|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: GLBT is a facade
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
I won't even try to start this anywhere but Dead Nags.
Is sex a plaything? Obviously the answer is "yes" for most people (otherwise the Net would not be the cesspit of porn that it is).
Should the answer be "no"? Bottom line, the answer needs to be left to the individual.
Then society must step in and define what is "normal", i.e. what it will not tolerate as acceptable behavior.
Here's the problem with the whole sexual revolution today: it is focused on DIFFERENCES in sexual expression, where those are merely perceived and not actual. So-called GLBT advocacy is all about what is sexually attractive: the assumption is that any GLBT expression is okeedokee. Alright, let's assume for arguement's sake that's true. At what point does society have the duty and the right to impose limitations on GLBT? The line in the sand is, "Only consenting adults". (Obviously, a twisted, pedophile segment don't agree to that line in the sand.)
Back to perceived differences in what defines sexual attraction GROUPS. This a fallacy. There are really only TWO groups; those that treat sex morally, and those that treat it as MY plaything, and I should be free to use it whenever and with whomsoever I like (provided I get permission from the whomsoever – at least that is still in place!). So when a so-called Gay Pride parade/rally is held, what are the vast majority of participants/advocates really doing? They are celebrating and pushing their sexual immorality in the face of the established, traditional morality: this is manifestly so, because most do not limit their sexual play to a monogomous relationship (i.e a "marriage" intended for life). The entire facade of GLBT is dishonest. If we extended their rallies and parades to include ALL sexually immoral people (like that annual parade in Germany does), the issue would be exposed for what it truly is: a push to break down society's barriers to sexual excess.
So each one of us must decide where our line in the sand is. The Law may be redefined to allow all manner of sexual behavior without criminal or even civil repurcussions.
But we live in the Age of Free Will: all the restraints are being removed a piece and barrier at a time. It seems fated to be thus. And you, alone, must stand for something besides being part of some advocacy group, regardless which one it is….
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
So when a so-called Gay Pride parade/rally is held, what are the vast majority of participants/advocates really doing? They are celebrating and pushing their sexual immorality in the face of the established, traditional morality: this is manifestly so, because most do not limit their sexual play to a monogomous relationship (i.e a "marriage" intended for life).
The opposite of 'gay pride' is 'gay shame' - which is presumably what you want LGBT to feel - as they used to feel when 'traditional morality' was used to judge them.
As for 'sexual play...monogamous' - all the gay people I know are in couples. One couple from my church have been together for over 50 years. I don't think i know any heterosexual couples whose marriages have lasted that long.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
Ummmm... No. Being GBLT is way more than about having sex. It involves identity and worldview.
Society has no right to impose any restrictions on LGBT people it doesn't impose on others.
There is nothing that goes on at Gay Pride Parades that that straight people don't do on MTV, at Spring Break or at Mardi Gras. Gay Pride Parades represent the gay community to the same degree that MTV, Spring Break and Mardi Gras represent heterosexuality. You'll find many gay people in responsible monogamous relationships just like you do with straight people.
The rest of the post (those rare bits that are coherent) sound like slippery slope fallacies. Morality and legality are two different things. The law is concerned about harm and fairness. All LGBT people are the same rights and responsibilities as everyone else.
[ 12. October 2010, 19:22: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
So, if a monogamous straight couple have sex with each other because, as individuals, they enjoy it, are they sinning just as gay couples who have sex for personal gratification do?
And what's been said about monogamous gays, though I do know straight couples that stayed married for 50 years and more.
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
In my view the best thing about acceptance of diversity is that then everyone has access to other things, like commitment, general community support. It opens up possibilities that may have not existed or existed in different and more difficult forms.
The only problem I have with the GLBT and various other additions to the alphabet soup: GLBTQTS etc., is that many diversities are all lumped together. Labels summarize and are short hand, but they may also label for other purposes.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spiffy
Ship's WonderSheep
# 5267
|
Posted
This is interesting as I just finished reading an article by the folks at the OKCupid dating site, which aggregated data from over 600,000 people who use their site. The whole thing is here and has lots of good data and pretty interesting charts for you visual learners, but here's what I think is petinent to Merlin's generalization:
quote:
Gay people aren't promiscuous.
Another common myth about gay people is that they sleep around, but the statistical reality is that gay people as a group aren't any more slutty than straights.
Median Reported Sex Partners
* straight men: 6
* gay men: 6
* straight women: 6
* gay women: 6
* 45% of gay people have had 5 or fewer partners (vs. 44% for straights)
* 98% of gay people have had 20 or fewer partners (vs. 99% for straights)
It turns out that a tiny fraction of gays have single-handedly two-handedly created the public image of gay sexual recklessness—in fact we found that just 2% of gay people have had 23% of the total reported gay sex, which is pretty crazy.
[ 12. October 2010, 19:50: Message edited by: Spiffy ]
--------------------
Looking for a simple solution to all life's problems? We are proud to present obstinate denial. Accept no substitute. Accept nothing.
--Night Vale Radio Twitter Account
Posts: 10281 | From: Beervana | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
The hard fact is that gay people, like other minority communities, have higher rates of social dysfunction because of "minority stress". "Minority stress" manifests itself in different minority communities in different ways: gang violence, family breakdown, substance abuse and higher rates of suicide. Higher rates of these dysfunctions are found in communities as diverse as the Inuit to African Americans. There is a stereotype that gay people tend to be wealthier than the general population but as gay people in minority communities, poorer and rural areas have come out, that is shown not to be the case.
I think monogamous gay couples face much greater challenges than straight couples do. There are far fewer gay people, so its harder to meet a compatible person. In many jurisdictions there are no legal protections for couples and sometimes having fewer legal entanglements means it's easier to break up. But most importantly there aren't the social supports straight people are blessed with: institutions such as churches that nurture and support gay relationships; extended families are often hostile; people are often in work situations where being openly gay is unacceptable, etc. And I think it takes a village to keep a couple together. Extended families help keep the inevitable stress and tension down.
But even with those drawbacks there are a surprising number of gay couples who are in very conventional monogamous relationships. They have managed to find a compatible partner and immerse themselves in a supportive community. They certainly don't regard their partners as playthings, rather, sex is an expression of deep and abiding love and faithfulness.
[ 12. October 2010, 20:06: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Back to perceived differences in what defines sexual attraction GROUPS. This a fallacy. There are really only TWO groups; those that treat sex morally, and those that treat it as MY plaything, and I should be free to use it whenever and with whomsoever I like (provided I get permission from the whomsoever – at least that is still in place!).
I think this gets to the heart of MtM's rant. Under this view sex can be divided into two categories: enjoyable sex (which is immoral) and moral sex (which is apparently unenjoyable, if not downright unpleasant). While this horror at the thought of sensual enjoyment is a common thread in many strains of Christianity, it isn't the necessary component some treat it as.
So, how much of a sense of play does it take for sex to become immoral? This sort of question is similar to asking how many lifetime sex partners are too many. The 'correct' answer is usually just slightly more than however much/many the person asking the question has had.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
The circularity of the "anti-gay-marriage" argument might be a bit of a problem, too.
1. Marriage is the way society limits promiscuity.
2. Gay people should not be able to get married, because gay people are promiscuous.
3. Goto 1 (if your head doesn't hurt by now).
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
I'm also not sure what's supposed to be concealed behind the "façade" of the GBLT movement. So far the accusation seems to be that they're defying the sexual norms of society in pursuit of their secret agenda of . . . defying the sexual norms of society.
I don't think "façade" means what MtM thinks it does.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Back to perceived differences in what defines sexual attraction GROUPS. This a fallacy. There are really only TWO groups; those that treat sex morally, and those that treat it as MY plaything, and I should be free to use it whenever and with whomsoever I like (provided I get permission from the whomsoever – at least that is still in place!).
I think this gets to the heart of MtM's rant. Under this view sex can be divided into two categories: enjoyable sex (which is immoral) and moral sex (which is apparently unenjoyable, if not downright unpleasant). While this horror at the thought of sensual enjoyment is a common thread in many strains of Christianity, it isn't the necessary component some treat it as.
So, how much of a sense of play does it take for sex to become immoral? This sort of question is similar to asking how many lifetime sex partners are too many. The 'correct' answer is usually just slightly more than however much/many the person asking the question has had.
I seriously doubt it - or if this is part of the argument, it's not the central part. Most modern Christians are perfectly fine with "enjoyable" sex - as long as it occurs between husband and wife. You're arguing to a many-years-past issue.
His issue seems to be the usual one - that gay people are all promiscuous. He says so outright, in fact. And, of course, that gay sex is immoral in its own right....
[ 12. October 2010, 20:32: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
Hmmmm... in the "good old days" when gays were in the closet and marriage ruled the land, the wife was the husband's plaything to be used however he wanted (and he didn't need permission!) Until the 1950s women legally belonged to men once they were married.
He could control his wife's destiny, had sole ownership of any property and income she earned, could rape and abuse her and it was all completely legal. In the U.S. spousal rape wasn't even a crime in any state until the 1970s. She couldn't divorce him unless there was infidelity and even then, she was a non-virgin and would become essentially "familyless", so many women put up with it.
Ahhh.. yes. The good old days of traditional morality. We have gone into such decline since then.
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
I seriously doubt it - or if this is part of the argument, it's not the central part. Most modern Christians are perfectly fine with "enjoyable" sex - as long as it occurs between husband and wife. You're arguing to a many-years-past issue.
His issue seems to be the usual one - that gay people are all promiscuous. He says so outright, in fact. And, of course, that gay sex is immoral in its own right....
This thread was only started an hour ago, and I'm responding to MtM's argument as written, so I don't see how I can be arguing a "many-years-past issue".
At any rate, the only clue from MtM's stated dichotomy about what makes sex "moral" is that it's apparently unlike the other kind, which is a plaything to be enjoyed when you want to. From this I can only guess that moral sex is very workmanlike (or workwomanlike, if that suits your gender better) and done only at times of great inconvenience and/or minimum sexual desire (i.e. whenever you don't want to, to paraphrase MtM). As I said, I'm only working with the information MtM chose to provide.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
So Merlin: are you claiming here that it's the push for marriage that's the "facade"?
Or are you referring to gay rights in general? What's the issue, exactly?
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
I seriously doubt it - or if this is part of the argument, it's not the central part. Most modern Christians are perfectly fine with "enjoyable" sex - as long as it occurs between husband and wife. You're arguing to a many-years-past issue.
His issue seems to be the usual one - that gay people are all promiscuous. He says so outright, in fact. And, of course, that gay sex is immoral in its own right....
This thread was only started an hour ago, and I'm responding to MtM's argument as written, so I don't see how I can be arguing a "many-years-past issue".
At any rate, the only clue from MtM's stated dichotomy about what makes sex "moral" is that it's apparently unlike the other kind, which is a plaything to be enjoyed when you want to. From this I can only guess that moral sex is very workmanlike (or workwomanlike, if that suits your gender better) and done only at times of great inconvenience and/or minimum sexual desire (i.e. whenever you don't want to, to paraphrase MtM). As I said, I'm only working with the information MtM chose to provide.
Well, I'm guessing that your guess is wrong, and I've told you why. The "Christians hate sex" business - this was your own statement: "horror at the thought of sensual enjoyment is a common thread in many strains of Christianity" - is an old trope out of the Victorian era.
It should be obvious that it isn't true, really; the vast majority of Catholics worldwide use birth control in direct defiance of the Vatican, and I don't know of any Protestants who have a problem with it. Evangelical publications these days contain plenty of articles about the "Joys of Married Sex."
I'm just informing you that you're not up to speed with this line of argument, so that whatever else you derive from it is likely to be wrong as well.
[ 12. October 2010, 21:11: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
iGeek
Number of the Feast
# 777
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Is sex a plaything? Obviously the answer is "yes" for most people
Unsubstantiated claim. It's not so obvious to me. You start out with this unprovable claim and attempt to build some kind of argument on it.
quote:
There are really only TWO groups; those that treat sex morally, and those that treat it as MY plaything, and I should be free to use it whenever and with whomsoever I like
That's right ... the world is black and white and there are no shades of gray.
quote:
So when a so-called Gay Pride parade/rally is held, what are the vast majority of participants/advocates really doing?
Ooh. I'm impressed with the linking together of so obviously related logically following concepts. I'm guessing that the gay pride participants can't be in the group that have ethics about sex.
quote:
They are celebrating and pushing their sexual immorality
Ah. Guess I was right. No exploration of the thesis of whether gay people operate in integrity. It's just asserted. "It's because you say so", I'll bet.
quote:
... in the face of the established, traditional morality
because we know that "traditional" automatically equates to good and right, correct? That's why women are still chattel and slavery is still legal, right?
quote:
this is manifestly so, because most do not limit their sexual play to a monogomous relationship
Facts and references, sir. And while you're at it, make sure you compare apples to apples and include the statistics about fidelity of opposite sex couples as well.
Another blowhard rant without any basis in facts or experience.
Posts: 2150 | From: West End, Gulfopolis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
(I'm betting that MtM is riffing on Carl Paladino's "Speedo/grinding" comment here:
quote:
On a Gay Pride Parade he attended: "I stumbled on one in Toronto one time with my wife. We watched this. There were men in speedos grinding and doing things, okay, to each other. I just said, that's not right."
Source.
Some people really don't like the grinding in public. Truth be told, I think it's pretty asinine, myself....)
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
(P.S. I hate hetero PDDs - "Public Displays of Debauchery," that is - at Mardi Gras, too.
Get a room, that's my motto. FYI, you're just not pretty....)
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I won't even try to start this anywhere but Dead Nags.
Is sex a plaything? Obviously the answer is "yes" for most people (otherwise the Net would not be the cesspit of porn that it is).
Should the answer be "no"? Bottom line, the answer needs to be left to the individual.
No other options? Really? I don't know what goes on under your quilts, Merlin (and please don't tell us), but in my house sex happens for a fair number of reasons, one of which is the simple biological drive for physical intimacy with a beloved Other.
Also, it actually isn't up to the individual (unless we're talking really lonely people), because last time I checked, it took a minimum of two to produce a sexual experience. In my house, when one of us doesn't feel like communicating closeness, or de-stressing, or even (gasp) playing, sex does not take place. It's a, well, GROUP decision.
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Then society must step in and define what is "normal", i.e. what it will not tolerate as acceptable behavior.
Call me crazy, but this is not society defining what's normal. It's society defining what's ABnormal. Once you define as abnormal things like compelling sex through force and/or threats of force, and the exploitation of people legally unable to consent to sex, etc. pretty much anything else falls, by default, under the rubric "normal."
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Here's the problem with the whole sexual revolution today: it is focused on DIFFERENCES in sexual expression, where those are merely perceived and not actual.
Huh? What on earth does this mean? Are you claiming there's no real difference at all among the ways different people -- of different genders, different cultures, different hang-ups, different desires, etc. -- express their sexuality? You lost me.
Personally I have had a slightly larger number of partners than the norms cited above by Spiffy (though these partners were all of the same gender). I assure you there were marked differences among them in terms of sexual expression. MARKED.
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
So-called GLBT advocacy is all about what is sexually attractive: the assumption is that any GLBT expression is okeedokee.
Gee, and here's silly me thinking it was all about treating citizens alike under the Constitution.
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Alright, let's assume for arguement's sake that's true. At what point does society have the duty and the right to impose limitations on GLBT?
The point at which someone is being forced, exploited, or victimized.
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
The line in the sand is, "Only consenting adults". (Obviously, a twisted, pedophile segment don't agree to that line in the sand.)
Back to perceived differences in what defines sexual attraction GROUPS. This a fallacy. There are really only TWO groups; those that treat sex morally, and those that treat it as MY plaything, and I should be free to use it whenever and with whomsoever I like (provided I get permission from the whomsoever – at least that is still in place!). So when a so-called Gay Pride parade/rally is held, what are the vast majority of participants/advocates really doing? They are celebrating and pushing their sexual immorality in the face of the established, traditional morality: this is manifestly so, because most do not limit their sexual play to a monogomous relationship (i.e a "marriage" intended for life). The entire facade of GLBT is dishonest. If we extended their rallies and parades to include ALL sexually immoral people (like that annual parade in Germany does), the issue would be exposed for what it truly is: a push to break down society's barriers to sexual excess.
1. Define "sexual excess." Are we talking specific sexual practices? Number of times per day, week, or month? Are we talking about public displays? What are you talking about?
2. I agree that there are serious problems with categorizing people into groups by their sexual preferences. In fact, there's a problem with categorizing people, period. For one thing, it seems to render the process of dehumanizing certain people and denying them basic rights of citizenship much easier.
3. I don't agree that gay pride parades or demos are all about pushing sexual immorality in "people's" (by which I take it you mean heterosexuals, which is a telling distinction in and of itself) faces. Especially as a hefty percentage of participants and attendees are likely to be non-heteros themselves. Rather, they are efforts to make visible what some parts of society wish to make invisible. Or wish to make disappear.
4. As already noted by Spiffy, most people tend eventually to settle into monogamous relationships, many after a certain amount of youthful experimentation.
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
So each one of us must decide where our line in the sand is. The Law may be redefined to allow all manner of sexual behavior without criminal or even civil repurcussions.
Really? Do you seriously contemplate a time when sex between adults and children, parents & offspring, siblings, humans & members of other species, etc. will be permitted? And that in this new age of sexual laissez-faire, we will all be compelled to define what is and isn't OK for ourselves? Will this be with or without any reference to our own personal inclinations?
I think your scenario is unlikely.
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
But we live in the Age of Free Will: all the restraints are being removed a piece and barrier at a time. It seems fated to be thus. And you, alone, must stand for something besides being part of some advocacy group, regardless which one it is….
Whatever. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
Hmmm. Maybe I get it now, since
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
So-called GLBT advocacy is all about what is sexually attractive: the assumption is that any GLBT expression is okeedokee.
Is this what you're getting at? Is this the "facade" you're talking about?
Well, you're wrong, on two counts. First, as I've written here lately, I'm emotionally attracted to members of my own sex; I can't seem to "fall in love" with people of the opposite gender. I never have, not even once, not even the slightest.
It's not, for me, about "what is sexually attractive" - not really. So think about how that fits into your statement above. Most gay people, for your information, happen to be attracted (in whatever way) to members of our own gender - and by far most of us want a permanent relationship. A partner. I've never met a gay person who didn't want this, as a matter of fact.
Second, it's not true that "any GLBT expression is okeedokee" - at least, it's not any more true for GLBT than for heterosexuals. Really, heteroseuxals do their own share of grinding in various situations; see some of these listed above. It would be a mistake for me to assume that ALL heterosexuals grind in public, though; that's the very mistake you're making here.
[ 13. October 2010, 01:08: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
So-called GLBT advocacy is all about what is sexually attractive: the assumption is that any GLBT expression is okeedokee.
Major fallacy right there.
GLBT advocacy is primarily about arguing that GLBT expression is equal to heterosexual expression.
If you have a problem with particular forms of sexual expression, your problem is more with the 'sexual revolution' in general.
It is false reasoning to equate being homosexual with promiscuity or any other form of sexual BEHAVIOUR that you find distasteful or immoral. All the kinds of BEHAVIOUR occur just as readily amonst homosexuals. The only difference is the gender of the partner.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
Likewise, it is a fallacy (slippery slope) to assume that, as homosexual relationships gradually gain acceptance among the general population, other kinds of sexual practices, currently considered unacceptable, will also gradually gain acceptance.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
Gee, I do hope that Merlin will return to respond to the fallout from his bomb.
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Hmmmm... in the "good old days" when gays were in the closet and marriage ruled the land, the wife was the husband's plaything to be used however he wanted (and he didn't need permission!) Until the 1950s women legally belonged to men once they were married. ... Ahhh.. yes. The good old days of traditional morality. ...
I hear things are still that way in Utah.
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
Also, it actually isn't up to the individual (unless we're talking really lonely people), because last time I checked, it took a minimum of two to produce a sexual experience.
I believe this is called the O'Donnell Rule. Almost no one strictly observes this.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
Also, it actually isn't up to the individual (unless we're talking really lonely people), because last time I checked, it took a minimum of two to produce a sexual experience.
I believe this is called the O'Donnell Rule. Almost no one strictly observes this.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
True enough: where needs must, and all that . . . But hands up: how many seek out the "on-your-own" kind in preference to the "with-a-partner" kind?
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Until the 1950s women legally belonged to men once they were married.
No, that is not true. Talking nonsense just feeds the bigots who want to pretend that feminism has gone too far. It also misrepresents the present by comparing it with an exageratedly nasty past, allowing us to feel superior to previous generations and to delude ourselves that the battle is won. And so it serves the forces of oppression and domination.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Orlando098
Shipmate
# 14930
|
Posted
If they actually "belonged" to them,they could have murdered them or sold them as a slave or something, legally, and I doubt that was the case.
Also, is it really true married women did not own their own property where you live until the 1950s? Wow, I thought the UK was late in legislating on that in 1870.
Posts: 1019 | From: Nice, France | Registered: Jul 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
I guess we're quibbling on what ownership means. I agree that a husband couldn't murder his wife, but if she had little or no legal recourse when it came to property and financial matters, the vote, and whether her husband could beat and rape her, it comes close to ownership in my book. Isn't self determination and the right to live without violence a hallmark of freedom?
Back to the topic, evidently Carl Paladino rents buildings to gay nightclubs and his gay nephew owned one.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/13/paladino-rented-to-gay-cl_n_760750.html
[ 13. October 2010, 14:14: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
Paladino is a complete disaster. American politics in general is a complete disaster at the moment, though.
(Oh, Merlin? Where ARE you? It's not NICE or POLITE to dump a complaint thread someplace and never return to deal with it again, you know....)
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
This is interesting as I just finished reading an article by the folks at the OKCupid dating site, which aggregated data from over 600,000 people who use their site. The whole thing is here and has lots of good data and pretty interesting charts for you visual learners, but here's what I think is petinent to Merlin's generalization:
quote:
Gay people aren't promiscuous.
Another common myth about gay people is that they sleep around, but the statistical reality is that gay people as a group aren't any more slutty than straights.
Median Reported Sex Partners
* straight men: 6
* gay men: 6
* straight women: 6
* gay women: 6
* 45% of gay people have had 5 or fewer partners (vs. 44% for straights)
* 98% of gay people have had 20 or fewer partners (vs. 99% for straights)
It turns out that a tiny fraction of gays have single-handedly two-handedly created the public image of gay sexual recklessness—in fact we found that just 2% of gay people have had 23% of the total reported gay sex, which is pretty crazy.
Ah hah! Thanks for that response. I was hoping that this would come out. I was reading through the posts on this thread with my wife just now. And JUST BEFORE I got to your post and quoted stats, I said: "There isn't any difference as a group between any other group: homosexuals, by and large, do not want casual, flippant sex, they want sex to be an expression of a meaningful relationship, just as much as heterosexuals do. The reason why the general public has this impression that GLBT have multiple casual partners is because of the media focusing on that small segment. I suspect that only the hard-wired gay guys, who have dozens, scores or even hundreds of partners, are the focus of the media: in a similar way that FLDS are what most outsiders think Mormons are like: in Utah where we have well over 2 million people we have, what, under a 100K FLDS? Yet that tiny segment is what the media plays on. It's the same with gays".
I guess you could accuse me of trolling with my generalization. But it has a two-part character: the generalization isn't mine, it's the Media's portrayal: e.g. Lady Gaga's vaunted "threesomes". That the GLBT component of society gets understood via the Media is only to be expected. And the Media does not serve up the mundane masses, only the exceptional, sensationalized minority: the very group, in this case, that pisses off the "Moral (heterosexual) Majority"....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Back to perceived differences in what defines sexual attraction GROUPS. This a fallacy. There are really only TWO groups; those that treat sex morally, and those that treat it as MY plaything, and I should be free to use it whenever and with whomsoever I like (provided I get permission from the whomsoever – at least that is still in place!).
I think this gets to the heart of MtM's rant. Under this view sex can be divided into two categories: enjoyable sex (which is immoral) and moral sex (which is apparently unenjoyable, if not downright unpleasant). While this horror at the thought of sensual enjoyment is a common thread in many strains of Christianity, it isn't the necessary component some treat it as.
So, how much of a sense of play does it take for sex to become immoral? This sort of question is similar to asking how many lifetime sex partners are too many. The 'correct' answer is usually just slightly more than however much/many the person asking the question has had.
To be clear: my "rant" is focused only on sexual immorality: which I assert is the same no matter what your gender attraction happens to be.
"Sense of play" has nothing whatsoever to do with sex being judged morally or immorally. Commitment to "The Other" is what makes the only difference. Sex ought to be reserved solely for The Other.
But this is not a perfect world so sex, like everything else, gets enjoyed imperfectly by imperfect people.
The average number of sex partners in a lifetime is hard to pin down. Obviously the average would be skewed by a tiny minority with a huge number of sex partners (Grandpa in Little Miss Sunshine, giving advice to his teenaged grandson: "Screw a lot of women. I mean a lot of women"), and those who remain, as Tolkien (and so far, yours truly), monogomous to the end of their days. The "6 partners", quoted from the dating Website above by Spiffy, still indicates that most of society looks hard for "The Other", and many never find him/her; but, I gather, hope springs eternal....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm also not sure what's supposed to be concealed behind the "façade" of the GBLT movement. So far the accusation seems to be that they're defying the sexual norms of society in pursuit of their secret agenda of . . . defying the sexual norms of society.
I don't think "façade" means what MtM thinks it does.
I confess, the title was deliberately provocative; but not inaccurate. As I pointed out in my response above: the Media is to blame: but also the GLBT advocates who are most vocal and do not serve their cause well because of their extremism.
The "facade" is that "Gay Pride" is only about gaining full acceptance by the heterosexual "Moral Majority", i.e. getting equality under the laws. In fact, if they can pull this off, the GLBT will get special-mention laws passed wherever they can. And those special exceptions (protections) are a form of reverse discrimination against the majority in society. This is very, very bad: because if successful, the GLBT will have opened the door to any and sundry other special groups to get similarly "special" (exclusive) laws passed to recognize and protect themselves.
So the facade is benign, where no such quality exists with the advocates. Their agenda is rebellion. And as we know, any rebellion includes a large proportion of those who join simply for the rush of being rebellious. I would include in this group the many hetero friends of GLBTs, who love a good cause to join. This isn't de facto a bad thing: but it is hard to separate out the merely rebellious (for its own sake) from those sincerely fighting for needed change....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
...
His issue seems to be the usual one - that gay people are all promiscuous. He says so outright, in fact. And, of course, that gay sex is immoral in its own right....
You went and changed my "vast majority" into ALL. I did not say that at all, much less "outright". I also did not say that gay sex is immoral: I clearly stated that immorality is promiscuity, period, end of discussion. The same definition of moral sex ought to apply regardless of gender attraction. (I will not speak to the plethora of dogmatic, religious approaches to the thorny issue of homosexuality, as an attraction, being regarded as a sin if acted upon....)
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
So Merlin: are you claiming here that it's the push for marriage that's the "facade"?
Or are you referring to gay rights in general? What's the issue, exactly?
Largely, the push for "marriage" is a facade to obtain special laws recognizing and protecting GLBT as a minority group. This is absurd and dangerous, as I already said. There shouldn't even be such a thing as "gay rights". To identify a group of human being based solely on what they find sexually attractive is ludicrous! You could just as easily segregate society into "special" groups (minorities) for recognition under the law for a limitless number of things. Anyone who can't see this slippery slope is already sliding down it....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
The "facade" is that "Gay Pride" is only about gaining full acceptance by the heterosexual "Moral Majority", i.e. getting equality under the laws. In fact, if they can pull this off, the GLBT will get special-mention laws passed wherever they can. And those special exceptions (protections) are a form of reverse discrimination against the majority in society. This is very, very bad: because if successful, the GLBT will have opened the door to any and sundry other special groups to get similarly "special" (exclusive) laws passed to recognize and protect themselves.
So the facade is benign, where no such quality exists with the advocates. Their agenda is rebellion. And as we know, any rebellion includes a large proportion of those who join simply for the rush of being rebellious. I would include in this group the many hetero friends of GLBTs, who love a good cause to join. This isn't de facto a bad thing: but it is hard to separate out the merely rebellious (for its own sake) from those sincerely fighting for needed change....
I don't think so, really, Merlin. First of all, "Gay Pride parades" were originally marches for equal rights; they started in the late 60s and early 70s; see some photos from the era here. There are no Speedos and there's no grinding (at least, they are not on view here). Here's an image from 1967 London. Some funny stuff there, but still no Speedos.
I'm not sure when it got to be a "parade," but it started out as march for civil rights.
Naturally, because the topic is (ostensibly) "sexual freedom" - which was part of it, yes, but most people orginally simply wanted to be liberated to openly love the people they love, an utterly mundane human desire - you get sexual content as well, which most people were uncomfortable with because homosexuality was such a deep taboo. (And yes, this meant that some gay people were fond of shock value, too - but others were simply trying to normalize our relationships.)
Today, it's a party. I suppose some people might have been into it for "rebellion" in the past - but "rebellion" isn't really necessary in many places anymore. Speedo/grinding seems really out there (I guess) to Carl Paladino, but to lots of us it's just really lame and tired by now, in fact!
I would say that the motivation for most people who argue for GLBT rights is simple: gay people would like the same rights as everybody else. We pay taxes like everybody else, after all; why should we be denied the simplest benefits that others take for granted? This may seem shocking to some who still can't accept homosexuality, but that's pretty much where things are now, as far as I can see.
"Rebellion" is pretty much over, and "mindlessness" may have set in at this point....
[ 13. October 2010, 16:20: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
There shouldn't even be such a thing as "gay rights". To identify a group of human being based solely on what they find sexually attractive is ludicrous! You could just as easily segregate society into "special" groups (minorities) for recognition under the law for a limitless number of things. Anyone who can't see this slippery slope is already sliding down it....
Nonsense. The slope is only upwards towards equality and tolerance - and there is a long way to go yet.
Your sexuality is a deep part of who you are - of course you should have protection under the law, and all the rights of other people, whether that be marriage or anything else.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by iGeek:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Is sex a plaything? Obviously the answer is "yes" for most people
Unsubstantiated claim. It's not so obvious to me. You start out with this unprovable claim and attempt to build some kind of argument on it.
So you missed (or conveniently eliminated) the observation I made about the Net and porn? That is evidence of the truth of my assertion, bordering on making it into a fact. MOST people view sex as a plaything. That is not, by itself, a bad thing. How "plaything" is carried out, that's what defines the sex as good, bad or indifferent.
quote:
There are really only TWO groups; those that treat sex morally, and those that treat it as MY plaything, and I should be free to use it whenever and with whomsoever I like quote:
That's right ... the world is black and white and there are no shades of gray.
Don't just be flippant; show some examples of that you mean. What other moral and immoral groups are there? If you come up with "threesomes" as an okay expression of fidelity to "The Other", then we part ways on irreconcilable differences in definition of "sexual morality".
quote:
So when a so-called Gay Pride parade/rally is held, what are the vast majority of participants/advocates really doing?
quote:
Ooh. I'm impressed with the linking together of so obviously related logically following concepts. I'm guessing that the gay pride participants can't be in the group that have ethics about sex.
"The vast majority" AT the parades, appear to me to be not typical of the bulk of GLBT people: they are either there to be titilated, entertained, or some other reason not directly analogous to defending a moral position. A large number of them (possibly the majority visible at such events) are not even GLBT at all.
...
quote:
...most do not limit their sexual play to a monogomous relationship
quote:
Facts and references, sir. And while you're at it, make sure you compare apples to apples and include the statistics about fidelity of opposite sex couples as well.
Another blowhard rant without any basis in facts or experience.
I was pointing out the participants at rallies and parades. If the GLBT for the main part is like I am, they don't associate in such grandstanding in the first place; i.e. they are not visible to the Media at all....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
So Merlin: are you claiming here that it's the push for marriage that's the "facade"?
Or are you referring to gay rights in general? What's the issue, exactly?
Largely, the push for "marriage" is a facade to obtain special laws recognizing and protecting GLBT as a minority group. This is absurd and dangerous, as I already said. There shouldn't even be such a thing as "gay rights". To identify a group of human being based solely on what they find sexually attractive is ludicrous! You could just as easily segregate society into "special" groups (minorities) for recognition under the law for a limitless number of things. Anyone who can't see this slippery slope is already sliding down it....
You're married, according to your website; was that an effort on your part to obtain "special rights"?
Why is it so hard to believe that gay couples simply want to cease being "strangers before the law"? You and your wife and family are recognized as related; why shouldn't gay families be accorded the same?
And please give some examples of what you think will happen at the end of this "slippery slope"; it's pretty hard to have a discussion about abstractions.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
...
His issue seems to be the usual one - that gay people are all promiscuous. He says so outright, in fact. And, of course, that gay sex is immoral in its own right....
You went and changed my "vast majority" into ALL. I did not say that at all, much less "outright". I also did not say that gay sex is immoral: I clearly stated that immorality is promiscuity, period, end of discussion. The same definition of moral sex ought to apply regardless of gender attraction. (I will not speak to the plethora of dogmatic, religious approaches to the thorny issue of homosexuality, as an attraction, being regarded as a sin if acted upon....)
Well, OK. What you said was, exactly, that "most do not limit their sexual play to a monogomous relationship (i.e a "marriage" intended for life)."
But of course "most" isn't anywhere close, either, according to what Spiffy posted here - and she actually offered some evidence.....
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
For the record: Gay people didn't ask to be singled out as a special group and treated differently based on who we find attractive. Heterosexuals have done that for millenia. All gay people want is legal protections to ensure that doesn't continue.
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Largely, the push for "marriage" is a facade to obtain special laws recognizing and protecting GLBT as a minority group. This is absurd and dangerous, as I already said. There shouldn't even be such a thing as "gay rights". To identify a group of human being based solely on what they find sexually attractive is ludicrous!
Is this more or less ludicrous than "religious rights", identifying a group of human beings based solely on their worship practices?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I suspect that only the hard-wired gay guys, who have dozens, scores or even hundreds of partners, are the focus of the media: e "Moral (heterosexual) Majority"....
What on earth is a 'hard-wired gay'?
As for 'special' protection, the push for civil partnerships/marriage is about EQUAL rights e.g, if one guy is in hospital, a distant blood-relative can make decisions as 'next of kin' e.g. to turn off life-support, whereas the long-term partner may not even be allowed to visit.
And may not even know when the funeral is, let along be invited.
[ 13. October 2010, 16:58: Message edited by: leo ]
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
...
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
...Here's the problem with the whole sexual revolution today: it is focused on DIFFERENCES in sexual expression, where those are merely perceived and not actual.
Huh? What on earth does this mean? Are you claiming there's no real difference at all among the ways different people -- of different genders, different cultures, different hang-ups, different desires, etc. -- express their sexuality? You lost me.
"Normal" is an individual matter. You already admitted that you agree. Consideration from "The Other" admits and accepts this, or you don't have a relationship, you have a breakup.
But I'm not talking about individual differences of sexual expression: I am talking about the GLBT (that's FOUR general groups, right there, lumped under one advocacy) not possessing some separate claim or right to distinction vis-a-vis morality or immorality. I am simply saying that sex is either engaged in morally or immorally, and that monogomous (meant for life or as long as possible) sex is the ONLY moral expression of it. Anything else not in consideration of The Other is a degree of sexual immorality.
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
So-called GLBT advocacy is all about what is sexually attractive: the assumption is that any GLBT expression is okeedokee. quote:
Gee, and here's silly me thinking it was all about treating citizens alike under the Constitution.
That's the facade. The reality is special recognition as a minority group (based on sexual predilection? Come on!)
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Alright, let's assume for arguement's sake that's true. At what point does society have the duty and the right to impose limitations on GLBT? quote:
The point at which someone is being forced, exploited, or victimized.
Agreed. And we don't require any change to the laws to accomplish that.
The trouble with the GLBT advocacy movement is that it is pushing for special recognition. This is pushing too hard too fast. It is impatient. I can see why anyone who feels marginalized and victimized would want the change NOW. But this isn't the way to go about it. Change happens only as fast as the majority give way. And fairness across the spectrum is the only way that the majority are going to give ground on this.
The laws, as they stand, protect EVERYONE equally. As applied, no they do not. And that's where the litigation will force the change, one case at a time; one victory at a time. GLBTs can cohabit in the modern world (USA and the "West"); it isn't easy for them, still, but the climate of change is already well under way - the momentum is still building. We don't require specially recognized minority groups: legally recognized minorities are a huge step in the wrong direction. (that's actually a different subject)
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
The line in the sand is, "Only consenting adults". (Obviously, a twisted, pedophile segment don't agree to that line in the sand.)
quote:
1. Define "sexual excess." Are we talking specific sexual practices? Number of times per day, week, or month? Are we talking about public displays? What are you talking about?
You already mentioned it: coercion, predation, possession, etc. That, and multiple, casual partners; making sex into MY plaything only.
quote:
2. I agree that there are serious problems with categorizing people into groups by their sexual preferences. In fact, there's a problem with categorizing people, period. For one thing, it seems to render the process of dehumanizing certain people and denying them basic rights of citizenship much easier.
We seem to agree on this.
quote:
3. I don't agree that gay pride parades or demos are all about pushing sexual immorality in "people's" (by which I take it you mean heterosexuals, which is a telling distinction in and of itself) faces.
I didn't say "people's", I said: "They are celebrating and pushing their sexual immorality in the face of the established, traditional morality..." That is a monolithic group every bit as much as an asserted GLBT group is.
quote:
Especially as a hefty percentage of participants and attendees are likely to be non-heteros themselves. Rather, they are efforts to make visible what some parts of society wish to make invisible. Or wish to make disappear.
Hefty percentage, yes. A majority attending, not so likely. As GLBT is well under 10% of the population, in total, (your estimate may vary, but please provide a reference for asserting so), it stands to reason that well-attended rallies and parades are largely attended by heteros; probably a large percentage of them are merely curious, and (or) friends of the GLBT participants.
quote:
4. As already noted by Spiffy, most people tend eventually to settle into monogamous relationships, many after a certain amount of youthful experimentation.
Sounds like most heteros I know! You're welcome, for giving you, et al. the chance to point this out, again. It needs to be said a lot.
quote:
Do you seriously contemplate a time when sex between adults and children, parents & offspring, siblings, humans & members of other species, etc. will be permitted? And that in this new age of sexual laissez-faire, we will all be compelled to define what is and isn't OK for ourselves? Will this be with or without any reference to our own personal inclinations?
I think your scenario is unlikely.
No, nothing so extreme. Near future: it could happen that one advocacy group after another could tie up the courts and legislative bodies of the land in endless appeal and litigation over just sexual differences (IF this GLBT advocacy gets its way, and new changes to the laws recognize them as a legal minority group). There is precedent, in history and other parts of the world, for allowing "sex by eight or it's too late" kind of thinking. If you doubt this, you are a bigger bunny than even I am....
...
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Don't just be flippant; show some examples of that you mean. What other moral and immoral groups are there? If you come up with "threesomes" as an okay expression of fidelity to "The Other", then we part ways on irreconcilable differences in definition of "sexual morality".
Merlin - you seem to me to be failing utterly to explain whatever point it is that you are trying to make. At one point you seem to be saying that straight/gay is a meaningless distinction, and monogamy vs promiscuity is what counts, and the next minute you appear to be saying that gays should be allowed legal recognition of monogamous relationships in the way that straights are.
Is your point essentially that you distrust the 'gay rights' movement because it includes BOTH moralists who are seeking to place faithful gay relationship into a moral context AND immoralists who would destroy the whole concept of sexual morality altogether?
Or is it that human sexual behaviour requires a moral framework for society to function, and that the moral framework we have as a 'given' is to be treated respectfully, because it would be difficult or impossible to vary it to include, say, gay marriage, without making sexual behaviour essentially a matter of personal free choice and legitimising such things as group sex, polyamory, pornography and exploitative sex, which ought to be discouraged? That it is, basically, better to have a traditional moral code which more-or-less works, than to be liberal about sexual morality and find that we have no basis for condemning what may be formally consensual, but which all decent people would say is immoral?
Or are you saying something else?
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Hmmm. Maybe I get it now, since
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
So-called GLBT advocacy is all about what is sexually attractive: the assumption is that any GLBT expression is okeedokee.
Is this what you're getting at? Is this the "facade" you're talking about?
Well, you're wrong, on two counts. First, as I've written here lately, I'm emotionally attracted to members of my own sex; I can't seem to "fall in love" with people of the opposite gender. I never have, not even once, not even the slightest.
It's not, for me, about "what is sexually attractive" - not really. So think about how that fits into your statement above. Most gay people, for your information, happen to be attracted (in whatever way) to members of our own gender - and by far most of us want a permanent relationship. A partner. I've never met a gay person who didn't want this, as a matter of fact.
I believe you. Anecdotal experience on this thread alone says that GLBTs know this sort of person and not the Media hyped kind: the promiscuous, "glory hole" one-night-stand kind.
"You" are not being well-served by the Media in your cause. Even the advocates put the sexual activity aspect up front as a right to be recognized and accepted. So "emotional", passionate attachment, unrequited, is hardly the issue when sex is being discussed.
quote:
Second, it's not true that "any GLBT expression is okeedokee" - at least, it's not any more true for GLBT than for heterosexuals. Really, heteroseuxals do their own share of grinding in various situations; see some of these listed above. It would be a mistake for me to assume that ALL heterosexuals grind in public, though; that's the very mistake you're making here.
No, I'm not asserting that ALL (or even very many) GLBTs enjoy parading their sexual activities in public. The "pride" parades are revolting to most people (that doesn't keep onlookers from scoping them out, though!)
I'm glad to read these denouncements of PDA!
In fact, for all of us to get along in the future (after all of these thorny details have been worked out), PDA is going to have to be very general and non sexual. European men traditionally meet affectionately, as women do: with a kiss and a hug and spoken endearments. But actual "get a room" type displays are not polite. A similar, cultural approach here in the USA will be necessary, in order for homosexuals and heterosexuals to get along in public together....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse.:
Gee, I do hope that Merlin will return to respond to the fallout from his bomb.
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Hmmmm... in the "good old days" when gays were in the closet and marriage ruled the land, the wife was the husband's plaything to be used however he wanted (and he didn't need permission!) Until the 1950s women legally belonged to men once they were married. ... Ahhh.. yes. The good old days of traditional morality. ...
I hear things are still that way in Utah.
Rossy, you never disappoint me The "Moral Majority" of Utah (the mainline LDS church, Mormons all), look on the FLDS minority the same way. I am sure the Media has skewed our perceptions of those who live even amongst us as our very neighbors....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Paladino is a complete disaster. American politics in general is a complete disaster at the moment, though.
(Oh, Merlin? Where ARE you? It's not NICE or POLITE to dump a complaint thread someplace and never return to deal with it again, you know....)
As you can tell, I tend to return a day later, and answer each post as it seems requisite, first to last. I just now finished the "original 29" I saw when I checked in this morning. Now I'm off to do RL stuff: I daren't look at even the first response to my responses of this morning, or I shall not depart from this chair till well on in the afternoon! Till later, then....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I am simply saying that sex is either engaged in morally or immorally, . . .
Actually I believe your original post said sex could either be engaged in morally or playfully, but not both. Your sudden reversal on this point was so quick it nearly gave me whiplash.
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
The trouble with the GLBT advocacy movement is that it is pushing for special recognition. This is pushing too hard too fast. It is impatient. I can see why anyone who feels marginalized and victimized would want the change NOW. But this isn't the way to go about it. Change happens only as fast as the majority give way. And fairness across the spectrum is the only way that the majority are going to give ground on this.
That's one view of "equality", that it's granted by the special suffrance of the majority, or just as arbitrarily withheld. There is, of course, a rival viewpoint.
quote:
We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant "Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied."
No matter how slowly the wheels of equality turn, they're always moving too fast for liking of the MtMs of the world. It's the difference between "all deliberate speed" and "all deliberate speed".
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
The laws, as they stand, protect EVERYONE equally. As applied, no they do not.
Which is, of course, an outright lie. Your own chosen example, marriage law, is not written to protect same-sex couples in the same way it does opposite-sex couples in most American jurisdictions.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
"You" are not being well-served by the Media in your cause.
What a shock! So let me ask: are "you" being well-served by the Media? If not - is this your fault, somehow, and are you expected to do something about it?
Probably not. One difference, though, is that I don't start threads denouncing you (and whatever group you're a part of advocating whatever cause you support) for being insincere and a "facade."
I also don't make wild claims unsupported by any evidence or even argument....
[ 13. October 2010, 17:50: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
