User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 112

  1. #11
    Emperor/Dictator kyuuei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    enfp
    Enneagram
    8
    Posts
    13,881

    Default

    ^ Would this satisfy christian homosexual couples I wonder?
    Kantgirl: Just say "I'm feminine and I'll punch anyone who says otherwise!"
    Halla74: Think your way through the world. Feel your way through life.

    Cimarron: maybe Prpl will be your girl-bud
    prplchknz: i don't like it

    In Search Of... ... Kiwi Sketch Art ... Dream Journal ... Kyuuei's Cook book ... Kyu's Tiny House Blog ... Minimalist Challenge ... Kyu's Savings Challenge

  2. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    119

    Default

    Morals.

    In explaination, location has nothing to do with it. If someone doesn't oppose something that they believe is wrong, then they're either lying, or unnaturally apathetic.
    INTP,
    Neutral Good/Lawful Good even split. 5w4 sp/sx melancholic/supine, even split. Yes, I stole this method of placement from black cat.

  3. #13
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,805

    Default

    Here's the thing most people view homosexuality as something harmless and what two consenting adults do is there own business.

    I view homosexuality as something that is harmful, homosexual couples are not loving each other they are harming each other physically, spiritually, and emotionally. Moreover, it is harmful to society because it undermines the basic family unit of a father and mother. I find it strange that liberal journalists will spend one article writing about the increasing problem of fatherless children in urban areas and without a blink of an eye write another article praising a lesbian couple that is raising a child without a male authority in its life.

    I don't think the state should endorse behavior that is fundamentally harmful to individuals and to society. For example I think we can all agree that that self-harm is bad for individuals and bad for society. Therefore no one would be in favor of a national self harm day in which the state celebrates a person's right to self-harm.

    I know that may be a very shocking and annoying analogy for many of you. But, hopefully you can see why based on my presuppositions I reach my conclusion that its ok to "force" my beliefs about homosexuality on other people.

    Ftr, I'm not a homophobe. I have no problem being around homosexuals and I actually have a good friend who goes in and out of the lifestyle. I am absolutely opposed to making fun of or denigrating homosexuals in any way. I think they deserve an equal place in society, but do not deserve any special protections or privileges. I believe that it is irrelevant whether or not homosexuals are born with same-sex attraction. I can understand that people have same-sex attraction, but I don't think that justifies harmful homosexual behavior.

    I hold heterosexuals to the same high standard. I don't believe in no fault divorce and I would seriously consider making adultery a crime.

  4. #14
    Senior Member KDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    8,263

    Default

    all kinds of things hurt the family unit.

    i almost got close to beating the shit out of a "nice church family's" dad one day because the mom and daughter were giggling and chit chatting during a choir service (and they were doing it quitely), but i saw the dad squeeze the wife by the arm and grunted "you better sing". she cowered before him as if she was a little girl herself.

    yeah, great family life they probably have.. it reeked of abuse, and all probably in the name of god. he looked so unfit for a family that i really didn't want to hold myself back even in a church.

    and i guess my point is, there's no ideal "configuration" for a good family life. you can say all you want about your worldviews, but there are plenty of children of gay parents (or rather, more commonly, one gay parent who discovered themselves late) who would testify how happy and grateful they are for their families.

  5. #15
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kyuuei View Post
    ^ Would this satisfy christian homosexual couples I wonder?
    At that point, it's an issue between christian homosexuals and the denominations, NOT homosexuals in general and the legal system.

    Let them fight it out inside the church, if need be, where a discussion like that belongs. It should not be spilling out to interfere with what unions are legally regarded as valid in situations that are decidedly not moralistic at all (such as tax purposes or hospital visits or property ownership).

    Quote Originally Posted by Beefeater View Post
    Here's the thing most people view homosexuality as something harmless and what two consenting adults do is there own business.

    I view homosexuality as something that is harmful, homosexual couples are not loving each other they are harming each other physically, spiritually, and emotionally. Moreover, it is harmful to society because it undermines the basic family unit of a father and mother. I find it strange that liberal journalists will spend one article writing about the increasing problem of fatherless children in urban areas and without a blink of an eye write another article praising a lesbian couple that is raising a child without a male authority in its life.

    I don't think the state should endorse behavior that is fundamentally harmful to individuals and to society. For example I think we can all agree that that self-harm is bad for individuals and bad for society. Therefore no one would be in favor of a national self harm day in which the state celebrates a person's right to self-harm.

    I know that may be a very shocking and annoying analogy for many of you. But, hopefully you can see why based on my presuppositions I reach my conclusion that its ok to "force" my beliefs about homosexuality on other people.

    Ftr, I'm not a homophobe. I have no problem being around homosexuals and I actually have a good friend who goes in and out of the lifestyle. I am absolutely opposed to making fun of or denigrating homosexuals in any way. I think they deserve an equal place in society, but do not deserve any special protections or privileges. I believe that it is irrelevant whether or not homosexuals are born with same-sex attraction. I can understand that people have same-sex attraction, but I don't think that justifies harmful homosexual behavior.

    I hold heterosexuals to the same high standard. I don't believe in no fault divorce and I would seriously consider making adultery a crime.
    While I respect how you state things (you're very civil and decent about it, thank you), and while I totally get where you're coming from (for a portion of my life, I would have made the same argument.... and did) and can respect what you are saying, I just no longer believe the church has any right to be legislating morality of this level. It runs as anathema to the practices of Jesus, he did not respond to sin in society in this manner whatsoever.

    I view this as an outcropping of a moralistic subculture that feels ultimately that it is responsible for controlling other people's behavior in order to "save/protect the world for God" ... as if God is not capable of defending Himself by reaching people in personal and internal ways directly, changing hearts rather than imposing regulations.

    i also feel that you are taking advantage of a culture that in general has tried to respect your freedoms as a citizen, rather than decide that your "faith" is harmful to your marriages, children, and interaction with other people (since it can drive a host of various abuses as it has been practiced, and some people would see it as a patriarchal mess, creating misogyny, teaching false science, dumbing down kids, etc), and thus seek to pass legislation against your faith so that it no longer harms others in this society.

    Spin it around, and see how if others followed your reasoning, you might find your own rights and personal beliefs and way of life threatened. You are taking advantage of a free culture to try to limit the ability of others to act freely. Does that put anything in perspective? Do you believe that is consistent or moral? Your personal values, as objective as you believe they are, are often no more objective than other people's personal values, and they are extending you more space to live as you wish, while you are not responding equitably.

    If the United States were a theocracy, maybe I would side more in your favor.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  6. #16
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,805

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KDude View Post
    all kinds of things hurt the family unit.

    i almost got close to beating the shit out of a "nice church family's" dad one day because the mom and daughter were giggling and chit chatting during a choir service (and they were doing it quitely), but i saw the dad squeeze the wife by the arm and grunted "you better sing".

    yeah, great family life they probably have.. it reeked of abuse, and all probably in the name of god. he looked so unfit for a family that i really didn't want to hold myself back even in a church.


    and i guess my point is, there's no ideal "configuration" for a good family life. you can say all you want about your worldviews, but there are plenty of children of gay parents (or rather, more commonly, one gay parent who discovered themselves late) who would testify how happy and grateful they are for their families.
    So basically... you disagree. cool.

  7. #17
    Senior Member KDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    8,263

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beefeater View Post
    So basically... you disagree. cool.
    i don't merely disagree. i'm urging you to take in information from the bottom up - on a case by case basis - what it means to have a healthy family unit. is it really as simple as "mom and dad" to you?

  8. #18
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,805

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KDude View Post
    i don't merely disagree. i'm urging you to take in information from the bottom up - on a case by case basis - what it means to have a healthy family unit. is it really as simple as "mom and dad" to you?
    No it obviously isn't as simple as that... but it is a pre-requisite.

  9. #19
    Senior Member KDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    8,263

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beefeater View Post
    No it obviously isn't as simple as that... but it is a pre-requisite.
    to what end does the prerequistite lead to then? is there a concern to prevent "what is harmful" to society like you said? that's your goal, right? then you need to look at details. that's where things are happening.. and you shouldn't be afraid of what might be revealed to you. it's all good to have a model world for yourself, and clamping down on what doesn't fit - but you need to step down a bit sometimes and see what actually works and doesn't, and then go back on your mountain and readjust the model to compensate. and i'm saying this because some of the things you yourself want are "harmful to society". things that are, ironically, counterproductive to your overall goal.

    take criminalizing adultery, for another example. i would agree that it isn't ideal, but you have no idea what people are going through (i.e. the details) for them to do that sometimes. criminalizing them may very well turn them further to the deep end and, who knows, could hypothetically cause them to commit suicide. and then what are you going to do? you're no cruel entj you're an infp and would be distraught about it.

  10. #20
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,805

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KDude View Post
    to what end does the prerequistite lead to then? is there a concern to prevent "what is harmful" to society like you said? that's your goal, right? then you need to look at details. that's where things are happening.. and you shouldn't be afraid of what might be revealed to you. it's all good to have a model world for yourself, and clamping down on what doesn't fit - but you need to step down a bit sometimes and see what actually works and doesn't, and then go back on your mountain and readjust the model to compensate. and i'm saying this because some of the things you yourself want are "harmful to society". things that are, ironically, counterproductive to your overall goal.
    I'm not on the mountain. I'm simply proclaiming what's on the mountain.

    I reject pragmatism as a basis for social mores. It is an unwieldy tool that can easily be used for oppression. I know what you are thinking, but I stand by the fact that God's law frees us and does not oppress.

    On some lower level I don't have a problem with focusing on methodology and the pragmatic as long as it does not violate God's law.


    take criminalizing adultery, for another example. i would agree that it isn't ideal, but you have no idea what people are going through (i.e. the details) for them to do that sometimes. criminalizing them may very well turn them further to the deep end and, who knows, could hypothetically cause them to commit suicide. and then what are you going to do? you're no cruel entj you're an infp and would be distraught about it.
    Lol. I hope you realize how silly this argument is. We don't base laws on the psychological effect they will have on the criminal. I could make the same argument against theft laws. We shouldn't have theft laws because somebody who is has not eaten for two days may steal something and then kill themselves because they feel guilty.

    Your arguing backwards from effect to principle your also using inductive reasoning. This is a very poor way to set up a society. You can end up with whatever general principles suit your fancy this way.

    The better way is to start with a set of principles... say Love the Lord with all your heart and do unto others... than deduct from those general principles the first four commandments of the decalogue from the former and the last 6 commandments from the latter. Then you can continue down from there. That is a stable standard of law.

    Even if you disagree with the Bible at least the reasoning is more sound.

    edit: I hope I didn't come off as too dismissive. I did honestly think your appeal to my infp-ness was hilarious.

Similar Threads

  1. Questions for those who are completely SURE of their type
    By Such Irony in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 06-15-2013, 11:49 PM
  2. Support for Same-Sex Marriage Climbs to New High
    By Totenkindly in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 299
    Last Post: 06-26-2011, 10:43 PM
  3. Replies: 14
    Last Post: 04-25-2009, 03:19 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO