Hi Santosh, This post will address your points of homosexuality which IMHO is not entirely / necessarily a religion-related issue, however much one (religion bashers) may like to make it. None of the religions permit deviant sexual behavior. Looks like this is one of the few things all religions appear to agree on. :=)). And even the Parsee community disapproves of homosexuality even though, I am informed, there is not a word of homosexuality in Zoroastrianism.
Santosh writes: Honestly, your posts on the issue of homosexuals did not make any sense at all. I did not respond to what you wrote because I did not want to digress into unrelated and confused matters that you raised. For instance, you say that Fr. Ivo and Nasci Caldeira are right about homosexuality, when they claim based on no evidence that it is a sickness. Gilbert responds: Please read my post again. I specifically said the homosexuality is a variant and not a sickness and is not a pathological condition. This is how one asumes a statement, so then one can argue it sanctimoniously. Public behavior of homosexuality, like public behavior of heterosexuality has to conform to the prevailing social norms. Now those who want to push the envelope, please stop the sanctimony. Tell us where the boundary limit of public sexual behavior is acceptable in your opinion and let us see if the Goanet public will accept it. After all three people alone are not the only Goanet public. (Sometimes, I wonder if they even read their own posts.) Sexual behavior is an animal instinct and is perfectly normal, in fact necessary. Tell us your solution to the acceptance of sexual norms and give the goanetters a chance to tell you the pitfalls of your recommendations like below. Santosh: And then you turn around and say that I am also right about this issue when I say and present a professional consensus statement of the American Psychiatric Association that homosexuality is not a sickness. Do you think this type of a confusion and obfuscation, coming from an intelligent person, deserves a response? Gilbert responds: According to you and I presume the American Psychiatric Association, any sexual relation / behavior is fine as long as it is between Adults and Consensual. So it is OK (as long as it is Adults and Consensual) that: 1. doctors and patients have a sexual relation? 2. If there is incest? 3. If there is a sexual relation between a man and his daughter-in-law? 4. Adultery? 5. Polygamy? 6. etc.. Does society, morality and culture have any role in defining human behavior? Or do we degenerate to our lowest biological instincts? Please respond to how far you propose 'free sexual relation' of course as long as it is Adult and Consensual (another Mother and Apple pie statement). Back to the issue of homosexuality: I am told there is some data that homo-sexuality, like alcoholism is a gene-related condition, with latent and extrovert manifestations. So let's not critique Fr. Ivo and Nasci too hard on their understanding of the nature of homosexuality. They may be right. This is not my area of expertise. Is this gene-defect true? Some of the stuff I have read is from the National Cancer Institute. If yes in many (not all) homosexuals, then by definition any abnormality (in a gene) is a pathology or a disease process. So for a minimum there is a lot we need to know about the nature / genetic / biochemistry of homosexuality. Regards
