The Orthodox church does not condone homosexuality, although many new-age Christian churches (and other so-called "Christian"/organized religious establishments) do.
The position therefore being advocated by "gay rights activists" is not just for acceptance of their "union" in marriage, but acceptance of their behavior (sexual activity) as well. Why else would they specifically advocate that their "civil union"-which has been suggested to be the term used in legislation—be called marriage? But use of the term "marriage" would connote social acceptance of this union, hence the behavior that occurs within its context. Indeed for the heterosexual, marriage is sacramental and therefore blessed by God and the Church. What is to be understood is that the Church is not condemning or discriminating against homosexuals but rather their activity which is considered to be against her teaching in the same way other passions are. They are not considered as having lower value in the eyes of God, the focus is to be directed toward the correcting of the behavior and removal of the particular passion.
In this way one can understand that we are not born homosexual as we are born with a particular skin color or gender. The key for us as Orthodox Christians is to embrace and respect one another as being mutually created in His love. Then we can join together in our mutual struggle against the passions that beset our fallen world.
[EDIT: This, too, is stated very well regarding the stance of the Orthodox Church regarding homosexuality.]
I have Windows 10 (ugh), which might be the difference? I'm not using any add-ons and Brave shields are up.
The cognitive dissonance must be suuuper weird for the normies. "Vaxx to protect others" -> "My body my choice!" -> "Ban all guns! Guns bad!" -> and now back to "My body my choice!" Their personal emotional rollercoaster. Must be "this" woke and confused to enter. 🙄
What are the odds a supreme court ruling the the Jan 6th committee nonsense are happening at the same time? I ask rhetorically, of course.
I'll be honest with you, I right-click my mouse and the menu has an option for "Emoji", although maybe this is browser-specific? You can select a number of emoji options from there. I use Brave.
[EDIT: You have to right-click within a text/comment box. The "emoji" option won't show up otherwise.]
Thank you! That's the pic I saw yesterday.
Isn't there a picture of the 10yo girl, wearing green Converse that are clearly a different color green? I can't find it, but I saw it yesterday. Would not be surprised to find this is true!
I took a somewhat deeper dive into this: the guy's name is Kevin Morris, a Hollywood lawyer. He's represented McConaughey (not sure if he still does) and is friends with Hunter Biden.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hunter-biden-hollywood-lawyer-kevin-morris-counsel-funding/
https://nypost.com/2022/05/12/meet-hunter-bidens-sugar-brother-lawyer-kevin-morris/
Garrett Ziegler pointed out on Telegram that McConaughey's lawyer is also Hunter Biden's. No coincidences.
Irony: "So help me God"
~$6/gal for unleaded in Reno, NV. Last month it was ~$5/gal. I don't see this stopping anytime soon.
Talked to a lady at my local grocer the other week, and she can only sustain her job because she lives <3 minutes from the store. A lot of people quitting because the paycheck can't pay for gas + rent, etc.
Nevada state Treasurer Zach Conine announced Thursday the state will end its investments in businesses that sell or manufacture assault-style weapons in the wake of a string of deadly mass shootings nationwide.
Conine (D) is up for re-election.
Thanks for playing along!
To #5, I would disagree with you... but I think it's mostly semantics.
The impulse to have sex is "natural" but it would be unnatural to call homosexual acts natural. Those acts are not in accordance with or determined by nature. I don't think you can qualify it by saying "consenting adults".
There are so many areas in this discussion you could pick at and have a truly great conversation -- I like it!
Among them:
- The definitions of normal and abnormal are not the same across disciplines or even context. (Philosophy vs Sociology, for example.)
- We're using population %-ages, so I think an argument could be made here about degree of abnormality. For example, and if we say the %-ages listed are accurate, 7.1% not-heterosexual compared to the whole population is very abnormal. Whereas 40% cat owners among U.S. pet ownership isn't so abnormal. "Standard Deviation" comes to mind, somewhat ironically. (No other pets were mentioned.)
- Is there an implication that behavior is bad or undesirable if it is abnormal?
- Due to the amount of media coverage (especially in June) regarding all things "Pride", could that %-age actually be inflated due to popularity or perceived "status"?
- Human sexual activity cannot be compared to homosexuality in terms of being "natural", based on your own definition. Human sexual activity would be both natural and normal. Whereas homosexuality would be neither natural nor normal. (I don't disagree with this conclusion).
- Are there examples of abnormal behavior that is considered natural? I would argue, based on what information you've provided, that "cat ownership" would fit this category. Although probably some other pet would fit better, like parrots or other birds.
I'm asking these rhetorically (and because I like asking questions :P), but please feel free to have fun and answer.
These are the kinds of arguments kids should be exposed to in school, although... not necessarily about sexual preference (please no). Kids should be forced to ask questions, pick at arguments, and dismantle their own assumptions before rebuilding them with a better understanding of why. Bring back critical thinking!
So let me get this straight.
Your dad got cancer after the booster, so to visit him you're going to get the same thing that gave him cancer??
Send him IVM, talk to him about getting cancer treatment in the US -- there are so many other options than putting yourself at risk like this.
I will pray for you. This is a terrible position you find yourself in.
I missed this, so thanks for the re-sticky!
I've skimmed it for now, but the biggest take away atm is this:
We are now witnessing a growing number of excellent scientific papers, written by top experts in the field, being retracted from major medical and scientific journals weeks, months and even years after publication. A careful review indicates that in far too many instances the authors dared question accepted dogma by the controllers of scientific publications—especially concerning the safety, alternative treatments or efficacy of vaccines.[12,63] These journals rely on extensive adverting by pharmaceutical companies for their revenue. Several instances have occurred where powerful pharmaceutical companies exerted their influence on owners of these journals to remove articles that in any way question these companies’ products.[13,34,35]
Peer-reviewed journals / accepted publications are tail-spinning in regards to credibility. This has been going on for years, but we're truly seeing what the machine has become. When the studies we're presented with are full of bogus science manipulated to come to an approved conclusion, we lose the ability to discover the truth for ourselves. This also discredits good, well researched publications. This is massively disgusting and concerning, especially for those of us who value self-discovery and critical thinking.
Last month they had a bunch of pizzas for Children's Mental Health Awareness. 🤔
If your plan is to completely check out and simply exist for the remainder of your days, there are many places you can go.
If you are planning to leave because you believe there is something better out there... I would argue you're better off staying in the US.
Are people testing positive multiple times? Yes. Are people catching COVID multiple times? My guess is no.
I think we (definitely) knew the Judicial branch was broken after the 2020 Election. Lots of courts and judges throwing out election cases left and right, hardly even hearing their arguments.
It's an interesting thought, though! Time will tell.
Everything about this is weird, isn't it? As far as I can tell, news headlines are focused elsewhere. It's as though the Robb Elementary shooting happened a year ago or more, not last week.
If I were a decent cop with the UPD and an unknowing cog in the FF machine in Uvalde, TX, I wouldn't want to cooperate either -- I'd be performing my own investigation into why the UPD was blindly complicit in the whole affair. I would be trying to clear my name as expediently as possible.
I'm very, very curious how history will record this "incident".
Can teachers get annual reviews based on skin color or ethnicity, too? It's only fair! 🙄
"You get an unsatisfactory and your contract will not be renewed. Why? Well, we're an equal opportunity employer and you don't meet our race-based system requirements."
Let's go, homeschool!
I would add on top of this all the other #metoo adjacent headlines which have recently come out false. For example: Nazi graffiti painted by a Jewish lady, racist comments graffitied in college stairwells by black kids, etc. We are constantly seeing a rush to point fingers at others when the opposite turns out to be true.
People are being shown how to be critical of the news, even if it's baby steps. I wouldn't call this a huge red pill, but it's helping, certainly.
Out of Shadows is what I started with.
I would also recommend the Cult of the Medics series by David Whitehead.
Does anyone know the kind of language used on the jury forms here? This could be a resulting decision due to poor verbage or semantics, and have nothing to do with whether it was proven in court that Sussman lied. Stupid, right? But I dunno -- seems plausible.
There's an individual in the comments of this article who believes the "development of attitudes" (aka hatred and cruelty) toward the unvaxxed is justified because of the # of unvaxxed admitted to hospitals, among other arguments (the argument is specious and not worth anyone's time).
We could make it a numbers game, but then they'd move the goal post. It's not about winning the argument for them (although it really kinda is), it's about being "right" and "moral" and "virtuous". In this way, they continue to make judgement calls about other people's rights and freedoms.
The author gets it, thank goodness, and her conclusion needs to spread far and wide. Still, it's a relief to know one of these sheeple is waking up to it.