Homosexuality in Polish Culture

they can do what they want in their homes.
just please do not advertise it!

why advertise a sin?!

I agree in that I'd like to never have to see images or scenes guys being sexually intimate in any way shape or form. However being objective, one has to ask why they should be exposed to images of heterosexual intimacy.

"Sin" has nothing to do with it. A lot of sins are advertised.

Sin again is an opinion
sex before marriage
tattoos
shellfish
pork
working on Sunday
púrn
make up
relaxing
etc etc etc
why dont people just get on with their own lives and not worry about what other people are doing

Sex is evil,
Evil is sin,
Sin is forgiven,
So get stuck in!

Why advertise the fact that one considers oneself to be without sin?

let he who is without sin cast the first stone

Incoming!!!

lol

I was doing some research and an interesting fact popped up. Homosexuality has never been illegal in independent Poland. The only change was when the age of consent was set - the same age for hetero and homosexuals.

Your error is to think that something does not exist, or that it is "reasonable" to suppose it does not exist, unless it can be proven. This impasse leads to paradox once you realize that nothing can be proven. What happens to reality then? It goes without saying then the existence of a something is completely independent on our ability to prove it.

Of course, truth can in fact be perceived directly, by the intellect. When i determine that Beethoven is greater then Britney Spears i'm not relying on scientific inquiry, or discursive proof of any kind. I have no special device that allows me to "capture" the relevant information, no immediate effect can be discerned which would at least point to its "existence", except for the experiences of others. Now, it seems to me that it is precisely those individual perceptions that are dismissed a priori as relative, but only up to a certain point. We do not call the perception of the scientist who observes his theory through experimentation to be subjective and relative, even though technically speaking all perceptions are subjective. Be that as it may, it seems that it is only those subjective impressions that call upon the direct intercession of the intellect that are deemed to be "relative". What this shows is that the modern mentality is prejudiced against qualitative impressions, and not subjectivity in itself. What the modern scientists wants to do is arbitrarily isolate an object from its qualities as experienced by the mind, and then examine the thus denatured object as if its existence was not predicated upon our ability to perceive it in the first place! Thus, when confronted with a musical composition, the scientist believes he can understand the nature of the composition by measuring the vibrations of the particles, or by examining the subatomic structure of the instruments that generate the music. He might even decide to study the structure of the music, but only from a technical point of view. At not point will he ever consider the composition in itself, for what truth can one hope to find in "individual" perceptions?


The difference is that one is a distortion of the other, which means you can elevate normal sexuality to its transcendent dimension, where as homosexuality is forever doomed to be a dispersion of principal unity. This does not give one the right to persecute or mistreat homosexuals, but it ought to be clear why societal institutions, the function of which ought to be in principle purely "sanctifying" (and have always been in all traditional societies) cannot be made to conform to every imperfection of the human form. The problem of homosexuality from a traditionalist point of view is summed up succinctly in this article:

tracksinthewitchwood.blogspot.it/2011/04/homosexuality-and-integral.html


The author seems to understand the non-dualistic stance of tradition, but then becomes confused because he still hasn't grasped the basic premise of the emanationist argument, which is the same argument that explains the existence of evil in general and not just imperfections of the human form like homosexuality:

sophia-perennis.com/evil.pdf


Thus, homosexuality is a manifestation of an universal contrary, which is metaphysically necessary at the level of the relative, but is a distortion of an universal principle.

This means nothing.


Nor does this.

And what pray tell, is it that you have concluded I think doesn't exist?
What I'm trying to tell you is that so far, evidence suggests that everything exists. Do you understand that?
The only thing which hasn't been proven to exist is "nothing." That doesn't mean nothing doesn't exist, that means it hasn't been proven to exist.


Greater than Britney Spears at what?
First be specific and then try to quantify what it is you're talking about. It's a simple, easy and very effective way of trying to rationally make sense of just about anything.


We don't do that if the criteria for an experiment are judged to be objective, then there is no need to do that.
An experiment should be something which can be repeated. Often this is to test the results of earlier experiments against subsequent testings.

We can call into question anyone's perception of anything. However, before you do that, you should really ask yourself where that will take you. The scientist who runs an experiment can call into question the perception of those who would receive their data. They can call into question others' interpretation of their conclusions, and so on and so forth. I can call into question your perception based on how you're responding to the suggestion one looks at the issue of homosexuality through an objective lens. Your confirmation bias is preventing you from honestly considering the validity of some ideas that conflict with your religious orientation. I could go on but I think you get the point.


I've no idea what you're trying to communicate with this one mate.


It seems you have come to a conclusion based on a nonsensical supposition.
What the heck is the "modern mentality?"
Earlier, I understood that you made a case for individual subjectivity, now it seems like you're referring to it as some general property. I'm sorry but this doesn't make any sense to me. Please reformulate.


No. Perhaps that idea has been attempted but nowadays such an idea would be ridiculed. Sure vibrations can be measured and through this voice recognition and other forms of analytical software can be used but you wrote "the scientist believes he can understand the nature of the composition, by..." That's a pretty big assumption and I think you're only fit to say what your imaginary scientist is thinking.

Lets let other men and women say for themselves what they think or at least provide it in their abstracts.


No.
Because you say something is so, doesn't make it a rule of God or the creator or whatever may be the reason for existence. You confuse your own opinions and beliefs with being facts. Basically, like many religious folks from all corners of the world, you suffer a God complex.


Identify what you believe to be "the principal of unity."


Provide examples of societal institutions and how they ought to be in principle, purely "sanctifying."

VS


The claim is that only "evidence" and "testing" can show whether something is true. This is an absolute axiom. If it wasn't, there wouldn't even be a point of altercation between science and religion, let alone metaphysics. You demand the "facts" to "prove" if divine morality exists. The pitfall of rationalism is that it arrogantly abrogates itself as an axiom without taking into consideration its own inherent limitations and contradictions. Now, for starters:

sophia-perennis.com/philosophy/raison_intellection.htm


Basically, two things here. Does truth exist independently of proof, or is something not true until it can be proven? Because there are a great number of things which we are rational to accept as truth for which there is no "proof".


Now you are just trolling. Greater at what it may be... Cooking?


All of these are still subiective nevertheless.


For the record, the underlying crux of my argument (or the traditionalist argument in general) is that there is something beyond both reason and faith, something by which a person is actually able to attain to absolute certainty regarding a given truth. This something, call it intellection if you will, is precisely what the rationalist hates the most (while the man of faith is probably mostly indifferent to it, assuming that he sees the difference between a truth that is accepted without question and a truth that is discerned by means of an intellectual intuition).


Refer to the first verses of the Tao Te Ching. Suprarational realities cannot be "expressed" in words because human language is limited by reason. This is why discursive proof is besides the point because the intellect is capable of perceiving suprarational realities directly. It is precisely our intellect that is made in the "image of God", and it is by means of the intellect that certainties of objective realities is attained.


Why is ugly bad and beautiful good? Because we "like" beautiful. By the same token homosexuality is bad because it is ugly to *us*. Of course, it goes without saying that there is a specific reason why we look at certain things the way we do. That is, the reason why we know what beauty is and why we reject ugliness is precisely because God made us that way, and in his image, so to speak.

Can anyone PLEASE decipher what trump card kondzior thinks he is playing with this:

I am not saying that only evidence and testing can show whether something is true. I am saying evidence, logic and testing are the best ways we have of proving or disproving something. Anyhow that doesn't answer my request. You wrote me this:


I am kindly asking you to tell me what it is you have concluded I think doesn't exist? I didn't claim God doesn't exist. I didn't claim revulsion to homosexuality doesn't exist. So what is it?


Of course it does. But you seem to have come to your own personal conclusions on what truth is and thrust those conclusions onto the rest of us. I'll state this again, just because you think something is so, does not make it so. You may be right but the fact you are so unable/unwilling/lacking in imagination enough to entertain the fact you may very well be wrong is intellectually repulsive.

or is something not true until it can be proven? Because there are a great number of things which we are rational to accept as truth for which there is no "proof".


No, I'm not trolling. You want to entertain a notion yet have not completed that thought and I am trying to help you understand the importance of it. You want to entertain the idea that Beethoven is greater than Brittany Spears. Okay, greater than her at what? Cooking? Singing? Dancing? Composing? Fcuking? Please complete the idea.


What!?!? That's rubbish.
Please tell me in what way gathering data and comparing it against measurable and quantifiable standards in a fashion that can be repeated by anyone who understands the process is subjective. That's the equivalent of saying a recipe and cooking instructions are subjective. As long as the products, produce materials and procedures are the same then there is little to be considered subjective.


This doesn't mean anything to anybody unless the know your understanding of the concepts "reason" and "faith" and on what spectrum you are trying to measure them so as to find something beyond them. It's all a bunch of gibberish. Again this is you confusing your opinion (which may be correct) with fact. You want to believe that then fine but don't go trying to force ideas you can't even comprehend on everyone else. Sort out your own thoughts before you try to sort out how other people live.


The only thing I've taken from this is that you consistently confuse your opinion with truth. Maybe our intellect is made in the image of God and maybe it isn't. Personally, I'd like to think if there is a God then God is a lot smarter than we can understand at this juncture of our existence but until I find some evidence to think one way or the other I have to accept I don't know and that's that.


Well ugly could be quite good if you're a creature in the ocean and don't want to appear too appetizing. Ugly could be good if you're more attractive friends are getting kidnapped and raped while you're let go. I think you don't really understand the concepts you're trying to discuss. I am not confident I do either but I'm more confident you don't.

Yeah gay sex is repulsive to me but gay people seem to like it so why should our revulsion dictate how they act if it has nothing to do with us? Why is your opinion on their sex life more valid than theirs? I don't think it is.

A logical argument is one in which the proof lies within the argument itself. This is opposed to reason, which is merely a process of deduction. Both of them are wholly below intellection, which is the act of knowing. For instance, i know that Beethoven is greater then Lady Gaga. I have neither reasoned this out, nor have i used logic to arrive to this conclusion. I know because of my intelligence.

If intelligence exists, knowing exists. Since knowledge is absolute, then the absolute exists. Therefore, God exists. This is a logical argument. Anybody getting this yet?


You have to understand that intellection doesn't need logical proof to achieve certainty of inward realities, or that that is at any rate the underlying premise of this discourse, whether you accept it or not.


Data of what? The physical world? The lowest level of reality? The one level which even the biggest idiot can see and understand? That was a grand discovery, i tell you.

To even try to test theories which stand upon their own mathematical "proofing" is essentially redundant. Science has left the realms of observation and experimentation a long time ago. Right now testings is something they cook up to give a bit of credence on theories they have been working on for decades, theories which are worked out to the last detail without the need of any such verification.

Modern science has discovered that you can make stupidity seem intelligent ever since Cartesianism reared its ugly head. Quantum mechanics is basically a parody of true metaphysics, the last stage of the mental degradation that begun with the Renaissance. First they elevated reason above the intelligence, then they squandered the latter in sheer pragmatism, and now they are simply throwing the sponge down in sheer mathematical mysticism.


These not just my opinions. Actually, they are demonstrable. By the intelligence. This is the difference between traditional wisdom and science. The first is purely qualitative, while the latter is basically quantitative. When a scientific "discovery" has been made, everything pertaining to this discovery is perfectly accessible to even the most mundane of minds. You could learn a book detailing Quantum physics by rote, and you would "know" the whole theory, literally.

Compare this to the wisdom of traditional civilizations, which, on the one hand, could only be "grasped" by those who had the intelligence to do so, and then, only after years of acquiring knowledge which served as preparation for the understanding of a knowledge of an ever "superior" order. In ancient times, it was the general understanding that the highest levels of knowledge could be attained only after a lifetime of efforts. Today, all it takes is an above average IQ and you could "attain" to scientific expertise by the time you are twelve. Quite a contrast, isn't it?


Because its not my judgement, its God's judgement. Intellection is a direct intercession with divine wisdom, there is nothing "human" about it.

Back to topic- Homosexuality in Polish culture.

This just reads like semantics to me. Are you going to make a relevant conclusion or leave me guessing at what it is you're trying to communicate?


Greater than her at what? You have to complete the thought and unless you can quantify the general greatness of people you've never met nor have any hope of meeting, your statement is untenable.


A topic or subject that has been studied. Choose one. Here's an example: Comparing the reaction of chlorine to water with trichloramines present. Comparing temperature differences while maintaining all other factors as constants.

Are you actually this GOD DAMNED unfocused or just taking the p*ss? You stated the scientific method is subjective, so I broke it down for you and asked you to tell me which aspects (feel free to add your own) of the scientific method you find to be subjective. I gave you some examples, such as gathering data. Don't reply back with "data of what?" That's not the point you were trying to make. You were trying to make some point about how the scientific method is subjective. Please go ahead and give that idea some legs. I may actually agree with you on some things.


Uhhhhh yeah, I can't agree with you there. To say "science has left the realms of observation and experimentation" is like saying art has left the realms of conceptualization and expression. Without fundamentals then there is no science. Some researchers may only require data and are trying to come to conclusions but that doesn't make all their data suddenly subjective (unless we're going quantum then that's a mindfcuk [but a fun one]).


Lots of people have opinions based on nothing but emotion, so yeah, you're not alone. So what, you're still confusing your opinion with fact, you're still stuck at this child like thought process that basically amounts to:

It is because I say so.


When did God say this? What language was God speaking when this was heard? Who was God speaking to? What was the weather like? Did God say why God create the medical propensity for homosexuality (yes a medical link between circumstances of conception and gestation with homosexuality was discovered some years ago) if God judges it to be wrong?

Ehh.. Once again.

sophia-perennis.com/philosophy/raison_intellection.htm
sophia-perennis.com/philosophy/intellection.htm

There is no faith involved here, but direct, total knowledge, acquired by means of the intellect, which partakes into the supreme objectivity of God because the human point of view shares the point of view of the divine, which is objective in the highest possible sense. Thus, Beethoven is a genius, not because i say so, but because i know it to be so. Can i "prove" this to you? Not unless you posses this faculty also. At this point, the question of whether God exists becomes academic. The "obviousness" of his existence is a realization that is bound to happen sooner or later for the individual who understands the world from the point of view of essence rather then appearances.


I dispense of any need for dialectal proof by means of direct, total intellection, which is nothing more then intelligence as such.

Just as by means of the intelligence that i have arrived at the "truth" of the origin of man, and the consequent refutation of the theory of evolution.


But all those things also involve acquiring information by rote. Somebody once said that the only thing one could learn by studying Linux is how Linux works (meaning, the entire effort is redundant). Same applies to science. All you can learn by studying Quantum mechanics is... Quantum mechanics! Is this knowledge though? Well, can you test how much any one knows about Quantum mechanics? Yes. Can you test how much one knows about Beethoven? Nope. Can a child prodigy learn Quantum mechanics by the time he is twelve? Yes. Can a child prodigy learn the genius of a Beethoven by the same age? Nope. Something doesn't seem to add up here.


You mean the one we have sensible experience of. Meaning, what we can see, ear, touch, smell or taste. But what about those things of an invisible order which can only be attained by the intellect? Or do you deny the existence of human intelligence? Is logic a sensible organ? Is reason a sensible organ? Can you say to be able to "experience" a logically arrived conclusion? And if not, isn't that admitting that there is a level of human "experience" which transcends the constrains of our sensory organs, and if so, why leave intellective intuition out of it?


Why do you think the LHC was build? Because physicists realized they were teetering towards pseudo-mysticism? And how long has Quantum science been operative before such a device even came into the fore? And now that the device has "confirmed" the theory (according to what physicists believe to be a confirmation), do you think all those decades of running on pure abstractions have been validated in any way or form? If the theory didn't need actual testing to be weaved into its current state of development, doesn't that make actual testing redundant? So now physicists are feeling good about themselves. Good for them i guess. Has our understanding of the universe changed in any way or form? Nope. Much ado about nothing i guess.

But truth and knowledge can go out of the window. Remember, science believes men and women are interchangeable. Science believes race does not exist. Science believes Beethoven is no greater then Britney Spears. Science believes the universe can be regressed into pure nothingness.

But none of those things are true. So, prey tell, what the fu*ck is the purpose of science then? Do we know anything about how the universe started going? No. Do we know anything pertaining to the complexity and profundity of human intelligence? No. Can science tell us if we are going anywhere after death? Nope. Again, much ado about nothing.


You have trapped yourself within constraints which do not exist in reality. To wit, we all use intellective intuition on a daily basis. We couldn't be able to exist without it. To be stuck with reason alone would render human existence utterly inoperative. But this is precisely what modern society tries to inculcate into everybody since birth. That we all have our "opinions", and truth is purely subjective and thus relative. This is the underlying paradigm of modern civilization.

Everything that is not reducible to "reason" does not exist, even though my entire existence is predicated upon things which cannot be reduced to reason.


Refer to my earlier posts in this thread.

The real issue here is not in the nature of homosexuality in itself, but how this congenital form of degeneracy affects the individual in so far as the integrity of his virtue is to be considered, given that we are talking about someone who is a sinner but not by choice.

If anyone other than kondzior wants/is able to help him make his point or verify his opinion then PLEASE do.


I'm not following and haven't followed a single one of your links. If we were dealing with something less subjective I'd be more inclined to read your links but based on what you've written, I am 100% uninterested in following them.

As I understand it, Science is not a sentient being that can believe or disbelieve anything.
Science is the word we use in English that encompasses the laws we can observe in our universe. We can misinterpret data and arrive at false conclusions but Science allows us to disprove what had previously been proven.


So you're saying that God said something about homosexuality being wrong but it cannot be heard in this reality yet you somehow are aware of it?

The conclusion one must arrive at via this paragraph of nonsense is that you want to get to heaven but you don't want to die to get there.

The theme running through this aberration is that you have no fcuking ability to make yourself understood in the English language on this topic. I mean, look at this:


You asked me for my opinion and then answered it for me with your own question. That's not how a discussion works you half wit!


WHAT THEORY!?!?

Don't reply back until someone else comes onto this thread and supports what you've written.
In fact neither of us should respond anymore until someone else joins this discussion because if you're the only person in this then I'm not even a little bit interested anymore.

You'll be waiting a long time.

There isn't a point - just someone working through their neurosis.

I tried....I really did try to understand Kondzior's reasoning. Thankfully you have summed up everything that needs to be said in your one sentence!

So in other words:
Foreigner4: Explain to me what do you mean.
Kondzior: Here, in the most simple terms I can think of.
Foreigner4: (fingers into ears) Lalalala I am not listening.


The scientific method is itself based on axiomatic foundations. Axioms which cannot be proved, but are simply believed to be true. Anyone looking at science from a pure mathematics or logic background understands this, but I would guess that most people, scientists included, don't actually understand how shaky the house of cards really is.

The 'scientific method' also purposely excludes subjective thinking (such as e.g. religious meditation) as being an acceptable method to discover the truth, despite the fact that this has been the major tool used by all mystics throughout the time that humanity has been around.

Science is good for what it is, but is extremely limited in its applicability. Anyone (read: liberal atheists in particular) that tries to extend science to deal with questions of morality is an idiot. Some of them are idiot savants in a sense (Dawkins for example), and just because they understand in depth their particular slice of science, doesn't stop them being idiots in the broader sense.


Ehhh.. Have you read anything I have writen about intellection?

And one dont't need the intelective intuition to know it, the faith is enough:
And if a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them

Lev., c. 20, v. 13.

Notice here that death is also the punishment for incest, bestiality and infidelity. Of course, since more then 80% of the laws and observances dictated in the Torah aren't really observed anymore, it's significant that this one was kept around.


I simply do not believe that rational arguments can be useful when it comes to questions which only metaphyics can answer (and i'm talking about metaphysics in its real, traditional definition, not metaphysics as defined by profane philosophy, which has fu*ck to do with metaphysical knowledge of any kind) so i see no reason to employ them when it comes to absolute truths. Its a either you get it or you don't deal, there's no middle ground. And yes, i actually happen to believe secular philosophy is a colossal waste of time. The development of secular philosophy was due precisely to an intellectual degeneration among westerners. For most of human history, truths were attained by metaphysical intuitions, and sages were never asked to give clear rational explanations for their believes, because it was understood that such a thing was pointless.

The very fact you find this notion so baffling can be taken as proof you do not possess any intellective faculty of a supra-rational type. Unless you are just being stubborn, particularly since we've all been stunted in our intellectual development since we were children. Modern society inculcates the cult of reason and the worship of scientism from an early age. Its hard to escape this conditioning, even for a gifted individual. I know how hard it was for me. If this is the case here then there is something to be profited by this exchange. If not, it would make as much sense for me to provide a "proper" argument as attempting to explain vision to the blind.

So you need to think a bit more about all that.


Well, if we're going into the wacky old testament rules, could you please be so kind as to confirm that you are wearing only 100% cotton (or other single fabric clothes), for as we all know Leviticus 19:19 tells us, "You are to keep My statutes. You shall not breed together two kinds of your cattle; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor wear a garment upon you of two kinds of material mixed together."

And you do avoid shrimp, don't you?