User Tag List

First 8910111220 Last

Results 91 to 100 of 207

  1. #91
    Furry Critter with Claws Kiddo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    OMNi
    Posts
    2,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by heart View Post
    I was having much the same though. Fancy that.
    Would you mind posting your off topic comments in another thread or PM please?
    Quote Originally Posted by Silently Honest View Post
    OMNi: Wisdom at the cost of Sanity.

  2. #92
    Guerilla Urbanist Brendan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Posts
    911

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffster View Post
    I was serious with my answers, for the most part. Sorry if I seemed dismissive, but several people kinda threw things at me at the same time.
    I meant this question:
    Quote Originally Posted by Brendan View Post
    So you have the capacity to make the choice. I see. This means you're aware of attractions to both men and women and decide to act on your attractions to women?
    There is no such thing as separation from God.

  3. #93
    veteran attention whore Jeffster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESFP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    6,727

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brendan View Post
    I meant this question:
    Oh sorry..the answers are yes and yes/no. It depends on how you define "act on." I'm not trying to be Bill Clinton here, but I mean I have been on dates with women since my divorce, in fact I've had one steady girlfriend and another that almost became that. But if you're asking have I been sexually active, then no. So that's what I meant about choosing every day, as I could choose to go try to find women to have sex with every day (I live about a mile away from a very large college campus) but I make the choice to not do that, as I believe as much as I may be tempted in that area, it's not right for me to do that. I hope that answers your question.

    (and no, before someone asks, I'm not saying people who experience homosexual attraction all have sex every day, in case someone thinks I'm saying that. )

  4. #94
    Guerilla Urbanist Brendan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Posts
    911

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffster View Post
    Oh sorry..the answers are yes and yes/no. It depends on how you define "act on." I'm not trying to be Bill Clinton here, but I mean I have been on dates with women since my divorce, in fact I've had one steady girlfriend and another that almost became that. But if you're asking have I been sexually active, then no. So that's what I meant about choosing every day, as I could choose to go try to find women to have sex with every day (I live about a mile away from a very large college campus) but I make the choice to not do that, as I believe as much as I may be tempted in that area, it's not right for me to do that. I hope that answers your question.
    Well, not really, but at least you tried lol.

    I guess what I'm getting at is, the choice to be sexually active and who you are drawn to be sexually active with are two entirely seperate things.

    So I guess better questions would be: is someone who identifies themself as homosexual but is not sexually active still being immoral in your opinion? Would marriage (not necessarily Christian marriage) between two people of the same sex make their shared sexal activity more or less morally acceptable in your opinion?
    There is no such thing as separation from God.

  5. #95
    Senior Member Priam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    272

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brendan View Post
    Can we get back to talking about homos please?
    OK. That's a nice rear end in your photo and if its yours: kudos!

    says the man three shots to the wind...
    "The subject chooses to sit in shadow and search for wisdom by reflecting upon his trial. The problem is not that he is cold and wet, but that cold and wet seems problematic, so he embraces those hardships in order to best them."

  6. #96
    will make your day Carebear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    1,449

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brendan View Post
    Well, not really, but at least you tried lol.

    I guess what I'm getting at is, the choice to be sexually active and who you are drawn to be sexually active with are two entirely seperate things.

    So I guess better questions would be: is someone who identifies themself as homosexual but is not sexually active still being immoral in your opinion? Would marriage (not necessarily Christian marriage) between two people of the same sex make their shared sexal activity more or less morally acceptable in your opinion?
    He seems to be answering rather well imo. As far as I can tell from his posts, he's saying there's a difference between desire and acting on it and though you can't do anything about your desires you can choose how to act. Which means he thinks being gay isn't immoral, but acting on it is. As same sex sexual activity isn't morally acceptable in his opinion, marrying isn't morally acceptable as it is a continuation of and accept of the immorality. He bases this on religious reasons and WOULD probably jump off a bridge if the holy spirit told him to, but it's not telling him to and will not in the future, so the hypothetical scenario is irrelevant in his view. Correct, Jeffster?

    I think his interpretation is wrong, but it seems rather consistent to me.

    As for Wolf's statements, I interpret them this way: Marriage is a religious institution. It should be governed by religious groups and only give benefits within the religious context. Society in general should adopt other terms for establishing family units and family unit status (whether religious or not) should not give any benefits. (Or the same benefits regardless of the nature of it's formation.) Am I reading it right, Wolf? If so I think you're forgetting that marriage has non-religious roots and has been an important institution of human history (and pre-history) to ensure stability and make inheritance simpler.
    I have arms for a fucking reaosn, so come hold me. Then we'll fuvk! Whoooooh! - GZA

  7. #97
    only bites when provoked
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    2,127

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brendan View Post
    So I guess better questions would be: is someone who identifies themself as homosexual but is not sexually active still being immoral in your opinion?
    You're not breaking any rules under these circumstances, unless you're lusting after someone, which is the same as heterosexual lust.

    Would marriage (not necessarily Christian marriage) between two people of the same sex make their shared sexal activity more or less morally acceptable in your opinion?
    No, it would not make it more morally acceptable.

    Quote Originally Posted by Carebear View Post
    As for Wolf's statements, I interpret them this way: Marriage is a religious institution. It should be governed by religious groups and only give benefits within the religious context.
    Yes, and they should be able to set the rules and requirements as they see fit. If a religious group wants to marry homosexuals, it's within their rights. If they want to refuse to marry interracial couples, it's within their rights. What I've seen here is less about even love and more about attacking religious groups by forcing them to do things they don't want to do.

    My most flaming openly-homosexual friend not only sees and points that out, but thinks the government should stay out of the business of religious groups. The funny thing is that he's more Christ-like than the christians that hate him for being homosexual.

    He also can't see why they would want marriage, since it's such a failure with heterosexual couples. Why jump on a sinking ship?

    One thing that is commonly covered in these discussions is that only a few small aspects of marriage contracts cannot be handled by other legal contracts. Those that are mostly interest people due to greed, and not for reasons of formalizing their relationship.

    A homosexual I once worked with called his long-term partners "husbands". What is the difference between this and a polygamous family that doesn't have children? Either way, they don't have a government-defined contract or tax benefits.

    Society in general should adopt other terms for establishing family units and family unit status (whether religious or not) should not give any benefits. (Or the same benefits regardless of the nature of it's formation.)
    Governments. Social family units could exist outside of government-defined units, though government units should be sufficiently-flexible to handle human social groupings that necessitate formalizing. Since the concept creates benefits that are clearly useful and necessary for groups of people (basically, it's a blanket statement of trust in this person, a statement that you consider them someone that should receive your property when you die, etc), it seems reasonable to make it much more flexible to cover a wider array of situations and groupings.

    Am I reading it right, Wolf?
    Better than the others.

    If so I think you're forgetting that marriage has non-religious roots and has been an important institution of human history (and pre-history) to ensure stability and make inheritance simpler.
    I disagree. Show me a historic human group that established marriage (quite a few didn't have marriage) without a religious basis.
    I 100%, N 88%, T 88%, J 75%

    Disclaimer: The above is my opinion and mine alone, it does not mean I cannot change my mind, nor does it guarantee that my comments are related to any deep-seated convictions. Take everything I say with a whole snowplow worth of salt and call me in the morning, if you can.

  8. #98
    veteran attention whore Jeffster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESFP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    6,727

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Carebear View Post
    He seems to be answering rather well imo. As far as I can tell from his posts, he's saying there's a difference between desire and acting on it and though you can't do anything about your desires you can choose how to act. Which means he thinks being gay isn't immoral, but acting on it is. As same sex sexual activity isn't morally acceptable in his opinion, marrying isn't morally acceptable as it is a continuation of and accept of the immorality. He bases this on religious reasons and WOULD probably jump off a bridge if the holy spirit told him to, but it's not telling him to and will not in the future, so the hypothetical scenario is irrelevant in his view. Correct, Jeffster?
    Yeah, that's pretty much dead on.

    However, I would add that "religious reasons" isn't necessarily as simple as "The Bible says this.." as some people would imply. It's more of a belief in a natural order of everything, that is...augmented? (not sure that's the right word) by the Bible, but someone who doesn't have a particular religious faith could still come to the same conclusions...or something. See, I've demonstrated real quickly I'm not as articulate or succinct (?) as carebear.

  9. #99
    Guerilla Urbanist Brendan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Posts
    911

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffster View Post
    Yeah, that's pretty much dead on.

    However, I would add that "religious reasons" isn't necessarily as simple as "The Bible says this.." as some people would imply. It's more of a belief in a natural order of everything, that is...augmented? (not sure that's the right word) by the Bible, but someone who doesn't have a particular religious faith could still come to the same conclusions...or something. See, I've demonstrated real quickly I'm not as articulate or succinct (?) as carebear.
    I understand, though I disagree. My reasoning being, humans occur in nature, and are therefore natural. How can anything we do logically be unnatural if we exist within nature and still do it.

    I interpret nature to be synonymous with existence as a whole though.
    There is no such thing as separation from God.

  10. #100
    Senior Member cafe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    9w1
    Socionics
    INFj None
    Posts
    9,827

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffster View Post
    See, I've demonstrated real quickly I'm not as articulate or succinct (?) as carebear.
    Don't worry. Most of us aren't as articulate or succinct as carebear and English isn't even his first language. He's just that good.
    “There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.”
    ~ John Rogers

Similar Threads

  1. Gay marriage and black people
    By great_bay in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 02-22-2016, 10:30 PM
  2. Gay Marriage and SCOTUS: Hi ho and here we go
    By Totenkindly in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 12-09-2012, 07:20 AM
  3. Texas GOP Platform: Criminalize Gay Marriage and Ban Sodomy
    By Ginkgo in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 129
    Last Post: 07-05-2010, 10:40 PM
  4. Replies: 23
    Last Post: 12-11-2008, 04:17 PM
  5. Abortion, gay rights, and other social issues.
    By Angry Ayrab in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: 08-06-2008, 11:54 PM

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