If your child was gay...

Joined
Oct 31, 2015
Threads
4
Messages
334
Likes
105
So do I--people are what they are, it doesn't bother me in the least what they sexually (as long as men who are married to women don't have illicit gay sex and put their wives at risk) and I support legal protection for long-term gay relationships.

But homosexual unions aren't marriage though, and never can be; marriage is between a man and a woman.
Marriage is what we chose it to be. We invented it, it doesn't occur "naturally", A Lion don't "marry" a Lioness..
So, as it's our invention, we can chose to put what ever boundaries on it that we see fit..
 

wasted years

Donator
Premium Account
PI Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2016
Threads
9
Messages
1,410
Likes
2,204
I asked someone who knows their Latin about this and they confirmed that yes he was referring to homosexuality and not child abuse as such. My immense revulsion at the idea of cremation is most certainly Abrahamic- and I do find the idea of cremation more revolting than I consenting homosexual activity between adults- however I am not sure that my attitudes on this subject particularly are at all given that historically it was also very much taboo during most of China's and India's history. I have had people both English Anglicans and Irish Catholics attempt to argue with me that despite what he clearly writes in his undisputed Epistles that St Paul really didn't share typical Second Temple Jewish attitudes towards both homosexuality and effeminacy using all sorts of Jesuitical spinning- I suspect that your friends are doing something similar with Tacticus. Also the attitude towards homosexuality wasn't at all places and at all times one of tolerance in the Hellenic and Roman worlds.

https://altright.com/2017/09/26/the-alt-right-and-the-homosexual-question-part-2/

"Hostility and aversion to the ‘recruiting’ or pederastic elements of homosexuality were commonplace in Imperial Rome. We know from Polybius that the Roman army punished homosexual relations between soldiers with death, and from Valerius Maximus that the upper echelons of the armies of the middle and late Republic were forced to confront incidents where homosexual officers had been sexually molesting young subordinates. Indeed, Tacitus remarks that one of the main reasons for the revolt of the Batavians, a Germanic tribe on the Rhine, against the Romans was the conscription, and subsequent molestation, of their youths in the Roman army. Whatever tolerance was shown to such behavior by Imperial authorities, it appears to have increased along with the decline of the Empire.

The link between the toleration of homosexual behavior and civilizational decline is an interesting one. Although both Parmenides and Aristotle argued that heredity played a large role in the homosexuality of the Greeks, and more especially the Dorians, Havelock Ellis, the early ‘sexologist,’ argued that the prevalence of what he called “sexual inversion” in Greek society was rooted more in the human “herd instinct” and was due more to a “state of social feeling that however it originated, induced a large proportion of the ordinary population to adopt homosexuality as a fashion.” Once a society adopted this fashion, it contributed to the “demoralizing of the manhood of a nation,” and was a sign of impending national or civilizational collapse into decadence and despondency. The goal was thus to avoid a situation in which homosexual ‘recruitment’ was “normalized” and, more crucially, to prevent the behaviors associated with these psychological disorders from becoming fashionable. This connection between homosexual behavior and civilizational decline is simply too large in scope to properly deal with here, but it should remain a background note to our consideration of the issue as a whole. More specifically, it is necessary to give some consideration to Ellis’ theory that homosexuality became ‘fashionable’ in Ancient Greece. By what means?

As both a contemporary and historical phenomenon, it is difficult to separate homosexual behavior from pederasty, so reliant has the former been upon the latter. The introduction of the legal decree Lex Scantina by the Romans around 149 B.C. appears to have been a reaction to the rape and sexual abuse of young male citizens, and a number of prosecutions against Senators and other Roman elites are documented. The pederastic preference among homosexuals appears to have survived the last two millennia but is currently inhibited from full ‘expression’ by legal, social, and cultural obstacles. For example, in one 2000 study of sexual age preferences by orientation, psychologists found that homosexuals were on average most likely to select the youngest possible option: a teenage boy. By contrast, sexually normal males were most likely to select a 25-year-old female.4 It is highly controversial to suggest that homosexuals may be more likely to sexually abuse children, and due to a lack of reliable studies, such an argument is not advanced here. However, there are very credible studies indicating that child sexual abuse plays a role in the development of homosexuality — a form of ‘recruitment,’ for lack of a better term. For example, a 2001 study in Archives of Sexual Behavior found that “gay men and lesbian women reported a significantly higher rate of childhood molestation than did heterosexual men and women. Forty-six percent of the homosexual men in contrast to 7% of the heterosexual men reported homosexual molestation. Twenty-two percent of lesbian women in contrast to 1% of heterosexual women reported homosexual molestation.”5"
great reading in that article.
i never realised how the promotion of homosexuality has such a drain on our resources.
 

Helen Back

Donator
Premium Account
PI Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2017
Threads
0
Messages
290
Likes
542
Location
Dublin via US
Marriage is what we chose it to be. We invented it, it doesn't occur "naturally", A Lion don't "marry" a Lioness..
So, as it's our invention, we can chose to put what ever boundaries on it that we see fit..
Nope sorry, and this has been gone through a million times...coupling of men and women has always occurred naturally and marriage was established as a construct primarily for the raising of children in a secure and stable environment. It later evolved to entail legal and religious contracts.

So, as it's our invention, we can chose to put what ever boundaries on it that we see fit.

A gay couple can never beget children without interventions such as surrogacy or AI (don't bother telling me straight couples avail of this too, it doesn't alter the intrinsic nature of marriage for the vast majority who don't) so no, you can't impose your own definition without altering the nature and meaning of the thing completely, which is what SSM has done.
 

wasted years

Donator
Premium Account
PI Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2016
Threads
9
Messages
1,410
Likes
2,204
Joyce also writes that we never really accepted homosexuality until we adapted many of the traits of homosexuality itself. hedonism, multiple partners, love without children etc.
western society in its whole has being homosexualised, plus historically when society has embraced homosexual behaviour, it went hand and hand with infanticide.
I'm not being defeatest here but turning around a culture that has such a toxic effect on birth rates could take a generation or two.
with demographics already bleak, nationalists don't have such time.
it's seems inevitable that western and irish society is going to lamh a chur i do bhas fein.
 
Joined
Oct 31, 2015
Threads
4
Messages
334
Likes
105
Nope sorry, and this has been gone through a million times...coupling of men and women has always occurred naturally and marriage was established as a construct primarily for the raising of children in a secure and stable environment. It later evolved to entail legal and religious contracts.

So, as it's our invention, we can chose to put what ever boundaries on it that we see fit.

A gay couple can never beget children without interventions such as surrogacy or AI (don't bother telling me straight couples avail of this too, it doesn't alter the intrinsic nature of marriage for the vast majority who don't) so no, you can't impose your own definition without altering the nature and meaning of the thing completely, which is what SSM has done.

But marriage is still OUR invention. It means nothing to those who get married on a whim to someone they met yesterday, but Las Vegas has some Elvis Preacher who will "marry" them regardless if they are gay/ straight or even a couple.. You could probably marry your dog there!
What is the "intrinsic nature" of marriage?
 

Ire-land

Donator
Premium Account
PI Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2017
Threads
45
Messages
3,619
Likes
4,869
Location
Dublin
I had this debate the other day with a friend of mine.
I posed the question, "Would you rather have a gay son or a Down Syndrome son."
My friend said he'd prefer a gay son. I said nothing, acknowledged his right and then I said I'd prefer a Down Syndrome son.
He then said, "What? Are you homophobic?"
I laughed in his face and reminded him that I had not called him a slur for not wanting a disabled son.
He was hoisted by his own petard.
Haven't Swedish parents 'cured' Down Syndrome?

How long before they 'cure' gay, when given the chance/choice?
 
Joined
Jun 23, 2017
Threads
22
Messages
2,615
Likes
2,812
Location
Atlantis
But marriage is still OUR invention. It means nothing to those who get married on a whim to someone they met yesterday, but Las Vegas has some Elvis Preacher who will "marry" them regardless if they are gay/ straight or even a couple.. You could probably marry your dog there!
What is the "intrinsic nature" of marriage?
The union of the universal masculine with the universal feminine. An experience of the female mother and male father that is a human right and that children need in their lives as the most ideal/best to realise their full potential.
 
Joined
Mar 31, 2017
Threads
23
Messages
2,556
Likes
1,347
Location
Dublin
Whatever one's definition of marriage, the state should leave well enough alone.

Get government out of the marriage business.
 
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Threads
1
Messages
546
Likes
378
Location
Ofally

Glad to see that people are angry about this. I am sick to death of people pretending to be something they are not and getting paid for it . Unless you are something in real life you shouldn't be pretending to be it on tv . In the film security Antonio Banderas pretended to be a security guard yet he never worked as one ever .
 
Top Bottom