Stingray3906
2mo ago
Thank you for clarifying that. And to the rest of your comment, whatever floats your boat, I guess. I'm not going to try and change how you feel about it.
Stingray3906
2mo ago
Oh yes, potency is definitely a concern now. My state actually restricts the max potency of recreational flower to 30% or less. There's some flower that goes up into the 40s or 50s. I was getting more at the fact that the safety and potency of the product is more consistent, now.
Stingray3906
2mo ago
There are many good things that are happy and beneficial that do not deserve special recognition by the church or the state. There are many vices that should be discouraged by the church and state, even though some people will practice said vice and seem to be happy in practicing it.
I agree with this. The apostle Paul even said, "not everything is beneficial." Though, I suspect that you believe that non-hetero relationships fall into the "vice" category.
It's not a perfect analogy, I was just making a point about language. The "boss" relationship is inherently different than the "friend" relationship, different relationships deserve different words. It's not a perfect analogy because one can be a boss and a friend, maybe I'll think of a better analogy.
That's fair.
Everyone believes in sin, secular people just have different words for it. A vice or a personal sin, is something that feels good but is ultimately bad for the person doing it, you don't need religion to understand the concept, it's just without religion you have to reinvent and throw out all the work done on helping people effectively deal with vices.
I would put it more generally, that everyone believes that there are things we do that hurt others or hurt others and/or the larger society. How is a healthy non-hetero relationship something that fits that definition?
Apples, oranges, cheese and carburetors. These are entirely unlike phenomena and must be analyzed separately
I find it interesting you use the bolded word to describe those things, because truthfully, they are concepts that humankind has made up to describe things. Paul famously said, "There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus." It would appear to me that the walls we use to divide each other are are not needed in God's Kingdom. Jesus even said that of marriage -- "For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven." (Matthew 22:30)
Stingray3906
2mo ago
Firstly, the original question was how, as a Christian, someone could reconcile Jesus' teachings with being against Gay marriage. So the conversation from the start was religious.
You are correct. My apologies for diverging.
Second, I don't see the distinction in my response. If the couple is not religious and never chooses to have sex, it's the same. They are married because they can still perform the action (a conjugal relationship) that makes a marriage a marriage. (even if they never want to)
You're right. Upon a second glance, you didn't make that distinction.
Stingray3906
2mo ago
So it sounds like we have two definitions of marriage here: the legal and the spiritual/religious. If two people are legally married but are neither spiritual nor religious, what does it matter if they choose to never have sex?
Stingray3906
2mo ago
Marriage simply is the exclusive conjugal union of a man and a woman, open to life, vowed till death do them part. It is a vocation, one of the schools of love that only some people are called to. A vocation creates the conditions of heroic self-sacrifice, so obviously not everyone can do it.
Well, in most Western democracies its the exclusive conjugal union of two adults, but I get what you're saying. The second sentence I completely agree with. Some people are either not fit for marriage or not called to it.
Even from a non-Christian sociological perspective, there is no reason to have a codified sexual-partnership without the potential to generate children. This used to be widely acknowledged and uncontroversial.
How would you feel if two asexual people got married and didn't have a kid through intercourse or adopt?
Stingray3906
2mo ago
Awesome, thanks! Some things you said that I'd like to explore further:
"Love your neighbor" does not extend to "normalize your neighbor's erotic proclivities at the cost of broader society" or "you must erase the distinction between things."
So, you believe that normalizing non-hetero relationships is a detriment to society? How do you reconcile that with non-hetero people who are in happy, healthy relationships?
Christians have traditionally believed that marriage is permanent bond between a man and woman for the purpose of forming a household and raising children, where the duties of the man and woman are asymmetrical. For a man to "marry" another man is a contradiction in terms, the same as when your boss tells you, "I want you to think of me as your friend, not your boss."
I understand what you mean. I try to keep my private life separate from my work life, too. Although, I have a second job at the church I attend, and my pastor is of course, my boss, but he's also my friend. I play in a DnD campaign with a bunch of other church friends, and he's the DM. Would your suggestion to me be that I break the friendship off because he's technically also my boss?
Furthermore, the male-female union is a core building block of civilization and therefore deserves special recognition by the state and by the church. It deserves to be considered normative.
It certainly has been that way throughout the course of history. However, along with that, we've historically treated women separately from men and for along time, women had fewer rights than men. We have also marginalized people of different races, religions, and sexual orientations. Sexuality aside, we've also oriented our social policies to strongly benefit married people over single people. All of this has been "normal" for thousands of years. How does this fit into your definition of loving your neighbor? Also, would you agree that what is "normative", even within the context of Christianity, is fluid and varies over time?
There is furthermore the argument that homoerotic behavior is a vice, a sin. And if we love our neighbor, we want to save them from sin. Sin ultimately makes us less happy.
I agree, there's an argument to be made. But that's just it -- an argument, a position, an opinion, a perspective. You believe non-hetero relationships are sinful, I do not. We both think our own opinions are the truth. There are many people who agree with either of us, and there are those who are not religious that pay no mind to the doctrine of sin. What does sin matter to them? Should we force our views onto them, or lovingly allow them to make their own informed choice on what works best, even if we don't agree?
I do think though, that forgoing sexual promiscuity and other sexual vices that a straight person has tempted by has made me more happy.
Do you think that a majority of non-hetero people are more sexually promiscuous than hetero people? I identify as asexual, so maybe I don't have the best perspective on this, either.
Stingray3906
2mo ago
Aside from my partner, no. I'm the opposite of you; I had a traditionalist perspective as a teenager, but as I came back to to faith, I reunderstood for myself that accepting people who are not straight falls under the umbrella of loving your neighbor.
Stingray3906
2mo ago
No, I don't think it's equivalent to that, but more people that you think use cannabis. The people I've seen in dispensaries appear to be no different than the people you see in package stores. They're average, working adults.
Stingray3906
2mo ago
Marijuana hasn't got there yet except in a few places like Colorado
I believe its legal now in half the US states, plus all of Canada. I would hardly call that "a few places"
I think that marijuana is sufficiently easy to produce
It is not. It requires a great deal of upfront capital, real estate, permitting, and marketing. Products have to be registered with the state, tested for potency, mold, and hazardous chemicals.
Alcohol is sufficiently embedded in the culture and used by a sufficiently large number of respectable otherwise-law-abiding citizens (including cops, politicians, judges etc.) that banning it will do more damage to the rule of law than to drinkers (see Prohibition).
What kind of people do you think consume cannabis?
Stingray3906
2mo ago
I'm curious, as a fellow Christian, how you're able to reconcile loving God and loving your neighbor with being against gay marriage. I don't mean this in a confrontational or hostile way, at all. I'm genuinely intrigued.
Stingray3906
2mo ago
I've gone in the complete opposite direction as you when it comes to cannabis. I used to feel very strongly that it should be outlawed, that it is a gateway drug, that it will make you crazy, etc. But as the years went on, with states legalizing it for medical and later recreational use, I just haven't seen the "downfall of society" that conservatives have been espousing since time immemorial. As I understand it, the benefits of legalization have been (1) decreased arrests for possession and growing, (2) a viable treatment option for neurological and psychiatric disorders, (3) an increase in safe and quality products, and (4) an alternative recreational substance to alcohol. I am a daily cannabis user. I have a dry leaf vape and a 510 vape that I go between. I only consume cannabis after work to wind down and I certainly don't get behind the wheel when I'm high. I don't find it do have affected my performance at work in any way. Are there people who abuse cannabis? Absolutely. Should those people seek out treatment? You bet, no different than someone who's an alcoholic or abuses any other substance. Are there people who drive high? Certainly, and they should be prosecuted in the same fashion as any other impaired drivers. I find it very interesting that staunch conservatives will be so opposed to legalization and yet they will give alcohol a free pass. One could certainly make the argument that alcohol is an objectively more dangerous substance -- binge drinking can lead to poisoning (you could wind up in the hospital needing your stomach pumped), hangovers are a bitch (never had one coming down from a high), it can lead to developmental abnormalities in unborn babies, lead to liver disease/failure/cirrhosis. I don't see any concerted push by conservatives to bring back Prohibition, but yet when it comes to cannabis legalization, they immediately push back.
Stingray3906
2mo ago
I've always thought that you can get agreement on abortion by addressing the root cause. What causes abortion? It's unplanned pregnancy. What causes unplanned pregnancy? It's sex. What can you do to prevent sex? Don't have sex unless you know the risks and you are both emotionally mature enough to partake in it, or, use contraception to lower your risk of an unplanned pregnancy. How do we get people to do both those things? Sexual education and free or reduced-cost contraception. As a part of sex ed, you teach that while contraception can prevent a majority of pregnancies, only abstinence can prevent it 100%. Everybody gets what they want here: liberals get the fact-based learning about sex and contraception and conservatives get the abstinence-only perspective.
Stingray3906
3mo ago
My partner has told me that bras can be uncomfortable for women to wear. Admittedly, as a guy, I don't quite understand much about them other than they support a woman's breasts.
My question to you is, what impact does it have on you personally if more women stop wearing bras? Men don't get scrutinized for their nipples being visible in public. Why should women?
Stingray3906
3mo ago
I don't see any. Gorbachev inherited a slowly-Westernizing USSR that would gradually become more fractured as member states started to splinter off until the "union" was no more. Harris, if elected, would inherit a post-pandemic, recession-defying US that is in the midst of, what I would argue to be, the most significant social crisis since the Civil Rights Movement.
Stingray3906
3mo ago
That is correct, and I agree.
Stingray3906
3mo ago
I am a cis male, asexual. My partner is a cis female, also asexual.
Stingray3906
3mo ago
This is probably not the answer you want, but I've simply stopped putting people into binary gender buckets when it comes to dating and relationships. I think the more that you affirm your partner's values and ambitions and hopes and dreams, and in turn openly share yours, the more intimate and meaningful your relationship will be.
Stingray3906
3mo ago
I am trying out the 2000 IU fruit flavored chewables from Aldi.
Stingray3906
3mo ago
Putting this binary issue aside, perhaps the Olympics need more mixed-gender sports. Maybe add in floorball, mixed badminton, korfball?
Stingray3906
3mo ago
They are obvious caricatures of black people, no doubt. They talk in AAVE, they scat, they banter, they dance in stereotypically black ways (albeit circa 1941). But I'm not certain that most leftists these days would consider any of that to be a bad thing. I think the modern day leftist would probably call it "representation"; it's highlighting and drawing attention to race, and inserting it into a movie that would otherwise be without any particular spotlight on race. Most of the actors voicing the crows were actually black, also.
On its face, sure, one could argue that it isn't racist. But once you add in the cultural context of the time period, especially in the South, I think its harder to make the case that it wasn't an intentional decision to stereotype Black people. I remember taking a course in high school called, "Male/Female Literary Perspectives," and we spent a whole unit talking about gender and racial stereotyping in the Disney animated canon. The crows Dumbo did come up in discussion, as well as the hyenas in The Lion King, as examples of possible racial stereotypes and how those stereotypes could become associated with their character -- in particular, the hyenas being aggressive and dangerous towards Simba and Nala while all having Black and Hispanic accents.
Though its interesting now in current year, how you have people in social justice circles decrying how whitewashed Disney animated films were, and now we have all these remakes with much more diverse casts.
Stingray3906
3mo ago
Stingray3906
3mo ago
Sure. Intersectionality affirms the lived experiences of every stakeholder in a decision-making process. While there could certainly be overlap, even a large overlap, between two different people's shared experiences, it is important to also seek out the nuances that make them different.
Stingray3906
3mo ago
Fundamentally the issues are caused by wealthy leftists not having to live the consequences of their ideology.
Very, very true. You have wealthy liberal donors who, while they do live within the district for the candidate their monetarily supporting, they live in the wealthy, suburban, sheltered part of it.
If you really want to improve things I'd suggest spending your weekends operating a shuttle service that takes the rougher individuals from downtown to and from the upperclass parks and neighbourhoods.
Or take wealthy liberal donors to the rougher spots downtown.
I understand. Perhaps my argument there wasn't well-founded.
More options
Context Copy link