Kisito
Jedi Council Member
I am French, and at present in the debate public French, there is a split of the public opinion on the homosexual marriage.
I have never had really opinion because I don't really recognize the marriage. It seems to me that it's an archaic contract which the religion established. I understand that we want to celebrate the love. I understand that the woman needed guaranteed, because it's her who generally raise the children. And what many men flee their responsibility. Of this fact the woman it's often managed towards powerful men, so that they protect its offspring. It's thus very logically that the polygamy it's installed. And it was as well logical as " the big families " get married to preserve their fortune.
Other advantage of the marriage, it's the contract of ownership. It's directly the pride and thus the jealousy that are responsible there.
So the marriage which was strongly promulgated by the religious authorities would rest only on the money and the jealousy? The money and the jealousy are STS …
If we were delivered from the material problem and from our jealousy, the marriage would always take place to be? I don't think so. But independently of the marriage the love between two persons exist. Nevertheless sometimes a few months or a few years later, there isn't track of this love!
Is there a law on the love? Some people can love two persons at the same time, maybe even a man Man and a woman at the same time! Can we say to these persons that it isn't possible because it's not arrived at us? Tomorrow it would be also possible to claim in the name of the love a marriage for three! In the name of the history many people will say that the family it's a father mother, but in the history of the humanity the father was not often present!
I have no solution, but this seems to me superficial, my wife, my husband, my children, my family, my city, my country, my race, isn't it a little STS?
I am not different.
Mouravieff in Gnosis, had defines the love as a state between two persons of opposite sex.
Laura Knight-Jadczyk explains that the soulmate exists, that we are made for the another person. In " Wave 3 or 4 " she says that she will give more explanation on this notion! Maybe she speaks about it in 5, 6 or 7 but I have no French translation. Maybe in " The secret story 2 ". I not nothing on the forum of precise answer on the soulmate.
I don't thus understand this story of soulmate? Does it want to say, a carnal agreement or a carnal and friendly agreement or a friendly and intellectual either spiritual carnal agreement? Why should we have that a soulmate? If our soulmate dies before one met it, what happens?
In " Ethics to Nicomaque " or " The metaphysical " of Aristote, the latter says that the friendship rests on interests. The children are easily friends, because them interests are Basic, but with the age, when the one remains a simple citizen and the other one goes to the biggest intellectual spheres, how you want that they remain friends?
In " The banquet " of Platon, Socrates says that the love is bigger the friendship or any other human link, because it rests on no human will, it's good that the platonic attraction (lover) is superior.
I would just like to ask: Is it bad to have several platonic or sexual partners, as in the friendship? And if we obey the love because it's of divine order, why to continue to obey it when it leaves, staying with our partner?
How I believed to understand it or to interpret it in Laura's papers, was not the Love imposed on us in the unique purpose to procreate to continue our karmique cycle?
And the homosexuality or the infertility would be imposed on us in causes of the excess large numbers of organic vehicles or organic portals …
Isn't the love a suggestion, as the hypnotist who suggests invisibility of a man and who becomes invisible for some?
Except that this love which would be suggested to us would be maybe buries in our genome?
I have never had really opinion because I don't really recognize the marriage. It seems to me that it's an archaic contract which the religion established. I understand that we want to celebrate the love. I understand that the woman needed guaranteed, because it's her who generally raise the children. And what many men flee their responsibility. Of this fact the woman it's often managed towards powerful men, so that they protect its offspring. It's thus very logically that the polygamy it's installed. And it was as well logical as " the big families " get married to preserve their fortune.
Other advantage of the marriage, it's the contract of ownership. It's directly the pride and thus the jealousy that are responsible there.
So the marriage which was strongly promulgated by the religious authorities would rest only on the money and the jealousy? The money and the jealousy are STS …
If we were delivered from the material problem and from our jealousy, the marriage would always take place to be? I don't think so. But independently of the marriage the love between two persons exist. Nevertheless sometimes a few months or a few years later, there isn't track of this love!
Is there a law on the love? Some people can love two persons at the same time, maybe even a man Man and a woman at the same time! Can we say to these persons that it isn't possible because it's not arrived at us? Tomorrow it would be also possible to claim in the name of the love a marriage for three! In the name of the history many people will say that the family it's a father mother, but in the history of the humanity the father was not often present!
I have no solution, but this seems to me superficial, my wife, my husband, my children, my family, my city, my country, my race, isn't it a little STS?
I am not different.
Mouravieff in Gnosis, had defines the love as a state between two persons of opposite sex.
Laura Knight-Jadczyk explains that the soulmate exists, that we are made for the another person. In " Wave 3 or 4 " she says that she will give more explanation on this notion! Maybe she speaks about it in 5, 6 or 7 but I have no French translation. Maybe in " The secret story 2 ". I not nothing on the forum of precise answer on the soulmate.
I don't thus understand this story of soulmate? Does it want to say, a carnal agreement or a carnal and friendly agreement or a friendly and intellectual either spiritual carnal agreement? Why should we have that a soulmate? If our soulmate dies before one met it, what happens?
In " Ethics to Nicomaque " or " The metaphysical " of Aristote, the latter says that the friendship rests on interests. The children are easily friends, because them interests are Basic, but with the age, when the one remains a simple citizen and the other one goes to the biggest intellectual spheres, how you want that they remain friends?
In " The banquet " of Platon, Socrates says that the love is bigger the friendship or any other human link, because it rests on no human will, it's good that the platonic attraction (lover) is superior.
I would just like to ask: Is it bad to have several platonic or sexual partners, as in the friendship? And if we obey the love because it's of divine order, why to continue to obey it when it leaves, staying with our partner?
How I believed to understand it or to interpret it in Laura's papers, was not the Love imposed on us in the unique purpose to procreate to continue our karmique cycle?
And the homosexuality or the infertility would be imposed on us in causes of the excess large numbers of organic vehicles or organic portals …
Isn't the love a suggestion, as the hypnotist who suggests invisibility of a man and who becomes invisible for some?
Except that this love which would be suggested to us would be maybe buries in our genome?
