Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2017 4:01:44 GMT
Given the incidents of outspoken politicians who stand against homosexual rights being caught themselves in compromising homosexual positions, I'm sure there's some of that in there, though I think it's dangerous to ascribe it over-all. I appreciate your open-minded attitude.
|
|
|
Post by awhina on Mar 7, 2017 4:20:41 GMT
Should I take it as an insult or a compliment that Ahwina thinks i'm american? I have no idea...*scratching my head* Do you consider yourself clever for writing "Ahwina"? He probably does, but it was lost on me because I didn't see it! ![](http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e41/imdbv2/imdbsmileys/laugh.gif) (Poor thing.)
|
|
|
Post by awhina on Mar 7, 2017 4:22:32 GMT
Given the incidents of outspoken politicians who stand against homosexual rights being caught themselves in compromising homosexual positions, I'm sure there's some of that in there, though I think it's dangerous to ascribe it over-all. I appreciate your open-minded attitude. That will fly right over his head, and he'll be preening himself on the compliment, sadly.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2017 4:26:59 GMT
I appreciate your open-minded attitude. That will fly right over his head, and he'll be preening himself on the compliment, sadly. Perhaps. We'll see. Some malcontents and mutants can't handle a compliment. They're too psychologically insecure.
|
|
|
Post by awhina on Mar 7, 2017 4:29:08 GMT
That will fly right over his head, and he'll be preening himself on the compliment, sadly. Perhaps. We'll see. Some malcontents and mutants can't handle a compliment. They're too psychologically insecure. That's true! Cine is a law unto himself, literally. (He wants to be a law unto others, sadly)
|
|
skyhawk0
Sophomore
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
Gonna be busy awhile before I can look at being active here, but good to stay in touch with you all!
@skyhawk0
Posts: 114
Likes: 39
![](http://storage.proboards.com/6692551/images/CTEdkGf0wmfSETIzYiXk.gif)
|
Post by skyhawk0 on Mar 7, 2017 5:03:56 GMT
No, you're certainly not getting it. First of all, religions don't require gods. Second, as already noted, not all religions are top-down. Third, your positing a singular mindset behind all religion is exactly the mindset you're decrying. You're simply pronouncing such without any rational basis to do so. Is that also ego-dominated? Fourth, gays married within religion throughout history. Early European settlers to North America coined the term 'berdache' to refer to their male Native 'wives' once they came across the practice here. Finally, I'm an atheist. One who appreciates rationality and sense. Which is why I can't accept your empty pronouncements. I don't care what religious form anyone accepts on marriage, as such is up to them. My concern is with equal treatment before the law. However, when things you write are clearly false, I'll call you on simplistic overarching statements. The history and scope of the world is not the US from the 50s to today. I don't care what religions require and that was not the point I was making. And my focus was largely on the Christian faith regarding homosexuality and marriage, not some obscure anomaly. And as for my "singular mindset", that is also pretty much my point regarding the "dualistic mindset" of what God represents to Christianity and even Islam.
You claim you are an atheist, then make a statement that you appreciate rationality and sense. What does that even mean, in the context of being an atheist? Do only atheists rationalize and possess common sense now? That sounds like a conceited, self-righteous and even pompous decree by my book. Nice diversion Skyhawk, how you now state you are only concerned with equality before the law, when this main discussion between us has been about gays getting married in a church and that was the original point you called me out on.
I would like for you to point out what I have written is false. I don't wish to appear rude or argumentative, as you make many salient and intelligent points and I like reading your posts, I just think that sometimes for the sake of wanting to impress, you can write in a semi-cryptic or self-indulgent manner and that also makes you sound insincere or glib.
You should care what is required of a religion when you make an overarching statement about all of them. That's what I've already pointed out that you're written which is false. And you're still doing the same. Christianity is not singular, as I've already pointed out to you. In fact, Christianity only adopted anti-gay rhetoric during the Medieval Inquisition, at the same time that priests got barred from marrying. Some have put forward that the real reason was that priests were leaving their wealth to wives, children, and lovers from the seminary instead of the church. Nothing conceited on my part. I answered your question in telling you that I'm an atheist. And I said nothing about rationality and sense being exclusive to atheists. That's another strawman. I addressed your point about gays marrying in churches because your statements about churches don't apply to them all. That doesn't change that I don't presume that I can dictate what any religion accepts. As I see it, those that hold fast to dated ideas will fall away, like churches that stood against interracial marriages. Which is why equality before the law is my focus as regards marriage. The idea that I'm " only concerned with equality before the law" is another strawman. Trust me, I have no desire to impress nor do I write cryptically or self-indulgently nor am I being insincere or glib. Different people have different understandings and idioms and, as I've already noted, I'm speaking from a culture different from yours. Conversation takes effort to understand each other and it takes time to develop shared terms. I've been trying to make that effort and it's seemed like your response to that has been to just be immediately dismissive. Again, that reading could be based on our not having shared terms and a shared understanding of the subject, or because you were reading what I wrote as something other than my meaning. So can we just put paid to presuming anything other than what's written and look to asking questions and gaining clarity instead?
|
|
skyhawk0
Sophomore
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
Gonna be busy awhile before I can look at being active here, but good to stay in touch with you all!
@skyhawk0
Posts: 114
Likes: 39
![](http://storage.proboards.com/6692551/images/CTEdkGf0wmfSETIzYiXk.gif)
|
Post by skyhawk0 on Mar 7, 2017 21:57:15 GMT
You should care what is required of a religion when you make an overarching statement about all of them. That's what I've already pointed out that you're written which is false. And you're still doing the same. Christianity is not singular, as I've already pointed out to you. In fact, Christianity only adopted anti-gay rhetoric during the Medieval Inquisition, at the same time that priests got barred from marrying. Some have put forward that the real reason was that priests were leaving their wealth to wives, children, and lovers from the seminary instead of the church. Nothing conceited on my part. I answered your question in telling you that I'm an atheist. And I said nothing about rationality and sense being exclusive to atheists. That's another strawman. I addressed your point about gays marrying in churches because your statements about churches don't apply to them all. That doesn't change that I don't presume that I can dictate what any religion accepts. As I see it, those that hold fast to dated ideas will fall away, like churches that stood against interracial marriages. Which is why equality before the law is my focus as regards marriage. The idea that I'm " only concerned with equality before the law" is another strawman. Trust me, I have no desire to impress nor do I write cryptically or self-indulgently nor am I being insincere or glib. Different people have different understandings and idioms and, as I've already noted, I'm speaking from a culture different from yours. Conversation takes effort to understand each other and it takes time to develop shared terms. I've been trying to make that effort and it's seemed like your response to that has been to just be immediately dismissive. Again, that reading could be based on our not having shared terms and a shared understanding of the subject, or because you were reading what I wrote as something other than my meaning. So can we just put paid to presuming anything other than what's written and look to asking questions and gaining clarity instead?I am aware that Christianity is not singular. That is my main point about their notion of what God represents, but you appear to be making up your own stories and assumptions based on what I have said. Perhaps you being a self-proclaimed "atheist", is where the confusion lies. I am neither "religious", "agnostic" or "atheist". I suppose if you were to label\tag it, it might fall under "pantheism". That said, thank you for your thoughtful response, but I suggest we take it one step further and drop the confounded point we are attempting to discuss altogether. I am finding it tiresome. It appears we are not going to be completely on the same page. If gays can legally marry, whether it is before their own notion of what God represents to them, or in front of a legally appointed marriage celebrant, as long as the marriage is seen on equal footing— which it will never be by many regardless—with a legal heterosexual marriage, then it shouldn't really matter who sanctifies or legitimizes the bond. My personal take on why gays would want to marry in a church, or any other "pious" religious institute that has condemned homosexuality at some phase in time is irrelevant. Each to their own. I'm not making up any stories or any assumptions, for that matter. I addressed things as worded and spelled out why. I made no assumptions about your beliefs, for example. That said, the language of the discussion is different in Canada where 'equal marriage' was the issue and the legal concerns were primary. For example, when it went through, we had only 60% of the population in favour of gays marrying, but 80% in favour of the law. We had a major Muslim group that pushed for the law as they saw it as the same legal principle that guaranteed their religious freedom, even though they were against gays marrying (another major Muslim group was in favour out of principle and backed equality). I'm fine dropping the point, but part of my point was that the conversation is not what happened in one country. The conversation differed in terms and approach in different countries. And the same applies to religious dynamics. For example, when the Catholic Church tried to intervene in the process here, their own membership shouted them down and they backed out of the conversation. I have similar takes as you about organizations that have an odious past, but I can understand why others see things differently. We're completely in agreement on your last paragraph.
|
|
j2
Sophomore
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
@j2
Posts: 628
Likes: 149
![](http://storage.proboards.com/6692551/images/CTEdkGf0wmfSETIzYiXk.gif)
|
Post by j2 on Mar 12, 2017 20:48:52 GMT
From your point of view surely it may be that way, and truly it is "nonsense" to you, quotation marks included. However, the truth of it does not change. I could 'debate' and discuss each of those 'points' you try to make but it would only just go on a vicious cycle of repetition, where you will choose to see things the way you want to see them anyway (because they 'suit' you), rather than how they really are. For example, the word 'gay' meaning 'homosexual' was NOT used since the "late 19th century" as you say that it was. Rather, it is an opinion expressed by a homosexual scholar, which is an opinion refuted by data and by other experts in the field. And when you say: I wonder if you THINK that I tried to imply those two words are or can be synonyms, because I didn't. So in this part, may I point out that this is your 'nonsense'? Or maybe you tried to mean something else? Your words have no strength. About the usage of "gay": I googled a bit more; and apparently it became widely used for homosexual after WW2. That's evolution of language at work. Actually it's an agenda at work. No 'maybe'. You did get it very wrong. True. That's why these "redefined" words will never work except by force. Wrong in the assumption too. I'm not 'dealing' with it. "thanks" but no thanks.
|
|
j2
Sophomore
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
@j2
Posts: 628
Likes: 149
![](http://storage.proboards.com/6692551/images/CTEdkGf0wmfSETIzYiXk.gif)
|
Post by j2 on Mar 12, 2017 20:52:10 GMT
Something not genuine about my "concern"? I'm perhaps expressing trepidations, because I'm new here and I don't know you, and because we haven't engaged in discourse directly. Patience and some experience over time, that's all. It's all good. I expressed a "curiosity," plain and simple. It's not more complicated than that. It's a pretty straight forward and direct question that is still being danced around because no one really has an answer except "because I said so." I am not a lawyer, and I am not on a jury. I am making an analogy with regards to qualification to engage in dialogue. So once again, why do you care so much about what strangers do? Why do you feel the need to impose a law restricting others from something that doesn't involve you? If you personally don't like it, don't do it. Why does this debate get so complicated? Read your own replies and the answer is in them. I suggest you consider very carefully the meaning of the word 'genuine'.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2017 21:24:15 GMT
j2, I have absolutely no idea what you're getting at. If you elaborate, I'm happy to expound.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Mar 12, 2017 21:47:00 GMT
True. That's why these "redefined" words will never work except by force. Nope. No one is forced to use "gay" to mean homosexual. Unless you can prove that people are forced to say "gay" when they mean homosexual, you have no case. Wrong in the assumption too. So what did you mean? You said that nobody uses moral and immoral as synonyms. And now you say that nobody is trying to redefine what was once immoral as moral. I'm guessing that you have no case after all. I'm not 'dealing' with it. "thanks" but no thanks. You are not dealing with changing times? I don't know if that's a good idea. The dinosaurs, neanderthals, mammoths and dodos didn't deal with changing times too well either.
|
|
j2
Sophomore
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
@j2
Posts: 628
Likes: 149
![](http://storage.proboards.com/6692551/images/CTEdkGf0wmfSETIzYiXk.gif)
|
Post by j2 on Mar 12, 2017 23:28:40 GMT
True. That's why these "redefined" words will never work except by force. Nope. No one is forced to use "gay" to mean homosexual. Tell that to this sick perverted society and use this very thread as an example. I didn't speak of force necessarily applied directly to people, and it doesn't have to be. Violence happens in many ways. The 'case' here is that you are proven wrong and false. I said no such thing. That expression of yours doesn't even make sense to me. I said no such thing and you're not making sense. You're speaking falseness and probably lies. "case", hah. I avoid loose words and fantasy (for reality).
|
|
j2
Sophomore
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
@j2
Posts: 628
Likes: 149
![](http://storage.proboards.com/6692551/images/CTEdkGf0wmfSETIzYiXk.gif)
|
Post by j2 on Mar 12, 2017 23:33:16 GMT
j2, I have absolutely no idea what you're getting at. If you elaborate, I'm happy to expound. I appreciate it, thank you, but I'm sure you have other threads to keep in mind. I think it isn't necessary in this case. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Mar 12, 2017 23:55:32 GMT
Nope. No one is forced to use "gay" to mean homosexual. Tell that to this sick perverted society and use this very thread as an example. I didn't speak of force necessarily applied directly to people, and it doesn't have to be. Violence happens in many ways. I said no such thing. That expression of yours doesn't even make sense to me. I said no such thing and you're not making sense. You're speaking falseness and probably lies. I avoid loose words and fantasy (for reality). You said this: So unless you were not being sarcastic, I rest my case. And I don't live in a sick, perverted society.
|
|
j2
Sophomore
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
@j2
Posts: 628
Likes: 149
![](http://storage.proboards.com/6692551/images/CTEdkGf0wmfSETIzYiXk.gif)
|
Post by j2 on Mar 13, 2017 8:45:01 GMT
Tell that to this sick perverted society and use this very thread as an example. I didn't speak of force necessarily applied directly to people, and it doesn't have to be. Violence happens in many ways. I said no such thing. That expression of yours doesn't even make sense to me. I said no such thing and you're not making sense. You're speaking falseness and probably lies. I avoid loose words and fantasy (for reality). You said this: So unless you were not being sarcastic, I rest my case. And I don't live in a sick, perverted society. It seems evident to me that you don't use language with clarity, so communication with you about any of these things should not be very clear altogether. If you live in 'the west' you do live in a sick perverted society according to the truth of things and according to a lot of people who think so too. But I can understand how you can't see this, and in your eyes there's absolutely nothing wrong with this society as it exists.
|
|
fatpaul
Sophomore
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
@fatpaul
Posts: 502
Likes: 193
![](http://storage.proboards.com/6692551/images/CTEdkGf0wmfSETIzYiXk.gif)
|
Post by fatpaul on Mar 13, 2017 14:51:13 GMT
If you live in 'the west' you do live in a sick perverted society... Hello Chicken Little, my name's Paul... nice to meet you! ...according to the truth of things and according to a lot of people who think so too. Is it according to truth or is it according to a lot of people or is it that being an accord with many makes it the truth to you? But I can understand how you can't see this, and in your eyes there's absolutely nothing wrong with this society as it exists. The sky is fallin' I'm tellin' ya. IT'S FALLIN'!
|
|
j2
Sophomore
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
@j2
Posts: 628
Likes: 149
![](http://storage.proboards.com/6692551/images/CTEdkGf0wmfSETIzYiXk.gif)
|
Post by j2 on Mar 13, 2017 15:34:54 GMT
If you live in 'the west' you do live in a sick perverted society... Hello Chicken Little, my name's Paul... nice to meet you! Hello limpin', nice to meet you too. It's according to truth. drama quee(n) here?
|
|
fatpaul
Sophomore
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
@fatpaul
Posts: 502
Likes: 193
![](http://storage.proboards.com/6692551/images/CTEdkGf0wmfSETIzYiXk.gif)
|
Post by fatpaul on Mar 13, 2017 17:06:37 GMT
Hello limpin', nice to meet you too. Shit comeback. Last of the big thinkers eh? It could be worse, I could be talkin' stupid shit like how 'we live in a sick, perverted society.'
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Mar 13, 2017 17:14:56 GMT
The drama queen is the culturally obsolete bigot (you), who needs to do crazy mental gymnastics to justify irrational bigotry. You make baby Jesus vomit.
|
|
j2
Sophomore
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
@j2
Posts: 628
Likes: 149
![](http://storage.proboards.com/6692551/images/CTEdkGf0wmfSETIzYiXk.gif)
|
Post by j2 on Mar 13, 2017 17:48:40 GMT
Hello limpin', nice to meet you too. Shit comeback. Last of the big thinkers eh? It could be worse, I could be talkin' stupid shit like how 'we live in a sick, perverted society.' #rekt anyone?
|
|