How is 'not accepting the act' a true acceptance of homosexuality?

[loverofhumanity]

No, homosexuality is not going to be shown to be harmful in the future. Get over it. You have an incorrect view of the relationship between the Church and science, too. The Church was the main patron of the sciences for centuries in the West.

It depends on you’re sources.

Copernicus, Galileo, and the Church: Science in a Religious World

As I said. People believed just as strongly in the myth that the world today believes the myth about homosexuality being normal.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

It depends on you’re sources.

Copernicus, Galileo, and the Church: Science in a Religious World

As I said. People believed just as strongly in the myth that the world today believes the myth about homosexuality being normal.

That was a complicated issue and homosexuality being normal isn't a "myth".

 

[loverofhumanity]

The future is not here yet.

 

[Jakob Steinmetz]

Why would a person feel it necessary to seek moral acceptance for what they choose to do from another person whom has a differing sense of morality to them, and whom has made it clear to the former person that they feel that person's behaviour isn't something they personally, or as part of a group ideology, feel comfortable with accepting?

I'd ask the person seeking acceptance from the individual or group why it is they'd feel a need to change the mind/s of those that don't follow the same moral compass as them? Especially if they are in no way inhibiting the free will of the individual who is choosing to act in a way that is contrary to their own sense of morality. To wish for another to person or group to accept your behaviour in such a scenario is, in my opinion, quite narcissistic. Is it cruel that some people think and feel differently to others?

Perhaps it is an act of greater cruelty to expect them to conform to a view that isn't natural to them. Is it not wrong to label them as cruel for merely holding an opinion that is personal to themselves?

-Extension-

Also if it were simply about inclusivity, then again I don't feel there is much of an argument to be made here. There is no one complex thing in this world that is in every way compatible with every other complex thing. And as such groups of exclusively compatible complexities will form, and will often diverge from others. That is just how life operates as can observed in many different ways and through many different forms in nature.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Why would a person feel it necessary to seek moral acceptance for what they choose to do from another person whom has a differing sense of morality to them, and whom has made it clear to the former person that they feel that person's behaviour isn't something they personally, or as part of a group ideology, feel comfortable with accepting?

I'd ask the person seeking acceptance from the individual or group why it is they'd feel a need to change the mind/s of those that don't follow the same moral compass as them? Especially if they are in no way inhibiting the free will of the individual who is choosing to act in a way that is contrary to their own sense of morality. To wish for another to person or group to accept your behaviour in such a scenario is, in my opinion, quite narcissistic. Is it cruel that some people think and feel differently to others?

Perhaps it is an act of greater cruelty to expect them to conform to a view that isn't natural to them. Is it not wrong to label them as cruel for merely holding an opinion that is personal to themselves?

-Extension-

Also if it were simply about inclusivity, then again I don't feel there is much of an argument to be made here. There is no one complex thing in this world that is in every way compatible with every other complex thing. And as such groups of exclusively compatible complexities will form, and will often diverge from others. That is just how life operates as can observed in many different ways and through many different forms in nature.

Exactly!

You have a belief, follow it by all means but don’t attack those who don’t share that belief.

Surely, we have a right to freedom of belief, thought and conscience just as homosexuals do?

 

[loverofhumanity]

There is a major difference between accepting homosexuality and treating homosexuals with respect and courtesy. All people should be treated as equals but not everyone must accept homosexuality as part of their personal moral code.

Just like the world is not obligated to accept my beliefs and moral code so I too am not obligated to accept theirs.

To accuse us of intolerance because we don’t accept homosexuality is the same as us accusing the world of intolerance for not joining our religion.

Where is my right to freedom of conscience and belief being respected? So we need to both accept each other’s right to have our own beliefs without being expected to change or being accused of intolerance if we don’t accept their views.

I think that amounts to bullying.

Let’s just each peacefully walk the path of our choosing with respect for each other not demeaning comments attempting to bully us into changing our stance.

You are who you are and we are who we are. Just accept that.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

The future is not here yet.

And that future will never arrive. We've been studying homosexuality for about a century now and have found nothing harmful about it and not for lack of trying.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I think that amounts to bullying

It's cute when bigots claim they are being bullied when others find their prejudice distasteful and abhorrent. Racists and homophobes use that dumb line of failed reasoning a lot.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Why would a person feel it necessary to seek moral acceptance for what they choose to do from another person whom has a differing sense of morality to them, and whom has made it clear to the former person that they feel that person's behaviour isn't something they personally, or as part of a group ideology, feel comfortable with accepting?

I'd ask the person seeking acceptance from the individual or group why it is they'd feel a need to change the mind/s of those that don't follow the same moral compass as them? Especially if they are in no way inhibiting the free will of the individual who is choosing to act in a way that is contrary to their own sense of morality. To wish for another to person or group to accept your behaviour in such a scenario is, in my opinion, quite narcissistic. Is it cruel that some people think and feel differently to others?

Perhaps it is an act of greater cruelty to expect them to conform to a view that isn't natural to them. Is it not wrong to label them as cruel for merely holding an opinion that is personal to themselves?

-Extension-

Also if it were simply about inclusivity, then again I don't feel there is much of an argument to be made here. There is no one complex thing in this world that is in every way compatible with every other complex thing. And as such groups of exclusively compatible complexities will form, and will often diverge from others. That is just how life operates as can observed in many different ways and through many different forms in nature.

You might want to consider changing that avatar or rewording your religion field because you're looking like a neo-Nazi right now.

 

[Jakob Steinmetz]

You might want to consider changing that avatar or rewording your religion field because you're looking like a neo-Nazi right now.

Ironic then how you wish to censor my freedom of religious expression and make pre-judgements about my character based upon your first impression of my profile picture, when you have absolutely no idea what it is that that symbol in fact means to me. Would you prefer it that people who associate with a faith such as mine simply weren't able to use the same forum as you?

Forgive me for this recommendation, but if you're going to be hostile to strangers, then at least have some shred of self/contextual-awareness about what it is that you're implying, so as to avoid such blatant hypocrisy.

Even if I was a neo-Nazi, which I'm most certainly not, what makes you feel you have the right to silence or change that person in such a threating manner as you just did?

And by doing so what makes you any different from the kinds of people you assume neo-nazis to be?

I offer you the chance to prove me wrong, but you sir seem to be the biggest bigot on this thread right now.

Also, I assume if the first word of my choice of wording had been anything other than "Germanic" you wouldn't have made such assumptions, so tell me, do you instantly go about stereotyping that which is of Germanic origins?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Ironic then how you wish to censor my freedom of religious expression and make pre-judgements about my character based upon your first impression of my profile picture, when you have absolutely no idea what it is that that symbol in fact means to me. Would you prefer it that people who associate with a faith such as mine simply weren't able to use the same forum as you?

Forgive me for this recommendation, but if you're going to be hostile to strangers, then at least have some shred of self/contextual-awareness about what it is that you're implying, so as to avoid such blatant hypocrisy.

I know what the Black Sun symbol from Wewelsburg is and that it's pretty much only used by neo-Nazis. I also know what "folkish" means. Instead of copping an attitide and getting defensive, you could just use it as an oppprtunity to explain how your useage of those things have nothing to do with neo-Nazism. I'm giving you a chance.

If you are a neo-Nazi or sympathetic to it then I'm not going to say what I wish for you. If not, then that doesn't apply to you.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Even if I was a neo-Nazi, which I'm most certainly not, what makes you feel you have the right to silence or change that person in such a threating manner as you just did?

And by doing so what makes you any different from the kinds of people you assume neo-nazis to be?

I offer you the chance to prove me wrong, but you sir seem to be the biggest bigot on this thread right now.

Let me guess, "white nationalist"?

 

[Jakob Steinmetz]

I know what the Black Sun symbol from Wewelsburg is and that it's pretty much only used by neo-Nazis. I also know what "folkish" means. Instead of copping an attitide and getting defensive, you could just use it as an oppprtunity to explain how your useage of those things have nothing to do with neo-Nazism. I'm giving you a chance.

If you are a neo-Nazi or sympathetic to it then I'm not going to say what I wish for you. If not, then that doesn't apply to you.

You sound like the gestapo.

 

[Jakob Steinmetz]

Let me guess, "white nationalist"?

I'm a nationalist, but not a racist or white supremacist. Though I am white, so I guess you could spin that to mean I am a "white nationalist" if you wanted. You seemed to be good at doing that when it came to your ignorant interpretation of "Germanic Folkish Revival" at least.

Anyway, lets end this here, if you feel the need to post again just to have the last say, then so be it. I don't wish to feed this needless hostility anymore sir. Nor I am sure do others wish to witness it.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Also, I assume if the first word of my choice of wording had been anything other than "Germanic" you wouldn't have made such assumptions, so tell me, do you instantly go about stereotyping that which is of Germanic origins?

Nah, Asatru and Heathenry are cool. Mjolnir, runes, Yggdrasil, sun crosses, etc. are just fine and lovely. But neo-Nazi symbols like the Black Sun and "folkish" ideology make me raise my eyebrows.

 

[loverofhumanity]

It's cute when bigots claim they are being bullied when others find their prejudice distasteful and abhorrent. Racists and homophobes use that dumb line of failed reasoning a lot.

Freedom of belief is a fundamental human right that we are all entitled to. We just have a different view that’s all.

So we can agree to disagree and leave it at that.

So to recapitulate.

The purpose of the sex drive we understand is the procreation of the species and nature has determined that this takes place between a human male and a human female.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

You sound like the gestapo.

No, I just know my symbols. If you are aware of the history and usage of that symbol and term, you would not act surprised that it is controversial.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Freedom of belief is a fundamental human right that we are all entitled to. We just have a different view that’s all.

So we can agree to disagree and leave it at that.

So to recapitulate.

The purpose of the sex drive we understand is the procreation of the species and nature has determined that this takes place between a human male and a human female.

Procreation is hardly the only purpose of the sex drive. Human females are only fertile a few days a month, for example. We're not like dogs or cats who only mate while in heat.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I'm a nationalist, but not a racist or white supremacist. Though I am white, so I guess you could spin that to mean I am a "white nationalist" if you wanted. You seemed to be good at doing that when it came to your ignorant interpretation of "Germanic Folkish Revival" at least.

Anyway, lets end this here, if you feel the need to post again just to have the last say, then so be it. I don't wish to feed this needless hostility anymore sir. Nor I am sure do others wish to witness it.

I'm not buying your little act. Or do you really expect me to believe you don't know the history of that symbol or what folkish often means or that no one else will and you would never be questioned about it? It's like having a Nazi swastika as your avatar and "national socialism" as your ideology and then getting indignant when someone questions if you're a neo-Nazi, and just as dumb. Whatever. The mask will slip eventually.

 

[Jakob Steinmetz]

Procreation is hardly the only purpose of the sex drive. Human females are only fertile a few days a month, for example. We're not like dogs or cats who only mate while in heat.

Procreation is hardly the only purpose of the sex drive. Human females are only fertile a few days a month, for example. We're not like dogs or cats who only mate while in heat.

I'm not buying your little act. Or do you really expect me to believe you don't know the history of that symbol or what folkish often means or that no one else will and you would never be questioned about it? It's like having a Nazi swastika as your avatar and "national socialism" as your ideology and then getting indignant when someone questions if you're a neo-Nazi, and just as dumb. Whatever. The mask will slip eventually.

Folkish to me represents my people and heritage. Do you have a specific issue with that?

And why don't I have every right to defend myself when being insulted and threatened by a complete stranger? A stranger who happens to be making assumptions about me based upon my affinity to an historical symbol, to which I apply a much, much different meaning than it was used for originally, and whom is also trying to dictate to me how I should define my own religion. Now please stop this foolishness and lets just go our separate ways if you feel this strongly about who you believe me to be?

Just so you know how it feels let me make some assumptions about and suggestions to you too:

Stop being such a stereotypical Luciferian, the adversary act you're trying to pull is dull and boring and in a LHP context the way you're emulating the archetype is stagnant and lacks individuality.

Also assuming you are indeed Luciferian let me pose this question to you.

How many times have you been angered when RHP religious people have made assumptions about your character and beliefs based on symbols you have probably used?

If you have then you are indeed a hypocrite, for you have done exactly as you probably feel those people have done to you, due to the controversial nature of Luciferian symbolism. In that way you have forgone the essence of an individualist philosophical path and instead subjected yourself to the behaviour of the masses.