Arsenal Action

[cerbera]

While doing my best to not take a side in this very controversial debate (hehe) I have to say that there's a difference there. It's because if people don't want to see homosexual behaviour on the streets it's completely different from not wanting to see someone on the streets because of their race. This is because homosexuality is technically (a big emphasis on technically) anti social behaviour. Homosexuality does not promote population growth and it's not considered part of traditional family life in that a traditional family in a society is expected to have a man and woman as husband and wife (expected to be married) and have children or at least have the thought of bearing children. Since homosexuality isn't in keeping with this principle I see what Damir means about not accepting homosexual public display of affection.

So if wearing a burkha in public in the US is considered anti-social behavior because they are rejecting regular American views, would it be right to legislate it so wearing a burkha is illegal?

Wearing a burkha isn't considered anti social, it's considered a cultural difference. For that matter, wearing a burkha doesn't mean you reject American views, it just means you uphold your religious customs. Furthermore America's a multicultural society and wearing a burkha isn't considered wrong there.

This is the same as when you compared homosexual PDA with a black man walking the streets. Completely different context.

[damir]

While doing my best to not take a side in this very controversial debate (hehe) I have to say that there's a difference there. It's because if people don't want to see homosexual behaviour on the streets it's completely different from not wanting to see someone on the streets because of their race. This is because homosexuality is technically (a big emphasis on technically) anti social behaviour. Homosexuality does not promote population growth and it's not considered part of traditional family life in that a traditional family in a society is expected to have a man and woman as husband and wife (expected to be married) and have children or at least have the thought of bearing children. Since homosexuality isn't in keeping with this principle I see what Damir means about not accepting homosexual public display of affection.

So if wearing a burkha in public in the US is considered anti-social behavior because they are rejecting regular American views, would it be right to legislate it so wearing a burkha is illegal?

I think I wrote it clearly so read it carefully once again!I sad the majority don't want to see them in public and we all have our reasons,can we agree on that?

Yes.

do you want to see them doing whatever they do in public?

I don't want to see fat people making out in public. That doesn't mean I take it as my right to force them to stop.

I can't see how can we relate that with 'black person on the street',everyone here said that they don't want to see them and said it why!Not just I love to see black person on the street but I love to see black AND white person on the street TOGETHER if you ask me,cause I think it is natural,and can't see how two men holding their hands and kissing in the park can be natural(we can go in details),give me one proof for that?

One proof it's natural? If we go by the definition of natural as occurring in nature, then homosexuality is natural.

Did anyone prove yet that isn't an illness-homosexuality?!I am not saying it is but did anyone prove that?

Did anyone prove being a Christian is an illness? Being Muslim? No. It's a non-important question.

And..dividing people by tone of their skin or religion in companies and segregating them can't be good and right cause all that differences are natural and they can't be reasons for segregation!

Religion isn't natural. It's not inborn. It's a choice. And whether or not you think being homosexual is a choice or hereditary, discriminating against them is still that; discrimination.

I accept all you said,and see it like a valid opinions,but I think we have different standings and point of views,different perspectives,I can't say you are wrong and don't want to,but neither can you say that I am telling something that makes no sense!we can go in circle like this in eternity

[damir]

While doing my best to not take a side in this very controversial debate (hehe) I have to say that there's a difference there. It's because if people don't want to see homosexual behaviour on the streets it's completely different from not wanting to see someone on the streets because of their race. This is because homosexuality is technically (a big emphasis on technically) anti social behaviour. Homosexuality does not promote population growth and it's not considered part of traditional family life in that a traditional family in a society is expected to have a man and woman as husband and wife (expected to be married) and have children or at least have the thought of bearing children. Since homosexuality isn't in keeping with this principle I see what Damir means about not accepting homosexual public display of affection.

So if wearing a burkha in public in the US is considered anti-social behavior because they are rejecting regular American views, would it be right to legislate it so wearing a burkha is illegal?

Wearing a burkha isn't considered anti social, it's considered a cultural difference. For that matter, wearing a burkha doesn't mean you reject American views, it just means you uphold your religious customs. Furthermore America's a multicultural society and wearing a burkha isn't considered wrong there.

This is the same as when you compared homosexual PDA with a black man walking the streets. Completely different context.

I Agree cerbera some things you just can't compare with homosexuality in that way,like religion,racism...just look it how things functioning in nature,is it like that with homosexuality-IT IS NOT!that is all I am trying to say

[Kerr345]

Language please and grow up.

[cerbera]

Wearing a burkha isn't considered anti social, it's considered a cultural difference.

Who has the right to decide that? Me? You? The government?

There's no one that decides what a cultural difference is. A cultural difference happens when something normally done in one society isn't done in another. That's all there is to it. This is a bit irrelevant though

This is the same as when you compared homosexual PDA with a black man walking the streets. Completely different context.

How? You're discriminating against someone based on a difference. You're saying they deserve substandard rights because of they aren't like the rest of society.

There is a contextual difference here. As I said, it's a difference based on norms and values in a society while being uncomfortable with someone's race has nothing to do with what society thinks is wholesome behaviour.

[littlegemz]

hehe Ok,I agree on all you wrote,I wrote also about that earlier please check it,I wrote about it before everyone here said it,my comment was first here,check it!But,I can't agree only on that first 'they are born that way',any scientific proof on that,anyone?And mostly I was saying about that,who can tell that has something to do with genetics or nature?But I did make mistake in one thing,cause I gone too far and too deep and apologize to all you about that!

You have nothing to apologise for & you should never apologise for your opinion because then it just looks invalid and contradictive in the eyes of other readers. Please do not feel like you need to apologise, I listened to your view and only made note of one thing you said so please don't feel it was personal just to you.

OK so you say you don't agree on "they are born that way" however a better way for me to have put that would have been " That's the way they are" as in "You can't help who you are attracted to" it is natural for them to feel attracted to the same sex as we do the opposite.

Its all healthy debate, and my initial post wasn't directed at you anyway... more about narrow mindedness but thats a whole other issue.

[Kerr345]

Language please and grow up.

Honestly? What language and how was I immature?

There's no one that decides what a cultural difference is. A cultural difference happens when something normally done in one society isn't done in another.

So homosexuality is done in one culture and not another so by your definition it's a cultural difference.

but that wasn't my point. You say a cultural difference is alright. I say that the definition for a cultural definition is entirely ambiguous and therefore not grounds for excusing something and not another.Limitations on homosexuals is a denial of basic rights they deserve as being humans, much like denying someone wearing a burkha the chance to wear it is denying them basic rights.

There is a contextual difference here. As I said, it's a difference based on norms and values in a society while being uncomfortable with someone's race has nothing to do with what society thinks is wholesome behaviour.

Why does society get to tell you or me what to do when it's not "wholesome behavior?" How is that even close to being right? So if society doesn't believe holding hands in the street is wholesome behavior, you believe they have the right to legislate that as illegal?

[cerbera]

Language please and grow up.

Honestly? What language and how was I immature?

There's no one that decides what a cultural difference is. A cultural difference happens when something normally done in one society isn't done in another.

So homosexuality is done in one culture and not another so by your definition it's a cultural difference.

Homosexuality doesn't relate to cultural difference or cultural relativity here because in any society you observe you'll find homosexuality.

but that wasn't my point. You say a cultural difference is alright. I say that the definition for a cultural definition is entirely ambiguous and therefore not grounds for excusing something and not another.Limitations on homosexuals is a denial of basic rights they deserve as being humans, much like denying someone wearing a burkha the chance to wear it is denying them basic rights.

This is a non argument. They're not two related entities. It's like comparing Arsenal's strike rate with the production of Honda cars in Japan in 2008....just huh? It makes no sense because it's not related in any way.

Don't think I'm debating whether it's right or not that they show PDA but I'm just pointing out why society sees it as wrong.

There is a contextual difference here. As I said, it's a difference based on norms and values in a society while being uncomfortable with someone's race has nothing to do with what society thinks is wholesome behaviour.

Why does society get to tell you or me what to do when it's not "wholesome behavior?" How is that even close to being right? So if society doesn't believe holding hands in the street is wholesome behavior, you believe they have the right to legislate that as illegal?

The whole point of a society is determining what's accepted and what isn't. That's what the basis of the definition of a society is. It's a group of people that share the same culture or ideas or wants or norms and values. Whatever the collective thinks is right is deemed by that society as wholesome behaviour. It's just automatic. It's not like someone comes along and bangs a gavel and say this is right and off with anyone's head who doesn't agree.

[damir]

hehe Ok,I agree on all you wrote,I wrote also about that earlier please check it,I wrote about it before everyone here said it,my comment was first here,check it!But,I can't agree only on that first 'they are born that way',any scientific proof on that,anyone?And mostly I was saying about that,who can tell that has something to do with genetics or nature?But I did make mistake in one thing,cause I gone too far and too deep and apologize to all you about that!

You have nothing to apologise for & you should never apologise for your opinion because then it just looks invalid and contradictive in the eyes of other readers. Please do not feel like you need to apologise, I listened to your view and only made note of one thing you said so please don't feel it was personal just to you.

OK so you say you don't agree on "they are born that way" however a better way for me to have put that would have been " That's the way they are" as in "You can't help who you are attracted to" it is natural for them to feel attracted to the same sex as we do the opposite.

Its all healthy debate, and my initial post wasn't directed at you anyway... more about narrow mindedness but thats a whole other issue.

It is ok,I apologized not cause of my opinion but cause this topic turned in to heated debate,and I feel responsible for that cause my post started all this,and I don't wanted that,I shouldn't started all this cause we are just going in circle-going nowhere!Anyway I am happy we can exchange views

[damir]

Language please and grow up.

I am not sure is this related to me(sorry if I made mistake),but if it is,at least this part '..grow up' isn't necessary!I know that on the internet you can say anything to anyone,and I am not insulted with that,but if someone is exchanging opinions with you without insulting,I think you should act in same way!Honestly I respect all you say,but if there is anyone on this forum who think my posts are stupid,and that I am stupid and talking rubbish-than please ignore me,I don't want to be boring or annoying to anyone!Also if anyone think my language is so bad that is hard to understand me-also ignore me!Personally I think my posts here on this topic about homosexuals were not stupid cause they created a lot of reactions and responding!We are just going in circle so I am going to stop with this topic