Off-Topic Posts From "Lesbian Marriage vs. Elderly..."

[LuckyR]

Thanks for the confirmation of what I suspected.

Many threads pit the "religious" (as a catchall for those who also include deists) vs the atheists. Round and round they go, ho hum...

What I want to see is strict deists (who don't believe in religion) vs the religious folk. That would be more interesting.

For example, one could imagine the religious folk parroting back the teachings of their church elders about this social ill and that attack on the family, just like the post I referenced, for example. Whereas a deist would have no such trappings to necessarily protect, they could be free to answer based on a god, yet not on a religious teaching.

Anyone?

[Newme]

Supine,

Excellent points about each group claiming superiority. Also it's important to consider, as you mentioned, the difference between a person and behavior. It seems obvious but too often when some argue by emotionsl reasoning, that simple fact is overlooked and even argued as if it were false.

[Sy Borg]

My point is we will continue to grow up past superficial and trivial carry on about sexuality. Progress throughout history has not always been smooth, and there will be setbacks on the road to a rational and kind society that understands diversity, but I we will improve and continue to do so.

It has nothing to do with ego and "superiority" for me. This is about maturity.

[LuckyR]

Thanks for the confirmation of what I suspected.

Many threads pit the "religious" (as a catchall for those who also include deists) vs the atheists. Round and round they go, ho hum...

What I want to see is strict deists (who don't believe in religion) vs the religious folk. That would be more interesting.

For example, one could imagine the religious folk parroting back the teachings of their church elders about this social ill and that attack on the family, just like the post I referenced, for example. Whereas a deist would have no such trappings to necessarily protect, they could be free to answer based on a god, yet not on a religious teaching.

Anyone?

I'm hazarding a guess you don't include yourself in the group you think ill of.

It is very rare I encounter men or women that put themselves down. It does happen I come across them but on rare occasions. The vast majority of people tend to think highly of whatever group they regard themselves as belonging to--and by consequence they think highly of themselves (the exception being drug addicts). That group could be feminists, liberals, mafia, outlaw bikers, gang members, KKK, Boko Haram, the Islamic State, socialists, communists, capitalists, conservatives, deists, atheists, homosexuals, heterosexuals and so on. And what I find interesting is that everyone one of these individuals thinks they're right.

Eastern Orthodox Christians--and Oriental Orthodox Christians--would claim their answers about marriage are based on a God, that God being specifically the Holy Trinity, and not based upon an arbitrary religious teaching.

The first attack on marriage in the USA--I would argue--came from the deists and Christians that broke up black families through the interstate slave trade.

That's funny. Well, since you brought it up, which group did I make it sound like a prefered over the other? It's funny because, for the purposes of this Forum I prefer neither.

The reason I wrote my comment was that I find many arguments here couched in deist garb (it is a Philosophy Forum after all), yet it becomes obvious eventually that the author is deeply religious. The religious discussion is muted somewhat, especially by the religious, which is otherwise uncommon.

[Obvious Leo]

Okisites, history will judge this issue. Will societies continue to discriminate against and persecute gays far into the future the way we discriminated against and persecuted other groups on race, nationality, class, gender and birth status?

My final "baseless assertion" is that I expect humanity to continue to improve its considerable moral improvement in the long term based on reason rather than dogma. Singling out of groups based on unsound reasoning will diminish and eventually disappear. When the first society to stop sacrificing virgins to the gods the conservatives (there is no better word for it) of the time would have warned of dire consequences if their society stopped the sacrifices. There are always be dire warnings from dogma adherents when societies become more reasonable and understanding towards out-group persecution targets. Every step of the women's right movements have been met with resistance, threats and dire warnings. There were more dire warnings when Australian Aboriginals were granted the vote in 1967.

The warnings never come to pass. Those against these human rights measures have failed to cognitively keep pace with their society's changing culture. You cannot set a culture (or a person) in stone. We do, and must, evolve.

Bye bye. I'll leave you to wrestle with humanity's trivial and self-obsessed hangups (with non trivial consequences for the targets of discrimination) as I'm more interested phenomenology than humanity's narcissism.

Onya babe. The troglodytes can have their say but they're an endangered species flashing about vainly in their death throes. The information age will kill stupidity and the examined mind will never mourn its loss. Homo sapiens is switching on at last and if I can see this anybody can. I'm just a heterosexual carnivorous son of the soil but I know bloody well which side is up and that my arsehole should be pointing towards the ground.

Regards Leo

Regards

[Supine]

Thanks, Newme.

LuckyR, from your remarks you sounded as if you sympathized with those that would regard themselves as deists.

I recall having read people attack Newme in pasts many months back when I was active on the board, insinuating she was religious, or by that I mean the assumption she belong to some organized religion.

But so far as I know Newme does not. I had conversed with her in the past--privately--and gotten the impression she was more or less agnostic. But on the forums she seems to regard sodomy as disordered use of two body parts. From that... some have simply assumed she is an Evangelical Protestant or preparing herself to become a Catholic nun.

It may or may not be that homosexual people have accused even atheists that object to sodomy as being crazed religious people. And so goes the story or maxim about if you repeat a lie enough times the masses believe it is the truth.

And Newme is against heterosexuals engaging in sodomy too. So far as I can tell. Maybe those medical doctors that carry out surgical repairs in proctology might agree with her. The medical community is more sexually conservative than the average liberal American, this I do know. Concentrated as they are in preventing sexually transmitted diseases. They'd be against anal-to-mouth intercourse. The average liberal person would read any such objection from a non-medical professional as "irrational, crazed, religious talk."

For the record... I prefer liberals and gay marriage take over the United States than political conservatives be they Catholic or Evangelical Protestants. The latter are more untrustworthy and moved by far less good will. But then again plenty of liberal people lie and are moved by hatreds too.

[Lambert]

//

I don’t know whether God like polyandry or not, but I think, just like polygamy it is not right because it might result in individuals not getting fair share from the society, but I would like to ask why are you asking these questions.

Thank you. Okisites.

God does not care and has no mind to care but Lord God does, and he is the one who allows us to think that we know even if we do not know.

The ultimate aim in life is Redemption and that is the basis for the search for destiny in us. There is no argument about that as we are created in the image of God and therefore have the mind of God at base, where so our home is at and only there can we be complete.

It simple means that we are divided in our own mind between our left and right side of the brain, that we call conscious and subconscious mind. From here only in our conscious mind are we human and are woman in our own sub-conscious mind. By woman here I do not mean female but the womb of man as our very own wherewithal in which we are the Man we are as whole, and this is true for males as well as females, much in the same way.*

Following this paradigm the convergence of these twain is sought in life, not twin but twain with what they call the HS functioning between. In Catholicism woman in our sub is called Mary and Magdalene is eVe as the temple tramp in our conscious mind and it is via these two identities the we as human are urged to look for destiny in life. That simply is our the Determinate Cause in us as total outsider to our inner man as God.

Accordingly we have the Formal cause as God, the Efficient Cause as Mary, the Material Cause as Eve and the Final Cause as human (always spelled with a small 'h' as the idiot we can say (with all respect to him)), and this chain of command is the same for males and females is their own way as opposites to bring this event about in each.

So in essence I have placed woman opposite to human with God "three causes" away from us with enmity between. This so is also the reason why we cannot make our own soul the subject of our inquiry because what we call 'Lucifer' is also there that we know as temptation via Eve who is the secondary source of fire in us as mediatrix between woman and human. This is important to understand, to also say that this is the reason why Mary is the most enigmatic person in the spiritual world we know (she was Isis for Egypt (sic) and is Nairatmya in Buddhism).

My reason for introducing this is to point out where impurity begins with a spiritual hymen in between that we protect by our own integrity, where so our true virginity is at as either male or female in the same way.

Based in this ideal priesthood/nun is the least obnoxious as seen from the point of redemption only as the most primeordeal. There is no argument here and you are welcome to disagree with this.

From there the idea of soul-mate becomes a reality as the next best thing in which eros is used to find agape via philia through which the opposites are removed as the only way to reach that end in sight = is taking a detour we can say to reach agape that only is real and so is where destiny is found at the cost of eros and philia in that agape does not have an opposite in itself.

So this is where the problem begins in that real-ity is a subset of real (an extraction as we encounter events in life), and that is where virtue has its own role to play from where matrimony is declared as Holy to be a detour to reach that end in which we are real as individual. This so is where the convergence of the twain is the aim of Holy Matrimony as a Sacrament in life for us to encounter as we journey along as opposites between two opposites [called pleasure and pain] that eventually is aimed to bring this real life event about. Here is a poem on this in full view of the same, and please understand that my "idiot" is the one who build the glorious master piece in this poem = extremely innovative but presented as an illusion in the end: http://www.poetryfoundation.org/poem/176678

So now I have made matrimony a detour to reach our ultimate destiny that is the most primary of all human rights pertaining only to the animal in which we are man. We know that time as menopause as the [only] time that eternal life can be found for us (meno in Greek means "I remain" as eternal here). This is a normal period or time in life that leads to a spiritual maturity (also by degree again) in which the height would be a full blown convergence of our left and right that was sought by religion that is designed to make that possible in us and for which for which orthodoxy is the absolute and only way. Erik H. Erikson wrote in this in his "Adulthood."

And no, it does not have to be Catholic or Jew but must be tradition based in its own way. So I am pointing at natures own way where metamorphosis is what menopause as all about and is the only time when that event can take place in the right way. It is the most the basic of all natural events that is as easy as eating and drinking as told by Golding in "The Spire." In fact it cannot go any other way if the cocoon is in place and then we will not have a choice but let nature do its thing. For what it is worth, it happened to Joseph in the Gospels that we read and he was never any part of it except as "played-out human" on his way to Bethlehem (read house-of-bread), and later he came for the remains of his ego consciousness (that Pilate just gave to him as he just happen to have an empty Cave in his own back yard that he had hewn as if with his own hands = towards this end in sight would be the inference here).

For us this would be about when the kids leave home, but the precondition here is our Integrity that must still be in place to make all our objective visions the enemy to overcome in the final rout in which our humanity is the price to pay. And while we claim our name to fame in the sum total of our accomplishments, the problem really is that the source of all our objective visions was not our own as primary from our soul in its own subliminal way from day to day, a degree of virtue is required to bring not only this rout about but also the stand that must be made to yield eternal life for us. This so is where our virginity must still be in place in which our own soul is whole and private to us now. In other words this argument is personal and is only personal. This would be Plato's Final Form, Aristotle' Final ousia that we call final Mass or Parousia, Buddhism calls the final round of Samsara. Locally here the Mackenzie Valley Indians call it "the final lie" [on which he chocked], and so is Universal in the same way.

Then notice that if human and woman are two opposites in our own mind in which we have intercourse that way, it will be from these opposites from where the final rout is made while in the natural world we procreate, each in our own way and that should end when the final rout is made. This is where just the opposite to "I do the things I do not want to do" is equal to "I want to do the things I used to do" is true for us as post menopause here now.

From here, if then our gender identity is an illusion that creates the opposites for us with the end in sight, it will be in the opposites that the end is found and anything in between will be at the cost of redemption later on. If then society tells us that anything goes, collectively we will also pay the price for this where the end in sight is always "better days ahead" and we will fill pot-holes as they come about as we come closer to the point in which our civilization will crash in the same way as we 'crash' (read die) as individuals. Of course this sounds pretty harsh, but if our life is an illusion because we die, eternal life is not ours but belongs to the mythology or even the Indians would not be able to call civility the final lie on which they die, as always one -ity too far for it to be true to life itself.

* Much in the same way is true, but that certainly does not mean that females will ever be crucified, as Chaim Potok presented in "My Name is Asher Lev," that really was a total disgrace to Literature in America and just opposite to James Joyces' Portrait to this end.

-- Updated March 7th, 2015, 3:34 pm to add the following --

Well, let me ask you again, do you think gay/lesbian sexuality is scientifically proven fact?

I may be wrong due to lack of information or something, but you people need to tell me where I am wrong, how I am wrong, otherwise I will not accept myself to be wrong. Though I am feeling that people are trying not to let me any chance to prove themselves wrong, so that they can always be right. Though it is good tactics to always remain correct in front of people, but it leads to simple mass murdering quite naturally. I will again say, people must try to argue the points.

Thank you, Okisites.

Cross orientation is a fact of life and we must deal with that because it is a societal dis-ease. In other words, we cannot blame the people if they are not in harmony with their own sex identity. It is the side effect of our modern gender equal society in which womanity is a seen as a taboo in life and that already began when the word itself was removed from our dictionary, and that was about the first thing the social sciences did when they got their first PhD's and wanted to be heard.

Then you should know the behavior skips one generation to make itself manifest, and so we cannot look at our own parents, nor can we look at our own grandparents to blame as social animals serving in response.

In the ideal, the female who is 100% woman is 0% human from which follows that an increase of her humanity will be at the cost of her womanity. Of course the opposite is also true in which a decrease in a males humanity will yield an increase of his womanity, where so now we have masculine females and effeminate males and that is where gay and lesbian sexuality is found.

Studies have actually shown this the be true in that both masculine females and effeminate males are more docile and philia friendly people. Jail studies have also proved this true and that is how and why we have adopted our modern Gender Equal society to make us all a bit more gentle, and mediocre in every which way as perhaps a less desired side effect. The problem really is that since friends share all things in common they really have nothing to offer each other and that is why divorces are more frequent these days, and the Courts systems also are directed towards equality where now support payments prevent marriage as a possible dead end for males, etc.

[Obvious Leo]

Same sex interactions and bonds are a common minority variant that appears throughout the animal kingdom, including human animals. All living things are unique and differ in every conceivable way. Viva la difference.

There seems to be a deep reluctance amongst the extremely religious to understand human sexuality as a spectrum phenomenon, and in my view this reflects a far deeper psycho-pathology of cognitive dissonance which accompanies all holders of entrenched positions on many aspects of human behaviour. Their received truths do not accord with their own life's experience and they react irrationally to this knowledge. The alpha male is expected to reject any expression of his "feminine side" and the demure young lady is not supposed to display "tomboy" attributes. This is the 21st century, Greta, and I reckon those that prefer to do their own thinking have every right to deny the troglodytes the authority to direct the public debate in this way. It's offensive, it's immoral, it's unscientific, and above all it's downright STUPID.

Regards Leo

[Steve3007]

Viva la difference

Technically, I think you're mixing Spanish and French there, but I applaud the sentiment and the ethnic diversity of the languages in which it's expressed.

[Sy Borg]

I agree, Leo. We can be accused of dogma for having views not subject to argument or change, and at this point I'd say "so be it". We are also dogmatic in our opposition to slavery, discrimination against women and the sacrificing of virgins.

Many self-proclaiming "reasonable" arguments have been used throughout history to justify the cognitive errors of the time. Such errors are as inevitable as the mistakes we make as we grow from children to adults (a 300 year-old process according to George Bernard Shaw).

Humanity has been on a journey towards greater understanding of what reality is and how it works which, by definition, suggests constant room for improvement. Like you, I see no reason to legitimise backward thinking arguments of the type made throughout history through fear of growth and change.

Yes Steve, "vive". A phonetic moment.

[Sy Borg]

m.cnsnews.com/news/article/lauretta-bro ... eral-court

abc.net.au/news/2014-07-05/children-rai ... ds/5574168

I would think poverty an issue more worthy of theist / deist attention. Aren't you supposed to be the compassionate ones and the good ones, while atheists and agnostics are alleged to lack morality? Is denying rights to a tiny, traditionally reviled and bullied minority more important than addressing the damage done by inequality? It would seem so, based on weight of words: washingtonpost.com/local/education/chil ... story.html

What about resources being put into reducing child abuse - usually perpetrated by "normal" couples. Love, resources and competent parental care matter more than other considerations.

How about the environment? Does it matter if we have an extra percentage of queers in 100 years' time if our resources have largely run down and the stability of natural systems on which we've depended for so long is gone and we live from storm to storm? Why is so much energy and effort being put into this terribly trivial sexuality issue, one that mainly only affects the bullied minority when there are so many more important issues?

[Newme]

Greta,

Straw men - re hering, take your pick. I'm not theist as I and Supine have pointed out. When I wrote congressmen about this, they replied similarly, assuming my concern was religious when I didn't bring up religion at all. So, don't feel bad - or do, if you take offense to acting as politicians.

Is it loving to pretend that sickness is healthy? Is it loving to legally force children to go without a mother or father? I don't think so. It is loving to be kind to people, realizing we all have weakness, but to pretend sickness is health is not loving, nor logical.

[Okisites]

Well, let me ask you again, do you think gay/lesbian sexuality is scientifically proven fact?

It is accepted by science as a universal fact that same-sex attraction is a real phenomenon. It has existed in every human culture throughout human history and it is widespread in most mammalian species, especially primates. If you wish to claim that this statement is false then the burden of falsifying it lies with you.

Regards Leo

Well, what I would like to know is that “What causes homosexuality”, means the factor or factors which are responsible for the creation of homosexual individual. So as you seem to be a proper person, would you please inform me if there exists any genetic, hormonal or any other factor/factors that cause homosexuality? I would like to know.

Generally my opposition of homosexual comes from that I do not find any factor that can clearly identify an individual to be homosexual, in which case it can even confuse any heterosexual to be homosexual, which in turn can lead to increase in percentage of homosexuals. I don’t want this i.e. proliferation of homosexuality out of different reasons. I think this is reasonable concern. And for this I need a solid base to identify homosexuals, that very clearly identifies an individual to be a homosexual, without a question.

It should not be like, if I say I am homosexual despite looking like a heterosexual, and you have to believe me, just because I say so.

I have some other problem because of this on which I will come afterward, but I would like to know what are the factor/factors which causes homosexuality(Solid factor).

Thank You, Okisites.

[Sy Borg]

Okisites, would this be your opinion if you were gay?

[Okisites]

Okisites, would this be your opinion if you were gay?

It doesn't matter if it would be my opinion or not, it is still on unsound base if somebody will believe me depending upon I myself say that I am gay. It is not a solid proof, it is a good faith.

-- Updated 08 Mar 2015, 18:06 to add the following --

Well, let me ask you again, do you think gay/lesbian sexuality is scientifically proven fact?

I may be wrong due to lack of information or something, but you people need to tell me where I am wrong, how I am wrong, otherwise I will not accept myself to be wrong. Though I am feeling that people are trying not to let me any chance to prove themselves wrong, so that they can always be right. Though it is good tactics to always remain correct in front of people, but it leads to simple mass murdering quite naturally. I will again say, people must try to argue the points.

Thank you, Okisites.

In the ideal, the female who is 100% woman is 0% human from which follows that an increase of her humanity will be at the cost of her womanity. Of course the opposite is also true in which a decrease in a males humanity will yield an increase of his womanity, where so now we have masculine females and effeminate males and that is where gay and lesbian sexuality is found.

I agree to this, but I don't think it is applicable to all cases. I think there are more basic factors to look for, that can results in one identifies him/her to be gay/lesbian.