| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/21/2008 03:06:18 PM · #1301 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
[thumb]740807[/thumb]
I was not surprised.
I can't figure out how to post it full size, lol! |
Open the full size image, right click it, and "copy image location", then paste it in here:
R.
|
|
|
|
11/21/2008 03:07:53 PM · #1302 |
Originally posted by tnun:
Maybe if you can show me how this helps people for and against gay marriage to achieve rapprochement I will be less chagrined. |
Perhaps it can help in many situations, simply by reminding people that others' attitudes are going to be somewhat predictable, and, in some cases, stylized. Meaning, no offense intended. So, DrAchoo didn't need to cry foul when I described Jesus throwing a temper tantrum, because by nature I don't respect authority and I'm apparently loyal to nothing while being thoroughly impure. Yet, I am apparently deeply concerned with equality and ensuring no harm comes to others. So my predictably stylized description can't be all that bad. |
|
|
|
11/21/2008 03:11:23 PM · #1303 |
| Thank you [user]Louis[/user]. I am sure it is interesting, and I was tempted to take it myself. You phrase it well: "surface attitudes to generalized moral issues." Almost too harmless. If there were an axis of sanctimoniousness I would score very high on it. |
|
|
|
11/21/2008 03:18:16 PM · #1304 |
Originally posted by RonB:
FWIW, the only angry demonstrations I've heard about vis-a-vis gay marriage have been those sponsored by the proponents of gay marriage, not those opposed. The angry demonstrators have even taken to disrupting worship services in churches - though to be fair, I haven't heard that they knocked over pews. |
Umm... yeah, of course. It's not like the supporters of Prop 8 would hold angry protests because they won. |
|
|
|
11/21/2008 03:21:56 PM · #1305 |
Originally posted by RonB:
c) FWIW, the only angry demonstrations I've heard about vis-a-vis gay marriage have been those sponsored by the proponents of gay marriage, not those opposed. |
Yeah, maybe just one kook at a time. Or actually, maybe a bunch of kooks.
(Note kook number one says, "All Christians are Catholics." Ain't that a kick in the nuts to some of the folks here?) |
|
|
|
11/21/2008 03:33:20 PM · #1306 |
Originally posted by tnun:
Okay - read most of this from 16 pages back, and while I feel obliged to correct certain interpretations of Kant's ethics, I would first like to honour  Mousie's contributions, both historical and personal. Marriage has never been a big thing for me, possibly because each of my parents married three times, and because in Canada living with my partner is sufficient to secure legal spousal rights. But being heterosexual, having a child and staying together has allowed us the recognition and acceptance normal to legally married couples. I hadn't really realized that until I read what Mousie wrote about his marriage. It was a beautiful illumination of what all this is about.
Deep relationships are a great gift. Hiding them under bushels deprives us all. |
THANK YOU!
That is a point I keep trying to hammer home... and it gets so frustrating that people, for the most part, ignore that sort of post and fall back on theory and semantics when this is really about family, love, and human rights.
|
|
|
|
11/21/2008 03:38:37 PM · #1307 |
Hetero/homo/bi-sexual
A link I had saved for an appropriate insertion, yet as I'm shutting down for the weekend - simply wanted to post it for use at another time. Essentially it claims that anyone can have sex with either gender and in some cases more should be open to that possibility. If bisexuality was accepetd and practiced, then the discussion on who could marry who - really wouldn't matter as anyone could marry anyone. I am intrigued by the scale of some totally heterosexual and some totally homosexual while most are bisexual. What specifically strikes me is the argument of choice versus determinism - meaning that it appears that those totally hetero or homo are predetermined while most who are bi make a choice. Perhaps this is where some confusion on this argument arises. One who is from the large central group of bisexuals would certainly perceive sexual engagement as a choice on gender while those at either extreme would see it as purely a non-decision matter.
I am curious if there are any practicing gay fundemantalist christians on this thread. If so, how do you reconcile the difference between teaching and behavior (I already know how I reconcile the difference but how do you)? Obviously some denominations accept same sex sexual engagement as they preform gay marriages and even annoint gay clergy/bishops. I would not consider those groups fundamentalists and am wondering if any practicing gay fundementalists exist and if so, how do they explain their sexual engagements? Is is simply a sin of weakness which we all commit in some form? Is it not a sin as the scripture is in error on this matter? Obviously the easiest thing is to deny scripture, then the associated rules/laws are also irrelevant - but that would not qualify as a fundementalist christian. The denial position is abundantly clear to me - via countless pages of postings from those who refute/ignore scripture. My querry is specifically addressed to any practicing gay fundementalist christian posting here. I think they are incompatible positions - but I might be missing something.
Message edited by author 2008-11-21 15:43:30. |
|
|
|
11/21/2008 03:39:53 PM · #1308 |
Okay, it is time for some new insight and wishdom is this interesting discussion....
I am pro Gay marriage...
Because...
Gays throw better parties!
Ok, that was half serious. We have gay marriage for some years now. The world did not end, normal marriage still feels the same, hetero people are still happy, gays are more happy, so all in all the average level of happiness improved a little, which is good for everyone.
|
|
|
|
11/21/2008 03:40:44 PM · #1309 |
| Aha! I've found the culprit. My mom scored 3.7 on her Purity axis. It's all her fault. Actually she scored much like Ron with a 3+ on 4 of the 5 (authority was a 2.5). |
|
|
|
11/21/2008 03:41:16 PM · #1310 |
Originally posted by Flash:
I am curious if there are any practicing gay fundemantalist christians on this thread. If so, how do you reconcile the difference between teaching and behavior (I already know how I reconcile the difference but how do you)? |
Am I crazy, or did Flash just out himself? |
|
|
|
11/21/2008 03:42:40 PM · #1311 |
Seen today:
"I have devoted my entire life to saving marriage. I have counseled thousands of couples in crisis. I have authored twenty books on spirituality and relationships. Never once have I believed that by opposing homosexuality I was bringing a husband and wife closer together. Rather, by seeking to increase the desire between husband and wife and by fostering true emotional intimacy between them, I was working to ensure that fewer American children would end up like me, the product of a broken home. Homosexuality is nothing but a distraction.
America has serious social problems. Fifty percent of all marriages end in divorce. Forty million married Americans are in platonic marriages. One out of three American women are on an anti-depressant. Innumerable men are deeply into pornography. Our teenagers have unacceptably high rates of sexuality and pregnancy. And yet, I cannot name a single religious initiative that appeared on a single ballot to combat any of these problems, save for Proposition 8 in California that sought to ban gay marriage. Let's be honest: Gays don't have to kill off heterosexual marriage. We straight people have done a fine job already.
What religion suffers from, not just in our time but for all time, is its dualistic impulse. Simply stated, religion seems to need enemies. Many religious people thrive on an us and them mentality. The G-dly and the G-dless. The righteous and the sinful. The forces of light battling the forces of darkness."
This sure sounds sensible to me (of course) and ties directly into the conservative prediliction for (over)valuing loyalty, authority, and purity. Us vs. them! God says so! Elminiate the deviants!
Not that I think 5 axes can describe a person...
I'm not going to take the test.
|
|
|
|
11/21/2008 03:44:43 PM · #1312 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Flash:
I am curious if there are any practicing gay fundemantalist christians on this thread. If so, how do you reconcile the difference between teaching and behavior (I already know how I reconcile the difference but how do you)? |
Am I crazy, or did Flash just out himself? |
You are crazy. |
|
|
|
11/21/2008 03:54:30 PM · #1313 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
I'm not going to take the test. |
Aw, you can't be lower than Louis and we're all still talking to him. :) |
|
|
|
11/21/2008 03:56:52 PM · #1314 |
I did that test and dont recognize it at all. It is highly subjective.
|
|
|
|
11/21/2008 03:59:12 PM · #1315 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Flash:
I am curious if there are any practicing gay fundemantalist christians on this thread. If so, how do you reconcile the difference between teaching and behavior (I already know how I reconcile the difference but how do you)? |
Am I crazy, or did Flash just out himself? |
I assume you are crazy, but it certainly read that way to me, too. |
|
|
|
11/21/2008 04:03:45 PM · #1316 |
Originally posted by RonB:
FWIW, the only angry demonstrations I've heard about vis-a-vis gay marriage have been those sponsored by the proponents of gay marriage, not those opposed. The angry demonstrators have even taken to disrupting worship services in churches - though to be fair, I haven't heard that they knocked over pews. |
They were certainly out in force before the election, disrupting traffic -- though to be fair, I did not see any accidents directly attributable to their (potentially illegal*) presence during rush-hour traffic.
*California law prohibits the posting of a sign or banner on a freeway overpass if it creates a traffic hazard; according to the California Highway Patrol the same restriction also applies to handheld signs and groups of demonstrators. |
|
|
|
11/21/2008 04:07:15 PM · #1317 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by RonB:
c) FWIW, the only angry demonstrations I've heard about vis-a-vis gay marriage have been those sponsored by the proponents of gay marriage, not those opposed. |
Yeah, maybe just one kook at a time. Or actually, maybe a bunch of kooks.
(Note kook number one says, "All Christians are Catholics." Ain't that a kick in the nuts to some of the folks here?) |
Ron...
You're surprised we're angry?
Really?
News flash: I'm freakin' livid. Gays are furious! You've finally managed to poke the bear with a stick!
But... if you look at the history of gay demonstrations... we wrote the book on peaceful protest, in the face of a weekly parade of violence directed against us. I don't see you caling for blacks to give up on equality because of their reaction to the Rodney King beatings. When's the last time you saw a homo burn down a goddamn block of buildings? What do gays do when one of their own is slaughtered? Candlelight vigils!
I am getting so sick of your edge-case-as-invalidating-foundantion statements, and frankly I think that agitating, screaming, posturing, serial-counter-protesting, people-shoving biddy got exactly what she deserved when they swatted down her cross. Piss off, you withered old divorcee!
My only regret is that those individual acts allow people like you to pretend we're some sort of problem as a whole... because we exhibit the same failings as ANY group of humans does! There is always someone who goes too far at a protest or party... and that's just the way it is.
Don't make me dig up all the anti-gay violence I've seen this week alone.
- Estbalished couple's house burned to the groud with 'fag' spraypainted on it.
- Lesbian moms severely beaten when picking up their kids from school.
- Two gay teens beaten right when they arrive at a party they were invited to, on the very night that other gays were holding a candlelight vigil for the previosuly mentioned lesbians.
Want me to go on?
You're bothered that a $1 foam cross got gingerly stepped on? Do you really think that's an argument which invalidates everything I'm fighting for?
Sigh. |
|
|
|
11/21/2008 04:24:49 PM · #1318 |
I guess I'm going to heck
 |
|
|
|
11/21/2008 04:25:56 PM · #1319 |
We have a new Purity winner...my wife.
Yup, yer screwed Gordon. |
|
|
|
11/21/2008 04:47:02 PM · #1320 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
You just proved my point exactly.
You want to nit-pick, prosetylize, argue/debate, and try everything you can to weasel out of the basic premise.
You go for it with your obfuscation......I'm just going to try to be the best person I can be based on the simple premise.
I'll leave the navel-gazing to you scholars.
Oh, and you're not quoting Jesus, you're quoting Mark, Matthew, Paul, and John, aren't you? You go with that if that's what you like.
The only thing that seems to be consistent is the premise that Cortenay put forth about Jesus' love......there is too much interpretation for me in the details. |
Originally posted by RonB:
Well, first of all, it's Matthew and John quoting Jesus, and Mark relating his actions.
Secondly, if it's not valid to reference the bible, then where did Cortenay get the idea that Jesus said to love everyone? Yet I didn't see any post from you criticizing her.
When people misinterpret scripture, I feel compelled to respond with scripture. No proselytizing intended, just rebuttal. |
Misinterpret it according to YOU.....as I said, I most certainly bow to your vast years of scholarly study and superior knowledge when it comes to nit-picking.
Why would I criticize Courtenay?
Besides thinking that she's a courteous and intelligent person, she's also the one that brought that little premise to light in this thread; it applies to my personal beliefs on the subject, and as I keep pointing out IN SPITE OF YOUR OBVIOUS NEED TO TRY AND BAIT ME INTO IT......I have NO interest in your back and forth on points so small as to not be relevant.....and your selective quotes and interpretation are just that to me.
It's simple to me.....be decent and kind, loving and accepting, and just try to treat people as you would be treated. Why do you have so much trouble with that?
Why can't you just accept that a simple plan like that, which you yourself pointed out is certainly not possible all the time, is plenty good enough for some people.
I neither need nor want your input on how to live my life, have explained that, yet you continue to try and jam your thinking down my throat....it won't work.
|
|
|
|
11/21/2008 04:50:06 PM · #1321 |
Originally posted by tnun:
I cannot believe all you people actually (axially) took this test. (And posted the results). Does anyone seriously believe that fuzzy parameters/axes and statistics will tell us anything we truly need to know about ourselves?
Maybe if you can show me how this helps people for and against gay marriage to achieve rapprochement I will be less chagrined. |
Originally posted by Louis:
It's an interesting analysis of surface attitudes to generalized moral issues, and from the few here who have participated, it appears to be fairly accurate. What's the harm? Nobody's living their lives by charts and questions, but as a tool for sketching broad trends, it's nothing if not interesting. |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Since I found out I was so high on the purity scale, I have cleaned my desk twice, washed my hands more times than I can count, and am considering eating Kosher for lunch... |
Funny.....you don't look Jewish from here......8>)
I thought the test was amusing.....especially since my Authority scale was what it was......I soooooooo have issues with authority, and I have at least five schools I was thrown out of to vouch for that.
|
|
|
|
11/21/2008 04:52:45 PM · #1322 |
Originally posted by tnun:
Thank you [user]Louis[/user]. I am sure it is interesting, and I was tempted to take it myself. You phrase it well: "surface attitudes to generalized moral issues." Almost too harmless. If there were an axis of sanctimoniousness I would score very high on it. |
You forgot: (Tongue planted firmly in cheek!)
ROTFLMSOAO!!!!
|
|
|
|
11/21/2008 04:55:33 PM · #1323 |
Originally posted by Flash:
I am curious if there are any practicing gay fundemantalist christians on this thread. If so, how do you reconcile the difference between teaching and behavior (I already know how I reconcile the difference but how do you)? |
Originally posted by Louis:
Am I crazy, or did Flash just out himself? |
Originally posted by Gordon:
I assume you are crazy, but it certainly read that way to me, too. |
Ditto.....8>)
|
|
|
|
11/21/2008 05:13:14 PM · #1324 |
Originally posted by tnun:
I cannot believe all you people actually (axially) took this test. (And posted the results). Does anyone seriously believe that fuzzy parameters/axes and statistics will tell us anything we truly need to know about ourselves?
|
LOL. In a word: No. |
|
|
|
11/21/2008 05:33:04 PM · #1325 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
You just proved my point exactly.
You want to nit-pick, prosetylize, argue/debate, and try everything you can to weasel out of the basic premise.
You go for it with your obfuscation......I'm just going to try to be the best person I can be based on the simple premise.
I'll leave the navel-gazing to you scholars.
Oh, and you're not quoting Jesus, you're quoting Mark, Matthew, Paul, and John, aren't you? You go with that if that's what you like.
The only thing that seems to be consistent is the premise that Cortenay put forth about Jesus' love......there is too much interpretation for me in the details. |
Originally posted by RonB:
Well, first of all, it's Matthew and John quoting Jesus, and Mark relating his actions.
Secondly, if it's not valid to reference the bible, then where did Cortenay get the idea that Jesus said to love everyone? Yet I didn't see any post from you criticizing her.
When people misinterpret scripture, I feel compelled to respond with scripture. No proselytizing intended, just rebuttal. |
Misinterpret it according to YOU.....as I said, I most certainly bow to your vast years of scholarly study and superior knowledge when it comes to nit-picking.
Why would I criticize Courtenay?
Besides thinking that she's a courteous and intelligent person, she's also the one that brought that little premise to light in this thread; it applies to my personal beliefs on the subject, and as I keep pointing out IN SPITE OF YOUR OBVIOUS NEED TO TRY AND BAIT ME INTO IT......I have NO interest in your back and forth on points so small as to not be relevant.....and your selective quotes and interpretation are just that to me.
It's simple to me.....be decent and kind, loving and accepting, and just try to treat people as you would be treated. Why do you have so much trouble with that?
Why can't you just accept that a simple plan like that, which you yourself pointed out is certainly not possible all the time, is plenty good enough for some people.
I neither need nor want your input on how to live my life, have explained that, yet you continue to try and jam your thinking down my throat....it won't work. |
I have no need to bait you, I'm not trying to jam my thinking down your throat, and if you are really intent on being decent and kind, loving and accepting, and treating people as you would be treated, why is it that you seem to take such a hostile attitude towards me? What have I said that elicits such anger towards me?
It's truly befuddling. I seriously think that you would benefit from anger management therapy. |
|
