Glad to have you on board!
*HUGS* back at cha, thanks!
Couldn't one describe themselves as both being LGBT and humane?
Most certainly, but most don't, at least, it's not my experience, and I've met my fair share of individuals so inclined.
It is almost as if persons so inclined feel compelled to relay their sexual orientation upon
mere eye contact! :o
Are they really that desperate for companionship that their eyes might light upon every person they fancy?
Some have a learned speech, and talk in this manner even when not in the company of others of like-minded, probably even when they are alone! :o
Some who are so inclined even walk a certain way, seeming to flaunt their sexuality in the face of social convention. [I do not say they are in defiance of such, merely that it gives me this impression when I see it].
Then they snap their fingers like the entire world is their go-to!
I am very curious as to the behavioral psychology behind these compulsions.
I mean no offense by calling out these traits. I only mention them because I feel these people are pretending to be something they are not, and hurting their own psyche in the process.
There is no reason to change the way we talk, or walk, etc., apart from differentiating ourselves from others. So if persons, who are so inclined, feel compelled to change their behavior in order to be recognised as something they are obviously not (as this is not their
natural speech or walk, etc.,), wouldn't this count as a mental disorder, if not a religion on it's own merit, for belief regarding ones existence?
Doesn't context dictate which to use?
Again, it should, but it usually doesn't!
Even with children, some who are so inclined seem compelled to explain their sexual preference, as if needful for acceptance (that they are unfortunately not receiving from adult society). Children are so innocent that they are right there to support these people, even though they [hopefully] know nothing of sexuality experientially.
It seems to me, in light of all these compulsions, that there is some schism in the minds of individuals who identify themselves by their sexuality.
I pray they find peace with who they are, apart from what they do.
Further, that they, with us, learn to accept one another after the spirit, rather than the flesh.
Also part of the issue is that the decision to legislate around a sexual orientation has already been made. It's not as if homosexuals have been passing anti-gay legislation.
Actually...
I take that back
Point being, citizens and politicians have been 'identifying' and subsequently subjugating our fellow Americans for decades
In that sense I would agree that there is something wrong with that mindset.
No man should Lord over another, it is morally wrong to elevate oneself on the back of another!
I do not argue that bad things happened, or are happening.. I can only point to the light and pray for peace.
What do you mean by identify based on their gender preference as opposed to their humanity? I have yet to meet an LGBT person who doesnt think they are human.
I mean, introduce themselves as such, at every opportunity. This being, I believe some, so inclined, prefer to think, or think primarily, of themselves as homosexual rather than, or before, or in preference of, being human.
To differentiate oneself based upon a sexual preference is religiosity in itself, as it pertains to existence.
Some might consider this a form of absurdist or existentialist view, but I would deign not to label.
Should we now differentiate based upon preferences that are non-sexual in nature too? I mean, I
LOVE chocolate and peanut butter, together, should I henceforth be known as a Choco-nut?
By this logic identifying as Christian, or black, or male, or anything else other than "humanity" would also be an identity crisis.
Agreed, with the first two, am at odds with your final statement. Which is why religiosity and race are defined as discriminatory grounds for differentiation, at least here in Canada.
Only certain traits, most especially those which are considered inherent, or inalienable, could qualify as grounds for discrimination against persons. which is why
natural affection is so vehemently argued.