If homosexuality is a lifestyle, then--a religion is also a lifestyle?

Question

A lifestyle:is the way a person (or a group) lives. This includes patterns of social relations, consumption, entertainment, and dress. A lifestyle typically also reflects an individual's attitudes, values or worldview.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifestyle

Homosexuality has been documented in nature,
http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/061116_homosexual_animals.html
and if it is in nature, so then being a homosexual is also natural. Homosexuality in humans has also been documented as well in are own human history (actual history not bible history) which was accepted in their culture & others.

So...is a religion a lifestyle, yes/no & why?
Then why all this discrimination if homosexuality is natural.

Live life how you see fit.

To: AMDG
Like it or not, humans are animals, humans kill animals and humans, we kill, murder babies and people, start wars, even forced others into slavery, and yes, we still have cannibalism in the world, so yes, humans are animals in nature.

I guest Misty040 didn't read the source I provided and didn't see the top 10 gay animals which also had female to female pleasures, next time try reading before answering.

Answer 1

Homosexuality pre-dates Christianity. It will also outlast it.

Answer 2

Homosexuality is a natural impulse. To argue otherwise is simply to ignore the most obvious facts. Religion, on the other hand, is a totally artificial, man-made construct.

But the whole question of "lifestyle" seems a bit shallow to me. I think "lifestyle" is usually applied to homosexuality in the context of reducing it to a "choice" some people make because they just get a kick out of subverting society. As for religion, most "religious" people would likewise probably chafe at having the term "lifestyle" applied to their belief system. It seems to trivialize it.

But the controversy begins, obviously, with religious people. Homosexuals aren't campaigning day and night to hobble the rights of the pious on the basis of the idea that they've "chosen" a "deleterious lifestyle." Religious people insist that homosexuality is a choice, but religion really isn't (or at least, if it is, there's only one "correct" choice); when in fact it's precisely the opposite.

P.S. - as for "AMDG" below - I knew somebody would have to argue "if homosexuality is natural, so is cannibalism, etc." It's true that "natural" isn't always "good" from the human POV. But do we really need to go over the differences - from the human POV - between homosexuality and cannibalism? Homosexuality hurts nobody, affects nobody outside of the individuals concerned - regardless of what insane religious freaks like to argue - and is not a "choice." Therefore a truly humane, enlightened society would provide for the homosexual to pursue his happiness along with everybody else. It's only Bronze Age religious barbarism that argues otherwise, and pretends to confuse homosexuality with cannibalism, pedophilia, incest and all the rest.

And it goes without saying that "misty0408" is just the classic brainless religious bigot.

Answer 3

No, religion is not a "lifestyle" and homosexuality is not natural. Because animals "mount" each other hardly makes a case for homosexuality. Animals do not have sex for the reasons that humans do...for starters. Animals mount each other, typically as a sign of dominance...not as sexual desire. Also...in all these animal studies they never have to female animals doing anything sexual...why is that? Also, animals do not have souls...they were not made in the image of God and therefore what they do and don't do is has nothing to do with us as humans. We are higher beings...God's own beloved...and we therefore are called to follow him.

Religion is not a lifestyle. It is the path to God. To call it a lifestyle makes it something human...and in the human world one way can be as good or as normal as another. But Jesus says "I am the way the truth and the life...no one comes to the Father but by me."

Since there is only One Way to God, then religion is not a lifestyle but a necessity. We are not just living here...we are in a relationship with our eternal and loving creator. We have a purpose beyond this life. It waters everything down to take the approach that religion is just a choice or a lifestyle.

Answer 4

I do believe religion can be a lifestyle-I'm catholic and I see myself more spiritual and in tune with God and the way He wants me to go about in life. I don't discriminate against homosexuality-that is one part of my Church I don't agree with. Live your life the way you want to, and believe in God-don't base your religion on what others say. If you know you have a good relationship with God, what do others know? They're human just as you. We can't read the bible word for word-it's an interpretation, and some interpret it wrong.

Answer 5

If seemingly "homosexual" acts among animals are in accordance with animal nature, then parental killing of offspring and intra-species devouring are also in accordance with animal nature. Bringing man into the equation complicates things further. Are we to conclude that filicide and cannibalism are according to human nature?

** EDIT **

I disagree with Misty, Religion is a lifestyle - we live according to the "rules" of our faith.

The point I was trying to make in my post is this, IF homosexuality were natural because animals in nature do it, then we MUST accept that infanticide, murder, cannibalism and a whole host of other morally, and legally, wrong things must also be natural.

To explain this abnormal behavior, the first observation must be the fact that animal instincts are not bound by the absolute determinism of the physical laws governing the mineral world. In varying degrees, all living beings can adapt to circumstances. They respond to internal or external stimuli.

Second, animal cognition is purely sensorial, limited to sound, odor, touch, taste and image. Thus, animals lack the precision and clarity of human intellectual perception. Therefore, animals frequently confuse one sensation with another or one object with another.

Third, an animal's instincts direct it towards its end and are in accordance with its nature. However, the spontaneous thrust of the instinctive impulse can suffer modifications as it runs its course. Other sensorial images, perceptions or memories can act as new stimuli affecting the animal's behavior. Moreover, the conflict between two or more instincts can sometimes modify the original impulse.

In man, when two instinctive reactions clash, the intellect determines the best course to follow, and the will then holds one instinct in check while encouraging the other. With animals that lack intellect and will, when two instinctive impulses clash, the one most favored by circumstances prevails.

At times, these internal or external stimuli affecting an animal's instinctive impulses result in cases of animal "filicide," "cannibalism" and "homosexuality."

Answer 6

Religious Antisecularists like to claim homosexuality is a lifestyle and a choice, but they expect their religious lifestyle and religious choice to be protected by the law, and even FAVORED by it.

This should suprise no one. Religious antisecularists, regardless of their religion, just want whatever they think benefits them the most, and the other guy can go to hell.

Answer 7

Yes, it is a kind of llifestyle, I think. I was brought up a Catholic, and went to a Catholic school, confession Saturdays, church Sundays, hymns on Friday afternoons at school, etc. etc. A lot of Christians take their social life from their church also, so all their friends are also Christians, and it's a huge part of who they are. So yes, I would say it's a lifestyle as well as a religion.

Answer 8

YES!

They both can be lifestyles. One was a creation of lust, the other is a creation that can be attributed to God. Which is more important? That depends upon the person. I am bisexual, and yet I am a Christian. So I place the importance upon God. That's what this person thinks.

Answer 9

Being religious is a choice, so are you saying being homosexual is a choice also? If so,then you kill your solid base of natural reasoning.

Homosexuality pulls human race down, while true God religion
lift people up.

Something documented does not make it natural. Same sex
cannot reproduce, that is a "FACT".

Answer 10

Our environment has many natural plants that are deadly poisonous. Please stop using natural as good or proper.

"Natural " as something done by people over a long period of time has equal invalidity. We have most of the same crimes we ever did and people still are far from being in harmony with their emotions.I suggest you look at the issue in depth, are homosexuals happy, productive, balanced, loving?

Answer 11

it really is the "way of life" section that receives me. Is there any such project as "the" heterosexual way of life? for sure no longer, because heterosexuals are persons, and stay all sorts of life. an identical is real persons, too. As one woman on the following places it, "it really is not any longer a fashion of life; it really is a life!" notwithstanding the base line is that the U. S. structure grants all voters the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The Sodomy regulations were all ruled unconstitutional many years in the past. (a number of which also made oral sex for heterosexuals a criminal offense). yet this isn't about a fashion of life: in a lot of elements of the U. S., a GLBT individual will be evicted from a rented residing house or position of abode in basic terms for BEING who they're, and ought to haven't got any criminal recourse. And in maximum elements of the U. S., human beings in our community aren't from now on accepted to marry the guy they love, and are denied the countless advantages that criminal marriage presents. This incorporates visitation rights in hospitals, precise of consent for well-being care judgements, property rights, etc. If GLBT human beings can not stay peacefully of their properties, artwork the position they opt for, marry the guy they love, etc., then there is not any doubt that they don't look being afforded an identical constitutional protections as different individuals. And yet, we pay an identical taxes. The early individuals used to search for suggestion from with that as taxation with out representation. They paid taxes, yet had no rights. on the instantaneous, we pay taxes, and a large number of our maximum elementary rights, rights heterosexuals take with out any interest, are denied to us. And when we ask for them, they insist that we need "particular rights." notwithstanding the rights we ask for are not particular at the same time as heterosexuals get them... yet i guess for us, because that we in no way had them, they're quite particular. yet they could nevertheless in elementary words be equivalent.