COMMENT [795]

Don’t give me any rubbish (this is no address to anyone in particular, this is just my thoughts on the matter) about “same sex” and “bisexuals” and these illusionary orientations, because the fact is, when GOD created man, GOD saw that it was not good for the man to be alone; GOD saw that the man was alone and didn’t “prefer” for the man to be alone. And what did GOD do after seeing that the man he created was “alone“?, GOD didn’t create another “man” to be with the man that was “alone” so that the man who was alone would just have “company”; NO!, GOD saw that the man was alone but didn’t think it was good for the man to be alone because the man can’t “multiply” on his own — the man was alone but GOD wanted “people, so GOD created awoman for the “man” so that the man can *multiplyGOD knew that it was a *better idea to have the Earth filled with humans, but the man was alone and, even though the man was probably happy and free (I mean how could this individual not be when he litterally had GOD in his life?), the man by himself did not have the *capability to “reproduce” to fill the earth with *more people, this was GOD’s main issue, so the man being alone was not good, and the almighty GOD saw it as not being a good thing not because the man was sad or emotional over being the only person there or anything like that, but because he lacked the ability to make more and have an even more interesting and *fruitful time, so GOD made a “woman” to help solve this issue; he didn’t make another “man” — the man alone on his own could not make more people and GOD wanted to bless the man with procreation without GOD himself having to do it for the man since this life is about GOD’s love for the human and the creation of the human kind, so GOD blessed man with ability to make more of man with a woman-being that the man could love, just as how he (GOD) has blessed every other kind of creature with the ability to multiply their own kind. So please save me the brainwash about how great these alternative “sexualities” are because it was never a complimentary aspect of creation. It was blessed for a man to have sexual relations with a woman which is why the woman-being was created.

I feel like a fucking Reiterative Radical helping to revolutionize, realize and reconsider revitalizing revisions revolving around reasoning that resolves — relevant recalibrating reminders 💣💣🤘😂

26 thoughts on “COMMENT [795]

  1. Thank you for minimizing women to a toy for men. There is more to women than being a vessel for children. Omg. I decide to chance my data and this is the post I find? 😩 I cannot get into an argument about this because of my data. But this is my reply. Man I wanna debate this but I can’t! Not fair!!!

    Liked by 1 person

    1. LOL good way to divert attention away from the real issue at hand, which is, there is no acceptable basis for alternative sexual practices. If people want to do these things with others of the same mind set, that’s for them to manage but they should not expect their actions to be legitimized by those who believe and respect that there is an intrinsic purpose for the creation and union of the male and female being. But nice try 🤣🤣😝.

      As for your internet woes; hahaha I really hope that you can get the issue resolved because I really missed your lovely comments and our interactions on these issues 💙😂

      Like

      1. I wasn’t diverting attention from anything. I responded based on what was written.

        People with alternate sexual practices have a right to do what they prefer doing without the interference from people who don’t believe the same. Therefore, it should be legitimized, if for no other reason than they deserve the same rights as anyone else.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Yes I understand this, but what you responded with made it seem as though what was written was about gender vs gender, which it was not lol. It was about the intrinsic union of the male and female beings contrasted with selective lifestyles of sexual objectification 👍😂.

          Yes people have the freedom to do what they prefer without interference (taking an issue into “consideration” is not “interference”) but their actions do not have to be “legitimized” if there is no reasonable grounds for such an application, which goes to the core of what I was saying; see while people may be “allowed” to do whatever they can possibly think of, there should be no special expectation that people are obligated to “legitimize” anyone’s personal lifestyle preferences reguardless, but especially if they are nonsensical and redundant lol. “Allowing” something and “legitimizing” it (meaning that you support it, you encourage and actually participate in it) are totally seperate matters.

          Like

          1. Your wording is incorrect. Legitimize is to make legitimate. Legitimate by dictionary terms is precisely what I was using. “1a : lawfully begotten
            specifically
            b : having full filial rights and obligations by birth
            2a : being exactly as intended or presented : neither spurious nor false
            b : genuinely good, impressive, or capable of success
            3a : accordant with law or with established legal forms and requirements
            The ones I dropped are about inheriting from your parents because you were a legitimate child rather than an illegitimate one (along the line of 1b)
            Making something legitimate does not in fact mean you must participate in it. In fact, it is “allowing” other people who are different from you to have the same rights you do. You are legitimizing their right to survival and happiness. So my initial reaction was the correct one.

            Liked by 1 person

            1. You are correct about the things you have listed but you are certainly no correct about my wording — my wording was far from “wrong” LOL.

              I just brought a different perspective to the forefront. If you are “making” something ligitimate, you are infact a willing participant in the act of facilitating and condoning such acts that you are “legitimizing” even though you are not doing the literal actions, since you are still contributing to it’s influence — by classification, you are an “accessor”, you are an “enabler” and you are “encouraging” the practice when you “legitimize” something, therefore why I said that there should be no special expectation that people are obligated to legitimize the ways and customs that individuals choose to adopt in their personal lives, especially if there is no reasonable basis or intrinsic value in doing so.

              “Allowing” someone to have “general freedom” and “legitimizing” their specific habits and practices are totally different things — you can have the “freedom” to do whatever you want, it doesn’t mean that I “agree” with it depending on what it is.

              Like

              1. “especially if there is no reasonable basis or intrinsic value in doing so.”

                To you. To you!

                If you are swayed that way, there are reasonable reasons and intrinsic value in it. Why on Earth should you be not legitimized simply because SOME people disagree. That is takin away the persons “general freedom”. If you don’t have the same rights – all of them – then you are automatically denied all of the “general rights” as well. You are free to pick your partner without losing anything or being judged. What you are saying is that because their partner doesn’t look like your partner, it’s ok to judge them as “wrong” and not give them the same freedoms as everyone else. Which means that you’re “right”, which you are most certainly not.

                Liked by 1 person

                1. When I mention “Intrinsic Values” I am talking about core fundamental principles in life that influence the ways that things in life have to function in order for us to get anywhere meaningful. Petty sexual, personal preferences do not help to really establish anything meaningful in life overall; it is just cheap thrills. So the point is that outside of very “important” priorities, there should be no expectation that there should be special exemptions for certain preferential habits to be “legitimized”. It’s way too much time, way to much effort to be spending on things that do not really contribute to the building of a properly functioning community.

                  I am not talking about anyone being denied things since this is the whole point of “general freedom”, i.e, people can do what they want on an individual level, but just because you can say what you want doesn’t mean someone will agree with everything you say, and the same thing applies to the actions that you may take, just because an individual has the freedom to do what they want, it doesn’t mean that anyone will agree with everything they do and there are many obvious good reasons why people do not “legitimized” certain perceptions and practices/habits, and it’s not always about emotions, many times it’s about the actual impact that such customs can have.

                  Liked by 1 person

                  1. No one should be denied legitimacy because someone else doesn’t agree with them. Ever.

                    Liked by 1 person

                    1. Agreed, this is not really about people being “denied” anything, it’s to do with the fact that not all of their actions or decisions would be “agreeable” so to speak 😂😂

                      Like

                    2. Agreeable or disagreeable is also a personal opinion. Why should someone else decide what’s legitimate based on what they find agreeable? If everyone is legitimized, then those who disagree can do so, on an individual basis. Rather than letting anyone be delegitimized in favor of those that dissent, leaving them to be stick with “it’s your choice on an individual basis”, let everyone be legitimized and the dissent be individual based.

                      Your original post was about what you believe G-d said. What about those that don’t believe? Should they be de legitimized because of what your religion tells you? Or what about people that believe in a different G-d? That’s not fair. That’s why I truly believe in the separation of Church and State – the State should legitimize everyone and everything. The Church can do what it wants.

                      Liked by 1 person

                    3. Awesome response 💯🌹. I’m locked and loaded and will respond soon 😈😄☺️

                      Liked by 1 person

                    4. HA! No immediate response means that you’re gonna have to think about it. I await your reply with baited breath.

                      Liked by 1 person

                    5. Hahaa cool, here is my response:

                      LOL if I tell you that water can drown you, that’s not just a personal opinion; If I tell you that if you cut your flesh you will bleed or can bleed to death, that is not just a personal opinion. If I tell you that if you stand in front of a speeding car, you will be ran over; that is not a personal opinion. Now someone can say how good these things are and how they love it etc etc, but it still doesn’t change the fact that effects of some of these actions will happen, and hopefully you don’t do any of these just to prove a point to me 🤣🤣. I am not saying what I am saying on the basis that I have the right to make decisions for anybody, my point is, although people have the freedom to do what they want, it doesn’t mean that everything they do will be embraced because of certain issues they may cause. I am not saying that “individuals” should not be legitimized, I am saying that certain *actions of an individual may not be legitimized because of the undesirable effects certain practices can induce.

                      You are correct, there should be a separation of church and state although I wasn’t really talking about institutions and states and was just talking about general community perceptions and customs. You are also very correct that decisions shouldn’t be made for other people just off of what someone “thinks”, or someone’s “opinions” or someone’s “belief”; this is why it’s important for people to be vigilant of the way things actually work in life and the consequences and effects they can have — there is male and female for a reason and for a very purposeful reason, so to me, any other kind of sexual unions just seems like acts of experimental sexual perversions, and while people have the right and the freedom to take part in these acts, there should be no special expectation that certain practices that aren’t really relevent to anything constructive, will be “supported” or “accepted”.

                      That was my response to this comment:

                      https://aktionkilla.wordpress.com/2021/08/18/comment-795/comment-page-1/#comment-15184

                      Like

                    6. “there is male and female for a reason and for a very purposeful reason, so to me, any other kind of sexual unions just seems like acts of experimental sexual perversions, and while people have the right and the freedom to take part in these acts, there should be no special expectation that certain practices that aren’t really relevent to anything constructive, will be “supported” or “accepted”. ”

                      My point in a nutshell in your own words.

                      TO YOU these acts are “experimental sexual perversions”. They are not. they are how people are, who they are, and that’s that. They shouldn’t be delegitimized because you believe there was a purposeful reason for male and female.

                      YOU believe they aren’t relevant or constructive becasue you don’t practice them. They are very relevant and constructive for those that have those feelings, those desires, those wants, and those attractions.

                      You are delegitimizing them in your own post and comments.

                      Liked by 1 person

                    7. I see the point you are getting at but I can’t “delegitimize” what was never “ligitimate”, that is the difference between “legitimize” and “delegitimize” which is why I never touched “delegitimized” because it’s not actually relevent to what I was talking about 🤭🤣. If there was no purpose for a man and a woman, both wouldn’t be neccessary to actually populate earth — the man offers something the woman can’t and the woman offers something that man can’t, and it’s only the combination of both that results in a chemistry that is of the utmost stimulation and nurture of life; this is not just my “personal opinion” it is literally a natural aspect of life that existed eons before you and I were even born.

                      Yes those feelings and desires and wants are constructive to those that have them which is why they are considered “personal” preferences; they are not “intrinsic values”, even though they are allowed on the basis is general freedom.

                      Like

                    8. We shall never agree.

                      Emotions and love ARE legitimate in every case.

                      Liked by 1 person

                    9. There is no question that love and emotions are a natural part of human psyche, but that’s not the issue here, the issue is about “what” is being *practiced or carried out in the name of love or out of emotion.

                      Like

                    10. Again, we will not agree. Marriage is through the state (even religious ones have to register with the state). The state gives rights to the citizens. The right to marry should not be based on someone else’s definition of “perversion”. The Church not supporting it is the choice of the religion. The RIGHT to Marty should have never been in question.

                      Liked by 1 person

                    11. It’s not just about if we agree or not, we are obviously not going to agree on everything. This is just an exchange of views and ideas lol.

                      This “state marriage” stuff is still based on the original concept of marriage. If people don’t think that traditional marriage is right for them, why should there be a special modification to the original principles of classical “marriage” to fit their personal “preference”?. Why can’t they form their own customs and traditions related to their own lifestyles and passions?.

                      Like

                    12. Because they have a right to be legally recognized.

                      Liked by 1 person

                    13. They do have the right to be legally recognized but why must a long standing tradition be “politically” compromised for the sake of publicity and P.R when virtually anyone can start their own legally registered movement and organization and do what they think suits their personal preferences?

                      Like

                    14. No. You can’t. You can’t simply create rights because you have an organization. You have to get that organization recognized enough to get the politicians to pay attention to give you those rights. Why recreate the wheel all of the time. The same rights to everyone. Just because others feel your actions are in some way subversive does not mean you should not have equal rights and protections under the law. There is no reason why one group of people should be permitted into a significant others hospital room as they lay dying and another group can’t because of what other people consider the sanctity of “tradition”. Tradition is created, it is not set in stone. The minute marriage became about love rather than political alliances, that “tradition” changed. Traditions grow and change with time. That’s part of it. That’s part of life. When you get married, are you planning on keeping all women and men separated through the whole ceremony ans party after? I mean separate to the point where the bride and groom have to be lifted to see each other over the separator. No? Why not. That is a custom and tradition of a culture. But it’s not YOUR tradition and custom, so you don’t do it. You have the right to do what YOU want to do for your wedding. You have the right to be married even though there are people out there who believe that allowing men and women to see each other during a wedding is against G-d’s plan. G-d had no place in legalization. None. Tradition means nothing outside of ones specific culture. Therefore, one persons “tradition” should have no LEGAL bearing on another person’s life.

                      Liked by 1 person

                    15. Oh my goodness Marla, you sure let me have it in this one 👍😂. Solid points — I may respond soon lol.

                      Like

                    16. Looking forward to it

                      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this:
search previous next tag category expand menu location phone mail time cart zoom edit close