T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
DG, there is no such thing as something which is ‘true for some people but not for others.’
Truth is truth. That is its nature and definition. If it is NOT true for all, then it is not truth at all.
- Status
Truth is truth. That is its nature and definition. If it is NOT true for all, then it is not truth at all.
R
rossum
Guest
“You may become a priest” is true for men, but not for women. “You must refrain from eating pork” is true for Jews but not for Christians. It all depends on what your particular definition of “true” is.
rossum
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
No, dear, you don’t get it.
Women get pregnant, men don’t. I don’t notice you stating that pregnancy then is only true for women. . .
D
down_under
Guest
You may become a priest is a subject statement that depends on who your talking to and the time you made the statement for its context. Only men may become priests is the objective truth that is applicable to everybody. You must refrain from eating pork. is again subject statement made to a particular person at a particular time requiring that context for proper understanding. The statement Jews must refrain from eating pork is the objective truth that is true for everyone all the time regardless of how they feel about it. No the definition of truth is objective. If a thing is true it is true for everyone all the time. The definition of truth:
1
a archaic : fidelity, constancy
b : sincerity in action, character, and utterance
2
a (1) : the state of being the case : fact (2) : the body of real things, events, and facts : actuality (3) often capitalized : a transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality
b : a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true
c : the body of true statements and propositions
3
a : the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality
b chiefly British : true 2
c : fidelity to an original or to a standard
4
capitalized Christian Science : god
— in truth
: in accordance with fact : actually
please take note to the reference to a standard. And the property of being in accord with fact. The very nature of truth is that it is the same all the time for everyone, or its not true. There cannot be two mutually exclusive things that are both true because of the 2 different people thinking about the idea. It can’t both be a baby and not be a baby depending on how the women thinks about it. any more then my bank account is going to get full based upon how much I think is in there. Please take this on board. There is only one truth. Any thing else violates the very definition of the word truth.
Stephen168
New member
You are a priest is only true for priests.
You are married is only true of opposite sex people.
You are not eating pork is only true for people not eating pork.
R
rossum
Guest
Pregnancy on its own is neither true not false, any more than yellow is true or false. The statement “You may get pregnant” can be true or false. It is false for all men and a minority of women. It is true for a majority of women.
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
“You may get pregnant” is true of some women, but not all women and is not true of all men.
It is very easy to devise statements whose truth is not absolute. For example, the statement “1 + 1 = 2” is not absolute because it relies on a hidden assumption.
rossum
T
TimeEntrance
Guest
Why is the west so obsessed with gay marriage? Both sides.
I understand thinking gay marriage should be legal and is an amoral issue.
I understand thinking gay marriage should not be recognized by the state and law, and is an issue of immorality.
What gets me is the zealotry.
What I want to know from zealots on both sides is why I should really care if two people are going down on each other or temporarily declaring love for each other. Mind you… some will maintain a life long love. But whether gay or straight, at least in the U.S., I think odds are these are temporary proclamations.
Today kissing is regarded as “love” and everyone should, “Aww… how sweet!”
over it. Same thing with heterosexuals that divorce 5 times and get married a 6th.
Love is sticking with and by the side of your spouse as she or he dies of cancer. It’s not about sucking on each other toes, wearing the same shirts when you go out, or buying each other boxes of sweets.
Didn’t that Kim Kardashian woman stay marry only for a few days? And you have shot-gun wending chapels in Las Vegas.
Heterosexual women in the U.S. are some of the biggest promoters of zealotry on both sides. Those zealots among them that are always “Aww…” over every little smooch or googly eyes two lesbians or gay men make at each other are particularly juvenile.
My thing is this. If someone doesn’t want to not be gay then fine. If someone wants to change from what they psychologically are then fine.
And please spare me the religious replies that people can not change. That the grace of God is myth in its power to transform. That people are merely born X way to think. Who are you to tell someone what they should apply themselves too cognitively? Walk your own path.
If that is true then I guess I can only sexually objectify women when I look at them. No “internal jihad” no “spirituality” can effect my thinking.
I also don’t buy into the idea anyone is 100% homosexual or 100% heterosexual or even exactly mathematically 50% of both.
I understand thinking gay marriage should be legal and is an amoral issue.
I understand thinking gay marriage should not be recognized by the state and law, and is an issue of immorality.
What gets me is the zealotry.
What I want to know from zealots on both sides is why I should really care if two people are going down on each other or temporarily declaring love for each other. Mind you… some will maintain a life long love. But whether gay or straight, at least in the U.S., I think odds are these are temporary proclamations.
Today kissing is regarded as “love” and everyone should, “Aww… how sweet!”
over it. Same thing with heterosexuals that divorce 5 times and get married a 6th.Love is sticking with and by the side of your spouse as she or he dies of cancer. It’s not about sucking on each other toes, wearing the same shirts when you go out, or buying each other boxes of sweets.
Didn’t that Kim Kardashian woman stay marry only for a few days? And you have shot-gun wending chapels in Las Vegas.
Heterosexual women in the U.S. are some of the biggest promoters of zealotry on both sides. Those zealots among them that are always “Aww…” over every little smooch or googly eyes two lesbians or gay men make at each other are particularly juvenile.
My thing is this. If someone doesn’t want to not be gay then fine. If someone wants to change from what they psychologically are then fine.
And please spare me the religious replies that people can not change. That the grace of God is myth in its power to transform. That people are merely born X way to think. Who are you to tell someone what they should apply themselves too cognitively? Walk your own path.
If that is true then I guess I can only sexually objectify women when I look at them. No “internal jihad” no “spirituality” can effect my thinking.
I also don’t buy into the idea anyone is 100% homosexual or 100% heterosexual or even exactly mathematically 50% of both.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
We are not talking about ‘possibilities’ which may or may not be true. We are talking actual and absolute truths. Capital T truths.
You will never find a MAN who becomes pregnant. Only women become pregnant. Ms. Jones down the street may never become pregnant, but that isn’t because as a woman pregnancy is not possible for her, as it is not possible for MR. Jones. The question is not whether a given woman will be pregnant, but that women AS A WHOLE are the members of the human species who DO become pregnant, and MEN do NOT. Mr Jones as a member of the male sex will NOT become pregnant. MS. Jones as a member of the female sex MAY become pregnant, BECAUSE she is a female and ONLY females may become pregnant.
OK now?
So you can say that Ms. Jones may become pregnant and Ms. Smith may not, but Mr. Jones and Mr. Smith will NEVER be pregnant. Mr. Jones and Mr. Smiths INABILITY to become pregnant is a truth that does not ‘change’. Ms. Smith and Ms. Jones’ capacity to become pregnant due to the fact that they, unlike Mr. Smith and Mr. Jones, are female, is also a truth.
D
davidv
Guest
Re: bolded
This is only partially true. Every marriage, even where sterility exists, must still be “ordered toward procreation”. This is impossible in a male-male or female-female circumstance.
E
edwest2
Guest
The zealotry you refer to is actually propaganda. Since anonymous anybodies can post here, you will see this for years. That’s right. The people who post here are anarchists and they want their way. The primary way to convince “unbelievers” is to say the “church is wrong” without using those exact words. That is how propaganda works.Why is the west so obsessed with gay marriage? Both sides.
I understand thinking gay marriage should be legal and is an amoral issue.
I understand thinking gay marriage should not be recognized by the state and law, and is an issue of immorality.
What gets me is the zealotry.
What I want to know from zealots on both sides is why I should really care if two people are going down on each other or temporarily declaring love for each other. Mind you… some will maintain a life long love. But whether gay or straight, at least in the U.S., I think odds are these are temporary proclamations.
Today kissing is regarded as “love” and everyone should, “Aww… how sweet!”
Love is sticking with and by the side of your spouse as she or he dies of cancer. It’s not about sucking on each other toes, wearing the same shirts when you go out, or buying each other boxes of sweets.
Didn’t that Kim Kardashian woman stay marry only for a few days? And you have shot-gun wending chapels in Las Vegas.
Heterosexual women in the U.S. are some of the biggest promoters of zealotry on both sides. Those zealots among them that are always “Aww…” over every little smooch or googly eyes two lesbians or gay men make at each other are particularly juvenile.
My thing is this. If someone doesn’t want to not be gay then fine. If someone wants to change from what they psychologically are then fine.
And please spare me the religious replies that people can not change. That the grace of God is myth in its power to transform. That people are merely born X way to think. Who are you to tell someone what they should apply themselves too cognitively? Walk your own path.
If that is true then I guess I can only sexually objectify women when I look at them. No “internal jihad” no “spirituality” can effect my thinking.
I also don’t buy into the idea anyone is 100% homosexual or 100% heterosexual or even exactly mathematically 50% of both.
During the Vietnam War, members of the Intelligence community set up a radio station and published a newspaper and they broadcast lies to the people day in and day out. They were 100% committed. They are here as well in the form of gay activists.
A) Create confusion.
B) Aid deception.
C) Spread falsehoods.
Get that through your heads. They want to engineer culture and will do it 24/7 until their team “wins” a falsehood.
Understand that and you will understand everything you see here.
Peace,
Ed
R
rossum
Guest
So, the Catholic Church forbids marriage if the bride has had a hysterectomy? She has just as much chance of conceiving as a person in a same-sex marriage.
rossum
T
TimeEntrance
Guest
I doubt the Catholic Church would marry a 90 year old woman to a 20 year old man, Rossum. That may not make sense in London Buddhism but it does within the logical framework of Catholicism.
You’d probably expend more energy worrying about the Dali Lama and Tibetan Buddhism. Maybe developing more science research universities in Xining and Lhasa, Tibet. Or maybe you could concern yourself more with the large scale drug addictions and child prostitution throughout Buddhist Thailand rather than trying to bring enlightenment to Catholicism. You don’t see me going to Thailand to promote freedom of speech to speak critical of the Thai monarch or to promote an American style separation of church and state in a nation where Buddhism is officially recognized as the official hearth of the land. I also don’t bother the Tibetans about putting on Halloween-like masks to scare away demons. I don’t bother the Cambodians about having Buddhism the offical state religion. I don’t bother the Sri Lankans about becoming synonymous with the best domestic servants you can buy if you’re a liberal, Hollywood rich person like Madonna (and she has spoken glowingly about how great of domestic servants Sri Lankans make). Nor do I bother the Japanese men of Japan about their cultural sexual fetishes for adolescent girls dressed like they’re on their way to Catholic school.
Basically, why don’t London Buddhism worry about the backyard of Buddhism first before it tries cleaning up Catholicisms backyard.
I think Sri Lanka, Cambodia, and Tibet are still a few centuries behind Brazil, Mexico, and Italy. Just a thought.
S
speakttruth
Guest
You should care because it does affect you and everyone, not just the 2 people that want SSM. As a society we will and are now paying with our taxes for the SSM or civil unions and all that entails with their agenda with children in schools and companies and businesses, that are forced now to accept homosexuality as normal and to take religious rights away from anyone who disagrees. They want federal monies to pay for there partners, We have to pay more for immoral behavior and we are already paying for it with single mothers.Why is the west so obsessed with gay marriage? Both sides.
I understand thinking gay marriage should be legal and is an amoral issue.
I understand thinking gay marriage should not be recognized by the state and law, and is an issue of immorality.
What gets me is the zealotry.
What I want to know from zealots on both sides is why I should really care if two people are going down on each other or temporarily declaring love for each other. Mind you… some will maintain a life long love. But whether gay or straight, at least in the U.S., I think odds are these are temporary proclamations.
Today kissing is regarded as “love” and everyone should, “Aww… how sweet!”
Love is sticking with and by the side of your spouse as she or he dies of cancer. It’s not about sucking on each other toes, wearing the same shirts when you go out, or buying each other boxes of sweets.
Didn’t that Kim Kardashian woman stay marry only for a few days? And you have shot-gun wending chapels in Las Vegas.
Heterosexual women in the U.S. are some of the biggest promoters of zealotry on both sides. Those zealots among them that are always “Aww…” over every little smooch or googly eyes two lesbians or gay men make at each other are particularly juvenile.
My thing is this. If someone doesn’t want to not be gay then fine. If someone wants to change from what they psychologically are then fine.
And please spare me the religious replies that people can not change. That the grace of God is myth in its power to transform. That people are merely born X way to think. Who are you to tell someone what they should apply themselves too cognitively? Walk your own path.
If that is true then I guess I can only sexually objectify women when I look at them. No “internal jihad” no “spirituality” can effect my thinking.
I also don’t buy into the idea anyone is 100% homosexual or 100% heterosexual or even exactly mathematically 50% of both.
Heterosexual marriages need help, by teaching people the importance of what marriage is and to make it an environment of raising children in a healthy and productive environment.
Let’s face it. Do we improve marriage by degrading to SSM? For whose benefit? Not children. No there own sexual desires and selfishness. Not for the well being of children that some want. Don’t forget we have them pushing out the Catholic adoption agencies because of this. Another consequence that affects us. To purposely deny a mother or father for their own benefit not a child’s. It is proven without a doubt that children do best with a healthy mother and father. What we have now because we are not promoting healthy marriage, is more children that have emotional problems, more crime, more diseases , drug problems and drop out in schools, etc, because of the poor examples that are shown. We are enabling people’s bad behavior by paying for it with all these social programs because of the irresponsible sex these women have. Where are all the fathers?
So do we need SSM to further the demise the families that are already suffering from all the divorces that now plague our society? Or do we help the ones that are meant to be helped to save our society to produce more responsible and productive people that will contribute to the society? You don’t thing there won’t be a flood of divorces with SSM, do you think that won’t damage society even more? The truth is SSM it is not about love, it’s about feeling good. We don’t live by Feelings. That is selfishness and love is not selfish. It is about truth. This is what we have today with all this breakdown of families. People are living for themselves and not God and this is what we get.
This it dosen’t affect me idea, doesn’t work. It is affecting you, and it is affects all of us and for you who don’t have children that are having this problem, can’t really know how this is breaking up families. The truth is that is one of the most dangerous lifestyles. If if you love someone you tell them the truth. There is no benefit by so called SSM because there is no such thing. God invented marriage not man and it was Adam and Eve. One man, one women.
GB
Stephen168
New member
No.
F
fix
Guest
It is not reasonable to compare unlike things. Fertile couples have relations when the woman is not ovulating is that the same as SS couples too? No.
Sterile heterosexual couples have nothing in common with homosexuals.
R
rossum
Guest
Sterile heterosexual couples have childlessness or the requirement for adoption/surrogacy in common with homosexual couples.
I am asking why people are making a great deal of noise about the childlessness of one couple and no noise at all about the childlessness of the other couple.
If lack of the ability to have children is a bar to civil marriage then many heterosexual couples would be barred from marriage. If those heterosexual couples are allowed to marry, as they are, then childlessness is not in fact a bar to marriage.
The inability to have children is a very weak argument against same sex civil marriage.
rossum
F
fix
Guest
So does a man who marries himself or a tree. It makes no sense to compare those with a true married couple.
Having no children is not the issue. Creating a false marital couple and then comparing that to an authentic married couple is the issue.
SS couples an never engage in the marital act. That has nothing in common with heterosexual acts.
Only heterosexuals can produce children .
R
rossum
Guest
We are not talking about “true” married couples, we are talking about civil married couples. Not all civil married couples are true married couples according to the Church, since civil marriage allows for divorce and remarriage while “true” marriage does not (at least I assume that is part of your definition of “true” marriage).
You are skating perilously close to the No True Scotsman fallacy. We are discussing civil marriage. Civil marriage may or may not be “authentic” depending on the definition of “authentic” that people are using. The ability to have children is not required for civil marriage. Not being previously divorced is not required for civil marriage. Civil marriage is not Catholic marriage.
False. Bisexuals are perfectly capable of producing children, and homosexuals who can nerve themselves to perform with an opposite sex partner can also produce children.
You might with to look up the meaning of “lavender marriage” in this context.
Some gay/bi kings of England, such as James I, have fathered children, and there are no doubt other examples among the aristocracy where siring an heir (“an heir and a spare”) was socially very important. Harold Nicolson and Vita Sackville-West are a late example of this.
You appear to be trying to fit a very diverse group of people into a small rigid idea you have as to how they should behave. Homosexuals are as diverse as heterosexuals.
rossum
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
You’re again addressing not the truth of the fact that only women can become pregnant (men cannot be pregnant) and trying to narrow it into an argument that it’s only about actually BECOMING pregnant.
Again I ask you, who can become pregnant, men or women?
- Status