Right Wing Discussion Thread XIV: Join the Friendkorps

[Confederate States of German America]

Thank you, I like to set an example for everyone.

An example of how not to act if you want people to take you remotely seriously.

That's rather rich coming from someone who jumped into an economics debate to talk about White Nationalism. Tell me, did you choose to be deliberately obtuse or did the facts of the argument really confuse you that bad?

[Volkari]

An example of how not to act if you want people to take you remotely seriously.

That's rather rich coming from someone who jumped into an economics debate to talk about White Nationalism. Tell me, did you choose to be deliberately obtuse or did the facts of the argument really confuse you that bad?

I did not enter the economic debate, or was even the one who brought up white nationalism. Conservative Morality did, and Fahran interjected that you weren't a white nationalist, and my response was relevant to her post. You then proceeded with some banal tough guy act about how I was afraid of you over the internet. Now you're trying something else, and I have no clue what.

[Confederate States of German America]

Of course I am not sure what is being debated.
1) You randomly jumped into someone else’s argument that did not involve you one bit.

This is a discussion forum, if you can't handle debate, don't get into them.

2) You conceded the main point, that the things in the South were NOT better for the average person.

Did I? Pray do tell where I said that/

3) You also cite the CSA government’s size to claim the South had adequate public services. But now claim you are only talking about the antebellum South.
Your arguments are completely confused, so I am of course confused.

We are talking about the Antebellum South, the factoid about the Confederacy constructing such a well organized central government is, however, relevant to the point you raise, no?

But Okay, here is some stuff for you,

“The South’s transportation network was primitive by northern standards. Traveling the 1,460 overland miles from Baltimore to New Orleans in 1850 meant riding five different railroads, two stagecoaches, and two steamboats. Most southern railroads served primarily to transport cotton to southern ports, where the crop could be shipped on northern vessels to northern or British factories for processing.

Various nice cherry pick, as you're citing 1850 instead of 1860 as between those two dates saw massive railway building projects throughout the South. Very prominent example was the development of a Chattanooga to Lynchburg line, completely circumventing the coastal route you'd have to take in 1850.

Because of high rates of personal debt, Southern states kept taxation and government spending at much lower levels than did the states in the North. As a result, Southerners lagged far behind Northerners in their support for public education. Illiteracy was widespread. In 1850, 20 percent of all southern white adults could not read or write, while the illiteracy rate in New England was less than half of 1 percent.

Not supported by Census data, which shows about 90% of the White population literate by 1860.

Because large slaveholders owned most of the region’s slaves, wealth was more stratified than in the North. In the Deep South, the middle class held a relatively small proportion of the region’s property, while wealthy planters owned a very significant portion of the productive lands and slave labor. In 1850, 17 percent of the farming population held two-thirds of all acres in the rich cotton-growing regions of the South.”
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_t ... &psid=3558

See, your problem is you are literally citing a children's textbook that doesn't even provide its own sources. [url=https://www.nber.org/papers/w18396.pdf
]Check out this NBER paper[/url], and specifically look at free households to free households (In other words, controlling for slaves), you'll find that income inequality is essentially the same.

“Even in the agricultural sector, Northern farmers were out-producing their southern counterparts in several important areas, as Southern agriculture remained labor intensive while northern agriculture became increasingly mechanized. By 1860, the free states had nearly twice the value of farm machinery per acre and per farm worker as did the slave states, leading to increased productivity. As a result, in 1860, the Northern states produced half of the nation's corn, four-fifths of its wheat, and seven-eighths of its oats.”
https://www.nps.gov/resources/story.htm%3Fid%3D251

[Novus America]

Of course I am not sure what is being debated.
1) You randomly jumped into someone else’s argument that did not involve you one bit.

This is a discussion forum, if you can't handle debate, don't get into them.

2) You conceded the main point, that the things in the South were NOT better for the average person.

Did I? Pray do tell where I said that/

3) You also cite the CSA government’s size to claim the South had adequate public services. But now claim you are only talking about the antebellum South.
Your arguments are completely confused, so I am of course confused.

We are talking about the Antebellum South, the factoid about the Confederacy constructing such a well organized central government is, however, relevant to the point you raise, no?

But Okay, here is some stuff for you,

“The South’s transportation network was primitive by northern standards. Traveling the 1,460 overland miles from Baltimore to New Orleans in 1850 meant riding five different railroads, two stagecoaches, and two steamboats. Most southern railroads served primarily to transport cotton to southern ports, where the crop could be shipped on northern vessels to northern or British factories for processing.

Various nice cherry pick, as you're citing 1850 instead of 1860 as between those two dates saw massive railway building projects throughout the South. Very prominent example was the development of a Chattanooga to Lynchburg line, completely circumventing the coastal route you'd have to take in 1850.

Because of high rates of personal debt, Southern states kept taxation and government spending at much lower levels than did the states in the North. As a result, Southerners lagged far behind Northerners in their support for public education. Illiteracy was widespread. In 1850, 20 percent of all southern white adults could not read or write, while the illiteracy rate in New England was less than half of 1 percent.

Not supported by Census data, which shows about 90% of the White population literate by 1860.

Because large slaveholders owned most of the region’s slaves, wealth was more stratified than in the North. In the Deep South, the middle class held a relatively small proportion of the region’s property, while wealthy planters owned a very significant portion of the productive lands and slave labor. In 1850, 17 percent of the farming population held two-thirds of all acres in the rich cotton-growing regions of the South.”
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_t ... &psid=3558

See, your problem is you are literally citing a children's textbook that doesn't even provide its own sources. [url=https://www.nber.org/papers/w18396.pdf
]Check out this NBER paper[/url], and specifically look at free households to free households (In other words, controlling for slaves), you'll find that income inequality is essentially the same.

“Even in the agricultural sector, Northern farmers were out-producing their southern counterparts in several important areas, as Southern agriculture remained labor intensive while northern agriculture became increasingly mechanized. By 1860, the free states had nearly twice the value of farm machinery per acre and per farm worker as did the slave states, leading to increased productivity. As a result, in 1860, the Northern states produced half of the nation's corn, four-fifths of its wheat, and seven-eighths of its oats.”
https://www.nps.gov/resources/story.htm%3Fid%3D251

So any evidence things were actually better for the average person? Hmm?
Even by your own claims they were not.
So even if we accept your claims 100% you still must concede that point.

Also read your own sources!
“We also find that the South was initially much richer than the North on the eve of Revolution, but then suffered a severe reversal of fortune, so that by 1840 its white population was already poorer than free Northerners. In terms of inequality, our estimates suggest that American colonists had much more equal incomes than did households in England and Wales around 1774. Indeed, New England and the Middle Colonies appear to have been more egalitarian than anywhere else in the measureable world. Income inequality rose dramatically between 1774 and 1860, especially in the South.”
https://www.nber.org/papers/w18396.pdf
Thank you. You proved my point.

Even with inequality similar, (but rising much faster in the South) the GDP per capita difference was actually significant. You lied.

The Confederacy having a large government (you did not actually show it was well run) does not in anyway prove it was actually well run.
And says nothing about how well Southern state governments were run.

And okay your data says 10% illiterate instead of 20%.
There could be various reasons for that, (especially given the are 10 years apart, but regardless it was still way worse than the illiteracy rate in New England. Proving the southern governments were not providing a comprehensive education system.

Your data still proves education was inferior.

Even though by 1860 the railway system in the South has improved, it was still in many cases disjointed and inferior to the North. You talk of miles per capita, but miles per area also matters if you want it actually fully connected.

Chattanooga is a still a long ways from New Orleans.
Of course this caused major logistical issues during the war.

And you keep posting that one table. Okay, yes it appears, including the “upper South” (which again was very socially and economic different than the Deep South and a large portion rejected the CSA) corn, referring to maize here, production was not that different.
My source concurs.
Even by your source southern production of maize was not that much higher.
Mine is from 1860, yours 1859. So it seems by 1860 the relatively small gap was gone.

Problem is your source does not allocate the “other grains”, and my source shows the vast majority of the 400 goes to the North.
So your source does not contradict mine. It just bizarrely on allocates two agricultural products (cotton and corn) and does not allocate the rest. Who is cherry picking now?
Why did it not allocate “other grains”.

So how about we do it. 402+300 (702) > 437+100+5 (542).

So allocate the vast majority of that 400 “other grain” to the North, and clearly the north is producing much more agriculture!

[Diopolis]

To be a Homosexual is to be condemned to hell unless you abstain from all elements of it.

That statement is, of course, completely wrong.

It's pretty apparent that Scripture and Tradition both condemn homosexual acts, so there's no real way to say from a Christian standpoint that homosexuality does not bring condemnation unto punishment.

[Diopolis]

Yoooo where tf my Catholic monarchist gang at? We gotta rep against all these smelly, American-exceptionalist libertarians lmao

Hello.

[Joohan]

That statement is, of course, completely wrong.

It's pretty apparent that Scripture and Tradition both condemn homosexual acts, so there's no real way to say from a Christian standpoint that homosexuality does not bring condemnation unto punishment.

I think he meant like, you can be homosexual - you just are not supposed to act on the temptations. Like how there is nothing wrong with being born a kleptomaniac, just so long as you don't act on your urge to steal.

[Diopolis]

It's pretty apparent that Scripture and Tradition both condemn homosexual acts, so there's no real way to say from a Christian standpoint that homosexuality does not bring condemnation unto punishment.

I think he meant like, you can be homosexual - you just are not supposed to act on the temptations. Like how there is nothing wrong with being born a kleptomaniac, just so long as you don't act on your urge to steal.

I think that's what OEP was saying.

[Fahran]

Considering his fervent desire to defend a white supremacist state, even if he didn't call himself one, he's certainly in that ballpark.

Refuting fallacious arguments about a white supremacist state and being a white supremacist aren't quite the same thing. You're a fascist after all - and one who has ideas similar to Evola. That's in the ballpark of all sorts of crazy stuff. Did you do know he defended sexual assault at one point? By your same logic, wouldn't engaging with any of his ideas make you a misogynist? I think it's preferable to just debate these subjects without making bad assumptions about other people.

[Painisia]

It would be interesting to see if The Dark Enlightenment became the vanguard of a new revolution in the future. A new chapter in history, intersectionality vs reactionaries. Personally, I think The Dark Enlightenment is too reactionary for me. One of their proponents, Mencius Moldbug, suggests removing the democratic system altogether and impose a Prussian cameralist system from the 1800s instead. No thanks. I think I am a part of the Grey Enlightenment instead.

[Volkari]

Considering his fervent desire to defend a white supremacist state, even if he didn't call himself one, he's certainly in that ballpark.

Refuting fallacious arguments about a white supremacist state and being a white supremacist aren't quite the same thing. You're a fascist after all - and one who has ideas similar to Evola. That's in the ballpark of all sorts of crazy stuff. Did you do know he defended sexual assault at one point? By your same logic, wouldn't engaging with any of his ideas make you a misogynist? I think it's preferable to just debate these subjects without making bad assumptions about other people.

There are so many different ways to attack that statement, because it's completely untrue about me or Evola, but for the sake of brevity, I'm just going to point to the obvious that Neo-Hegelian American nationalism which is inspired by Feurbach is the complete opposite of what Evola believed or wanted.

The United States represents the reductio ad absurdum of the negative and the most senile aspects of Western civilization. What in Europe exist in diluted form are magnified and concentrated in the United States whereby they are revealed as the symptoms of disintegration and cultural and human regression. The American mentality can only be interpreted as an example of regression, which shows itself in the mental atrophy towards all higher interests and incomprehension of higher sensibility.

[Conserative Morality]

I would have to disagree here.

You are confusing debate with with disunity. Debate and disagreement is allowed under a fascist system, but not anything which could cause destruction or disunity.

To begin with, the view of constant violance and change is not a fascist one. The view point which you referenced is from Italian futurists, some of whom were supporters of fascism - but who were not intrinsically themselves fascists. Most fascists, especially those within established regimes, did neither desired permanent revolution nor constant change. The Japanese Empire ( with its numerous factions and philosophers ) quite explicitally invisioned an eternal and never ending royal system, built upon a foundation of centuries of ancient values and virtues. Then there were the Nazis, who just putting aside the propoganda of a thousand year reich, clearly had a long term goal set for the German nation ( Lebesraum, eugenics, natalism, etc ). In regards to reverance to the past, the more conservative and Christian fascist states ( as well as the Japanese ) clearly held a reverance for tradition and history.

Debate within fascism did exist during its hayday - but opinions and views perceived to be destructive were not allowed. The Nazis were a good example of this on two counts. The left of the NSDAP had very different ideas on the direction which Germany should in, opinions which were well known but permitted by Hitler any how. The left of the party was not purged until it was believed that a violent coup was imminent. They were not purged until it was believed they were a threat. A similar debate revolved around religion in the party, with the layman being Christian, much of the senior leadership being atheist, and the SS, as well as some leaders, being occultists. Three radically different opinions, but all permitted during their time because none was seen as being decisive or destructive.

I am not as well versed for the Japanese Empire, but I am aware that they had numerous differing philosophers and idealogues among the numerous factions.

This post isn't of the quality I want it to be, but I'm at work and in my phone.

Anyways. Fascism isn't one rigid opinion for the entire nation - fascism is a goal and a general direction. There is plenty of debate on how to get there.

All disagreement can easily erupt into disunity. There's a reason why leftist groups, which tend towards the academic, are infamous for constantly splitting. The heretic, as the saying goes, is worse than an unbeliever.

The Japanese Empire was totalitarian but distinctly not fascist.

ut it is the purest form of democracy if the nation be considered as it should be from the point of view of quality rather than quantity, as an idea, the mightiest because the most ethical, the most coherent, the truest, [b]expressing itself in a people as the conscience and will of the few, if not, indeed, of one, and ending to express itself in the conscience and the will of the mass, of the whole group ethnically molded by natural and historical conditions into a nation, advancing, as one conscience and one will, along the self same line of development and spiritual formation

...

A nation, as expressed in the State, is a living, ethical entity only in so far as it is active. Inactivity is death. Therefore the State is not only Authority which governs and confers legal form and spiritual value on individual wills, but it is also Power which makes its will felt and respected beyond its own frontiers, thus affording practical proof of the universal character of the decisions necessary to ensure its development. This implies organization and expansion, potential if not actual. Thus the State equates itself to the will of man, whose development cannot he checked by obstacles and which, by achieving self-expression, demonstrates its infinity.

...

A doctrine must therefore be a vital act and not a verbal display. Hence the pragmatic strain in Fascism, it’s will to power, its will to live, its attitude toward violence, and its value.

...

Fascism does not, generally speaking, believe in the possibility or utility of perpetual peace. It therefore discards pacifism as a cloak for cowardly supine renunciation in contradistinction to self-sacrifice. War alone keys up all human energies to their maximum tension and sets the seal of nobility on those peoples who have the courage to face it. All other tests are substitutes which never place a man face to face with himself before the alternative of life or death. Therefore all doctrines which postulate peace at all costs are incompatible with Fascism. Equally foreign to the spirit of Fascism, even if accepted as useful in meeting special political situations -- are all internationalistic or League superstructures which, as history shows, crumble to the ground whenever the heart of nations is deeply stirred by sentimental, idealistic or practical considerations. Fascism carries this anti-pacifistic attitude into the life of the individual. " I don't care a damn „ (me ne frego) - the proud motto of the fighting squads scrawled by a wounded man on his bandages, is not only an act of philosophic stoicism, it sums up a doctrine which is not merely political: it is evidence of a fighting spirit which accepts all risks.

...

History does not travel backwards. The Fascist doctrine has not taken De Maistre as its prophet. Monarchical absolutism is of the past, and so is ecclesiolatry. Dead and done for are feudal privileges and the division of society into closed, uncommunicating castes. Neither has the Fascist conception of authority anything in common with that of a police ridden State.

A party governing a nation “totalitarianly" is a new departure in history. There are no points of reference nor of comparison. From beneath the ruins of liberal, socialist, and democratic doctrines, Fascism extracts those elements which are still vital. It preserves what may be described as "the acquired facts" of history; it rejects all else. That is to say, it rejects the idea of a doctrine suited to all times and to all people.

...

The Fascist State is, however, a unique and original creation. It is not reactionary but revolutionary, for it anticipates the solution of certain universal problems which have been raised elsewhere, in the political field by the splitting up of parties, the usurpation of power by parliaments, the irresponsibility of assemblies; in the economic field by the increasingly numerous and important functions discharged by trade unions and trade associations with their disputes and ententes, affecting both capital and labor; in the ethical field by the need felt for order, discipline, obedience to the moral dictates of patriotism.

...

Fascism sees in the imperialistic spirit -- i.e. in the tendency of nations to expand - a manifestation of their vitality. In the opposite tendency, which would limit their interests to the home country, it sees a symptom of decadence. Peoples who rise or rearise are imperialistic; renunciation is characteristic of dying peoples.

Fascism is distinctly revolutionary, oriented towards change and violence, and built on precepts that necessarily preclude dissent, even if Giovanni Gentile thought otherwise.

The Strasserists were purged precisely because they posed a disagreement. There's a reason they were purged so soon after the Nazis took power - once they controlled a section of society, they had no tolerance for dissent. The idea of a leftist coup in Nazi Germany is bullshit propaganda that was hardly taken seriously even at the time. The Night Of The Long Knives was not a defensive measure. And furthermore, the idea that dissenting ideas about religion were tolerated in the upper ranks of the Nazi hierarchy presumes that there was a position to dissent from. Hitler was little more than an opportunist when it came to religion, and his inner circle of corulers were not of one mind.

Sorry for the short response. Shitty week.

[Nea Byzantia]

What is the opinion of right-wingers on this thread about capital punishment? More specifically execution.

Some crimes are worthy of death; so while I certainly advocate the death penalty in certain cases, I don't think it should be used gratuitously.

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

What is the opinion of right-wingers on this thread about capital punishment? More specifically execution.

Some crimes are worthy of death; so while I certainly advocate the death penalty in certain cases, I don't think it should be used gratuitously.

I understand your perspective, but I politely disagree. In my view, it isn’t the crimes themselves that warrant death (death as a means of retribution is grossly inhumane), but rather the danger to society and to innocent lives posed by unrepentant violent criminals that necessitates the use of the death penalty in limited amounts. Think of it like putting down a rabid dog that poses a threat to bystanders. Note that the word threat is in there. Even the life of a violent criminal possesses inherent dignity, and mustn’t be taken on a whim. However, I firmly maintain that most criminals can (and should) be rehabilitated into functioning members of society. Does that make sense?

EDIT: Basically, there must be a clear and present danger to innocents in order for a criminal to be sentenced to death, and even then the execution must be carried out in a humane manner.

[Nea Byzantia]

Some crimes are worthy of death; so while I certainly advocate the death penalty in certain cases, I don't think it should be used gratuitously.

I understand your perspective, but I politely disagree. In my view, it isn’t the crimes themselves that warrant death (death as a means of retribution is grossly inhumane), but rather the danger to society and to innocent lives posed by unrepentant violent criminals that necessitates the use of the death penalty in limited amounts. Think of it like putting down a rabid dog that poses a threat to bystanders. Note that the word threat is in there. Even the life of a violent criminal possesses inherent dignity, and mustn’t be taken on a whim. However, I firmly maintain that most criminals can (and should) be rehabilitated into functioning members of society. Does that make sense?

EDIT: Basically, there must be a clear and present danger to innocents in order for a criminal to be sentenced to death, and even then the execution must be carried out in a humane manner.

As I see it, you are arguing against the death penalty from the Enlightenment perspective that all human beings are inherently good, and that they all CAN be rehabilitated. I don't come at it from that presupposition. Far be it from me to deny that people can change for the better; but at the same time, some people are just Evil. They chose to do what they did out of malice and evil intent. There are some crimes that cannot be excused away by anything other than evil (which is to put it in your words, a threat to Society). In those cases (cases of high handed crimes like rape, pedophilia, premeditated murder, conspiracy, etc), there is no rehabilitating that person, and so under those circumstances, I think the death penalty is totally appropriate.

Nobody said they had to be impaled on spikes, either...A quick, painless death would be more civilized and humane.

[Nea Byzantia]

And as for the other criminals - the ones who don't need to be executed, I don't think they should be allowed to loaf in prison on the taxpayer's dime (that's how it is in Canada, anyways), they should be put to work, building infrastructure, or whatever the Society needs. The taxpayer is already footing the bill to feed and house these criminals; might as well put them to something useful for Society.

[Conserative Morality]

I understand your perspective, but I politely disagree. In my view, it isn’t the crimes themselves that warrant death (death as a means of retribution is grossly inhumane), but rather the danger to society and to innocent lives posed by unrepentant violent criminals that necessitates the use of the death penalty in limited amounts. Think of it like putting down a rabid dog that poses a threat to bystanders. Note that the word threat is in there. Even the life of a violent criminal possesses inherent dignity, and mustn’t be taken on a whim. However, I firmly maintain that most criminals can (and should) be rehabilitated into functioning members of society. Does that make sense?

EDIT: Basically, there must be a clear and present danger to innocents in order for a criminal to be sentenced to death, and even then the execution must be carried out in a humane manner.

It's not death as a means of retribution. It's death as justice. Some crimes are too terrible for any other punishment. Death in such cases is a cleansing of the world, regardless of whether or not you could lock them in l'oubliette for the rest of their miserable lives as a 'humane' alternative. Furthermore, my support of imprisonment over the death penalty has nothing to do with the value of life - how could one say that one values life when one, effectively, enslaves a person in a totalitarian society? What appreciation for life is that? To throw a man in (metaphorical) chains, to watch his every meal, to listen to his every conversation? Death is a mercy compared to life in prison - or worse, solitary. My support for imprisonment over the death penalty is because you can rescind the punishment midway - release the innocent, parole the reformed - in the case of mistakes, changing values, etc etc.

That being said, I'm opposed to the death penalty in most cases; that in such cases as merit it, guilt should be absolutely certain, and that the appropriate time for appeals is given regardless of how certain the guilt is. There shouldn't be more than a handful of such cases in any given decade across the nation.

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

And as for the other criminals - the ones who don't need to be executed, I don't think they should be allowed to loaf in prison on the taxpayer's dime (that's how it is in Canada, anyways), they should be put to work, building infrastructure, or whatever the Society needs. The taxpayer is already footing the bill to feed and house these criminals; might as well put them to something useful for Society.

Tbh, I concur with this. Putting prisoners to work in menial, albeit honest, jobs should be an integral part of the rehabilitative process, such as in the example provided of building infrastructure. Heaven knows that Pennsylvania needs a complete overhaul of infrastructure. Our roads are barely paved, for Pete’s sake!

I understand your perspective, but I politely disagree. In my view, it isn’t the crimes themselves that warrant death (death as a means of retribution is grossly inhumane), but rather the danger to society and to innocent lives posed by unrepentant violent criminals that necessitates the use of the death penalty in limited amounts. Think of it like putting down a rabid dog that poses a threat to bystanders. Note that the word threat is in there. Even the life of a violent criminal possesses inherent dignity, and mustn’t be taken on a whim. However, I firmly maintain that most criminals can (and should) be rehabilitated into functioning members of society. Does that make sense?

EDIT: Basically, there must be a clear and present danger to innocents in order for a criminal to be sentenced to death, and even then the execution must be carried out in a humane manner.

It's not death as a means of retribution. It's death as justice. Some crimes are too terrible for any other punishment. Death in such cases is a cleansing of the world, regardless of whether or not you could lock them in l'oubliette for the rest of their miserable lives as a 'humane' alternative. Furthermore, my support of imprisonment over the death penalty has nothing to do with the value of life - how could one say that one values life when one, effectively, enslaves a person in a totalitarian society? What appreciation for life is that? To throw a man in (metaphorical) chains, to watch his every meal, to listen to his every conversation? Death is a mercy compared to life in prison - or worse, solitary. My support for imprisonment over the death penalty is because you can rescind the punishment midway - release the innocent, parole the reformed - in the case of mistakes, changing values, etc etc.

That being said, I'm opposed to the death penalty in most cases; that in such cases as merit it, guilt should be absolutely certain, and that the appropriate time for appeals is given regardless of how certain the guilt is. There shouldn't be more than a handful of such cases in any given decade across the nation.

I agree that, when the state sentences someone to death, guilt must be absolutely certain (or as certain as humanly possible; not just beyond a reasonable doubt, but beyond any doubt.) And the death penalty should be reserved for rare occasions that truly merit it.

[Nea Byzantia]

It's pretty apparent that Scripture and Tradition both condemn homosexual acts, so there's no real way to say from a Christian standpoint that homosexuality does not bring condemnation unto punishment.

I think he meant like, you can be homosexual - you just are not supposed to act on the temptations. Like how there is nothing wrong with being born a kleptomaniac, just so long as you don't act on your urge to steal.

But if you don't act on the temptations, are you really a homosexual, or are you just tempted by it?

[Yusseria]

I think he meant like, you can be homosexual - you just are not supposed to act on the temptations. Like how there is nothing wrong with being born a kleptomaniac, just so long as you don't act on your urge to steal.

But if you don't act on the temptations, are you really a homosexual, or are you just tempted by it?

Your sexuality isn't really determined by whether you act on it or not.

[Nea Byzantia]

But if you don't act on the temptations, are you really a homosexual, or are you just tempted by it?

Your sexuality isn't really determined by whether you act on it or not.

I disagree. Can you charge someone with murder or theft, if they don't kill or steal; even if they only have the temptation to steal?

I suppose it depends on if one indulges the temptation, and begins to fantasize - to bring it into their Mind and Heart, as it were; which is the precursor to acting on it. And the line between fantasizing/lusting and acting is generally very thin. By the time you get to that point; chances are you'll act on your impulse eventually.

To be clear, we can't control what thoughts or urges bubble into our Mind; but we do CHOOSE to cultivate certain thoughts and impulses, and take action on those; and marginalize/ignore others. That goes for both positive or negative lifestyles and choices.

[Yusseria]

Your sexuality isn't really determined by whether you act on it or not.

I disagree. Can you charge someone with murder or theft, if they don't kill or steal; even if they only have the temptation to steal?

I suppose it depends on if one indulges the temptation, and begins to fantasize - to bring it into their Mind and Heart, as it were; which is the precursor to acting on it. And the line between fantasizing/lusting and acting is generally very thin. By the time you get to that point; chances are you'll act on your impulse eventually.

To be clear, we can't control what thoughts or urges bubble into our Mind; but we do CHOOSE to cultivate certain thoughts and impulses, and take action on those; and marginalize/ignore others. That goes for both positive or negative lifestyles and choices.

Murder is based on action. Sexual preference isn't.

You're essentially saying everyone is asexual until they have sex. That's absurd.

[Nea Byzantia]

I disagree. Can you charge someone with murder or theft, if they don't kill or steal; even if they only have the temptation to steal?

I suppose it depends on if one indulges the temptation, and begins to fantasize - to bring it into their Mind and Heart, as it were; which is the precursor to acting on it. And the line between fantasizing/lusting and acting is generally very thin. By the time you get to that point; chances are you'll act on your impulse eventually.

To be clear, we can't control what thoughts or urges bubble into our Mind; but we do CHOOSE to cultivate certain thoughts and impulses, and take action on those; and marginalize/ignore others. That goes for both positive or negative lifestyles and choices.

Murder is based on action. Sexual preference isn't.

You're essentially saying everyone is asexual until they have sex. That's absurd.

No. Everyone is "asexual" until they start fantasizing or thinking about sex; which is pretty early in life. Read the whole thing.

[The Grims]

That statement is, of course, completely wrong.

It's pretty apparent that Scripture and Tradition both condemn homosexual acts, so there's no real way to say from a Christian standpoint that homosexuality does not bring condemnation unto punishment.

And yet it seems that 80 percent of the clergy is gay..
https://www.thetablet.co.uk/news/11356/ ... he-vatican

[Yusseria]

Murder is based on action. Sexual preference isn't.

You're essentially saying everyone is asexual until they have sex. That's absurd.

No. Everyone is "asexual" until they start fantasizing or thinking about sex; which is pretty early in life. Read the whole thing.

Sexuality develops when you start to feel sexual attraction. It's really that simple.