Same sex marriage: Is it MARRIAGE or is it marriage?

[Laura]

I will continue to share ideas, experiences and whatever else that I fully own with anyone who may wish to benefit from anything I have to offer. I will do so respectfully and more than willing to accept any response that agrees or disagrees with anything I have to say. If my posts do not bring any value or don't reflect the accepted philosophy then folks can simply choose not to read them.

Nowhere in the guidelines did I read that in order to post your line of thinking must coincide with those whose works are referenced. They make clear that the precepts the forum was established under were those reflected in those works, but I either missed or simply did not understand that posts within the forum must reflect a deep understanding and agreement with the fundamental premise of these works. If the administrators feel that what I share is not appropriate or does not reflect the right perpective they can simply delete the post.

Then perhaps you had better re-read the forum guidelines particularly regarding the purpose and aim of the forum. You need to be familiar with the work of Gurdjieff to even understand the context.

 

[Nienna]

I will continue to share ideas, experiences and whatever else that I fully own with anyone who may wish to benefit from anything I have to offer. I will do so respectfully and more than willing to accept any response that agrees or disagrees with anything I have to say. If my posts do not bring any value or don't reflect the accepted philosophy then folks can simply choose not to read them.

Since you seem to be writing mostly for yourself and do not care about what this forum is all about, maybe it would be advantageous for you to just start your own blog? Then, you can do what you want in whatever way you want.

 

[shellycheval]

If my posts do not bring any value or don't reflect the accepted philosophy then folks can simply choose not to read them.

But people won't know that your post are all about you and bring little value or add to the discussion of philosophy we are interested in until
they have used their time and energy to read them. They will have lost energy while your ego feeds on the experience of having your opinions
and perceptions heard.

Yours is one of many voices we have invited into our home for meaningful discourse who end up sitting in the parlor drinking
all the tea, eating all the biscuits and telling the same stories about themselves over and over again with slighting different dressing.
It is truly fascinating to see the same scenario play out time after time--those who think they are the most "unique" or special are
usually the ones who are the most predictable.

If you want to learn about the concepts Laura, the Cs here on their Forum then you have to begin to
recognize your real self and desire change. Seek to deeply understand, on an internalized level, in the very heart of your hearts the following:

"Try for a moment to accept the idea that you are not what you believe yourself to be, that you overestimate yourself, in fact that you lie to yourself. That you always lie to yourself every moment, all day, all your life.[...] You must stop inwardly and observe." Mme Jean de Salzmann

shellycheval

 

[Al Today]

[...]
I think it is sad that you believe that since you don't think you have a deep enough understanding of the philosophies referenced you don't feel you can post.
[...]

I cannot help but wonder. Was this an attempt to make a point? And the point is?

Sad for me or about me? Speaking at me or with me? There is a difference, yes? Is there a learning situation here? Or is this another situation of knowingly, understandingly having purpose? Is this one who enjoys being on that preaching soapbox? Imparting knowledge to the ignorant? Or is this one sincere, having desire for discussion and sharing?

[...]
It is truly fascinating to see the same scenario play out time after time--those who think they are the most "unique" or special are usually the ones who are the most predictable.
[...]

I couldn't have said it any better...

 

[JAFaura]

I have read Gurdjieff and am in the process of understanding his work relative not only to this forum, but relative to life. I am quite aware of the guidelines and purpose of the forum, but I have had the privilege or reading posts within the forum that speak to real world issues, in a variety of ways. Some reflect Gurdjieff and his philosophy and some don't. Sometimes people are thus referred to the guidelines, sometimes they are not.

I wrote this post because I have several friends in long-term relationships who feel that their lives are not complete because one of the most important aspects of their being, their relationship to each other, is not afforded the same considerations that others are afforded simply because they choose to love someone of the same sex. Mine is a single person's opinion of the reasons for that, nothing more. I cannot make the claim that it is 'the' right opinion or that it has more merit than those whose opinion might differ.

I do not consider myself to be 'different' or 'special' simply because I proffer and opinion on a specific topic. When I believe that I have enough understanding of Gurdjieff and his work to weave it into my writing in a meaningful and relevant way I will do so, but to do it simply to reflect the fact that I have read his work and am trying to find my way seems to me would devalue its significance and meaning and I dare say, would be counter to a great deal of his teachings.

If there is an element of Gurdjieff's work that would be relevant and would provide a deeper insight into the premise of the post, the idea that religion has served to 'moralize' the legislative process, I would be grateful and honored to have those with a such an understanding of his work provide their insight. I believe I have been respectful in the manner in which I have shared my point of view and apologize if anything I have posted has offended anyone.

 

[Laura]

I wrote this post because I have several friends in long-term relationships who feel that their lives are not complete because one of the most important aspects of their being, their relationship to each other, is not afforded the same considerations that others are afforded simply because they choose to love someone of the same sex.

Note that there the ratio of gay members of this forum is at least equal to the ratio in the general human population if not a tad higher and any anti-gay nonsense gets banned PDQ. So you are basically preaching to the choir!

 

[obyvatel]

I have read Gurdjieff and am in the process of understanding his work relative not only to this forum, but relative to life. I am quite aware of the guidelines and purpose of the forum, but I have had the privilege or reading posts within the forum that speak to real world issues, in a variety of ways. Some reflect Gurdjieff and his philosophy and some don't. Sometimes people are thus referred to the guidelines, sometimes they are not.

Hi JAFaura,
Every discussion in this forum does not invoke Gurdjieff. But the forum exists for a purpose. Your posts so far indicate that you have not understood this.

In order for meaningful discussion to take place, there needs to be a shared objective for the parties concerned. So what is your objective or purpose behind joining this forum? You are coming across like a person who intends to use the forum as a soapbox, which is why it was suggested to you that a personal blog would be a better platform for this purpose.

 

[JAFaura]

Thank you for asking. My objective for joining and commenting on the forum is to get a better understanding of psychopathy in all its manifestations, to read and learn from people who have a better grasp of Gurdjieff and his philosophy and to enrich my life through the lens of other people's experiences, if they are willing to share them.

I shared my experience about a new species and what I have learned from those who are conducting the research on it. I do not believe I was trying to establish whether another species exists or not, if it came across that way I apologize. I believe I made it clear that I was most definitely not an expert and i did not make any claims relative to the new species existence or not. I shared my experience about my novel in the hope that perhaps others might have gone through the same thing or something similar and could share some insights, which Laura was kind enough to do. Others also commented and shared some ideas and points of view that were very insightful and helpful. I posted these things at the suggestion of one of the editors at SOTT who thought the forum might be interested.

I wrote a post about same sex marriage and in that instance I can see where it would definitely come across as standing on a soapbox and if that is the case, I , once again, apologize. This forum seems to be populated by intelligent and articulate people who are kind enough to share their insights, their experiences and their knowledge and for that I am profoundly thankful. It has not been my intention to be disrespectful or to impose on anyone. Before I posted anything I read a number of posts on different topics by different authors and I tried to model my posts after some who seemed to be in the same boat, trying to understand and learn more about important work from others who possess the knowledge and who are willing to share.

 

[cubbex]

Thank you for asking. My objective for joining and commenting on the forum is to get a better understanding of psychopathy in all its manifestations, to read and learn from people who have a better grasp of Gurdjieff and his philosophy and to enrich my life through the lens of other people's experiences, if they are willing to share them.

Well I don't know, I don't think this forum is just to have a grasp about Gurdjieff but to learn with others how to apply it deeply onto our life. Maybe it is important to clarify to yourself what's your goal with this forum, to receive and share a little bit with the forumites, or get into it completely? if your ideas are not accepted here people don't get offended, I'm really sure most of them have been through harder experiences to get offended so easily, is just that they'll point out what is wrong.

Also the recommendation for writing a blog is because you write just too much :P to say too little, just like someone when is writing a journal.

 

[S. Conte]

Below is the way Webster's defines marriage:
[mod edit: snip]

I don't think that is a good idea to get married with same sex.. it is quite confusing..


---
Moderator note: For the benefit of all, do not re-quote posts in their entirety, stick to the point at hand – if there is one.

 

[S. Conte]

Below is the way Webster's defines marriage:
[mod edit: snip]

I don't think that is a good idea to get married with same sex.. it is quite confusing..

A second thought,Marriage without sex is impossible to continue


---
Moderator note: For the benefit of all, do not re-quote posts in their entirety, stick to the point at hand – if there is one.

 

[ajseph 21]

I would say that a marriage without sex would be near ideal because it wouldn't be based on sensation which is pleasure for the self imo. And how is gay marriage confusing to you?

 

[Michal]

Please criticize me if You think there is something missing in my reasoning:

Marriage for me seem to have some levels of understanding. Concept of marriage is like for example being mature according to the law. Civil law makes it age-based which differs from country to country and plus You need to have some minimum standard of mental health (be "normal"). Catholic law makes it bit different. One need to have obtained basic sacraments and You need to be "normal" also.

Marriage is something which makes social structure, a system. This is part of the system.
Who benefits having such system? Is it beneficial for people getting married? Well in some respect if benefit means security. But thinking only about security makes concept of marriage sick from the beginning because it is based on fear and control. So if You want to feel secure You may choose this system. In a fact most of medieval nations had limited choices in that respect. Christianity was decided by the rulers. Cuius regio eius religio. Example of Poland - prince Mieszko decision in Xth century was to mainly avoid aggression from Germany and than he allowed to Christianize the country. People were to obey. Another example was Duchy of Pomerania (country which bordered Poland from northwest. In XIIth century Bolesław Krzywousty conquered pagan land of Pomerania and forced them to take new religion from Poland.
It is also beneficial for rational systems based on logic, definitions, words. It is hard to define (my opinion) spiritual aspects or emotional ones by definitions. This knowledge was available to some people but creating common system would require to make this knowledge standardized to all in order to have the law applicable to all. ... Even now we do not treat people same way in court if they are acting in ignorance or without knowledge comparing with people acting with proven premeditation. It also makes me think why knowledge was not made available to all?
Marriage is part of hierarchical system. Someone needs to be superior in order to validate Your decision. Like in state administration, or church administration superiors have superiors and this system is in pyramid shape. Highest instance may be god, superior man (totalitarian system), idea (Communism), nation (democracy). But there is always someone who "translates" highest instance to people. Even in democracy parlaments are "translating" the will of whole nation by giving themselves mandate to create laws based on support of some percent of the voting nation.

I was thinking that maybe concept of marriage reflects General Law (Mouravieff)? Creating the law which makes homosexual couples able to officially (under some administration) marry each other, adopt children - is creating something definitely new in not so far ago mostly christian Europe. To marry someone when people love each other is one thing other thing is when system is created to reflect what? Well I am not sure of rationale under legislation making homosexual couples able to adopt children... Is that creating the rule which is like concept of marriage in general making minimal but not sufficient standard to avoid missuse of the system? I am not against homosexuals but I am not sure what kind of benefit such control system (like EU countries) may have in mind creating system like that? Equality maybe one. Freedom maybe two. But it is just contradictory inside that these are not concepts which are applicable to all.

 

[Deleted member 8431]

I don't think that is a good idea to get married with same sex.. it is quite confusing..

[...]

A second thought,Marriage without sex is impossible to continue

Could you please elaborate on that? How is same sex marriage "confusing"? And how is marriage (or any kind of love relationship for the matter) "impossible without sex"?

These sound like prejudices to my ears. Or at best mere assumptions.

 

[anart]

I don't think that is a good idea to get married with same sex.. it is quite confusing..

[...]

A second thought,Marriage without sex is impossible to continue

Could you please elaborate on that? How is same sex marriage "confusing"? And how is marriage (or any kind of love relationship for the matter) "impossible without sex"?

These sound like prejudices to my ears. Or at best mere assumptions.

It sounds like ignorance, unless it's a language issue. Difficult to tell for sure at this point (giving the benefit of the doubt here).