FFT: Gender as a social construct — what is the vid below telling us on where our intellectual culture has now reached?

_{kairosfocus
June 10, 2017

Academic Freedom, Evolutionary Incoherence, Logic and Reason, rhetoric, worldview

1}_{Categories
Academic Freedom
Evolutionary Incoherence
Logic and Reason
rhetoric
worldview}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Someone gave the link, I think we need to watch a comparison of real vs fake papers on gender:

I ask us to ponder:

Where have we now reached, why? END

Comments

PS: Plato's warning on what can happen with a democratic polity, by way of his parable of the ship of state:
It is not too hard to figure out that our civilisation is in deep trouble and is most likely headed for shipwreck. (And of course, that sort of concern is dismissed as “apocalyptic,” or neurotic pessimism that refuses to pause and smell the roses.) Plato’s Socrates spoke to this sort of situation, long since, in the ship of state parable in The Republic, Bk VI:
>>[Soc.] I perceive, I said, that you are vastly amused at having plunged me into such a hopeless discussion; but now hear the parable, and then you will be still more amused at the meagreness of my imagination: for the manner in which the best men are treated in their own States is so grievous that no single thing on earth is comparable to it; and therefore, if I am to plead their cause, I must have recourse to fiction, and put together a figure made up of many things, like the fabulous unions of goats and stags which are found in pictures. Imagine then a fleet or a ship in which there is a captain [–> often interpreted, ship’s owner] who is taller and stronger than any of the crew, but he is a little deaf and has a similar infirmity in sight, and his knowledge of navigation is not much better. [= The people own the community and in the mass are overwhelmingly strong, but are ill equipped on the whole to guide, guard and lead it] The sailors are quarrelling with one another about the steering – every one is of opinion that he has a right to steer [= selfish ambition to rule and dominate], though he has never learned the art of navigation and cannot tell who taught him or when he learned, and will further assert that it cannot be taught, and they are ready to cut in pieces any one who says the contrary. They throng about the captain, begging and praying him to commit the helm to them [–> kubernetes, steersman, from which both cybernetics and government come in English]; and if at any time they do not prevail, but others are preferred to them, they kill the others or throw them overboard [ = ruthless contest for domination of the community], and having first chained up the noble captain’s senses with drink or some narcotic drug [ = manipulation and befuddlement, cf. the parable of the cave], they mutiny and take possession of the ship and make free with the stores; thus, eating and drinking, they proceed on their voyage in such a manner as might be expected of them [–> Cf here Luke’s subtle case study in Ac 27]. Him who is their partisan and cleverly aids them in their plot for getting the ship out of the captain’s hands into their own whether by force or persuasion [–> Nihilistic will to power on the premise of might and manipulation making ‘right’ ‘truth’ ‘justice’ ‘rights’ etc], they compliment with the name of sailor, pilot, able seaman, and abuse the other sort of man, whom they call a good-for-nothing; but that the true pilot must pay attention to the year and seasons and sky and stars and winds, and whatever else belongs to his art, if he intends to be really qualified for the command of a ship, and that he must and will be the steerer, whether other people like or not-the possibility of this union of authority with the steerer’s art has never seriously entered into their thoughts or been made part of their calling. Now in vessels which are in a state of mutiny and by sailors who are mutineers, how will the true pilot be regarded? Will he not be called by them a prater, a star-gazer, a good-for-nothing? [Ad.] Of course, said Adeimantus. [Soc.] Then you will hardly need, I said, to hear the interpretation of the figure, which describes the true philosopher in his relation to the State[ --> here we see Plato's philosoppher-king emerging]; for you understand already. [Ad.] Certainly. [Soc.] Then suppose you now take this parable to the gentleman who is surprised at finding that philosophers have no honour in their cities; explain it to him and try to convince him that their having honour would be far more extraordinary. [Ad.] I will. [Soc.] Say to him, that, in deeming the best votaries of philosophy to be useless to the rest of the world, he is right; but also tell him to attribute their uselessness to the fault of those who will not use them, and not to themselves. The pilot should not humbly beg the sailors to be commanded by him –that is not the order of nature; neither are ‘the wise to go to the doors of the rich’ –the ingenious author of this saying told a lie –but the truth is, that, when a man is ill, whether he be rich or poor, to the physician he must go, and he who wants to be governed, to him who is able to govern. The ruler who is good for anything ought not to beg his subjects to be ruled by him [ --> down this road lies the modern solution: a sound, well informed people will seek sound leaders, who will not need to manipulate or bribe or worse, and such a ruler will in turn be checked by the soundness of the people, cf. US DoI, 1776]; although the present governors of mankind are of a different stamp; they may be justly compared to the mutinous sailors, and the true helmsmen to those who are called by them good-for-nothings and star-gazers. [Ad.] Precisely so, he said. [Soc] For these reasons, and among men like these, philosophy, the noblest pursuit of all, is not likely to be much esteemed by those of the opposite faction; not that the greatest and most lasting injury is done to her by her opponents, but by her own professing followers, the same of whom you suppose the accuser to say, that the greater number of them are arrant rogues, and the best are useless; in which opinion I agreed [--> even among the students of the sound state (here, political philosophy and likely history etc.), many are of unsound motivation and intent, so mere education is not enough, character transformation is critical]. [Ad.] Yes. [Soc.] And the reason why the good are useless has now been explained? [Ad.] True. [Soc.] Then shall we proceed to show that the corruption of the majority is also unavoidable, and that this is not to be laid to the charge of philosophy any more than the other? [Ad.] By all means. [Soc.] And let us ask and answer in turn, first going back to the description of the gentle and noble nature.[ -- > note the character issue] Truth, as you will remember, was his leader, whom he followed always and in all things [ --> The spirit of truth as a marker]; failing in this, he was an impostor, and had no part or lot in true philosophy [--> the spirit of truth is a marker, for good or ill] . . . >>
(There is more than an echo of this in Acts 27, a real world case study. [Luke, a physician, was an educated Greek with a taste for subtle references.] This blog post, on soundness in policy, will also help)
kairosfocus_{June 16, 2017
June
06
Jun
16
16
2017
02:03 AM
2
02
03
AM
PDT}

Seversky, perhaps, it needs to be highlighted that democracy is not an end in itself, that it is inherently unstable and prone to marches of folly, requiring stabilisation from wider cultural systems and general moral governance. The sad history of the disintegration and collapse of democracies from Athens to Venezuela, is a sobering lesson on marches of folly. This is part of why I have pointed to the need to address the grounding of responsible, rational freedom, and tied to that moral and logical suasion. There is a prevailing myth of secularist progressivism to a utopia, which is currently deeply influenced by cultural marxism/ "critical studies" as the OP above and the subsequent one with actual clips on the gender as cultural construct game, illustrate. The issue is, the general context points to an undermining of responsible rational freedom and its needed cultural support. Where the much despised creation order family, the now denigrated recognition that there is a reason why we are born male and female, the too often dismissed realisation of the significance of ethical theism as a stabilising influence, also the inappropriate suspicion meted out to the sort of law- of- our- responsible- rational- nature school of thought already evident in Cicero are all symptomatic of the onward disintegration of sound democratic governance in our day. I note that sound family life rooted in sound ethics of moral governance, has long been pivotal to survival of civilisations, and so the gender bender games now afoot have sobering significance. We are headed for an awful crash, and it is going to be a lot harder to rebuild this time around than it was after the collapse of the Western Roman empire. Nukes and other little toys are in play, after all. I am by no means optimistic for our civilisation, but there is need to face the issues squarely. KFkairosfocus_{June 16, 2017
June
06
Jun
16
16
2017
01:56 AM
1
01
56
AM
PDT}

StephenB @ 189
It is a fact that so called “same sex” marriage weakens the institution of marriage and the nuclear family. It is a fact that the nuclear family is the primary institution that challenges government.
Neither of those claims are "facts" by any reasonable definition of the word, no matter how strongly you may believe them to be true. Allowing same sex couples to marry does not in any way abridge the right of heterosexual couples to marry and raise families. In fact, what has happened is that the right to marry, which had hitherto been denied to same sex couples by so-called Christian morality, was finally extended to them. A right was granted to some, none was taken away from anyone else. If anything has been weakened, it is the assumed but undeserved power of Christianity to decree what is moral or immoral for all of society, regardless of whether the members belong to that faith or another faith or no faith at all. As for the nuclear family being the primary institution that challenges government, how can that be? I strongly doubt you would find a single member of Congress who would not extol the virtues of marriage and the family if asked. Where is the conflict?
Fact: The family is weaker; the government is stronger. Fact: One important purpose of the gay movement is to destroy Christianity and to destroy the nuclear family.
The strength of any social institution is grounded in the value placed on it by those that may be affected by it. The fact that there are many same sex couples who want to marry indicates that the institution of marriage is as valuable to them as it is to heterosexual couples. If anything, on those grounds alone, same sex marriage can be viewed as strengthening the institution. As for the purpose of the gay movement being to destroy Christianity and the nuclear family, the intemperate views of one gay activist should only be of concern if there was reason to believe they spoke for the entire movement or at least the vast majority. If I wanted to indulge in paranoia I could with equal justification point to the relatively small number of Christian Dominionists and Reconstructionists who regard their faith and democracy as antithetical and would seek to replace the latter with a full-blown Christian theocracy, a position which is both unconstitutional and potentially seditious. Since, as far as I can tell, they are very far from speaking for all other Christians, it would be a mistake to credit them with greater significance than their numbers warrant.Seversky_{June 15, 2017
June
06
Jun
15
15
2017
10:42 PM
10
10
42
PM
PDT}

StephenB, have enjoyed your responses and others here. You keep referring to purpose. Unbelievers and materialist will not fully comprehend it, or refuse to admit purpose. They do not see Design in nature, much less a Designer's purpose for life on this planet. I once held the materialist view. They will reject any notion of any god, let alone Elohim as Creator in Judeo-Christian Bible. Who sent his only begotten Son so that whosoever believed in him might be saved to everlasting life. Since evil, disease, destruction and confusion exist, Darwin is the only other explanatory answer for many. He is their high priest. But, Yeshua's teachings are simple and straight forward on gender's purpose so that a child can understand... there's no ambiguity... from Matthew 19:4-6 “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh." "... from the beginning" It's no accident Christ reiterated God's plan did not change from the beginning of time for purpose of marriage. Between a man and a woman to become one flesh, that in turn honors a mother and father as a cycle and pattern repeats to grow a population(promise to Abraham). There's also the opposing patterns, the fall of Israel multiple times as they turned to pagan rituals. The fall of Rome, etc. I do not expect others to agree, nor do I condemn anyone who disagrees. I simply pray eyes are opened and ears hear. Historically, nations fall from within as the family weakens. The West is gradually fading as a result today. Europe's demographics in several nations will change in the next 30 years or so. Not just exclusive to homosexuality, but because people first turned away from God, turning toward lust of the flesh of any kind. In turning away, people in the West are having less children. This cannot be sustained without mass migrations and influx of immigrants to replenish the population. There's nothing new under the sun.DATCG_{June 15, 2017
June
06
Jun
15
15
2017
10:10 PM
10
10
10
PM
PDT}

StephenB: Really. So you lose your whole appetite over one mouthful of bad food. You are an extraordinary sensitive individual. What has courage got to do with answering that question? Its trivial. Yes, I know murder is wrong. Don't you?Pindi_{June 15, 2017
June
06
Jun
15
15
2017
05:48 PM
5
05
48
PM
PDT}

Pindi
StephenB, so you don’t think lying by omission is lying?
It is not a lie to withhold information. It is a lie to present false information.
In any case, its still a lie.
I will let you take it up two of the greatest philosophers that ever lived, St Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, both of whom agree with me: "It is not lawful to tell a lie ... Nevertheless it is lawful to hide the truth prudently, by keeping it back," By the way, have you summoned up the courage to answer my question: Do you know that murder is wrong?StephenB_{June 15, 2017
June
06
Jun
15
15
2017
05:16 PM
5
05
16
PM
PDT}

Phinehas, "I definitely have a degree of discomfort about my body and its softer/squishier nature compared to a lot of men." This is the opposite of what a male-to-female transgender experiences. Such person would likely state, "I definitely have a degree of discomfort about my body and its lack of a softer/squishier nature compared to a lot of women." Is this statement in any way more accurate as a description of your state of mind? Many, who eventually embrace their femininity and transition, report a "denial" where they felt too feminine and tried their best to man-up because of the shame associated with feminine characteristics in a man. If the degree of discomfort is minor and of no significant affect in their lives, they will likely just live with. They may compensate for it and engage in "macho" activities, jobs or hobbies to avoid feeling inadequacy or escape derision from the gang. The more intense the discomfort, the more it interferes with living and the greater the need to do something about it. With some, the interference in their lives becomes so intense that it becomes "transition to living their lives as the opposite gender from that assigned at birth or die by suicide regardless the consequences to their marriage, family relationships, employment, etc." Of course, there is a broad range of possibilities in between with varying levels of cost to them and those around them. Each circumstance is unique. It is rare, though, that one get through it all without some repercussions. Keep in mind, I am not trying to diagnose you or even trying to help you diagnose yourself. I am trying my best to answer your questions and provide relevant details for you and on-lookers. If this question is truly causing you angst, I might suggest you contact a therapist knowledgeable in gender issues. Maybe all you need are some informed assurances. I don't think for you to be little soft and squishy is a bad thing, at all. Stephen (aka Stephanie)SteRusJon_{June 15, 2017
June
06
Jun
15
15
2017
04:48 PM
4
04
48
PM
PDT}

StephenB, so you don't think lying by omission is lying? In any case, its still a lie. One bite of something you don't like spoils your appetite? You have a very sensitive appetite. Most people would think, yuck, I don't like that, but I'm still hungry, what else is there to eat?Pindi_{June 15, 2017
June
06
Jun
15
15
2017
04:24 PM
4
04
24
PM
PDT}

Adding to kmidpuddle's list - or the traditional marriage where it was legally impossible for a man to rape his wife (up until very recently).Pindi_{June 15, 2017
June
06
Jun
15
15
2017
04:19 PM
4
04
19
PM
PDT}

Phinehas, I don't know if god exists. But marriage exists in non judeo/Christian/Islamic cultures. It existed in polytheistic cultures, pagan cultures...well, you get the gist. It has its equivalent in North American native culture. It has not always been monogamous. Incestuous marriages were not uncommon. It was often used as a means to seal alliances and to gain power. The argument more recently is that SSM will damage traditional marriage. But, which one of the "traditional" marriages listed above will be harmed? How about the traditional marriage where the man was allowed to physically punish the woman (not that long ago). Or the traditional marriage where the woman had to promise to obey the man? My point is that marriage throughout history has been a moving target. Arguing over the risks to traditional marriage caused by same sex marriage is based on the false premise that there is anything called "traditional marriage".kmidpuddle_{June 15, 2017
June
06
Jun
15
15
2017
04:14 PM
4
04
14
PM
PDT}

KMP: Did these people provide a framework that coherently sustains responsible rational freedom thus moral government? The very appeal to oh we can reason and you are wrong demands such. If they did so, kindly give it: ____ We will see. If not, likely more of much the same. KFkairosfocus_{June 15, 2017
June
06
Jun
15
15
2017
04:13 PM
4
04
13
PM
PDT}

KMP:
Rather, let’s address who has authority over marriage. Churches obviously don’t because there is no requirement to be married in a church. Even to get married in a church you must first obtain a marriage licence. The last time I looked, these are issued by government, not by the church (unless the government has delegated this authority to a church).
It seems pretty obvious that the above is founded on the assumptions that God does not exist, marriage is not His idea, and that He does not have authority over it. Those are not warranted assumptions.Phinehas_{June 15, 2017
June
06
Jun
15
15
2017
03:55 PM
3
03
55
PM
PDT}

KF@199 and 203, smarter people than I have criticized the Gigi's paper. I have no desire to rehash it all here. http://www.philosophyetc.net/2011/05/whats-wrong-with-what-is-marriage.html?m=1 Rather, let's address who has authority over marriage. Churches obviously don't because there is no requirement to be married in a church. Even to get married in a church you must first obtain a marriage licence. The last time I looked, these are issued by government, not by the church (unless the government has delegated this authority to a church). At present, our elected representatives have decided that same sex couples can get married. They have this authority. You may not like it but until you can get a government elected that will overturn this decision, you are stuck with it. If you are American, your best hope is the impeachment (or demise) of Trump. In Canada, good luck. We have lived with same sex marriage for over ten years and have realized that the fear mongers were either ill informed or lying. I hope for the former, but suspect the latter.kmidpuddle_{June 15, 2017
June
06
Jun
15
15
2017
03:36 PM
3
03
36
PM
PDT}

KMP, First, there is a tad of reading just above. I draw a bottomline on these matters when I see a studious avoidance of engaging the foundations of morality, especially in a generation which is collectively guilty of the ongoing worst holocaust in history. Our collective judgement, for cause is deeply suspect. If someone is unwilling to engage the roots of morality in such a context, that is a red warning flag. Now, to see the relevance of this, just scroll up. KFkairosfocus_{June 15, 2017
June
06
Jun
15
15
2017
03:09 PM
3
03
09
PM
PDT}

StephenB you are hilarious. What is the difference between a “veil” of the truth and a lie?
Pindi, I already explained the difference. To WITHHOLD information is not the same thing as to present FALSE INFORMATION. To veil the truth is not to lie.
You said you would say this: ” I would say something like this: “I am not eating tonight because something happened earlier in the evening that spoiled my appetite”
That is correct.
In our scenario this is not true is it?
Of course, it’s true. “Something” (The first bite of that awful meal) spoiled my appetite. I just didn’t tell them that the “something” was the first bite of their awful food. I just told them that “something” did it, which is true. So I didn’t lie. I simply withheld information. Thus, I spared the host without lying.
You just lied to the host and everyone at the table. Nothing happened to spoil your appetite. You just didn’t like the food.
I didn’t lie. Something did happen to spoil my appetite. It was that awful food. However, if it had not spoiled appetite, I would have simply found another way to veil the truth without lying, at least until I could take them aside, at which time I would have told them everything they needed to know so they could keep their friends. It is morally permissible to veil the truth in order to refrain from lying, except in a court of law, at which time you must tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. By the way, you haven’t told me yet if you know that murder is wrong. Do you?StephenB_{June 15, 2017
June
06
Jun
15
15
2017
03:06 PM
3
03
06
PM
PDT}

KF:
KMP, we weren’t born yesterday. We — some of us were old enough and interested enough to watch the trend from the 60’s to now...
So have I. I have seen women permitted to take control of their own lives and not be subservient to men. I have seen spousal abuse finally treated as the crime it is rather than swept under the rug. I have seen blacks obtain the jobs that they are qualified for. I have seen the end of clubs that did not allow Jews or women. I have seen the end of jailing people simply because they are attracted to the same sex. I have seen the end of covering up pedophilia. I have seen the end of removing teen girls from school for the sin of getting pregnant. I have seen the effective end of polio, smallpox and many other serious diseases. I have seen the universal access to health care regardless of your financial situation. I have seen the reduction of businesses discriminating against people simply because of their race, culture, religion, sexual preference or gender identity. It's a wonderful time to be alive.
And when we see the attempt to play the invidious association card with racism,...
I never said that there was an association with racism. I said that the same arguments of religious freedom and religious justification were used to oppose the enactment of anti-discrimination/desegregation laws. A fact that can be confirmed by 30 seconds of research. These arguments weren't accepted with respect to racism, sexism or the accommodation of the handicapped. And they are not being accepted with respect to same sex marriage and transgendered. The defense of religious freedom doesn't hold water when you are imposing your belief on others.kmidpuddle_{June 15, 2017
June
06
Jun
15
15
2017
03:03 PM
3
03
03
PM
PDT}

F/N: Notice, the studious continued avoidance of the underlying issues on grounding rights and the objectivity of key moral principles. KFkairosfocus_{June 15, 2017
June
06
Jun
15
15
2017
03:01 PM
3
03
01
PM
PDT}

1: Girgis, George and Anderson Friend of court briefing on the agenda to destroy marriage in accord with naturally evident creation order by lawfare and other linked means, and its consequences: http://www.interactingwithjesus.org/gaymatter/Summary-WhatIsMarriage-Girgis-Anderson-George.pdf 2: Paper on What is Marriage: http://www.morfarbarn.no/files/What-is-Marriage.pdfkairosfocus_{June 15, 2017
June
06
Jun
15
15
2017
03:00 PM
3
03
00
PM
PDT}

KMP, we weren't born yesterday. We -- some of us were old enough and interested enough to watch the trend from the 60's to now -- have seen the trend and its fruit, and the utter lack of concern for the havoc wreaked. And when we see the attempt to play the invidious association card with racism, some serious red flags get tripped. Especially when we can see right above just how the issue of the grounding of the moral dimension of human reality is being handled. Which, again, we can see exemplified above. KFkairosfocus_{June 15, 2017
June
06
Jun
15
15
2017
02:34 PM
2
02
34
PM
PDT}

kwimmuddle
I must have missed the research that shows that this is due to same sex marriage. Could you provide a link?
I don’t need a link. The cause/effect relationship is proven by the gay lobby’s success in getting same-sex relationships elevated to the level of marriage, which automatically weakens the family and strengthens government.
I wasn’t aware that a few individuals spoke for the entire gay community.
I didn't say anything about the "gay community." I was writing about the "gay lobby." Everyone knows that they have been lying about their intentions from the very beginning. I could provide my quotes, but why bother. Their ever-moving goal posts make it obvious.StephenB_{June 15, 2017
June
06
Jun
15
15
2017
02:25 PM
2
02
25
PM
PDT}

StephenB you are hilarious. What is the difference between a "veil" of the truth and a lie? You said you would say this: " I would say something like this: “I am not eating tonight because something happened earlier in the evening that spoiled my appetite" In our scenario this is not true is it? You just lied to the host and everyone at the table. Nothing happened to spoil your appetite. You just didn't like the food.Pindi_{June 15, 2017
June
06
Jun
15
15
2017
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PDT}

StephenB:
No. It is a fact. There are many ways to show that the nuclear family is breaking down. Example: Only 46% of U.S. children younger than 18 years are living in a home with two married heterosexuals. That number is much lower than just a few years ago.
I must have missed the research that shows that this is due to same sex marriage. Could you provide a link?
Nope. Fact. Many members of the gay lobby have admitted that their true purpose is to destroy the institution of marriage.
I wasn't aware that a few individuals spoke for the entire gay community. Would it be reasonable for me to judge all of Christianity based on the agenda and goals of the the Westboro Babtists? Or judge all Germans based on the actions of the Nazis? Or judge all of the ID arguments based on the wedge document? Of course not. There are radicals in every group, whether it be atheists, Christians, homosexuals, hockey fans, politicians, etc. Judging the motives and goals of any group based on those of a few at the extremes is just paranoia and fear mongering. And, I must be honest, very disingenuous.kmidpuddle_{June 15, 2017
June
06
Jun
15
15
2017
01:50 PM
1
01
50
PM
PDT}

Kmidmuddle
Unsupported paranoid claim
Nope. Fact. Many members of the gay lobby have admitted that their true purpose is to destroy the institution of marriage. Example: Masha Gesson: “Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there — because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie. I don’t think [marriage] should exist.StephenB_{June 15, 2017
June
06
Jun
15
15
2017
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT}

Fact: The family is weaker; the government is stronger. kmidhuggle
Unsupported assertion.
No. It is a fact. There are many ways to show that the nuclear family is breaking down. Example: Only 46% of U.S. children younger than 18 years are living in a home with two married heterosexuals. That number is much lower than just a few years ago. And of course the state is obviously gaining strength at the expenses of the family. One indicator is the fact that it has presumed to redefined marriage and override both the family and the Church as institutions that were originally meant to challenge the power of government.StephenB_{June 15, 2017
June
06
Jun
15
15
2017
01:02 PM
1
01
02
PM
PDT}

Eugen:
Grrr, this kpuddle seems very familiar. He’s resurrected AplleJack. He always steers discussion and hijacks the thread towards homosexuality for some reason. Why kpuddle? Why are you so obsessed, insecure and needy about it?
Sorry to disappoint you. But I wasn't the first person to bring up the issue of homosexuality or same sex marriage in this thread.kmidpuddle_{June 15, 2017
June
06
Jun
15
15
2017
12:02 PM
12
12
02
PM
PDT}

Grrr, this kpuddle seems very familiar. He's resurrected AplleJack. He always steers discussion and hijacks the thread towards homosexuality for some reason. Why kpuddle? Why are you so obsessed, insecure and needy about it?Eugen_{June 15, 2017
June
06
Jun
15
15
2017
11:10 AM
11
11
10
AM
PDT}

StephenB:
Fact: The family is weaker; the government is stronger.
Unsupported assertion.
Fact: One important purpose of the gay movement is to destroy Christianity and to destroy the nuclear family.
Unsupported paranoid assertion.kmidpuddle_{June 15, 2017
June
06
Jun
15
15
2017
10:46 AM
10
10
46
AM
PDT}

SB: Same sex marriage harms the culture by weakening the institution of marriage… kmidpuddle
Another one of those dooms-day scenarios. Unfortunately, it is not supported by the facts.
It is a fact that so called "same sex" marriage weakens the institution of marriage and the nuclear family. It is a fact that the nuclear family is the primary institution that challenges government.
In thirteen years of legalized same-sex marriage in Canada, the divorce rate has not increased.
Irrelevant.
I have been married for 35 years. How did my marriage change in 2005 when same sex marriage was legalized? If you are married, is your marriage so weak that it could be affected by the legalization of same sex marriage?
Irrelevant. Fact: The family is weaker; the government is stronger. Fact: One important purpose of the gay movement is to destroy Christianity and to destroy the nuclear family.StephenB_{June 15, 2017
June
06
Jun
15
15
2017
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT}

Pindi
You would lie in those circumstances. But isn’t it self evidently true that lying is wrong? Hint, no, sometimes lying is the more compassionate thing to do. The thing that will lead to less harm.
Pindi, To lie is to say something that is not true. I said I would VEIL the truth and then I would TELL the truth. To veil the truth is not to lie. It is to refrain from disclosing information. I am going to assume that it was your lack of education that prompted your response and that you did not consciously lie about me. Please be careful about that, especially since you have already admitted that you can hardly get through a day without lying.StephenB_{June 15, 2017
June
06
Jun
15
15
2017
09:52 AM
9
09
52
AM
PDT}

KMP, Phinehas is on the track I am on. One of the things that peer groups do is frame issues a certain way, which is one of the reasons the group exists. This includes language usage, philosophies, emotional connections and what have you. There is the framing out there we all see now about gender identity. Someone is making sure this framing keeps being presented to us in the media. We all need to maintain awareness of what kind of forces may be driving all of this (no matter what "side" you are on), and being the cynic that I am, I would not put it past anyone to be "pushing" this for less than pristine reasons. For instance, there is probably a selection of drugs used to "help" people with all this that people will dispense to you. You see what I'm saying? In the interest of openness, I do look at this from the Christian perspective that sin does exist and it needs to be opposed and not enabled. But I am not condemning anyone, I'm just trying to help to see a bigger picture in the discussion. Andrewasauber_{June 15, 2017
June
06
Jun
15
15
2017
09:41 AM
9
09
41
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 11 12 13 14 15 … 20 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply