Ireland legalizes homosexuality....

[moralist]

. . .

Every effect has a cause, Stephen.

Someone imprinted you with a homosexual identity, . . .

Just hours ago, Greg, your assertion was that the cause was that I was sexually molested. I was not. That could not be the cause.

That's fine, Stephen. I'm ok with whatever you say.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

Let us prey pray.

[moralist]

Let us prey pray.

The difference between those two are moral values. The former belongs to homosexuality while the latter does not.

Greg

[jts]

Let us prey pray.

[RobinReborn]

It seems like this conversation is getting personal and straying away from the topic...

[Brant Gaede]

With moralist it's always personal.

[Brant Gaede]

Let us prey pray.

The difference between those two are moral values. The former belongs to homosexuality while the latter does not.

Greg

You ignore don't care about forget the incestuous abuse of girls by males--so much of it Freud couldn't believe it. You know, that pious Christian asshole recently in the news--so recent it still stinks--forgiven already by Hickabee Huckabee (sp?) who owned up to several, probably did a lot more, I forget if any relatives but they were all girls (so far). Fits the pattern, but not your storyline..

--Brant

[moralist]

With moralist it's always personal.

You hit upon a truth, Brant.

Every macro view rests upon the foundation of micro personal experience. While most people are only interested in the macro view, my interest is in the micro origin of the macro view.

Greg

[moralist]

Let us prey pray.

The difference between those two are moral values. The former belongs to homosexuality while the latter does not.

Greg

You ignore don't care about forget the incestuous abuse of girls by males--so much of it Freud couldn't believe it. You know, that pious Christian asshole recently in the news--so recent it still stinks--forgiven already by Hickabee Huckabee (sp?) who owned up to several, probably did a lot more, I forget if any relatives but they were all girls (so far). Fits the pattern, but not your storyline..

--Brant

Brant, the topic of this thread was homosexual "marriage". If you want to discuss Huckabee incest, that's ok with me. Hadn't heard about that. I'll read up on it now, and then comment. Back in a moment...

(edit) Ok, I googled "Huckabee incest". According to the story Huckabee "forgave" the evil sexual behavior of an underage male teen.

I find this to be odd in that only the person who has been wronged can choose whether or not to forgive the person who wronged them.

Your anger against Huckabee highlights why doing evil in the name of God (carrying the banner of the Lord falsely) is serious enough to be one of the Ten Commandments. As far as I know, according to the Bible, it is the only unforgivable sin to do evil in God's name.

Even Jesus said that anyone who causes children to stumble should have a millstone put around their neck and thrown into the sea. Sounds like the very worst punishment that came to mind in the moment. And that is an indication of how bad it is to falsely give God a bad name when He's good.

Your own anger demonstrates just how damaging evil done in the name of God truly is, because it supplies secularists with false reasons to both hate and negate God. It's right there down at the bottom of the lowest of the low in evil.

And you're not alone...

Ask any atheist. The first angry complaint out of their mouth is frequently the hypocrisy of religious people doing evil under the color of authority of religion (God).

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

You cannot find refuge for lack of reasoning by limiting the topic to homosexual wrongs as if, by implication, there cannot be heterosexual wrongs. The real topic is not how bad homosexuals are and let's dance on that. Regardless, you have strayed far off topic yourself. Atomistic reasoning has its place, but ultimately it has to travel to and relate to and integrate to a broader context.

--Brant

[william.scherk]

For those insulated from popular American culture the reference is to the Duggar family and their television 'reality' programme 19 Kids and Counting. The family is part of the Quiverfull / Christian Patriarchy movement that instantiates traditional biblical marriage and eschews any attempt to interfere with procreation -- including the rhythm method.

The patriarch of the Duggar brood is Jim-Bob. He is on record calling for the death penalty for rape and incest News emerged in the last fortnight that his eldest child had molested five girls, including four of his own Duggar sisters, on multiple occasions. The eldest Duggar child, Josh, was fourteen at the time. Jim-Bob initially kept his son's molestation confession 'in-house,' with his church elders, sending his teenage son to a boot-camp** as punishment/correction, and only much later marching Josh in for a meeting with authorities.

The news of his acts upon his sisters came via a (since expunged) 2006 police report. The offences occurred and were discovered by Jim-Bob in 2002/2003. The media scandal coverage has been wall-to-wall since it broke in celebrity-news organs People and In Touch. It is now in the thirteenth iteration of the ferocious all-media wash/spin/rinse storm.

Huckabee's defense of Josh is on his Facebook page, as are pages and pages of Christian outrage following his misstep (if misstep it was for him to omit significant mention of the molested).

I have no opinion on the Christian morality or hypocrisy or integrity of Jim-Bob. I feel bad for the family, as their future as wholesome symbols of Christian purity and goodness and sweetness is irrevocably damaged. They are now stained in the public eye. Josh has had to cancel public appearances and resign from the Family Research Council. The girls and young women of the family obey the menfolk and keep their silence. Of the victims, crickets.

Maybe the whole scandal can be seen as an instructive morality play. In which case the expert is our resident Queer Moralist. In his rococo version of sexual-orientation causality, the girls are at grave danger of becoming lesbians. The die is set.

If by some means they can view their molestation as God's will, and forgive everyone for staining their virtue, and keep sweet instead of confused/angry/disgusted, then by Greg's cosmic balance, everything will be good, the girls will turn out straight, and we can get back to the biggest news, Blood Moon Prophecies.

PS -- the original official "investigating officer," a family friend of the Duggars, is serving a fifty-six years prison sentence for 'unrelated child pornography charges."

PPS -- You know what the whole dang problem here is? The galdarn liberal feminization of the poor Duggars. Fucked them over good. Right, Greg? Or did the girls get what they deserved? One of them was purportedly five years old. Cursed by Evil and slated for lesbianism without a divine intervention?

________________

** -- mom Michelle contradicts a report from the imprisoned cop, and reportedly "later told police that her son did not go through such a program but instead had stayed at a Little Rock home that a family friend was remodeling."

Edited May 28, 2015 by william.scherk

[moralist]

You cannot find refuge for lack of reasoning by limiting the topic to homosexual wrongs as if, by implication, there cannot be heterosexual wrongs.

I didn't.

You mentioned Huckabee and incest and I commented specifically on what you raised.

So what other heterosexual wrongs would you like to talk about?

I've got no problem with that.

Wrong is wrong.

Greg

[moralist]

News emerged in the last fortnight that his eldest child had molested five girls, including four of his own Duggar sisters, on multiple occasions. The eldest Duggar child, Josh, was fourteen at the time.

This is why doing evil under the color of authority of God is among the very worst of sins.

Religious hypocrisy just gets the secular feminized leftists like you all worked up.

Greg

[william.scherk]

Here is your chance, Greg, to illustrate how homosexual causation via child molestation can be countermanded. The girls were obviously doomed by your equation to become lesbians. What is exactly necessary so that they may steer off that path, please?

You have propounded your theory repeatedly, without acknowledging it could have faults. So, why not use this Duggar molestation situation to help the rest of us here understand the dynamics of resisting a gay/lesbian orientation brought on by 'evil.'

The sound you hear may appear to be a servo-mechanism burning out. Buzz, whine, fizzle, as Greg has a recursive fit of self-awareness. 'I cannot explain my theory. I can explain my theory. I cannot. I can. I will. I won't.' Fizzle, bzzzz, derp.

I hear Crickets.

[Brant Gaede]

You cannot find refuge for lack of reasoning by limiting the topic to homosexual wrongs as if, by implication, there cannot be heterosexual wrongs.

I didn't.

You mentioned Huckabee and incest and I commented specifically on what you raised.

So what other heterosexual wrongs would you like to talk about?

I've got no problem with that.

Wrong is wrong.

Greg

Nope. By your metric homosexuality is all wrong while heterosexuality might only be wrong in particulars. Homosexuals are imprinted into existence, seez you, meaning there is nothing natural about it. Is heterosexuality imprinted into existence? Or is it a natural default? Can a Lesbian imprint Lesbianism into existence by sexually molesting girls? Is that why we (oops!) have Lesbians? Now, what happens to sexual orientation when an uncle molests his niece? Heterosexual imprinting? If so, wouldn't early life heterosexual incest be important for heterosexual development? Uncle sets the girls straight before they go off to junior high?

--Brant

[moralist]

Here is your chance, Greg, to illustrate how homosexual causation via child molestation can be countermanded.

You're such a drama queen, William.

I only read a few sentences about Huckabee for Brant's sake because he brought it up. I don't watch television (haven't for 14 years now) because it's inane and panders to liberal morons. So I know almost nothing about the issue that has you so excited.

This is exactly what makes doing evil in God's name unforgivable. It just gives immoral secularist God haters fodder to ~feel~ right when they're wrong. It's food that you can't live without it, so gorge yourself. It's a 24/7 all you can eat buffet.

So while I don't know the specifics, I do know this moral principle which can be applied to any situation:

Evil can only be prevented from being passed on by each individual's own personal choice that it stop with them...

...but that can only happen by first giving up the angry blame (unjust accusation) of others for the just and deserved consequences of their own failure to do what's morally right.

Angry unjust blame is what makes the imprinting take... as it transforms the hater into what they hate. This is how evil lives... by being passed on to others.

Greg

[moralist]

By your metric homosexuality is all wrong while heterosexuality might only be wrong in particulars.

That's actually a pretty good take away, Brant.

While some heterosexual behavior is within moral boundaries and some is outside, all of homosexual behavior lies outside the boundaries of moral propriety. Now what each person freely chooses to do about this is totally up to them.

ONLY the objective reality of getting what we deserve as the consequences of our own actions has the power to change our view.

This is my subjective opinion of no more or less weight than anyone else's subjective view... which leaves everyone else is free to work things out on their own.

So have a nice life.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

Your "moral propriety" excludes love. If it's there it's a coincidence. If it's not it doesn't matter.

You are claiming factual knowledge with no obligation to demonstrate its validity for you are also explicitly claiming it to be only your "subjective view."

--Brant

make a choice

[moralist]

And to the topic of the thread...

In California, a Proposition 8 passed by the voters affirmed man woman marriage. The vote of the people was then overturned by liberal judges.

Greg

[moralist]

Your "moral propriety" excludes love.

Moral propriety is love, Brant.

You're totally free to define love in any way you choose.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

Your "moral propriety" excludes love.

Moral propriety is love, Brant.

You're totally free to define love in any way you choose.

Greg

Love is a feeling.

--Brant

[moralist]

Your "moral propriety" excludes love.

Moral propriety is love, Brant.

You're totally free to define love in any way you choose.

Greg

Love is a feeling.

--Brant

Ok...that's your view.

For you love is a feeling.

For me love is doing right by others

regardless of how I feel.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

Your "moral propriety" excludes love.

Moral propriety is love, Brant.

You're totally free to define love in any way you choose.

Greg

Love is a feeling.

--Brant

Ok...that's your view.

For you love is a feeling.

For me love is doing right by others

regardless of how I feel.

Greg

Now you're confusing out of love or from love with love itself.

--Brant

[moralist]

Your "moral propriety" excludes love.

Moral propriety is love, Brant.

You're totally free to define love in any way you choose.

Greg

Love is a feeling.

--Brant

Ok...that's your view.

For you love is a feeling.

For me love is doing right by others

regardless of how I feel.

Greg

Now you're confusing out of love or from love with love itself.

--Brant

I'm being perfectly clear, Brant

In my view, only actions matter... not feelings

My opinion doesn't impinge upon your freedom to define love in any way you choose.

Greg

[anthony]

My personal thought and feeling about this have to do as much with younger gays themselves who suffer alienation and self-doubt, simply for being what they are. I've known such guys. Nobody "deserves" to feel obliged to show one facade in the work-place, another with his parents, another with friends out on the town, another -etc. etc. What the constant masquerade and anxiety must do to a person's consciousness and self-esteem is sobering.

This is empathetic and wise, to my eyes.

I thank you, more hard knocks and experience than wisdom, I suspect!

Principle only goes so far - this is one of those things one has to experience up close to impress on one. I mixed with young students who lived in fear of unforgiving fathers and anguish in anticipation of a social ostracism, that would follow exposure of their sexuality. Knowing they weren't - normal. It helped me sense back then, but didn't realise as well as now, that to live by others' standards and mores is a terrible load.

(I cringe now in memory of moments or periods when I wasn't true to myself, allowing anyone to influence me into something I didn't like, or keeping silent when I had to speak up - all, the basic denial of reality and betrayal of integrity).

Feeling 'wrong' for life, or similarly that life is wrong for one - while struggling to find one's feet and direction - is not unusual to most youngish people. It can only be compounded by it dawning on one that he/she's gay and 'different'.

If I've been unclear, long and short of it - I'm happy for gays who have achieved marital parity with straights. Although I do consider it all a "given", classed under individual liberty. If it hasn't as yet, a general recognition that any two individuals can love each other should grow from these initiatives. But I will criticize how it came about (bestowed by authority and majority) ..

Anyhow, I agree that gaining pragmatic justice in the now, wins over theoretic ideals in some future. The political and social system is what it is. Like the woman who claimed from the State Health she despised but had no choice but to contribute to, you sometimes have to collect what's your due, any way it comes.