Interesting post, Graham. Few problems though, being homosexual is not a "choice", is it? Did you choose your genetic make up at the instant your father's sperm fertilized your mother's egg? Neither is homosexuality a "religion". Homosexuality is universal, that is any Homo sapiens can be asexual, heterosexual, or homosexual based only on chance - the non-directional reorganization of genes within the chromosomes at the time of formation of eggs in the female and sperm in the male and chance again at the instant of procreation when any of hundreds of sperm, only one of which will penetrate and fertilize the egg. We may think we control the process - we don't.
As to repopulating 'Homoland' no problem new homosexual children are born every minute anywhere that Homo sapiens exist.
Our job, as intelligent beings is to inform the less intelligent of the Homo sapiens of the truth. No matter our cosmetic or sexual characteristics we are all the same animal. If we turn our hatred and skepticism toward the truly evil individuals among us - the Donald Trump's, Putin's, Xi's, Kim's, murderers, torturers, dictators, etc. the whole bloody world would be better off.
We should all be able to live in safety wherever we choose.
You flatter me greatly, Fay, with the time, trouble and effort you take in your comments, and I want you to know how very much I appreciate that. You are a thinking woman, and a most considerate one. Thank you.
You'll realise that the piece is essentially written tongue in cheek. I might have selected another "singularity" that is close to my heart: that of colour. Black colour. But I opted for homosexuality as my example because what appeals to me in the parallel is the word "ludicrous." On two scores.
First, you're right, one does not choose homosexuality, and choosing to deny it when one is of its bent makes for a life far removed from happiness. If you like novels, I can heartily recommend "The Heart's Invisible Furies" by John Boyne, which explores the pain and joy of growing up gay in Ireland. But, in truth nor does one choose Jewry. It is the product of being born to a Jewish mother. The passports of Israelis do not proclaim their holders to be Israeli. They proclaim them to be Muslims or Jews. That is strange, and a little shocking.
But the first score is in fact the idea that a religious adherence should constitute the fundamental precept on which a nation might be founded. Israel is not alone in that aspect, but it is alone in being the latest example and the only one to have been so founded in the modern era. In short: if Jews can have their own homeland on someone else's territory, why can't gays? And, when you start to explore "why not", it gets hard to distinguish the criteria "gay" and "Jewish". That's the first "ludicrous" score.
The final sentence is the second score, here: if Israel's right to exist is founded in a biblical document that promises this land to them, this is something that I can accept. But then, they must live by the commandments imposed on the Jewish people by the authority under which they claim ownership of the land--God's ordinance. And that furthermore orders them not to kill. In short, if the Biblical promise is their cake, then they may not eat it by killing Palestinians. If they choose to kill in breach of God's ordinance, they forfeit their claim to God's promise.
First, Graham, I did recognize the farcical nature of your original post, and that you were comparing homosexuality and Judaism.
The only reason I supported Israel in the beginning, is that they have been singled out for persecution everywhere (as have homosexuals). Their major "crime" is not their religion, it is their success in commerce. My feeling toward Judaism (remember I am an atheist so their god means no more to me than anyone else's god) is it is just another in the endless chain (pun intended) of religions followed by various Homo sapiens. To me the old Testament is a fictionalized history of the Jewish people based on oral tradition handed down through the ages. The new Testament is a fictionalized history of a man (whom I believe did exist) who tried and failed as you and I have, to make Homo sapiens sapiens behave differently to each other and Earth, for the betterment of all.
I'm glad you are so much younger than me, so will be around to keep on agitating.
Interesting post, Graham. Few problems though, being homosexual is not a "choice", is it? Did you choose your genetic make up at the instant your father's sperm fertilized your mother's egg? Neither is homosexuality a "religion". Homosexuality is universal, that is any Homo sapiens can be asexual, heterosexual, or homosexual based only on chance - the non-directional reorganization of genes within the chromosomes at the time of formation of eggs in the female and sperm in the male and chance again at the instant of procreation when any of hundreds of sperm, only one of which will penetrate and fertilize the egg. We may think we control the process - we don't.
As to repopulating 'Homoland' no problem new homosexual children are born every minute anywhere that Homo sapiens exist.
Our job, as intelligent beings is to inform the less intelligent of the Homo sapiens of the truth. No matter our cosmetic or sexual characteristics we are all the same animal. If we turn our hatred and skepticism toward the truly evil individuals among us - the Donald Trump's, Putin's, Xi's, Kim's, murderers, torturers, dictators, etc. the whole bloody world would be better off.
We should all be able to live in safety wherever we choose.
You flatter me greatly, Fay, with the time, trouble and effort you take in your comments, and I want you to know how very much I appreciate that. You are a thinking woman, and a most considerate one. Thank you.
You'll realise that the piece is essentially written tongue in cheek. I might have selected another "singularity" that is close to my heart: that of colour. Black colour. But I opted for homosexuality as my example because what appeals to me in the parallel is the word "ludicrous." On two scores.
First, you're right, one does not choose homosexuality, and choosing to deny it when one is of its bent makes for a life far removed from happiness. If you like novels, I can heartily recommend "The Heart's Invisible Furies" by John Boyne, which explores the pain and joy of growing up gay in Ireland. But, in truth nor does one choose Jewry. It is the product of being born to a Jewish mother. The passports of Israelis do not proclaim their holders to be Israeli. They proclaim them to be Muslims or Jews. That is strange, and a little shocking.
But the first score is in fact the idea that a religious adherence should constitute the fundamental precept on which a nation might be founded. Israel is not alone in that aspect, but it is alone in being the latest example and the only one to have been so founded in the modern era. In short: if Jews can have their own homeland on someone else's territory, why can't gays? And, when you start to explore "why not", it gets hard to distinguish the criteria "gay" and "Jewish". That's the first "ludicrous" score.
The final sentence is the second score, here: if Israel's right to exist is founded in a biblical document that promises this land to them, this is something that I can accept. But then, they must live by the commandments imposed on the Jewish people by the authority under which they claim ownership of the land--God's ordinance. And that furthermore orders them not to kill. In short, if the Biblical promise is their cake, then they may not eat it by killing Palestinians. If they choose to kill in breach of God's ordinance, they forfeit their claim to God's promise.
First, Graham, I did recognize the farcical nature of your original post, and that you were comparing homosexuality and Judaism.
The only reason I supported Israel in the beginning, is that they have been singled out for persecution everywhere (as have homosexuals). Their major "crime" is not their religion, it is their success in commerce. My feeling toward Judaism (remember I am an atheist so their god means no more to me than anyone else's god) is it is just another in the endless chain (pun intended) of religions followed by various Homo sapiens. To me the old Testament is a fictionalized history of the Jewish people based on oral tradition handed down through the ages. The new Testament is a fictionalized history of a man (whom I believe did exist) who tried and failed as you and I have, to make Homo sapiens sapiens behave differently to each other and Earth, for the betterment of all.
I'm glad you are so much younger than me, so will be around to keep on agitating.