NationStates

Salus Maior wrote:

Reikoku wrote:
Same-sex marriage and adoption have been a thing for a couple of years now. Western society hasn't collapsed so far.

It'd take a few generations for any effects to appear. Although really, the damages from the Sexual Revolution are already apparent.

Salus Maior wrote:

Torrocca wrote:
What, you and your Catholic pals gonna break out the firearms and start an insurrection because people are getting treated like people?

What ever happened to "love thy neighbor"? Or are we being selective with what the good lord above says?

Strawmanning isn't going to get you anywhere. You really need to learn to drop that habit.

Salus Maior wrote:

Greater Cesnica wrote:Does that argument apply to a couple of that caliber?

If the couple are dedicated to each other as married couples are supposed to be and not doing sexual revolution bullshit I don't see what the problem would be.

Torrocca wrote:

Uxupox wrote:
Enforcement of what exactly?

Traditional familial roles.

The family as an integrated and functional unit of society has for a considerable period of time captured the attention and imagination of researchers.[1] While the family itself is a matter of study, equally important for research is its role as a factor influencing and affecting the development, behavior, and well-being of the individual. The family is a basic unit of study in many social science disciplines, such as sociology, psychology, economics, anthropology, social psychiatry, and social work.[2] It is also a unit of study in the medical sciences especially in understanding the epidemiology and the natural history of diseases. It also forms the basic unit for family medicine. Census definitions of family have varied from country to country and also from census to census within country. The word household has often been used as a replacement for family. Using the definition as “all people living in one household” may be erroneous, as on one hand it may include people who do not share kinship, and on other hand may exclude those kin members who are temporarily away.[3] This type of definition fails to identify units that function as families in an economic, social or emotional sense but do not usually reside in the same household.[4] Although the literature often focuses on family living arrangements, family membership includes obligations across and between generations, no matter where family members are living.

Torrocca wrote:

Salus Maior wrote:
It'd take a few generations for any effects to appear. Although really, the damages from the Sexual Revolution are already apparent.

The damages, AKA, "people are happier now because they can openly be who they actually are but I'm gonna be bitchy because they don't conform to my rigid, biased standards for how a person should be."

Someone clearly forgot, "judge not lest ye be judged," in their bible studies.

Salus Maior wrote:

Torrocca wrote:
The damages, AKA, "people are happier now because they can openly be who they actually are but I'm gonna be bitchy because they don't conform to my rigid, biased standards for how a person should be."

Someone clearly forgot, "judge not lest ye be judged," in their bible studies.

You're a funny guy, Torroca. You really are.

Have you ever read the full passage of "judge not lest ye be judged" or did you just pick that up from Reddit posters trying to tell Christians what to do and how to act?

Salus Maior wrote:

Torrocca wrote:
The damages, AKA, "people are happier now because they can openly be who they actually are but I'm gonna be bitchy because they don't conform to my rigid, biased standards for how a person should be."

Someone clearly forgot, "judge not lest ye be judged," in their bible studies.

You're a funny guy, Torroca. You really are.

Have you ever read the full passage of "judge not lest ye be judged" or did you just pick that up from Reddit posters trying to tell Christians what to do and how to act?

Salus Maior wrote:

Greater Cesnica wrote:Does that argument apply to a couple of that caliber?

If the couple are dedicated to each other as married couples are supposed to be and not doing sexual revolution bullshit I don't see what the problem would be.

Reikoku wrote:

Salus Maior wrote:
If the couple are dedicated to each other as married couples are supposed to be and not doing sexual revolution bullshit I don't see what the problem would be.

What about transwomen who have children naturally with ciswomen?

Torrocca wrote:

Northern Davincia wrote:Obviously, a man should contribute to housework, but his role is that of breadwinner, first and foremost.

Oh how about no, and we not force people to conform to gender roles?

Greater Cesnica wrote:

Reikoku wrote:
What about transwomen who have children naturally with ciswomen?

Are they dedicated to just living a normal family life?

Reikoku wrote:

Greater Cesnica wrote:Are they dedicated to just living a normal family life?

If "normal family life" is two women wedded together, then I imagine yes.

Torrocca wrote:

Salus Maior wrote:
You're a funny guy, Torroca. You really are.

Gal*, since evidently my signature's not made that obvious enough.

Have you ever read the full passage of "judge not lest ye be judged" or did you just pick that up from Reddit posters trying to tell Christians what to do and how to act?

Yes, and from that it's pretty fucking clear you've got a whole damn tree log stuck in your eye in regards to your views on other people's sexual orientations.

Kowani wrote:

Northern Davincia wrote:There's a solid case to be made for traditional family structures. Children in single-parent households are more likely to be suicidal, violent, and antisocial.

Out of curiosity, how do you feel about homosexual people adopting children?

Salus Maior wrote:

Torrocca wrote:
Gal*, since evidently my signature's not made that obvious enough.



Yes, and from that it's pretty fucking clear you've got a whole damn tree log stuck in your eye in regards to your views on other people's sexual orientations.

The whole "log in the eye" and "judge and ye be judge" bits are extensions of Christ's criticisms of the Pharisees, who Christ made a point of criticizing harshly the fact that they live sinful lives yet present themselves as totally righteous and criticize everyone else for being sinful. I'm not presenting myself as righteous, none of this is about me (tbh at the moment I'm pretty woefully in a bad place spiritually speaking, I'm definitely not better than anyone else), it's about the wider cultural moral standard that's been eroded away and continues to be eroded.

Also I call everyone "guys" so that wasn't a jab at you for whatever reason.

Northern Davincia wrote:

Kowani wrote:Out of curiosity, how do you feel about homosexual people adopting children?

Having two parents is better than one.

Reikoku wrote:

Bienenhalde wrote:From what I learned about Japanese history previously, it was my understanding that some Kokugaku scholars had proto-fascists tendencies, but then you told be that some of them were actually pacifists. So I guess it was a somewhat diverse movement?

Describing Motoori Norinaga as "pacifist" was probably excessive, but he was not interested in warfare, and did not see it as a component of the Japanese spirit. His own view of death was that it was a dirty and impure affair, one that someone should not want to happen, which is at odds with the fascist glorification of it. There is no historical connection between the National Learning movement and actual historical proto-fascism, unless being chauvinistic is enough to make one proto-fash (in which case, Confucianism was also proto-fascist).

Salus Maior wrote:

Torrocca wrote:
Gal*, since evidently my signature's not made that obvious enough.



Yes, and from that it's pretty fucking clear you've got a whole damn tree log stuck in your eye in regards to your views on other people's sexual orientations.

The whole "log in the eye" and "judge and ye be judge" bits are extensions of Christ's criticisms of the Pharisees, who Christ made a point of criticizing harshly the fact that they live sinful lives yet present themselves as totally righteous and criticize everyone else for being sinful. I'm not presenting myself as righteous, none of this is about me (tbh at the moment I'm pretty woefully in a bad place spiritually speaking, I'm definitely not better than anyone else), it's about the wider cultural moral standard that's been eroded away and continues to be eroded.

Also I call everyone "guys" so that wasn't a jab at you for whatever reason.

Kowani wrote:

Northern Davincia wrote:There's a solid case to be made for traditional family structures. Children in single-parent households are more likely to be suicidal, violent, and antisocial.

Out of curiosity, how do you feel about homosexual people adopting children?

Torrocca wrote:

Salus Maior wrote:
The whole "log in the eye" and "judge and ye be judge" bits are extensions of Christ's criticisms of the Pharisees, who Christ made a point of criticizing harshly the fact that they live sinful lives yet present themselves as totally righteous and criticize everyone else for being sinful. I'm not presenting myself as righteous, none of this is about me (tbh at the moment I'm pretty woefully in a bad place spiritually speaking, I'm definitely not better than anyone else), it's about the wider cultural moral standard that's been eroded away and continues to be eroded.

You sure seem to be acting self-righteous even if you're sure as shit not presenting yourself as such.

And, regardless, you still forsake the holy words of God above by disregarding Matthew 22-39.

Also I call everyone "guys" so that wasn't a jab at you for whatever reason.

And I disagree with it.

Northern Davincia wrote:

Torrocca wrote:
You sure seem to be acting self-righteous even if you're sure as shit not presenting yourself as such.

And, regardless, you still forsake the holy words of God above by disregarding Matthew 22-39.



And I disagree with it.

Salus hasn't forsaken anything. Matthew 19:4-6 condemns divorce, for example.

Torrocca wrote:

Northern Davincia wrote:Salus hasn't forsaken anything. Matthew 19:4-6 condemns divorce, for example.

Can't really love your neighbor as you love yourself if you get angry about their personal lives. :^)

Torrocca wrote:

Northern Davincia wrote:Salus hasn't forsaken anything. Matthew 19:4-6 condemns divorce, for example.

Can't really love your neighbor as you love yourself if you get angry about their personal lives. :^)

Torrocca wrote:

Northern Davincia wrote:Salus hasn't forsaken anything. Matthew 19:4-6 condemns divorce, for example.

Can't really love your neighbor as you love yourself if you get angry about their personal lives. :^)

Northern Davincia wrote:

Torrocca wrote:
Can't really love your neighbor as you love yourself if you get angry about their personal lives. :^)

Loving your neighbor doesn't mean you have to be tolerant of every action they take.