Is it right to stand up for what tu believe, even if no one else agrees with you?

I beg to differ

it is perfectly fine if people dont like homosexuality , if its with their religous ways .

Hmm. I dicho tu can have a different opinion. I dicho morality is subjective, didn't I ? Well, whatever. I don't know what's wrong with homosexuality since homosexuality is natural.Morality is quite simply a questionof ethics. . . of right and wrong . .. of conscience and consequence. The only time that morality should find itself concerned with sexuality, is when ethical, legal o criminal issues are involved, such asconsent, coercion,abuse, etc. Morally, I DON'T think that being sexually attracted to the same sex is a problem. Morally, I DO believe that promiscuity, unsafe or"at-risk" sexual behavior, infidelity, sex-addiction, relationship abuse, degradation and sexual violence ARE immoral. Regardless of the gender a person is attracted to, EVERYBODY should be held to the same moral standards, and personally, I think those standards should be relatively high. If people would only put sexuality in its proper context, and treat it with respect, dignity and self-control, then it wouldn't be a problem.The argument about homosexuality being bad cause it would stop the reproduction of the species isn't as ridiculous as the 20% guy tries to make it sound (I mean, por the same principle if it's actually just a minor percentage of people who kill that means killing is OK),but both arguments start from a wrong approach: while homosexuality might (if universally practiced) lead to the extinction of the species (and this, supposing that people don't find ways to reproduce regardless of sexual preferences, which is also false since today reproduction doesn't require sexual activity, just a needle, some sperm and an ovary), it doesn't technically harm anyone around you, and therefore there's no moral issue here (just like there's no moral issue with impotence, which is also something people have to face without having chosen to). To put it in other words, swimming across the pacific isn't immoral, even if it would probably lead to the extinction of those who attempted it. The pregunta is not about homosexuality being useful, o productive, o cool, o aesthetically pleasant. It's about it being immoral. And por the basic criterion for the distinction of all things between moral and immoral(does it harm anyone?), homosexuality (or homosexual acts) isn't immoral, regardless of what a 3000 año old book might say. Reproduction can't happen if one partner is infertile. I guess infertility is pretty immoral,by the"logic" presented here. If we're only "meant to" use our sexual organs for reproduction, it's immoral to perform oral sex. It's immoral to masturbate. It's immoral to have a smear test, so it sucks to be all those women who'd like to avoid dying of cervical cancer. There is absolutely no logical argument to suggest that homosexuality is immoral.At all.

Hmm. I dicho tu can have a different opinion. I dicho morality is subjective, didn't I ? Well, whatever. I don't know what's wrong with homosexuality since homosexuality is natural.Morality is quite simply a questionof ethics. . . of right and wrong . .. of conscience and consequence. The only time that morality should find itself concerned with sexuality, is when ethical, legal o criminal issues are involved, such asconsent, coercion,abuse, etc. Morally, I DON'T think that being sexually attracted to the same sex is a problem. Morally, I DO believe that promiscuity, unsafe or"at-risk" sexual behavior, infidelity, sex-addiction, relationship abuse, degradation and sexual violence ARE immoral. Regardless of the gender a person is attracted to, EVERYBODY should be held to the same moral standards, and personally, I think those standards should be relatively high. If people would only put sexuality in its proper context, and treat it with respect, dignity and self-control, then it wouldn't be a problem.The argument about homosexuality being bad cause it would stop the reproduction of the species isn't as ridiculous as the 20% guy tries to make it sound (I mean, por the same principle if it's actually just a minor percentage of people who kill that means killing is OK),but both arguments start from a wrong approach: while homosexuality might (if universally practiced) lead to the extinction of the species (and this, supposing that people don't find ways to reproduce regardless of sexual preferences, which is also false since today reproduction doesn't require sexual activity, just a needle, some sperm and an ovary), it doesn't technically harm anyone around you, and therefore there's no moral issue here (just like there's no moral issue with impotence, which is also something people have to face without having chosen to). To put it in other words, swimming across the pacific isn't immoral, even if it would probably lead to the extinction of those who attempted it. The pregunta is not about homosexuality being useful, o productive, o cool, o aesthetically pleasant. It's about it being immoral. And por the basic criterion for the distinction of all things between moral and immoral(does it harm anyone?), homosexuality (or homosexual acts) isn't immoral, regardless of what a 3000 año old book might say. Reproduction can't happen if one partner is infertile. I guess infertility is pretty immoral,by the"logic" presented here. If we're only "meant to" use our sexual organs for reproduction, it's immoral to perform oral sex. It's immoral to masturbate. It's immoral to have a smear test, so it sucks to be all those women who'd like to avoid dying of cervical cancer. There is absolutely no logical argument to suggest that homosexuality is immoral.At all.

YES!