Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What sounds like a wonderful fantasy world of beautiful dances, pretty design and tasty dishes to a affluent daughter nestled in leafy green suburb is often cultural poison when the same charming tale is distilled for the poor.
Think about Margaret Mead's young Samoan lovers in "Coming of Age in Samoa" having beautiful sex on beach in a south pacific island without any worry of monogamy. It was a beautiful scene of tender young love, that few would want to snuff out in the name of Christian orthodoxy. Her work in Samoa became the scientific justification for much of the 1960's sexual liberation. This was the anthropological work that redefined premarital sex as a completely acceptable practice. (Yes the book is a total hoax as the Samoans actually place a high ideal on chastity)It presented the falsity that the natives away from the Judea- Christan world had no guilt or shame when it came to promiscuous sex with multiple partners.
Margaret Mead's social science seemed like a pleasurable fantasy of guiltless sex but when this made its way to Bushwick, Harlem and Detroit in the 1960's it translated into the nightmare of 80% illegitimacy rates and a life in hell to those that lived through it. For the poor their civilization was torn apart from the guts out by directly attacking the institution of family. What unintended consequences loom for the poor families when the homosexual bomb is dropped on the poor? We can already see the top down "full court press" with homosexual lifestyles promoted in public schools, homosexual marriage forced on the people by the government and homosexual characters on TV.
In the same way Mead's adolescent promiscuity seemed like an innocuousness enlightenment social advancement to those in a position of relative wealth in a leafy green liberal suburb it turned into hell on earth for those in the lower classes. These immoral lifestyles ravage their communities. See Detroit for an example of what the sexual enlightenment does to poor people and how hard it is to recover once the scale is tipped towards the side of degeneracy.
Homosexuality is just another excuse for daddy or mommy to go bye bye and indulge in more decadent sex. When sex is continuously defined as a means to the ends of pleasure; women and children will suffer as men fall victim to the passions of sexual vice. Who thought in the 1920's that the promotion of adolescent promiscuity would lead to 80% illegitimacy rates among the poor?
It is ironic that that the sexual revolution was supposed to make women more free and happy – but instead has made so many women so miserable, with vastly increased divorce, health problems, abortions and out of wedlock births, and the inability of so many to even marry in the first place, because the men aren’t interested. And women and girls are now more sexualized and objectified than ever before in history. Now we have a whole new line of sexual degeneracy that is being brought on-line to the mainstream that is sure to mangle a few more thousand young men as they experiment with urges that might have been kept in check minus the ideological subversion.
These levels of decadence were known in antiquity in Athens and Rome and directly lead to the end of these civilizations. We continue to trek down the same path of decadence. The moral law is universal and in place with or without mans hand. When a decadent civilization grants sexual license the repercussions will destroy that civilization from within, just like Rome and and Athens before it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewdrop93
Umm... warm and fuzzy? I don't even know where to begin... Yes, I do try to be nice to the people around me - all the people around me. But I don't arbitrarily pick my friends. I pick my friends based on who they are, how they treat people, if they are kind, if they make me laugh, if they make me love. I do not feel like I am on the moral high ground accepting "these" people and their behavior. I judge people for who they are - not who they are attracted to. No, I do not know the deep dark secrets of all the people around me - gay or straight. But I know my gay friends just as well as I know my straight friends - and so far - nothing crazy going on. And I have known a pedophile. He was not a homosexual. He was a pedophile. They are two different things.
Here is a link that you should read.
And as far as long term consequences - gay people have been around for thousands of years. Doesn't seem like they have done too much damage. If anything - many of them are responsible for things like taking great wedding photos, making beautiful clothes, singing pretty songs, dancing amazing dances, cooking wonderful dishes... I could go on and on. Seriously - hatred and prejudice are not qualities that should be nourished. Life is so much better if you have an open and loving heart. Just gives you that "warm and fuzzy feeling" - doesn't it!
Last edited by samyn on the green; 09-27-2010 at 04:00 AM..
I may fill in some details, but no I'm not making things up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by helios666
First of all- the POINT of marriage, within christianity and otherwise, way back when and even in the not-so-far removed past (and even currently, in many cultures) was NOT about procreation, it was about forming a successful partnership- almost a "business" decision sort of thing.
I did not say procreation was the only point, just that it was an important part of it.
And if you're alluding to the idea that all marriage was about property rights or something, as many defenders of SSM do, I'm going to call nonsense. Roman and Greek law had statements on slave marriage. Slaves did not have property, but they had marriages. As did peasants and serfs. (You may not be indicating that, but I'm going to head this off right now just in case. And yes I can source this. I think it's in the Roman law tablets)
Quote:
Originally Posted by helios666
And just in case you do not know this; back in these days, if a married couple is physically incapable of reproducing, there were "ways" around this. If it was the man who couldn't get the wife pregnant- she very often would sleep with another man simply in order to have a baby.
That it happened I don't doubt, but "very often"? Now who's just making stuff up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by helios666
And of course back then the husband probably had no idea the baby wasn't his; there was no way medically for him to determine if he was infertile or not. Of course sometimes rendezvous were even arranged BY the husband...now if it was the woman who was barren- very often some "arrangements" were made, and surrogate mothers were hired and kept in seclusion, along with the "supposedly" pregnant wife until the baby was born, and then VOILA. So don't be under any illusion that the "sanctity of marriage" is something long gone, or even worth 'saving'- it never existed to begin with. But today- it SHOULD be worth something- LOVE.
I'm not saying marriage was perfect in times past, but do you have any support for your theories here?
Yeah things happened. Sterile couples happened. But if you really think procreation wasn't an important part of how societies viewed marriage than I'd say you badly need to get an education on anthropology and history. I mean men would dump wives for failing to produce a child or a son. It's hard to believe you don't know this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by helios666
Nowadays there is NO reason for anyone to get married to anyone except for LOVE.
Nonsense. People marry for all kinds of reasons even now. The same-sex marriage supporters themselves list all these legal benefits it involves. So some marry because they want the legal linkage between their child and his or her biological father, even if the couple's relationship was mostly just sexual. Or they'll marry for companionship or land or health benefits or whatever. There's no way the law can even look into people's emotional states and assure they're marrying for love anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by helios666
So why deny that right to anyone, who cares who marries who?! Marriage is a bond and promise between two people. And that is a GOOD thing, always. It sends a message of commitment and loyalty, and it's the same message whether the two people are a man and woman, or two men or two women.
What you personally believe marriage to be does not change the facts of history or biology.
A relationship with two men or two women is different than a mixed sex relationship. This is because men are different than women in some fundamental ways. You can deny that all you want, but even the secular studies will back me and not you on this. The determination of most of those is that the difference is not sufficient to deny them marriage, not that the differences are unreal or don't exist. Personally I've come to believe that calling fairly different things the same is inherently dishonest. I still think a state has the right to lie to homosexuals and call their relationships marriage, out of sympathy or sentimentality, if they wish. However I think ultimately recognizing that it is a different kind of thing is not a bad idea at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by helios666
As for marriage without procreation "not adding much to the community"- how so?
It seems pretty obvious. You have two people going in and two people in. Nothing is added. The things you speak of like loyalty or love or whatever can exist in anything. Blood oaths or whatever could do much the same.
Also I never said I believe in romantic love is the main centerpiece of life. I don't. I think there are many things that are probably more important than it, even if that is one of the most unfashionable of unfashionable things to say.
I may fill in some details, but no I'm not making things up.
I did not say procreation was the only point, just that it was an important part of it.
And if you're alluding to the idea that all marriage was about property rights or something, as many defenders of SSM do, I'm going to call nonsense. Roman and Greek law had statements on slave marriage. Slaves did not have property, but they had marriages. As did peasants and serfs. (You may not be indicating that, but I'm going to head this off right now just in case. And yes I can source this. I think it's in the Roman law tablets)
I was only speaking very generally about the reasons for marriage in the past; and not specifically about any one society/culture- there are many who marry off their children and often "arrange" unions for benefits such as property/societal status, you name it. Slaves and serfs were another facet; their marriages/unions were different and that really wasn't what I was referring to, I was mostly making a point about people who, then, "mattered" in society. Serfs and slaves were considered sub-human and didn't/weren't allowed to follow the same standards as the more upper-crust of society. Of course that in and of itself is disturbing but not the point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas R.
That it happened I don't doubt, but "very often"? Now who's just making stuff up.
I'm not saying marriage was perfect in times past, but do you have any support for your theories here?
Yeah things happened. Sterile couples happened. But if you really think procreation wasn't an important part of how societies viewed marriage than I'd say you badly need to get an education on anthropology and history. I mean men would dump wives for failing to produce a child or a son. It's hard to believe you don't know this.
That's exactly my point; often times, back then, it was VERY important for a couple to produce an heir. So yes, these tactics were used. How often- I cannot cite. But to answer your question asking if I have support, for my "theories"? They aren't "theories". I have a penchant for reading up on such things and it is pretty indisputable that people making babies with people outside their marriage *did* happen, and for reasons that, based on what you yourself said.
I didn't even go any further to mention that there has always been adultery and cheating for no reason other than the obvious...just like people cheat today- that goes without saying. And I don't need to have read up on that, that's just what people do, and always have. Unfortunate as the case may be.
So when I say that marriage isn't so "sacred", nor worth "saving"- that's what I meant. And although you didn't say it outright, and I don't want to put words in your mouth- the good lot of people who are very anti- gay marriage believe the way they do because they think that if gays are allowed to marry- that somehow the "traditional" institution of marriage is tarnished. And that, for some reason I will NEVER understand, heterosexual marriages are somehow undermined. Which is utter nonsense because, even with complete disregard to anything I said- marriage is as private as the sexual intimacy that consummates said marriage. NOBODY but the parties involved are affected.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas R.
Nonsense. People marry for all kinds of reasons even now. The same-sex marriage supporters themselves list all these legal benefits it involves. So some marry because they want the legal linkage between their child and his or her biological father, even if the couple's relationship was mostly just sexual. Or they'll marry for companionship or land or health benefits or whatever. There's no way the law can even look into people's emotional states and assure they're marrying for love anyway.
Ok, fair enough. But for the most part- people get married nowadays because they love each other (or think they do!) The other reasons aren't invalid by any means, I agree, though most people who marry for these other reasons are knowingly forgoing love in exchange for some other benefits. Which is something I personally don't understand- I'd never marry were I not in love with someone. No material gain is worth spending life with someone I am not in love with, and I certainly can't imagine being intimate with someone only because they were the means to better myself financially or otherwise...but then I admit I may be in the minority!
But no matter- whether a couple wants to marry because they are in love, or just because they have a child- or even if they can get some tax benefits- well, so what. Let them marry, it doesn't matter if theyre hetero or homosexual. Why should it? I think you're getting away from the point- which is that MARRIAGE SHOULD BE AN OPTION FOR ANY TWO HUMANS WHO WISH TO UNITE THEMSELVES LEGALLY AND SPIRITUALLY. And for whatever reason- or lack there-of, doesn't matter. You want to marry? Marry. WHO CARES!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas R.
What you personally believe marriage to be does not change the facts of history or biology.
A relationship with two men or two women is different than a mixed sex relationship. This is because men are different than women in some fundamental ways. You can deny that all you want, but even the secular studies will back me and not you on this. The determination of most of those is that the difference is not sufficient to deny them marriage, not that the differences are unreal or don't exist. Personally I've come to believe that calling fairly different things the same is inherently dishonest. I still think a state has the right to lie to homosexuals and call their relationships marriage, out of sympathy or sentimentality, if they wish. However I think ultimately recognizing that it is a different kind of thing is not a bad idea at all.
I NEVER once said that I do not understand that there are differences between men and women. I am quite aware, and actually very much appreciate that there are some VAST difference between men and women. Not just physically, but emotionally and internally both. However- such differences do not give reason for any sort of discrimination towards either sex- for any reason. I don't think that men and women *should*, per se, be "treated" the same- because they are NOT the same. But should they be treated EQUALLY? YES. If that makes sense, and I hope it does. But with regard to relationships between a man and woman being different than between two men, or two women- you say they're NOT the same, and I maintain that they are. There is NO difference other than that the physical parts are different, and that with one couple, there is a chance for making a baby and not with the other. Aside from that- it's just two people having a relationship. No difference. The dynamics may be different- but they're different between any two humans. It all boils down to roles, and each person has their own, and we all know that roles have NOTHING to do with the sex of the person...who doesn't know well the woman who TOTALLY wears the proverbial "pants" in a relationship?!
So yeah, I maintain that a homosexual relationship, or marriage is really NO different from a heterosexual one. And you can refer to your "secular" backing all you want, but since I don't buy into that, that particular angle of argument isn't valid in my eyes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas R.
It seems pretty obvious. You have two people going in and two people in. Nothing is added. The things you speak of like loyalty or love or whatever can exist in anything. Blood oaths or whatever could do much the same.
Also I never said I believe in romantic love is the main centerpiece of life. I don't. I think there are many things that are probably more important than it, even if that is one of the most unfashionable of unfashionable things to say.
It isn't "unfashionable" in the least, and I appreciate your candor. What it is, honestly, is sad. Perhaps you either don't feel the need for the type of partnership that offers the depth of love that, literally, makes the world go round...and that's fine. But if you've ever been in love (and if you never have I hope you someday will)- you know very well that when you have true love, everything else falls into place. Of course in my experience- other things fall OUT of place.. .but that's just because of my own folly, another subject entirely! Still, I NEVER regret the feelings of deep love I've experienced, because there's just nothing like it. And ANY two people who are lucky enough to maintain that feeling- and want to take the step to commit to each other fully, and legally- well, bottom line- they should be able to without question, and without persecution. PERIOD. That's all...
BTW- I was re-reading what I wrote and I apologize about that one paragraph where I confused "secular" with "non-secular"...which I often do. Secular backing of any point- I DO have an interest in hearing that, always. Its the religious and biblical quoting/mumbo-jumbo that I don't pay mind to. Again, I have always had trouble with remembering that secular means non-religious, and non-secular means religious...with all due respect, I wish people, when NOT being religious, would just say they have "logical" reasons/backing to illustrate their point rather than "secular"! :-)
Last edited by helios666; 09-27-2010 at 06:16 AM..
Reason: correction
God looks at the heart. we cannot do that. no matter how hard we try. Jesus said come to me, all you who labor and are heavy laden....we all have burdens. I do not know, but maybe some homosexuals would want the burden removed.....some do not.....I cannot judge any homosexuals' heart and we all are called to work out our salvation... does God dinstinguish between sin? or did Jesus simply atone for it all? I think we know the answer. to me, it is ludicrous to debate a gay person about whether they are saved or love the Lord.... I am sure they are. John 3:16 declares it . I could not know. I am neither a judge nor can I discern their heart.....Geez, I have enough to deal with myself
The question is dave....why would they have to feel like they need the "burden" removed? Perhaps, it's because there are sooooo many bigoted people who call it a BURDEN....A LIFESTYLE....A CHOICE. It's been said before....why would ANYONE choose to be ridiculed and condemned for their entire lifetime????? It is not a BURDEN...LIFESTYLE...OR CHOICE....it is the way they were born...END OF STORY. It truly disgusts me when the religious use an archaic man made book to justify their bigotry and hatred only when it suits them...but leave all of the other archaic nonsense in the dust that doesn't suit them...how convenient of them when they pick and choose what they will follow and expect everyone else to jump on the band wagon.
I believe one day we will get passed this NONSENSE....although it may take many decades just as it has for blacks to be treated equally with whites....and we are long way from that as well.
RACISM AND DISCRIMINATION, IN ANY FORM..........IS DEFINITELY NOT CHRISTLIKE.
Actually helios666 I think I was a little crabbier in that post than I wanted. I might respond to your new one later depending on what is going on in my neck of the woods. Zai Jian, take care!
Thank you- but I actually didn't happen to find you crabby at all, Thomas, just curt- nothing wrong with that. I probably wasn't the pillar of pleasantry myself...anyway, it seems that you took time to actually READ what I wrote, and responded to the points I was making. That doesn't happen often enough for my taste and I don't care so much whether you agree with me or not- that's not why I'm here. I care about having an intellectual CONVERSATION and exchange of ideas, and you participated in that regard. So no worries! Still feel free to respond later if you'd like.
And @Christy- yeah, I'm STILL waiting for an answer to that which you're talking about; the issue of the hypocrisy regarding bible "literalists" who pick and choose what to believe out of the bible even though they 'claim' to believe in it from beginning to end, without doubt. Which is a question that I posted twice recently, as well as other numerous times. WAY too many times! I think I'll grow cobwebs before anyone has the guts to answer what is really just a very simple question...
Thank you- but I actually didn't happen to find you crabby at all, Thomas, just curt- nothing wrong with that. I probably wasn't the pillar of pleasantry myself...anyway, it seems that you took time to actually READ what I wrote, and responded to the points I was making. That doesn't happen often enough for my taste and I don't care so much whether you agree with me or not- that's not why I'm here. I care about having an intellectual CONVERSATION and exchange of ideas, and you participated in that regard. So no worries! Still feel free to respond later if you'd like.
And @Christy- yeah, I'm STILL waiting for an answer to that which you're talking about; the issue of the hypocrisy regarding bible "literalists" who pick and choose what to believe out of the bible even though they 'claim' to believe in it from beginning to end, without doubt. Which is a question that I posted twice recently, as well as other numerous times. WAY too many times! I think I'll grow cobwebs before anyone has the guts to answer what is really just a very simple question...
Huh?? I don't recall ever being asked that question by you...but there are so many things that God commanded in the OT....none of which are followed....because Christians claim they are no longer under the law. But then....pastors/preachers insist everyone tithe 10% or more to them (because otherwise they are robbing God)....based on the OT....which the actual tithe in the OT wasn't about MONEY at all. And what does the NT say regarding giving??? And whom was the giving supposed to be for??? This is just ONE glaring example of many.
Regarding the OP.....Jesus said to love your neighbor as yourself....he didn't say only love them if they are heterosexual, never sin, have lots of money, etc. It was Paul who taught to not fellowship with sinners...the very opposite of what Jesus taught. There are those who espouse we should love the sinner and hate the sin....and yet "Christians" (and I use that term loosely) love to condemn the alleged sinner as well as their alleged sin. Paul taught condemnation......Jesus taught love.....I think I'll stick with Jesus.
I guarantee you becoming born again won't change my sexual orientation. As a teenager I became a a born again Christian and became heavily involved in the church afterwards. I even went on to major in religion in college.
You are a born again Christian, yet you practise willful and habitual sin? You must realize that sin and Christ are incompatible, and any sin is a rebellion against God
1 John 3:10 This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God
No on can claim to be Christian and continue to practice willful and habitual sin. A slip followed by repentance is one thing, but anyone who knowingly and habitually practises sin, is not of God. The Bible says "No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him". If you have homosexual tendencies, you need to supress them, and not practice homosexuality, because it is a rebellion against God.
1 John 3:4-6 Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness. But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in him is no sin. No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him.
Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. He who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous. He who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil's work. No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God's seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God.
What sounds like a wonderful fantasy world of beautiful dances, pretty design and tasty dishes to a affluent daughter nestled in leafy green suburb is often cultural poison when the same charming tale is distilled for the poor.
Think about Margaret Mead's young Samoan lovers in "Coming of Age in Samoa" having beautiful sex on beach in a south pacific island without any worry of monogamy. It was a beautiful scene of tender young love, that few would want to snuff out in the name of Christian orthodoxy. Her work in Samoa became the scientific justification for much of the 1960's sexual liberation. This was the anthropological work that redefined premarital sex as a completely acceptable practice. (Yes the book is a total hoax as the Samoans actually place a high ideal on chastity)It presented the falsity that the natives away from the Judea- Christan world had no guilt or shame when it came to promiscuous sex with multiple partners.
Margaret Mead's social science seemed like a pleasurable fantasy of guiltless sex but when this made its way to Bushwick, Harlem and Detroit in the 1960's it translated into the nightmare of 80% illegitimacy rates and a life in hell to those that lived through it. For the poor their civilization was torn apart from the guts out by directly attacking the institution of family. What unintended consequences loom for the poor families when the homosexual bomb is dropped on the poor? We can already see the top down "full court press" with homosexual lifestyles promoted in public schools, homosexual marriage forced on the people by the government and homosexual characters on TV.
In the same way Mead's adolescent promiscuity seemed like an innocuousness enlightenment social advancement to those in a position of relative wealth in a leafy green liberal suburb it turned into hell on earth for those in the lower classes. These immoral lifestyles ravage their communities. See Detroit for an example of what the sexual enlightenment does to poor people and how hard it is to recover once the scale is tipped towards the side of degeneracy.
Homosexuality is just another excuse for daddy or mommy to go bye bye and indulge in more decadent sex. When sex is continuously defined as a means to the ends of pleasure; women and children will suffer as men fall victim to the passions of sexual vice. Who thought in the 1920's that the promotion of adolescent promiscuity would lead to 80% illegitimacy rates among the poor?
It is ironic that that the sexual revolution was supposed to make women more free and happy – but instead has made so many women so miserable, with vastly increased divorce, health problems, abortions and out of wedlock births, and the inability of so many to even marry in the first place, because the men aren’t interested. And women and girls are now more sexualized and objectified than ever before in history. Now we have a whole new line of sexual degeneracy that is being brought on-line to the mainstream that is sure to mangle a few more thousand young men as they experiment with urges that might have been kept in check minus the ideological subversion.
These levels of decadence were known in antiquity in Athens and Rome and directly lead to the end of these civilizations. We continue to trek down the same path of decadence. The moral law is universal and in place with or without mans hand. When a decadent civilization grants sexual license the repercussions will destroy that civilization from within, just like Rome and and Athens before it.
To be honest - I find no point in continuing this conversation. Our minds operate on completely different wave lengths. Trying to understand your view of things is like trying to read a language I've never heard of before. I don't believe you have any sort of grasp about human sexuality at all. It's sort of like - I can't have an honest discussion with someone about singing if they are tone deaf and have never sung a note. The only reason I engaged in a discussion with you was because I just felt that I couldn't leave your hate filled, condemning posts with out some sort of rebuttal. I couldn't, in good conscience, leave your posts for people to read with out them also being able to read some semblance of truth. Homosexuals are not pedophiles. Homosexuals are not evil. You can choose hate, or you can choose love and understanding. I always try to choose love and understanding. It's very easy to hate what you do not understand.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.but that's just because of my own folly, another subject entirely! Still, I NEVER regret the feelings of deep love I've experienced, because there's just nothing like it. And ANY two people who are lucky enough to maintain that feeling- and want to take the step to commit to each other fully, and legally- well, bottom line- they should be able to without question, and without persecution. PERIOD. That's all...
