some people just see the label and stop there. For my own self, I don't think of myself in terms of labels at all; I used to... it used to be all about being gay and my whole identity revolved around it, but now I'm just me, who just happens to be gay. So yeah, I agree, labels suck.

[Edwardo Piet]

But it is a slippery slope this classifying of differences as normal.

I don't even believe in "abnormal" really. Not in the sense of "unnatural" anyways. Everything is natural. The only real opposite of "normal" is "unusual" because "abnormal" carries this negative connotation when it shouldn't.

I believe in the unhealthy and the dysfunctional. And homosexuality is neither of those.

It's less common... what ... 1 in 10 (I heard somewhere that 1 in 10 people are gay but I dunno how accurate that is)? But less usual doesn't mean less normal or "abnormal". That's the problem with the words "normal" and "abormal" they give the impression that anything less common is bad somehow. It's fucking stupid. Is being talented normal? No. Does that make talented people unhealthy or "unatural"? Lmao.

I fucking hate these stupid arguments over whether something is "natural". Fuck that shit. If something is healthy and functional that's all that matters.

I'm not "normal" but I'm normal for me.

EDIT: I mean... Squishy has kind of proved my point that it's much worse to think of homosexuality as "evil". Squishy is the direct opposite of offensive or bigoted

[Mystic]

What is "Taqleed"?

It means imitating or blindly following a scholar.

---

Here is the thing: If I can be just as good left-handed as I am right handed, I would choose to be both.

If it is a choice and both are beautiful things and honorable things, both sexual relationships, I would imagine it would be better to do both, get a complete love, as Albert Pike teaches.

If it is a choice, and one was wrong and ugly, it would be better to choose one over the other.

If it not a choice, I would like to know why free-will cannot choose this. Simply stating try for yourself, won't mean anything.

Obviously, some choices are very fast decision making, and others are decisions that are very long processes, and might even start early as a child.

If it is evil if free-will is involved, I think it follows free-will can choose any evil state even it if is a very long process.

If it is good if free-will is involved, then it is Albert Pike says, it is complete of a human to experience both.

What would that mean for family structure (units of four?)?

I don't know.... I know for certain the people social engineering society believe it is a choice but believe it is a good choice to sexually be attracted to both. The free-will regarding it debate is just a stepping stone to this where they make it acceptable, than will promote it as beneficial and part of enlightenment.

I choose to believe the Messengers were honest with the people, and I believe in honest guiding leaders, not those who mask what they believe in deceptions thinking the masses are not ready for the truth.

I don't believe masses are not to be taught the truth. I believe the truth is not to be hidden but we must strive our utmost to convey it and help the Message of the Messengers in that regard.

[The Grand Nudger]

The bigotries of your religious leaders were written into their screeds.  What's so difficult to understand about that?  You;re not really sitting there wondering whether or not god hates homosexuals as much as they did, are you?