Hunter's Moon
-
Posts
4,248 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Classifieds
Store
Posts posted by Hunter's Moon
-
-
The problem then becomes, is it their choice to advocate for their faith? To say that it is definitively correct and true? Or is that not a choice they can choose from?
I'm thinking, most prominently of Rosaria Butterfield, but there are others who choose not to write books or speak at conferences or anything like that.
Believing something is truth and espousing it as such, and actually being truth are two different things.
Your truth should not trump anyone else's truth.
-
7
-
-
What if my Christian faith doesn't align with my lifestyle choices? What if I want to do something, but my faith tells me I shouldn't and therefore I give it up? Do I think have room to speak on the issue? Does someone who gave up their entire lifestyle in order to follow Christ as they felt called then have room to speak? Because there are gay people in the conservative church. There are people who have given up their entire lives to follow Christ and they view their previous "lifestyle choices" as self-destructive. And I'm guessing their opinions would not be very welcome on the issue either.
(these are honest questions, no snark or shrillness intented)
I'm not WoolySocks, but I've thought about this issue before, as well.
I WOULD welcome homosexuals who chose to be celibate to join in on the conversation. Does being gay mean they speak for the whole community, however? Nope. They may have viewed their previous lifestyle as self-destructive, but that doesn't make it a universal truth for all gays everywhere.
-
2
-
-
This seems to me like it is about the weakest argument to use in favour of same-sex marriage, and I'm not really sure why people use it make the comparison with race.
Skin colour, ethnicity, etc, are simply physical characteristics which don't require any action on our part.
And sure, sexual orientation isn't a choice or at least in many cases it isn't, but that is true f all kinds of things people want, desires they have,. In fact pretty much every negative thing we do comes out of who we are in some way, it arises from within us, I don't think I've ever met someone who would disagree wit that.
Being a psychopath isn't a choice, and it isn't actually illegal, nor should it be. If it leads people to do things we think are wrong, then their actions become a problem.Yes no one would argue that those things should be judged on the basis of the fact that the condition that led to it is inborn.
When people have had some kind of disagreement with homosexuality, it has typically been with the action - there have been people in even many conservative religions for a long time who were what we would call homosexual, but that was not in itself considered to be some kind of thing that meant they should be discriminated against. For the most part through that history there hasn't been a designation of a homosexual as a sort of catagory of being but all but the very naive realized that just like other types of desire it came from the person.
The question is really with the status of the action. If it's wrong, than it should probably not be encouraged, whether or not people have a choice about wanting to do it. If it isn't wrong, than it really makes no difference whether it is an inborn orientation or not. And even then the question of marriage is separate from whether it is right or wrong - many societies that accepted homosexual relationships didn't have same sex marriage because they didn't think it made sense as a social institution.
But the ONLY thing that makes people see homosexuality as wrong is religion.
Anyone of any religion (or non-religion) who is of sound mind can look at the actions of a psychopath and see them as harmful (to themselves and others) and morally wrong. But that's not so with homosexuality. You may believe homosexuals harm themselves by
acting out their truth, but not all Christians do, and not all religions do. And what they do in their own free time is of no consequence to you. Psychopaths, on the other hand...
Thank God you and others who feel so strongly about homosexuals not acting on their feelings were born hetero. Otherwise, you wouldn't have had the choice of marriage or celibacy within your religious framework -- celibacy would have been your only option.
-
8
-
-
I disagree that one's beliefs about ssm are at all comparable with being a racist. I hope the differences are obvious.
Not if you believe that sexual orientation isn't a choice, just like skin color.
-
11
-
-
Pet store - I quit after two weeks upon realizing the owner was a jerk.
-
{{clang, clang, clang}}
...
...
...
nothing
Went the trolley!!
-
1
-
-
I am so very sorry for your loss.
-
1
-
-
Considering one of the couples was spouting about lawsuits and such, it's too soon to know.
But any reputable lawyer will turn them down.
If they do so happen to find a lawyer, nothing will come of it. Because nothing can. There is absolutely no legal threat.
-
2
-
-
IF that happens, then it will be accompanied by a whole host of things. Talk about your spurious correlations!
I've decided to no longer engage.
Which is why I'm quoting your post -- you summed up my thoughts exactly.
I've gotta claw my way outta this rabbit hole and go to bed.
-
1
-
-
Is this.... Is this real life?
-
5
-
-
This thread became seriously awesome. I want to marry this thread. But I'm already married. And it might be female.
That, and my father's already spent my dowry on my husband.
:(
-
5
-
-
I think I'm getting a better picture here. On the precipice of World War 3, a war that will destroy the world as we know it? I think you're underselling, try to be more dramatic. Seems like all this faux-intellectual talk may just be a thinly veiled conspiracy theorist illuminati type who would normally be disregarded but is being engaged because she's keeping it under wraps.
Realistically, climate change is more likely to destroy the world as we know it than World War 3: Scrabble Edition and World War 4: Sticks vs Stones.
I have to agree, which is why I'm going to stop engaging.
This has probably been the weirdest internet exchange I've ever had (and quite possibly, weirdest exchange ever).
-
4
-
-
The important thing is what they're saying. Martin Luther King Jr. had many affairs too. Does that make him wrong? Nope.
You're right, it doesn't. The difference is you're trying to claim gay marriage will lead to the decline of civilization by quoting Einstein.
MLK was leading a civil rights movement, and no matter his moral failings, his quote was directly related to his cause.
The quote you're using is not directly related to your cause. Einstein was very literally saying that we will destroy ourselves with the use of nuclear weapons. Not that homosexual marriage or any such thing will lead to the break down of society and life as we know it.
-
8
-
-
Martin Luther King held homosexuality itself to be a "problem";
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/16/what-did-mlk-think-about-gay-people/
And Albert Einstein had many an extra-marital affair. Does that not make him a degenerate?
-
4
-
-
Have you read the whole thread? The connections have been made already.
And if I can't appeal to Einstein's intelligence then so much for Dorothy Parker.
There were your original statements (which, by the way, weren't even in this thread):
This. Degeneracy accompanies collapse. The West is literally degenerate (native fertility rates are below replacement level.
Meanwhile, "I know not with what weapons ww3 will be fought, but ww4 will be fought with sticks and stones" -Einstein
This too shall pass, and soon.
Degeneracy accompanies collapse; it doesn't necessarily cause it. I didn't state or imply otherwise.
For one, if people realize subconsciously it's a lost cause regardless, they no longer bother holding things together.
The first quote was in response to someone saying civilization was in decline. The second was in response to another poster who wasn't sure where you were going with that quote.
Are you saying people will give up on civilization because it's not worth fighting for anymore? I'm just.... lost.
While we're throwing quotations around, how about:
"We will never have true civilization until we have learned to recognize the rights of others." -- Will Rogers
-
3
-
-
It was a simple quote putting forth a simple truth. War + weapons of mass destruction = the end of civilization as we know it.
Nobody is infallible, not even Einstein; but in the case he was wrong you should be able to provide a substantive-counter argument. That is, address the quote, not the man.
1) I'm not seeing the connection between Einstein's quote and homosexual marriage; and
2) I'm not addressing the man or the quote -- I'm addressing the quoter. Your continued use of his quote isn't proving anything. I'm not sure what that quote is even being used to prove.
-
2
-
-
Alright, color me stupid, but what's with the endless reference to the Einstein quote you brought up?Your argument requires you to believe you know better than Einstein. Good luck with that. Moreover, history also shows us that war is integral to human nature. The only difference is now we finally possess the weapons capable of destroying civilization.
Was he established as a prophet? Was he perhaps, oh I don't know, expressing an opinion about the absurdity of wars?
I'm just not following the almost worshipful mentions of Einstein here.
-
6
-
-
But marriage is not required to make babies. That's life. Literally.
Marriage is not about babies. To reduce it to that is depressing.
Amen!
My husband and I got married at the ripe ol' ages of 19 and 20, not so we could begin to procreate, but because we knew the legal protections provided by marriage were the next step in our relationship.
My husand and I are still waffling on whether we will have children, but that doesn't make our marriage any less of one. Nor does it for those who are infertile or otherwise without children.
-
13
-
-
A good friend of mine hasn't seen her children but once in the past 18 months because she wasn't legally married to her partner when they split up. The children are 12 and 10 and she was the primary caregiver since they were born. She has gone to court multiple times, in different states (they were living in one state, she moved to another and her partner to a third), but was told she had no rights because she was not a legal parent nor was she married. Hopefully, this law will be the first step to help change this situation for her and others like her.
These are the exact protections I was speaking of.
There can be vindictive partners in any relationship - hetero or not. When it comes to homosexual relationships and children, usually (always?) one partner will have custody while the other has none. No rights, nada.
I'm with you in hoping that these sorts of situations will soon be handled as they are within heterosexual relationships and separations.
-
2
-
-
This decision makes my heart happy beyond words.
Many happy years to all those who can now get married and live long, happy lives with their partner while being legally protected as all married couples should.
-
11
-
-
-
I'm pretty sure she finds the beliefs of those who oppose interracial marriage and the like repulsive.Wait....you find it repulsive?
That's what I assumed, anyways, given the context.
-
Absolutely not.
If you know how insurance works, you know that the injured party doesn't usually have a say in who will be responsible for the bills. Especially if the injury occurs on private property.
-
3
-
-
Depersonalization can occur as a result of trauma - it includes a feeling of not being real, or being disconnected from yourself. Maybe that's what you're experiencing?
I definitely don't feel it goes to this extreme.
Thank you for bringing it up though -- I know I had heard of such a mental illness, but I couldn't quite remember the name. It's helpful to see where the lines of mental illness are drawn surrounding this issue (of feeling real and fake).
Should clergy members actually be worried about the supreme court ruling?
in The Chat Board
Posted
Are you kidding?
ETA: "Your truth should not trump anyone else's truth" isn't a truth in the sense that I'm speaking. It's a right. Everyone has a right to their beliefs, but no one has a right to squash someone else's beliefs. You can declare all day long until you're blue in the face that my beliefs are wrong, but you have no right to literally force your beliefs upon me.