|
Kyrie eleison posted:Can we conclude, then, that everyone in this thread has homosexual tendencies? That depends on what you consider a "thought" and a "tendency". Can I imagine two men having sex? Yes, it's within my abilities. This seems like it could be considered a homosexual thought, but it's definitely not a desire: I have yet to meet a man that I wanted to pursue a romantic or sexual relationship with. No, really. It's not something I want. Is it possible I will one day meet a guy that stirs that feeling in me? I'm not ruling anything out, but it hasn't happened yet, or even come close. I have, however, felt very strong attraction to many women I've met over the course of my life. I ask, Kyrie, is this significantly different from your experience? Because if so, it means that you are a homosexual, and should stop repressing that fact!
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 17:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 09:15 |
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:That depends on what you consider a "thought" and a "tendency". Also there is a yawning gap between "now that there is a good-looking fellow" and "I would like him to touch my penis". I've had the latter (because good-looking men exist in the world), but never the former. I suppose it could happen, but in my 3+ decades nothing has come close. At any rate, this is all beside the point. Kyrie, where are you going with this "everyone is bi" stuff?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 18:57
|
|
|
mdemone posted:Also there is a yawning gap between "now that there is a good-looking fellow" and "I would like him to touch my penis". I've had the latter (because good-looking men exist in the world), but never the former. I suppose it could happen, but in my 3+ decades nothing has come close. Uhh, think you've got "former" and "latter" confused. Unless I'm seriously misinterpreting your lifestyle, no judgement.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 19:02
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Wh...wh...what about cats? The Pope’s comment has reignited a debate on the subject, with the Humane Society saying that if Pope Francis believes animals have souls, then “we ought to seriously consider how we treat them,” a representative said. “We have to admit that all animals, save for cats, panda bears, and sloths are sentient beings, and they mean something to God.”" http://www.eyeofthetiber.com/2014/12/12/pope-francis-confirms-cats-still-going-to-hell/ As for the "everyone would just go be gay instead" business, I don't think the birthrate was materially impaired in ancient Rome. Given the number of unwanted children, perhaps encouraging the formation of couples who, if they want children, must adopt (or undertake artificial insemination methods in the case of lesbian couples) would help care for those children, given them a home?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 19:11
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Here's the thing. If you have both heterosexual and homosexual tendencies, and you want a monogamous life partner, aren't you going to have to choose a gender? And, considering how important this choice will be on your life, shouldn't this be a rational choice, involving weighing the pros and cons? People generally chose to marry, you know, people, not just "someone of a given gender". They do this generally because of love and not the sense of duty you seem to assume motivates most actions. OP, what was your intention in starting this thread? Because the first post doesn't seem to designed to convince anyone of anything, especially that you weren't trolling (which would be fine if you were, this is the internet).
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 22:10
|
|
|
God this is like freep-thread levels of  "Of course we have to make sure the homos are always shaking with fear and self-loathing and shame. I know for a fact that every man is constantly tempted and lusting after the hard man-bodies he sees on the street every day, fantasizing about tight asses and shapely crotch bulges. That's why we can't let up the disgust and shaming and threatening for even a minute if we want to keep all men bound to their terrible duty to form a loveless, passionless bond with a woman to impregnate her and perpetuate the species. If even for a moment they believe it's okay to be gay, they'll flee from their obligation of drudgery to mechanically pump sperm into some vagina, and they'll be downing miles of cock and rushing out to feel another man pump his love into their asses until they joyfully collapse into his arms where they're smiling and I feel so safe and protected and blissful, curling up into the strong protective embrace of another man, my head cradled lovingly against him, where none of the words and the taunts and the guilt and doubt will ever touch me, here ensconced in the tender caress of my lover...oh god..." *flagellates*
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 22:29
|
|
|
Dzhay posted:People generally chose to marry, you know, people, not just "someone of a given gender". They do this generally because of love and not the sense of duty you seem to assume motivates most actions. I think it is important to choose a mate based on essential criteria. You have a lot of options, after all, so you should filter it down to a subset. For instance, I would prefer to marry a woman of the same race, religion, nationality, politics, and aesthetics as myself. I think this will result in the strongest family ties. So I don't really romantically pursue women outside of this category. The idea of simply "falling in love with someone" as if these issues didn't matter is, again, a bit adolescent... a bit Hollywood, even. It sounds like a "honeymoon period" style of thinking in which the underlying contradictions in your relationship are avoided. But they inevitably surface. In reality, over half of marriages end in divorce. It's important to be careful with your selection and to consider that you are going to be with this person the rest of your life. You'll want to have a common ground. You'll also want to think of your plan regarding raising children. I can't have children with a man. Not really. And I think I'd be a good father. Or you can be celibate. You know, that's another option. Sounds lonely to me, though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 22:36
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:I think it is important to choose a mate based on essential criteria. You have a lot of options, after all, so you should filter it down to a subset. For instance, I would prefer to marry a woman of the same race, religion, nationality, politics, and aesthetics as myself. I think this will result in the strongest family ties. So I don't really romantically pursue women outside of this category. Also, what is your problem with adoption? If it was good enough for St. Joseph, why isn't it good enough for you? Or does the Church teach that adopted children are second-best?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 22:41
|
|
|
http://www.christiandomesticdiscipline.com/ Your thoughts, Kyrie?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 22:42
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:For instance, I would prefer to marry a woman of the same race We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White Children.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 22:42
|
|
|
I want to say that it doesn't surprise me on top of everything Kyrie is also racist but honestly it kind of did.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 22:44
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:I think it is important to choose a mate based on essential criteria. You have a lot of options, after all, so you should filter it down to a subset. For instance, I would prefer to marry a woman of the same race, religion, nationality, politics, and aesthetics as myself. I think this will result in the strongest family ties. So I don't really romantically pursue women outside of this category. You know it might be that you are looking at "selecting a mate" so clinically because you are not attracted to women
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 22:45
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:You know it might be that you are looking at "selecting a mate" so clinically because you are not attracted to women You know, I'm two years happily married with a woman I've known for over half a decade, and I chose her pretty much entirely based on things like sense of humor, intelligence, and the fact that she was hot. Who the gently caress assesses someone based on their religion, race, nationality etc. I mean I kind of get politics just because we'd probably have problems if it turned out she was some neocon thug who hates the blacks/gays/jews... but really, I have to agree with gaining weight here. Most people don't run their spouse through an internal E-harmony profile.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 22:52
|
|
|
Berke Negri posted:I want to say that it doesn't surprise me on top of everything Kyrie is also racist but honestly it kind of did. Is it racist to prefer to marry someone of the same race as yourself? GAINING WEIGHT... posted:You know it might be that you are looking at "selecting a mate" so clinically because you are not attracted to women I have fallen in love with women many times in my life. I have, honestly, only really taken sincere romantic solace in one male partner. We are so similar! *sighs wistfully* But, we are also both realists.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 22:54
|
|
|
Caros posted:You know, I'm two years happily married with a woman I've known for over half a decade, and I chose her pretty much entirely based on things like sense of humor, intelligence, and the fact that she was hot. Who the gently caress assesses someone based on their religion, race, nationality etc. I mean I kind of get politics just because we'd probably have problems if it turned out she was some neocon thug who hates the blacks/gays/jews... but really, I have to agree with gaining weight here. Most people don't run their spouse through an internal E-harmony profile. What's funny is I heard another super-Catholic guy say something similar once, that the primary thing he looked for in a hypothetical female hew-mon mate was "theological compatibility, so we can present a united front against the child's error." Kyrie eleison posted:Is it racist to prefer to marry someone of the same race as yourself?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 22:54
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:I think it is important to choose a mate based on essential criteria. You have a lot of options, after all, so you should filter it down to a subset. For instance, I would prefer to marry a woman of the same race, religion, nationality, politics, and aesthetics as myself. I think this will result in the strongest family ties. So I don't really romantically pursue women outside of this category. Undiplomatic phrasing aside, I would agree with part of that. Yes it is probably advisable to marry somebody you are compatible with, and it is also probably wise to try to ensure that you will be able to commit to this person for a long time, that being generally the idea of marrying them. However that isn't really incompatible with love, I love my girlfriend because I find her ideals, actions, looks, and general conduct, breathtaking. She commands that level of care and attention from me because of who she is, and giving it comes naturally because of that. That's how I'd describe love. But I would dispute your assertion that divorce is a failure state of marriage, and also that marriages have to produce children. Marriage is an expensive and complicated thing, so it is sensible to try to make it something you aren't going to do every few years, but if someone spends ten or twenty years in marriage and finds that to be a positive part of their life, i don't see what's wrong if they then want to divorce and change their life. If the marriage produced a better life for both parties involved then it was a good thing, and if divorce is what it takes to allow both parties to continue having a good life, then that also should be a good thing. The idea that it has to be forever or nothing is a bit odd, humans do change over time and their life should change to adapt to their needs. A marriage devoid of joy or any productive end, prolonged out of fear, is far sadder than a timely divorce. Also, having children is not a moral imperative, if anything the opposite is true at the moment, as the planet already has a major problem with population growth. Reducing the population voluntarily by not having children is probably one of the best possible ways to address resource scarcity. If people were more judicious about whether they really should have children, rather than just having them willy nilly because it sounds like fun or because they think God wants them to, the world would be a much better place. A child is something you can justify having under some circumstances, it isn't something you should feel entitled to, or something you should have just because.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 22:55
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Is it racist to prefer to marry someone of the same race as yourself? Do you think God sees race?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 22:56
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Is it racist to prefer to marry someone of the same race as yourself? Hi, Emden (or Darkwater).
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 22:57
|
|
|
Berke Negri posted:Do you think God sees race? Well, he sees everything. But you mean, does he judge us by race? No. And the Catholic position is that race is not relevant in marriage. Catholics opposed anti-miscegenation laws, for instance. And I agree with that, for sure. But I think there is value in having maximum commonality with your spouse.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 23:00
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Well, he sees everything. But you mean, does he judge us by race? No. And the Catholic position is that race is not relevant in marriage. Catholics opposed anti-miscegenation laws, for instance. And I agree with that, for sure. Race is a worthless category invented by wealthy landowners in the sixteenth century to sow discord and hatred among their labor base so they wouldn't realize who the real enemy is, hth
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 23:08
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Well, he sees everything. But you mean, does he judge us by race? No. And the Catholic position is that race is not relevant in marriage. Catholics opposed anti-miscegenation laws, for instance. And I agree with that, for sure.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 23:13
|
|
|
Nessus posted:What is that value? And what did you mean by "aesthetics"? The value is a lower likelihood of division and thus more unity. Aesthetics refers to how much they value beauty.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 23:16
|
|
|
Why do you think interracial couples would be prone to division?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 23:18
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:The value is a lower likelihood of division and thus more unity. I would venture that possibly if you're forgoing love in lieu of picking somebody as much like yourself as possible when considering who to marry, you might already be on rocky ground. The point of love in marriage is that you have met somebody who, when you look at them, you can't help but do the things that will bring you and keep you together through any difficulty. Because their very nature compels you to give to them, to give your time and your thoughts and your work. Because they are deserving of it, you can't do otherwise. And that has very little to do with race or looks or how much they are like you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 23:22
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Well, he sees everything. But you mean, does he judge us by race? No. And the Catholic position is that race is not relevant in marriage. Catholics opposed anti-miscegenation laws, for instance. And I agree with that, for sure. So, if race has no religious meaning. What meaning does it have to you? What commonality relevant to a stable marriage do you think must be absent if a woman's skin color is different than yours? Sure, the upbringing and experience of a black woman will probably be somewhat different than that of a white woman, but there's no actual certainty there, and, to be quite frank, that she is a woman will reduce her commonality in a similar fashion. I find it somewhat bizarre that you want to marry yourself, and that you seem to assume that someone most similar to you will produce a more stable marriage than someone complementary.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 23:25
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:But I think there is value in having maximum commonality with your spouse. Ew no, no thank you. A level of commonality, sure, but who would want a mirror of themselves? Boring.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 23:32
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:Ew no, no thank you. A level of commonality, sure, but who would want a mirror of themselves? Boring. You must be boring.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 23:33
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:You must be boring. You must be a narcissist.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 23:36
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:You must be boring. That would still, technically, be a good justification for marrying someone different from yourself.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 23:36
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:You must be boring. Moderately so. But I bring a level of cute and snark that is simply irresistible.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 23:37
|
|
|
Caros posted:I mean I kind of get politics just because we'd probably have problems if it turned out she was some neocon thug who hates the blacks/gays/jews... Honestly I would much rather date/marry someone with vastly different religious views than me but similar politics than someone with similar religious views but vastly different politics. I'm fine if she doesn't believe in God or praises Vishnu or Xenu or whatever because who really cares, but I don't think I'd feel comfortable with someone who constantly complained about welfare queens or the gay agenda or big government. Kyrie eleison posted:I have, honestly, only really taken sincere romantic solace in one male partner. We are so similar! *sighs wistfully* That made me really sad for you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 23:50
|
|
|
If you really wanted to maximize commonalities it seems like you should probably make sure they're the same gender as you, too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 23:58
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:And I think I'd be a good father. Really? Can you be a good parent if you don't truly love your partner and only choose them on the basis of convenience in having children? What would you do if your child turned out to be a homosexual and, unlike you, refused to enter into a loveless marriage in order to pump out a couple of lily-white Catholics in order to keep the one true Aryan race strong? What if they brought home a gay, black, Buddhist boyfriend?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 01:49
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Really? Can you be a good parent if you don't truly love your partner and only choose them on the basis of convenience in having children? What would you do if your child turned out to be a homosexual and, unlike you, refused to enter into a loveless marriage in order to pump out a couple of lily-white Catholics in order to keep the one true Aryan race strong? What if they brought home a gay, black, Buddhist boyfriend? To say nothing of the various equivalences he drew earlier in the thread between a wrathful deity casting his creations eternally into hell for having once mouthed off, to a parent chastising a disobedient child. That bit made me a little leery about his capacity to parent and not end up on a CPS watchlist.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 01:52
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Really? Can you be a good parent if you don't truly love your partner and only choose them on the basis of convenience in having children? What would you do if your child turned out to be a homosexual and, unlike you, refused to enter into a loveless marriage in order to pump out a couple of lily-white Catholics in order to keep the one true Aryan race strong? What if they brought home a gay, black, Buddhist boyfriend? "Well you see, I would refuse to talk to them and never visit them or allow them to visit me until they rejected their sinful lifestyle. It's for his own good, which shows how much I love him that I would kick him out of the house and not speak to him until he returned to the one true righteous path. This proves I am a good father."
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 01:54
|
|
|
You could also adopt! That lets you have man-children if you want too, also has the nice ethical benefit of giving a child without a home, a home, rather than producing one of your own because the ones at the foster home don't come in the right colour.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 02:10
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:You could also adopt! That lets you have man-children if you want too, also has the nice ethical benefit of giving a child without a home, a home, rather than producing one of your own because the ones at the foster home don't come in the right colour.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 02:29
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:You could also adopt! That lets you have man-children if you want too, also has the nice ethical benefit of giving a child without a home, a home, rather than producing one of your own because the ones at the foster home don't come in the right colour. Adopt a child? But he must maximize his compatibility by making sure his children are nearly identical to him, and who knows what kind of background those kids at the foster homes have.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 02:32
|
|
|
Twelve by Pies posted:Adopt a child? But he must maximize his compatibility by making sure his children are nearly identical to him, and who knows what kind of Because lets be real about what is important here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 02:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 09:15 |
|
|
Can we flush this turd yet?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 03:11
|
|
