roeVwade:Same-sex couples updating legal status after Supreme Court’s decision on abortion (Jay Reeves) [+CNN clip]

[TraderPatTX]

This is why courts granting rights are always a bad idea. This is also what happens when we allow government into parts of our lives where it does not belong. Marriage has always been a religious ceremony carried out by religious institutions. Give marriage back to the churches, synagogues and mosques and get government out of the marriage business.

 

[SonowRaevius]

Clearly I am talking about homosexual marriage and abortion, you are just trying to be clever.

I know quite well what you were talking about, which is why I asked the question that I did, and if you think that was "trying to be clever" then obviously you didn't understand why I asked what I did.

So I will ask again in a more thorough way so you might understand it a little better.

Do you, XDel, believe that letting people have the same rights as you and treating them with kindness, humanity, respect, compassion, and equality is a debatable topic, yes or no?

You're a person of "logic and truth" so you say, so be truthful and tell us what you really think without putting up excuses and hiding behind religion.

 

[XDel]

I know quite well what you were talking about, which is why I asked the question that I did, and if you think that was "trying to be clever" then obviously you didn't understand why I asked what I did.

So I will ask again in a more thorough way so you might understand it a little better.

Do you, XDel, believe that letting people have the same rights as you and treating them with kindness, humanity, respect, compassion, and equality is a debatable topic, yes or no?

You're a person of "logic and truth" so you say, so be truthful and tell us what you really think without putting up excuses and hiding behind religion.

Yes, I believe in kindness, humanity, respect, compassion, and equality. In fact part of my religious conviction is that I am also to love my enemy. Though the word "love" has lost its meaning in recent years.

 

[Deleted member 194275]

Marriage has always been a religious ceremony carried out by religious institutions.

You're completely wrong on that one. The western world form of marriage came from Rome, centuries before Christianity came to be, and it was regulated by law and not the roman polytheist religion at that time. Rome influenced the early Christianity a lot, including the marriage ritual.

 

[SonowRaevius]

Yes, I believe in kindness, humanity, respect, compassion, and equality. In fact part of my religious conviction is that I am also to love my enemy. Though the word "love" has lost its meaning in recent years.

So if you believe in those things then why are you trying to deny someone else the right to have a marriage ceremony? Ceremonies I might add that existed far before Christianity.

Love may have lost its meaning to you, and I genuinely feel sorry for you that it has, but that doesn't mean love has lost its meaning entirely and to everyone.

 

[XDel]

So if you believe in those things then why are you trying to deny someone else the right to have a marriage ceremony? Ceremonies I might add that existed far before Christianity.

Love may have lost its meaning to you, and I genuinely feel sorry for you that it has, but that doesn't mean love has lost its meaning entirely and to everyone.

Did I imply that love's meaning has been lost unto me? Rather I noted that the meaning of love has been lost in this modern world.

For example, when a child is doing something wrong that will make his life worse as well as those around him should he persist; do you merely encourage and support his actions, or do you stop him and show him the errors of his ways so that he may avoid the consequences of persisting in such actions?

As for the marriage ceremony pre-dating Christianity, please keep in mind that Christianity itself predates the era upon which it took it's name. That said, regardless of which religious system predates another, marriage has always been a ceremony reflective of the union of opposites where in the two are made one, both figuratively and literally when there is off spring involved. It was never and has never been about same sex unions.

Now as for what a person does in the privacy of their bedroom, that is their business and their free will. If a couple wants to live together, then again, that is their free will, but by definition of the purpose of marriage, same sex marriages are technically impossible. It is only the state who has changed the dictionary definition of marriage, though like love, that does not mean that it's original meaning has changed.

 

[MariArch]

Xenoblade Chronicles 3 is going to be an awesome game.

 

[SyphenFreht]

There is an order to the cosmos that we must abide by if we are to truly live and know what is true from what is false. The fact that civilizations, individuals and such have engaged in hedonistic life styles does not in any way suggest that it aligns with truth and how we should be behaving. The proof of their error can always be found in their proverbial fruits. There was no love there, only lusts, only desires.

So that produces the theory that love is the greatest force of them all, but I still feel that is a construct, as it's not apparent in any other species, again from what we ascertain. I mean, you could argue that any two animals that mate for life "love" each other, but from a biological standpoint, life mates existed well before man's idea of "love".

It also breeds the idea that love can exist outside a two partner relationship. Humans have the capacity to love many people, obviously in different ways, but if love was the defining factor in growth, not just sex, then why would same sex partners be abhorrent? Or, if two heterosexual partners love each other and can't conceive, is their union and capacity for growth lessened by the fact they can't reproduce? And what about adoption of children, produced by heterosexual couples (mincing words on rape victims and such aside), by said homosexual couples? Is there a lack of love and capacity for growth there?

Rome is recognized for being a world economic power, but the miseries that their cultural norms brought upon the people are not often discussed. Not unlike our modern world which is clearly larger and bolder than anything that Rome ever accomplished, we have toys, we have gadgets, and everything at the touch of the finger and yet our individual and collective lives are at a low point, suicide rates are at an all time high, the blood bath of the last century is just mind blowing, and yet we call this progress. The reason being is because we are being conditioned to look at the world through a purely materialist point of view, whilst neglecting the invisible and the subtle.

So I can't inherently disagree with this. I too feel the onset of social technology has had quite the negative effect on the modern world for a myriad of reasons. The two that I see as the most heinous would be:

1) it causes people to become desensitized to the many atrocities that happen global wide, which of course causes slippery slopes within itself, and

2) it allows people to voice their opinions on a wide scale that probably shouldn't be allowed to. I'm not saying people don't deserve a voice, but I firmly believe not all voices need to be presented on such a scale. Imagine what the world would be like if Hitler had a Twitter.

However, at it's base, I don't feel abortions are an old world principle that needs to be abolished; at the base of it, abortions are survival techniques, plain and simple. To bring it around to the topic at hand, the Constitution states that every person has a right to a "...pursuit of happiness". Now, we can argue and infer all day long that a baby can or should be afforded those same rights, but from a mother's perspective, that abortion is being done as a survival method to allow her to continue on in her pursuit of happiness. The reasoning behind her choice can be as abhorrent as one wishes it to be, but any reasoning and ones perspective of it only detracts from the base instinct of survival.

Xenoblade Chronicles 3 is going to be an awesome game.

God I hope so. I'm definitely looking forward to Star Ocean myself.

 

[ZeroFX]

Nice. This thread is bound to be good!

 

[XDel]

So that produces the theory that love is the greatest force of them all, but I still feel that is a construct, as it's not apparent in any other species, again from what we ascertain. I mean, you could argue that any two animals that mate for life "love" each other, but from a biological standpoint, life mates existed well before man's idea of "love".

I have pets as well as a life time of experiences that won't allow me to descend into that whole post modernist labyrinth; minotaurs or not.


I will say this though, even when we don't feel loved, even when we don't feel capable of loving, we must push our selves to act in lovingness towards one another regardless. That does not mean to support a person's every choice and action because sometimes we make bad choices, nor is it about the need to feel all warm and fuzzy in your tummy for a person, but to care about them enough to be honest with them, to help them when they need help, to mourn with them when they are in mourning, to try to illuminate their room when they are in darkness, to push them towards goodness, kindness, and selflessness, etc. This of course is the hard path, which is why nobody wants to walk it. It's easier to take care of our own damn selves, do what we want to do, and never speak an honest work. Easier in the moment anyhow, but not for the long run of couse.

 

[SyphenFreht]

I have pets as well as a life time of experiences that won't allow me to descend into that whole post modernist labyrinth; minotaurs or not.


I will say this though, even when we don't feel loved, even when we don't feel capable of loving, we must push our selves to act in lovingness towards one another regardless. That does not mean to support a person's every choice and action because sometimes we make bad choices, nor is it about the need to feel all warm and fuzzy in your tummy for a person, but to care about them enough to be honest with them, to help them when they need help, to mourn with them when they are in mourning, to try to illuminate their room when they are in darkness, to push them towards goodness, kindness, and selflessness, etc. This of course is the hard path, which is why nobody wants to walk it. It's easier to take care of our own damn selves, do what we want to do, and never speak an honest work. Easier in the moment anyhow, but not for the long run of couse.

So it seems community is a big issue for you, which is great. However, how does that translate to abortion rights for you? If we all need to come together and love one another, wouldn't fostering an environment that allows people to choose keeping the baby moreso than aborting it be a priority, as opposed to enacting laws that only abolish it? After all, love isn't about the warmth you feel inside, it's about ensuring environments breed comfort, progress, inclusion, and enlightenment. It seems that to ridicule or enforce laws that enable restriction only deter from the idea of love; wouldn't it push that narrative more if we allowed people to be what they're comfortable with being, even if it goes against our idealogies? Where at in history have we proven love through coercion and restriction?

 

[XDel]

So it seems community is a big issue for you, which is great. However, how does that translate to abortion rights for you? If we all need to come together and love one another, wouldn't fostering an environment that allows people to choose keeping the baby moreso than aborting it be a priority, as opposed to enacting laws that only abolish it? After all, love isn't about the warmth you feel inside, it's about ensuring environments breed comfort, progress, inclusion, and enlightenment. It seems that to ridicule or enforce laws that enable restriction only deter from the idea of love; wouldn't it push that narrative more if we allowed people to be what they're comfortable with being, even if it goes against our idealogies? Where at in history have we proven love through coercion and restriction?

Well no because denying a baby's natural development process inside, let alone outside the womb (murder) is evil, not an act of love, compassion, or anything of the sort. And for me, it is not about the Community, it is about the love for the higher mystery from which we were created. I love the creation because I love the Creator, though believe me, it is not an easy task, and I am not always feeling up to it or in the best of moods, but I know that that is how I am supposed to live and so I strive towards it, clumsy or otherwise.

 

[SyphenFreht]

Well no because denying a baby's natural development process inside, let alone outside the womb (murder) is evil, not an act of love, compassion, or anything of the sort. And for me, it is not about the Community, it is about the love for the higher mystery from which we were created. I love the creation because I love the Creator, though believe me, it is not an easy task, and I am not always feeling up to it or in the best of moods, but I know that that is how I am supposed to live and so I strive towards it, clumsy or otherwise.

Why would the Creator allow us to have this opportunity, these options, if we were not meant utilize it?

 

[SonowRaevius]

For example, when a child is doing something wrong that will make his life worse as well as those around him should he persist; do you merely encourage and support his actions, or do you stop him and show him the errors of his ways so that he may avoid the consequences of persisting in such actions?

Of course you would stop him, if what he is doing is truly wrong.

Would I stop a child from doing something that harms an animal? Yes, but I would explain to them it hurts the animal.

Would I stop a child from stealing or lying? I would an explain why it wrong to do either of those things.
However, given the context here, that is not what you are talking about and trying to say that marriage for lgbt+ people is wrong and you are showing love for them by trying to get them stop it. There is a huge difference in reprimanding someone for doing something that harms another in some form, and deliberately trying to stop festivities that are a celebration of love for one another.

I fail to see how you can say love has lost its meaning when there are people like love one another to want to be together forever. If you see love as just discipline and reprimanding, then yes, I would think you would see love as less valuable in this world and I again I feel sorry for you.

In saying this though, I am not saying love is or should be blind either, as toxicity and bad traits/habits should be pointed out and people should seek good changes, especially from a relationship of any kind.

As for the marriage ceremony pre-dating Christianity, please keep in mind that Christianity itself predates the era upon which it took it's name. That said, regardless of which religious system predates another, marriage has always been a ceremony reflective of the union of opposites where in the two are made one, both figuratively and literally when there is off spring involved. It was never and has never been about same sex unions.

There are many ceremonies that date back to Mesopotamian times that joined same sex couples in partnership.

There are also plenty of opposite sex couple that have gotten married and never had children as well, whether by choice or by natures design itself. So to you does that make that marriage illegitimate as well?

If not, then you must admit that your logic is very much flawed or you are holding double standards.

same sex marriages are technically impossible.

See for something to be impossible, even in a technical sense, it would mean that it has not, nor will it ever happen.

Luckily, you aren't in charge of what is and is not possible, nor do you have any real say it what is or is not possible either.

It is only the state who has changed the dictionary definition of marriage, though like love, that does not mean that it's original meaning has changed.

The definition has changed world wide, yet is you that decide you want to pretend that the world is and should be the same as it was 50 years ago.

I will agree, love's definition hasn't changed in all the millennia that we have understood its meaning.

How you define it however it something totally different from what love actually is and it is no wonder the meaning/weight of it seems lost to you, when you never really knew what it was to begin with it seems.

 

[XDel]

Why would the Creator allow us to have this opportunity, these options, if we were not meant utilize it?

We have the free will to do what ever we please, though we still have to deal with consequences.

 

[XDel]

Of course you would stop him, if what he is doing is truly wrong.

Would I stop a child from doing something that harms an animal? Yes, but I would explain to them it hurts the animal.

Would I stop a child from stealing or lying? I would an explain why it wrong to do either of those things.
However, given the context here, that is not what you are talking about and trying to say that marriage for lgbt+ people is wrong and you are showing love for them by trying to get them stop it. There is a huge difference in reprimanding someone for doing something that harms another in some form, and deliberately trying to stop festivities that are a celebration of love for one another.

I fail to see how you can say love has lost its meaning when there are people like love one another to want to be together forever. If you see love as just discipline and reprimanding, then yes, I would think you would see love as less valuable in this world and I again I feel sorry for you.

In saying this though, I am not saying love is or should be blind either, as toxicity and bad traits/habits should be pointed out and people should seek good changes, especially from a relationship of any kind.

There are many ceremonies that date back to Mesopotamian times that joined same sex couples in partnership.

There are also plenty of opposite sex couple that have gotten married and never had children as well, whether by choice or by natures design itself. So to you does that make that marriage illegitimate as well?

If not, then you must admit that your logic is very much flawed or you are holding double standards.

See for something to be impossible, even in a technical sense, it would mean that it has not, nor will it ever happen.

Luckily, you aren't in charge of what is and is not possible, nor do you have any real say it what is or is not possible either.


The definition has changed world wide, yet is you that decide you want to pretend that the world is and should be the same as it was 50 years ago.

I will agree, love's definition hasn't changed in all the millennia that we have understood its meaning.

How you define it however it something totally different from what love actually is and it is no wonder the meaning/weight of it seems lost to you, when you never really knew what it was to begin with it seems.

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
- Jeremiah 17:9

 

[SyphenFreht]

We have the free will to do what ever we please, though we still have to deal with consequences.

And what are the consequences of having, for example, a homosexual relationship?

 

[videogamefanatic]

There are indeed, but it doesn't mean that what they are promoting is true. There are lots of nutty people out there that call them selves all sort of things from Christian, to Buddhist, to Atheist, what is your point?

As for the link in my avatar, it's not a conspiracy theory but a study of tactics that have been and are being used. You people carry on like there is no such thing as social engineering, marketing, propaganda, and the like, and that your thoughts and opinions are clear and are birthed from the depths of your own original thought; never having been tainted by the influences of the world around you. Until you have faced the truth of your self in the proverbial wilderness, you can never know truth but rather illusion.

It's almost as if free speech is legal, huh? What do we do, outlaw persuasive writing and any kind of advertisement and debate? Just stop dude. You're making yourself look like an idiot.

 

[XDel]

And what are the consequences of having, for example, a homosexual relationship?

What, you mean like infections, STD's and the like? Not just homosexuals, but most people in this post modern era sleep with more than one person over the course of a life time, though STD's and the like are more prominent in the homosexual community.

There is the whole transference of energies, the fact that you can't have kids, the fact that you find your self sexually attracted to the same anatomy as your own, rather than your opposite which you were made to fit with and reproduce with. In spite of the term being FORCED out of the Mental Disorders books by bullying rather than science, homosexuality is still a mental disorder, just the same as bestiality, promiscuity, pedophilia, and so forth. It also robs you of the natural experience of growing along with your opposite in nature, because yes, MEN and WOMEN are very different. Sexual relations isn't the cure for our existential woes.

If you would like some of what the Bible has to say on the subject:

Romans 1: 24-
Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

I would say this fits the bill because everyone I know that supports this Cult of Woke, carries just this sort of reprobate mind state.

If you would like to refer to Buddhist text, then we have this piece about the conditions of life and the things we yearn for that do not bring lasting happiness:

The Gospel of Buddha, Lection 2:

Look about and contemplate life! [1]
Everything is transient and nothing endures.
There is birth and death, growth and decay;
there is combination and separation. [2]

The glory of the world is like a flower:
it stands in full bloom in the morning and fades in the heat of the day. [3]

Wherever you look, there is a rushing and struggling, and an eager pursuit of pleasure.
There is a panic flight from pain and death, and hot are the flames of burning desires.
The world is vanity fair, full of changes and transformations.
All is Samsara. [4]

Is there nothing permanent in the world?
Is there in the universal turmoil no resting-place where our troubled heart can find peace?
Is there nothing everlasting? [5]

Oh, that we could have cessation of anxiety,
that our burning desires would be extinguished!
When shall the mind become tranquil and composed? [6]

The Buddha, our Lord, was grieved at the ills of life.
He saw the vanity of worldly happiness
and sought salvation in the one thing that will not fade or perish,
but will abide for ever and ever. [7]

Ye who long for life, know that immortality is hidden intransiency.
Ye who wish for happiness without the sting of regret,
lead a life of righteousness.
Ye who yearn for riches, receive treasures that are eternal.
Truth is wealth, and a life of truth is happiness. [8]

All compounds will be dissolved again,
but the verities which determine all combination and separations
as laws of nature endure forever and aye.
Bodies fall to dust, but the truths of the mind will not be destroyed. [9]

Truth knows neither birth nor death;
it has no beginning and no end.
Welcome the truth. The truth is the immortal part of mind. [10]

Establish the truth in your mind,
for the truth is the image of the eternal;
it portrays the immutable;
it reveals the everlasting;
the truth gives unto mortals the boon of immortality. [11]

The Buddha has proclaimed the truth;
let the truth of the Buddha dwell in your hearts.
Extinguish in your selves every desire that antagonizes the Buddha,
and in the perfection of your spiritual growth you will become like unto him. [12]

That of your heart that cannot or will not develop into Buddha must perish;
for it is mere illusion and unreal;
it is the source of your error;
it is the cause of your misery. [13]

You attain to immortality by filling your minds with truth.
Therefore, become like unto vessles fit to receive the Master's words.
Cleanse yourselves of evil and sanctify your lives.
There is no other way of reaching truth. [14]

Learn to distinguish between Self and Truth.
Self is the cause of selfishness and the source of evil;
truth cleaves to no self;
it is universal and leads to justice and righteousness. [15]

Self, that which seems to those who love their selves as their being,
is not the eternal, the everlasting, the imperishable.
Seek not self,
but seek the truth. [16]

If we liberate our souls from our petty selves, wish no ill toothers,
and become clear as a crystal diamond reflecting the light of truth,
what a radiant picture will appear in us mirroring things as they are,
without the admixture of burning desires,
without the distortion of erroneous illusion,
without the agitation of clinging and unrest. [17]

Yet ye love self and will not abandon self-love.
So be it, but then, verily,
ye should learn to distinguish between the false self and the true self.
The ego with all its egotism is the false self.
It is an unreal illusion and a perishable combination.
He only who identifies his self with the truth will atain Nirvana;
and he who has entered Nirvana has attained Buddhahood;
he has acquired the highest good;
he has become eternal and immortal. [18]

All compound things shall be dissolved again,
worlds will break to pieces and our individualities will be scattered;
but the words of theBuddha will remain for ever. [19]

The extinction of self is salvation;
the annihilation of self is the condition of enlightenment;
the blotting out of self is Nirvana.
Happy is he who has ceased to live for pleasure and rests in the truth.
Verily his composure and tranquillity of mind are the highest bliss. [20]

Let us take our refuge in the Buddha,
for he has found the everlasting in the transient.
Let us take refuge in that which is the immutable in the changes of existence.
Let us take our refuge in the truth that is established through the enlightenment of the Buddha.
Let us take our refuge in the community of those who seek the truth and endeavour to live in the truth. [21]

 

[XDel]

It's almost as if free speech is legal, huh? What do we do, outlaw persuasive writing and any kind of advertisement and debate? Just stop dude. You're making yourself look like an idiot.

But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; - 1 Corinthians 1:27