|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: I call all homophobes to Hell - especially Russ
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Hey Big Sis, that REALLY is sadistic of you.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carex
Shipmate
# 9643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
And if that's cavalier, then pass me my ruff...
Harm, troll-boy, harm.
No, Russ doesn't care about whether something is harmful or not. That apparently doesn't have anything to do with whether something is moral or immoral.
Otherwise he wouldn't be advocating an approach that has been shown to cause unnecessary harm to children as being more moral than one that doesn't. If he starts looking at whether or not something causes harm then his whole argument falls apart (well, assuming he actually had an argument to make in the first place.)
Posts: 1425 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
why you're persisting in being such an asshole to your fellow human beings who are doing you no harm
That doesn't need the 'you' in there. He's being an asshole to human beings who are doing no harm.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
Is anybody else on this thread watching the third series of The Bridge? (Scandinavian detective drama; blonde Swedish detective with no interpersonal skills). There's a character on that who could be Russ.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Because after 37 fucking pages, that's really the only reason I can think of for a) why you're persisting in being such an asshole to your fellow human beings who are doing you no harm whatsoever, and b) why you have no rational arguments whatsoever except shame about your own sexual obsessions, which apparently include sadism, wife beating, and having your balls nailed to a plank.
On the other hand, they say everybody needs a hobby...
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Because after 37 fucking pages, that's really the only reason I can think of for a) why you're persisting in being such an asshole to your fellow human beings who are doing you no harm whatsoever, and b) why you have no rational arguments whatsoever except shame about your own sexual obsessions, which apparently include sadism, wife beating, and having your balls nailed to a plank.
On the other hand, they say everybody needs a hobby...
...horse
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
and, a deceased equine at that.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Russ--
It sounds like you have just one "ewww, ick!" setting--so domestic violence, torture of animals, public nose-picking, and homosexual behavior are all in the same box?
Do you really think they're all equally bad? All the same kind of bad???
People have said this all through the thread. IIRC, you've never given a plain-language answer.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Huia
Shipmate
# 3473
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
On the other hand, they say everybody needs a hobby...
A hobby!!!??? - the word monomania springs to mind.
If he weren't verbally persecuting others with his views I would think it was really sad that someone was so spiritually impoverished to spend so much energy denying other people their right to love.
As it is the description Sick Fuck seems more accurate.
Huia
[ 30. November 2015, 04:32: Message edited by: Huia ]
--------------------
Charity gives food from the table, Justice gives a place at the table.
Posts: 10382 | From: Te Wai Pounamu | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
The description is better described as "Sick Fuck who thinks that abusing bisexual children is fine and moral."
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Is anybody else on this thread watching the third series of The Bridge? (Scandinavian detective drama; blonde Swedish detective with no interpersonal skills). There's a character on that who could be Russ.
You give away plot points prior to the Australian broadcast, you die.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
You give away plot points prior to the Australian broadcast, you die.
That's the murderer's motivation in series four.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erik
Shipmate
# 11406
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I've argued that morality is about choices. People who are "born gay" do not have the choice of heterosexual fulfilment, and are therefore not guilty of choosing the morally less-good. A caring and faithful homosexual relationship may be the best choice that they can make.
But that for those who do have the choice of honouring their father and mother by forming a father-mother pair-bond, choosing a gay lifestyle instead is a morally-bad choice. (Whereas giving up that good for something higher such as a religious vocation or humanity-serving career may conceivably be a morally-good choice).
I think you are missing the point I was trying to make. I would like to repeat that I do not see being in a relationship that can't lead to children as being a morally-bad choice. Even if the person in question could alternatively be in a relationship with a fertile, opposite sex partner. It's not about whether the person is gay (and so will only fall in love with someone of the same sex) or bi (and so could fall in love with someone of either sex). It doesn't matter. The same-sex relationship is not a morally-bad choice. A relationship which can't lead to children is not a morally-bad choise. Again, why should it be?
Also, I would like to ask why you have used those particular examples (wife-beating, nose-picking, etc) in your analogy? What similarities do you think they have with homosexuality which make the analogy useful? I can't see any.
--------------------
One day I will think of something worth saying here.
Posts: 96 | From: Leeds, UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
So that for the born-gay to try to promote their acts as an equally-good way of life is an incitement to morally bad choices if they neglect to add the rider "as long as you're sure you're a born-gay".
If only there were some kind of social code to reinforce the inferiority of homosexuals relative to their heterosexual superiors. Luckily there's just such a system lying around here in the dustbin of history! Just dust it off, change a few words around, and you're good to go.
quote:
A [homosexual] should not offer his hand (to shake hands) with an [opposite-sex heterosexual] because it implies being socially equal. Obviously, a [homosexual] should not offer his hand or any other part of his body to a [same-sex heterosexual], because he risks being accused of rape.
[Homosexuals] and [heterosexuals] are not supposed to eat together. If they do eat together, [heterosexuals] are to be served first, and some sort of partition will be placed between them.
Under no circumstance is a [homosexual] to offer to light the cigarette of a [same-sex heterosexual] -- that gesture implied intimacy.
[Homosexuals] are not allowed to show public affection toward one another in public, especially kissing, because it offends [heterosexuals].
Etiquette prescribes that [homosexuals] are introduced to [heterosexuals], never [heterosexuals] to [homosexuals]. For example: "Mr. Adams (the [heterosexual]), this is Steve (the [homosexual] person), that I spoke to you about."
[Heterosexuals] do not use courtesy titles of respect when referring to [homosexuals], for example, Mr., Mrs., Miss, Sir, or Ma'am. Instead, [homosexuals] are called by their first names. [Homosexuals] have to use courtesy titles when referring to [heterosexuals], and are not allowed to call them by their first names.
If a [homosexual] person rides in a car driven by a [heterosexual] person, the [homosexual] must sit in the back seat, or the back of a truck.
[Heterosexual] motorists have the right-of-way at all intersections.
That should keep everyone "in their place", so to speak. Of course, given the dangers of passing for straight, some kind of visible indicator or badge would be necessary to enforce this kind of Russ-optimized social structure. Luckily the dustbin of history comes through again!
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
If a wife-beater wants wife-beating to be considered as normal and morally-OK and respectable, . . .
But aren't you implicitly arguing that wife-beating is respectable, or at least more respectable than a non-physically abusive homosexual relationship? After all, abusive heterosexual couples can (and often do) produce children, which by your reasoning would seem to make them morally superior to any same-sex couple.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
St Deird
Shipmate
# 7631
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
You give away plot points prior to the Australian broadcast, you die.
That's the murderer's motivation in series four.
Put him up before an Aussie jury, and we'd all acquit. Justifiable homicide, if ever there was one.
--------------------
They're not hobbies; they're a robust post-apocalyptic skill-set.
Posts: 319 | From: the other side of nowhere | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Russ--
It sounds like you have just one "ewww, ick!" setting--so domestic violence, torture of animals, public nose-picking, and homosexual behavior are all in the same box?
Do you really think they're all equally bad? All the same kind of bad???
I'm mainly responding there to the suggestion that all gay people want is for their activities to he accepted. By pointing out that the existence of such a desire is both unsurprising and not in itself an argument that such acceptance would be a good thing.
And they're not at all equally bad or the same sort of bad.
Assaulting someone is clearly morally wrong; being married to someone doesn't make it OK to beat them up. Don't think there's much to debate there.
Pulling wings off flies is harder to categorise. Some people might say it's wrong only because it causes the fly pain. I've no idea whether a fly can feel pain. We don't usually think it wrong if someone just kills a fly. And I wouldn't have any moral issue with someone catching a fly and selling it.
If the science showed that flies don't feel pain, would that make wing-pulling OK ?
My sense is that it would not. That there's a wrongness in the action because it demeans and abuses the fly. To want to do that is a twisted desire.
Picking one's nose, on the other hand, is something that ISTM there's nothing intrinsically wrong with. The wrongness there is the wilful disregard for the sensibility of others who are likely to be disgusted by seeing me do it in public.
So I'm suggesting as a secondary point that when it comes to judging what behaviour we find good we use a wider range of criteria than just the sort of direct harm that would be involved in a man beating his wife.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I'm mainly responding there to the suggestion that all gay people want is for their activities to he accepted. By pointing out that the existence of such a desire is both unsurprising and not in itself an argument that such acceptance would be a good thing.
I think Dafyd's point is that IF you are taking a 'natural law' approach to morality, and you are considering an activity that many human being feel a strong desire to do, that is, they find that doing it is a source of deep fulfilment and enriches their lives, then that at least raises a presumption that they are acting according to the proper purposes of their human nature, not contrary to the natural law.
He is obviously NOT saying that this is the end of the discussion. Obviously there can be desires that are strongly felt, yet work against (what we might ultimately conclude is) our deepest fulfilment. The point is, that the exceptions need to be argued for. You can't just dismiss the fact of human longings, under a natural law approach. You need to explain why the people who feel that their purpose is best achieved by acting on that specific desire are mistaken about what true human satisfaction consists of.
The examples you give would not, I think, greatly trouble a natural law theorist. The man who thinks his best interests are served by violently controlling his partner really would be happier, more fulfilled, more human, if he lost whatever insecurity or rage currently makes him find violence so compelling, and sought a relationship in which he could be loved and respected rather than feared. Similarly, the person who tortures flies is taking the wrong sort of pleasure from the natural world - wrong in that its tendency is to make the person more spiteful and less open to the sort of experiences and relationships which human beings are so made as to find most satisfying. The public nose-picker is missing out on the sensitivity to other people's comfort that would allow him access to a fuller human experience.
But even though these are all easy cases, the burden is still on the natural law theorist to say why a felt desire should not be followed. If he or she can't find something to say against it, it must at least presumptively be allowed to stand as a potential good. Natural law theory can't justify the frustration of desire to no good purpose.
You have yet to set out any good argument why you want to frustrate the natural desire of gay people to practice, celebrate, and be accepted in, their loving relationships. Pointing out, as if in rebuttal of Dafyd's point, that there are other 'natural desires' that we don't endorse is true, but stupid. We can all see why we make exceptions for those other desires - usually because they hurt people, and (on a natural law view) hurting people frustrates the truest fulfilment both of those being hurt and those doing the hurting. Whereas loving relationships are not usually considered contrary to human fulfilment but (for most of us) an important part of it.
It is your unreasoning (and uncaring) dismissal of other people's longing that is objected to - both as unfeeling and callous in and of itself, and as inconsistent with the natural law approach which is the basis of such feeble arguments as you have tried to advance.
[ 14. December 2015, 00:06: Message edited by: Eliab ]
--------------------
"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
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
So what's a mom to do when she wears a tattoo of her kid, and the kid comes out as transgendered?
"Mom Alters Tattoo to Support Transgender Son’s True Identity" (Yahoo).
The story also has a link to the original story from the Calgary Global News. Follow it. The two stories have different bits of info.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The5thMary
Shipmate
# 12953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Oops. Left out nose-picking. Not a kink I was previously familiar with, but hey, there's a place for everyone on the internet.
I had a friend who was a slave to a guy in a consensual S/M relationship. She said he was really kinky, which she liked but he had this really gross habit of picking his nose and covering his bed sheets with the boogers.
So! There you have it, a booger kink of the most disgusting order! And these two humans considered themselves Christian AND Pagan... the mind reels...
![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
--------------------
God gave me my face but She let me pick my nose.
Posts: 3451 | From: Tacoma, WA USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jemima the 9th
Shipmate
# 15106
|
Posted
To read that in combination with your sig is particularly classy. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posts: 801 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
The5thMary
Shipmate
# 12953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
To read that in combination with your sig is particularly classy.
Hey, you know, I try. I'm the nun that none of you want! ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
God gave me my face but She let me pick my nose.
Posts: 3451 | From: Tacoma, WA USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
You need to explain why the people who feel that their purpose is best achieved by acting on that specific desire are mistaken about what true human satisfaction consists of.
I'vs suggested that "true human satisfaction" involves forming a mother-father pair and having children to carry on the family. So that anyone for whom this is an option is mistaken in acting on any temporary homosexual urges they may experience.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
the person who tortures flies is taking the wrong sort of pleasure from the natural world - wrong in that its tendency is to make the person more spiteful and less open to the sort of experiences and relationships which human beings are so made as to find most satisfying.
I think you're mistaken on this one. I don't see a causal path from torturing flies to being spiteful and anti-social. It's not about relationships with other people; it's about our relationship with the created order. I think what's wrong with torturing flies is (loosely speaking) using part of creation for a lower purpose than it was made for.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
The public nose-picker is missing out on the sensitivity to other people's comfort that would allow him access to a fuller human experience.
And the gay people who kiss each other in public are missing out on the sensitivity to other people's discomfort that would...
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
You have yet to set out any good argument why you want to frustrate the natural desire of gay people to practice, celebrate, and be accepted in, their loving relationships.
I tend to agree with the general approach that you're putting forward here - that satisfying one's own desires is a good thing unless there is a reason to the contrary. And that reason is usually about a harm or hurt or negative impact on other people (in which case other people have a legitimate interest in saying "don't do it"). But can be about a negative impact on oneself (in which case we more often tolerate the behaviour).
I've agreed that gay people should be allowed to "practice" in private - that this may be the most fulfilling outcome for them. And don't have a problem with "celebrate" in private and talking accepting words to each other in private for the same reasons - that what one does in private has no negative impact on other people.
I've suggested four negative impacts that should be avoided:
- a negative impact on people in future generations if research into cure or prevention of homosexuality is impeded
- a negative impact on vulnerable young people capable of parenthood if they are led into trying to satisfy any passing or temporary homosexual feelings they may have
- a negative impact on those who feel disgust at homosexuality
- a negative impact on those for whom marriage is a sacrament if they are legally compelled to recognise as a marriage something that isn't.
You may think that these impacts are relatively small matters. But that's matter of degree rather than a matter of principle.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
You are so not worth the effort of a reasoned or clever response, troll boy.
If you have children, I hope you spare them the discomfort of being associated with you by not acknowledging the relationship in public.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
You need to explain why the people who feel that their purpose is best achieved by acting on that specific desire are mistaken about what true human satisfaction consists of.
I'vs suggested that "true human satisfaction" involves forming a mother-father pair and having children to carry on the family. So that anyone for whom this is an option is mistaken in acting on any temporary homosexual urges they may experience.
Having children is a major human good. It is not a necessary human good. Not all human goods, not even all major human goods, are capable of being combined in a single lifetime. And indeed there are many human goods which not all of us are capable - there's no doubt that artistic achievements or scientific discoveries are major human goods, but few people are capable of them.
Therefore, it would not follow from the fact that homosexuals do not have children that their lives do not involve 'true human satisfaction'.
Unless you want to say the same about the Pope, the Dalai Lama, Isaac Newton, etc etc.
Of course, some homosexuals do have children. Now it is true that they do not have children who are the biological children of both them and their partner.
However, any conceivable human society requires at least some people to raise children who are not their own biological children. Any conceivable human society will have some orphans. Now orphans are more likely to find fostering or adoption in a society that regards biological parenthood as being equally good as adoptive parenthood or other non-biological parenthood. Since the society requires that, it follows that it cannot be a natural law good to regard biological parenthood as overall superior. (One may of course regard it as superior in some respects and inferior in others.)
quote:
I've suggested four negative impacts that should be avoided:
The problem is that these are all only negative effects if you already think homosexuality is a bad thing. Since you're using the claim that they're negative effects to argue that homosexuality is a bad thing, your argument is circular.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I'vs suggested that "true human satisfaction" involves forming a mother-father pair and having children to carry on the family.
Are you further suggesting that no other human satisfactions are true? In a world suffering from overpopulation of upright arrogant monkeys, I suggest that your definition is short-sighted and among the many primitive urges that perhaps it would be best for some people to resist.
quote:
I've suggested four negative impacts that should be avoided:
- homosexuality is icky
- homosexuality is icky
- a negative impact on those who feel disgust at homosexuality
- homosexuality is icky
I have problems with your counting. Not to mention their fundamental basis about why they should be avoided.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
You need to explain why the people who feel that their purpose is best achieved by acting on that specific desire are mistaken about what true human satisfaction consists of.
I'vs suggested that "true human satisfaction" involves forming a mother-father pair and having children to carry on the family.
Hogwash! Hogwash! Hogwash!
From an evolutionary standpoint, every development that has occurred in the species has furthered COMMUNITY existence. In fact, I would argue that the healthy basis of religion-- whether you think a higher power is involved, or merely a synthesis of psychological functions-- is to facilitate that preservation and enhancement of that evolutionary track.
Maybe you have to live in a big fracking city that dot-com built (read: the entire San Francisco Peninsula and certain parts south) to observe that people focusing on 2-parent pairs and their kids results in a whole lot of isolated nuclear family groups competing each other into extinction. The fact of the matter is, that model of the nuclear family unit against the world, if you picture a human evolutionary clock, has only existed for a fraction of a second, and even the we clearly see it is struggling to exist. The health family, throughout time, has been a healthy extended family, because the parent unit simply does not have the energy to do it all on their own. And for most of history, NOBODY EXPECTED THEM TO.
This is why throughout time people were allowed to be "bachelor uncles" and "spinster aunts" and if anything else was going on, everyone turned a blind eye. Because they belonged, and they were a component of a strong extended family network.
True human satisfaction comes from forming close connections, from being significant and useful to others, and from a sense of belonging--- somewhere. By insisting that those connections all look the same, we actually force evolution to work backwards.
Insisting Hetero marriage is the be-all end-all is just as efficient a way to plunge the majority of society into misery as is insisting that all sex must be catastrophically ecstatic, and the common factor in both of those declarations is entire industries are built on the misery they inflict. And both ideas are equally grounded in reality- meaning, not.
Christianity certainly does not teach that marriage is the only way to spiritual contentment. What religion does?
[ 20. December 2015, 19:25: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
Russ, your own religion teaches otherwise. Paul says that, while it "is better to marry than burn", the best state is celebacy, does he not?
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
This is why throughout time people were allowed to be "bachelor uncles" and "spinster aunts" and if anything else was going on, everyone turned a blind eye. Because they belonged, and they were a component of a strong extended family network.
Actually this would be the Western Civ narrative, because some societies-- Native American, for instance-- have found overt ways to assimilate and make the most of people of alternate gender and sexual identity.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
anne
Shipmate
# 73
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Originally posted by Eliab:
You need to explain why the people who feel that their purpose is best achieved by acting on that specific desire are mistaken about what true human satisfaction consists of.
I'vs suggested that "true human satisfaction" involves forming a mother-father pair and having children to carry on the family. So that anyone for whom this is an option is mistaken in acting on any temporary homosexual urges they may experience.
Oh, it's Advent 4, I've got a cold and a really busy week, why do you have to make me so cross? We were here just 30 short pages ago.
I am a human being who has never married and will never have children. On what basis do you dare to declare that I cannot achieve 'true human satisfaction?' And if you do have an answer, maybe you could check it before posting. If you find that you have had to wind yourself in knots in order not to offend the bad tempered straight lady whilst still denying that LGBTI people can experience 'true human satisfaction', then what you have there is a bad answer.
Try to find a better one. In amongst the last 37 pages you will find not just cross reactive messages from me, alongside your own postings. There are also considered, thoughtful responses from people whose experiences of life and love and faith you seem determined to disparaged and insult. Read them. Consider , as the Ship reminds us, the source. Reflect on how it might feel for them to read your posts. Does that change your answer at all?
anne
--------------------
‘I would have given the Church my head, my hand, my heart. She would not have them. She did not know what to do with them. She told me to go back and do crochet' Florence Nightingale
Posts: 338 | From: Devon | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) Anne
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
Yes.
And I seem to recall that the generally accepted view is that God made manifest among us didn't bother to understand true human satisfaction, either.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariston
Insane Unicorn
# 10894
|
Posted
Hi Russ. I'm a hetrosexual, cisgendered male who will probably never marry or have children because I have very serious ethical qualms about all that. As in, I'm not completely sure it's moral for me to pursue a form of life you see as The Highest Thing Possible. So what do you make of me? Should we pursue a cure for my moral scruples? After all, they're keeping me from living up to my calling as a breeder and knocking up some chick.
Oh, and where on God's green earth are you finding all these heterosexuals with temporary homosexual urges? You seem to be oh-so-very-concerned about them, and intent on discouraging them from pursuing their "disordered" inclinations or experimentation, but why? Why are you so convinced there are vast legions of deluded hetro folk who just happen to play gay?
[ 21. December 2015, 04:38: Message edited by: Ariston ]
--------------------
“Therefore, let it be explained that nowhere are the proprieties quite so strictly enforced as in men’s colleges that invite young women guests, especially over-night visitors in the fraternity houses.” Emily Post, 1937.
Posts: 6849 | From: The People's Republic of Balcones | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I'vs suggested that "true human satisfaction" involves forming a mother-father pair and having children to carry on the family.
Are you further suggesting that no other human satisfactions are true?
It's the One Truly Satisfied Scotsman fallacy.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
[voice="Strother Martin"]
What we've got here is NOT a failure to communicate. Naw, what we've got here is a failure of a Human Being.
[/voice]
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dogwalker
Shipmate
# 14135
|
Posted
It truly fascinates me that there are no nuns, priests, or other celibates who have "true human satisfaction".
--------------------
If God had meant for us to fly, he wouldn't have given us the railways. - Unknown
Posts: 155 | From: Milford, MA, USA | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Intentionally denying oneself temporal pleasure, one enhances spiritual awareness. Unless one is gay, then one is just being a decent human being by not spreading gay cooties. Or something.
Fuck. Though Russturbator is a lost cause*, I should play nice for those who might be of similar mind, but not so closed. But why are we providing lubrication for this idiot's pleasure?
Reason, science and compassion fail to convince, what is left?
*If he were sincere, I am still convinced he is trolling.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Reason, science and compassion fail to convince, what is left?
Irrationality, ignorance and bigotry.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dogwalker:
It truly fascinates me that there are no nuns, priests, or other celibates who have "true human satisfaction".
What makes you think that?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
You need to explain why the people who feel that their purpose is best achieved by acting on that specific desire are mistaken about what true human satisfaction consists of.
I'vs suggested that "true human satisfaction" involves forming a mother-father pair and having children to carry on the family. So that anyone for whom this is an option is mistaken in acting on any temporary homosexual urges they may experience.
OK. You could construct a natural law argument like that. Your problem is consistency - you don't in fact think that heterosexual breeding is a mandatory natural law duty. You've said as much. It is possible to have good reasons for not having children.
A thought experiment. Suppose I'm a straight male, in my forties, who happens never to have married or had children. My desire to have children, let's assume, is on the low side of normal - I don't "not want" children, but I don't think that my life will be incomplete without them, either. I have every reason to suppose that I am moderately, but not irresistibly, sexually attractive.
Now suppose I have a female friend with whom I get on, and we start to realise that we might both like to be more than friends. We have, as yet, made no commitment to each other, but that's the way things are going - this could be true love.
Lastly suppose that I know I can't have children with this woman - for whatever reason: choice/incapacity/age. It's possible, but by no means certain, that if I decline this opportunity to wed, I might later meet a willing/fertile/younger woman to have children with. But there's no guarantee.
Are you saying that it's my duty to break off my fledgling romance and hold out for a breeding partner? Not just that it would be understandable or permissible, but that this is something I absolutely ought to do? Or do you think (as I believe most people would) that it is reasonable to give up the chance of breeding with someone in general because one prefers to be with the specific person whom one loves?
Now - and here it starts sounding silly - are you also going to suggest that not only should I give up the woman with whom I'd be happy, but that this is so urgent a duty that all of my friends who happen to find themselves paired up with partners who don't want/can't have/or are past the age for, children have a duty to act as if they were ashamed or them - to pretend that they aren't married/in love/happy - so as to avoid encouraging me in the disastrous course of marrying someone I love? Do you think it vital that as a child I should have been kept from the dreadful knowledge that some married couples don't have children, lest I think so dire a state of affairs were normal or acceptable? Do you want to deny couples who don't have children the legal recognition of marriage, lest their relationships be considered equally good with those of breeding couples?
Of course you don't. Yet the example I give is morally identical to the 'could-possibly-be-persuaded-to-be-straight' gay person you are obsessing about. If natural law mandates that such a person on the cusp of falling for a member of the same sex must withdraw their affections in the (uncertain) hope of a future heterosexual union, and the reason is the childlessness of gay couples, then the same natural law would demand the same of an opposite sex pairing known to be infertile. For the same reason. And we all agree that it doesn't.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
The public nose-picker is missing out on the sensitivity to other people's comfort that would allow him access to a fuller human experience.
And the gay people who kiss each other in public are missing out on the sensitivity to other people's discomfort that would...
Again, consistency.
No one thinks that sensitivity to others' feelings, whatever they happen to be, is the highest moral duty. If I were to feel disgust on seeing people kiss because they are old/of different races/physically disabled/overweight/not very attractive, I would be well aware of the almost universal moral judgment that this would be my problem, and that it would be morally and socially unacceptable for me to even to hint at my inner feelings. And I think you understand that, too.
I think that you, like everyone else I've ever communicated with, is aware that different people have different levels of comfort with public demonstration of sexual love, but that society has, pretty much, settled on generally agreed standards of what is OK in public (and that those who don't care for it are expected to tolerate) and what isn't (acts which should be kept private and no one should have to look at if they don't want to). And I think you probably apply those same standards more or less consistently. Except to gays. Yet you'd no more think it acceptable to voice the opinion that "Fat people shouldn't hold hands in public because it disgusts me to think of them having sex" than I do. Anyone who seriously argued that would immediately advertise themselves to be a most stupid and offensive individual - and I don't believe that I need to explain to you why that is.
Yet that is, essentially, what you are arguing. 'This sort of people' shouldn't act as if they were in love because you personally find the idea of them having sex disgusting. You'd recognise that as an odious view if it referred to any conceivable "sort of people" ... except gays. Anyone else, the problem is with the offended viewer - and they are expected to manage and conceal their distaste. But with the gays, it's the other way around - if you find gay people repellent, that's their problem, not yours, and they have a duty to deny their most loving relationships in order to spare you any discomfort.
You may not be ready - or able - to see that you are a homophobe. I hope you can at least see that you are thinking of gay people in a way that is not consistent with the rules that you apply to everyone else.
[ 21. December 2015, 17:24: Message edited by: Eliab ]
--------------------
"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
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Dogwalker:
It truly fascinates me that there are no nuns, priests, or other celibates who have "true human satisfaction".
What makes you think that?
Because Russ said it.
I suspect you need your irony meter recalibrated.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Dogwalker:
It truly fascinates me that there are no nuns, priests, or other celibates who have "true human satisfaction".
What makes you think that?
Because Russ said it.
I suspect you need your irony meter recalibrated.
Ah, sorry. I dropped a stitch in the conversation, clearly. It's hard to discern irony when there are people like Russ who would actually say such a thing flat-out. Just as the US Republican Party makes political satire nearly obsolete every time it opens its mouth.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Reason, science and compassion fail to convince, what is left?
Irrationality, ignorance and bigotry.
He's firing on all cylinders with those.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I'vs suggested that "true human satisfaction" involves forming a mother-father pair and having children to carry on the family. So that anyone for whom this is an option is mistaken in acting on any temporary homosexual urges they may experience. ...
Yes, we all know you think that. You've repeated this shit over and over and over. And there's a million things wrong with it, some of which other Shipmates have pointed out. Another thing wrong with it is that you are implying that adopted children and step-children are by definition less satisfying than biological children. And that by definition, same-sex couples will never be as satisfied with their children as opposite-sex couples are. Do you not see how absurd that is?
And what you have still NOT done, despite repeated questioning, is explain why you think the state should mess up the lives of families who aren't a mother-father pair, including, but not limited to, those people you think are "mistaken". Why do you believe the state should correct their error, and how? And how do you think the state would determine whether someone is really, really, really, truly gay or just "mistaken"?
So, Russ: are you ever going to answer any of these questions? Or are you just going to keep reiterating that civil marriage should be restricted to couples who can fuck to make kids, and present no rational argument whatsoever except your squeamishness and your perverted imagination?
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I'vs suggested that "true human satisfaction" involves forming a mother-father pair and having children to carry on the family.
Let me suggest that you are Exhibit A as to why some people should be prevented from breeding, for the true satisfaction of humanity.
--------------------
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I'vs suggested that "true human satisfaction" involves forming a mother-father pair and having children to carry on the family.
In which case I would suggest that "true human satisfaction" is overrated. Or, perhaps, it is something that God sees fit to deny to many hundreds of millions of people. But when did he promise us true human satisfaction? What he promises is abundant and eternal life. Things of this world, such as fucking unto family forging, are meant to take a back seat (if not done in the back seat, but that's another question). Hence your "true human satisfaction" is small beer in the grand scheme of things.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
In the words of the Westminster Confession, "true human satisfaction" comes from loving God and enjoying Him forever.
I would add "serving." Take a man who has fucked unto family but has a bitter relationship with his wife, and compare that man to a single person who has spent his entire life joyfully serving the poor. Which has found true human satisfaction? You would be forced by your logic to say the former, but most unjaded observers would, I submit, say the latter.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Firenze
Ordinary decent pagan
# 619
|
Posted
"Globally, the number of deaths [in childbirth] dropped from more than 500,000 a year in 1980 to 343,000 a year in 2008."
Well that's alright then. I'm sure every one of those hundreds of thousands of women felt truly humanly satisfied.
Posts: 17302 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
A thought experiment. Suppose I'm a straight male, in my forties, who happens never to have married or had children. My desire to have children, let's assume, is on the low side of normal - I don't "not want" children, but I don't think that my life will be incomplete without them, either. I have every reason to suppose that I am moderately, but not irresistibly, sexually attractive.
Now suppose I have a female friend with whom I get on, and we start to realise that we might both like to be more than friends. We have, as yet, made no commitment to each other, but that's the way things are going - this could be true love.
Lastly suppose that I know I can't have children with this woman - for whatever reason: choice/incapacity/age.
For the purposes of the thought experiment, let's go with incapacity.
I'd agree that you don't have any moral duty to dump her in favour of the possibility of finding someone better (someone who has all the attractions that she has but with the added bonus that you can have children). But I'd ask you to notice a few things.
First, your situation in this experiment seems to me not an enviable one. Less than ideal. If you choose to let the relationship continue to build then you will probably have a happy-enough marriage but without children and grandchildren; your family will not continue into the future after your death. If you call it off because you want a family, you may end up alone having turned down the only love that life offered.
It could be much worse. But this situation isn't one that you'd wish on your friends. Do you agree ?
Second, your age is significant. If at this point you're 70, then loving and caring for the woman who's there now seems obviously the best course. Conversely, if you're now 20, then you're going to meet many more women in your life and it would probably be an act of wisdom and maturity to end this relationship now.
By specifying that you're in your 40s, you make the two options more equally matched; there's a real choice to be made. But that particular aspect of the experiment doesn't seem to relate to homosexuality in particular. Or have I missed something ?
Thirdly, if you sought counsel from a friend, that friend should try to advise you in the interest of your longer-term fulfilment and happiness, in the light of their knowledge of the sort of person you are.
It seems to me a little more debatable whether you have a moral duty to seek your own longer-term fulfilment and happiness. You could say it would be wise to. And you should indeed seek to act wisely. Though I'd hesitate about calling self-interest a moral duty.
But I'd have no hesitation in saying that the friend would be morally wrong if he encouraged you to marry this woman purely in order to feel better about his own childlessness.
Fourthly, note that you're not mentioning sex.
I've stated my belief that a sexual desire for someone of one's own sex is a disordered or perverted desire (in the same way but not necessarily to the same degree as a sexual desire for children or animals is a disordered or perverted sexual desire).
I have said and will say nothing against an asexual love. It's not usual, but if it happens, it happens. Regardless of the gender of those involved.
You seem to want to sanctify the one by confusing it with the other.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
If I were to feel disgust on seeing people kiss because they are old/of different races/physically disabled/overweight/not very attractive, I would be well aware of the almost universal moral judgment that this would be my problem, and that it would be morally and socially unacceptable for me to even to hint at my inner feelings. And I think you understand that, too.
So if person A is doing something that person B finds distasteful or disgusting, what moral principle do you use to decide whether that disgust is justified (as with picking one's nose in public, where you find person A to be doing something at least slightly morally wrong in disregarding the feelings of others) or not (as with old people kissing, where you find person B to be morally wrong if they express that feeling in any way) ?
Your answer seems to be an appeal to an almost-universal consensus. In other words, that there are no first principles, no moral law that can be reasoned to, it's just a matter of social convention. Am I reading you aright ?
In which case I put it to you that on the particular issue of homosexual behaviour, there was in the past a near-universal social consensus against such behaviour, a consensus that is currently in the process of breaking down...
And that you are not on firm ground if you treat what you perceive as an emerging pro-homosexual social consensus as being morally binding on people in different parts of the world whose attitudes were formed at different times in the last hundred years.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
If person A is doing something that person B finds distasteful or disgusting, what moral principle do you use to decide whether that disgust is justified (as with picking one's nose in public, where you find person A to be doing something at least slightly morally wrong in disregarding the feelings of others)
Everyone has a different 'ick' factor. My husband can't stand to see open wounds, I hate snot. The answer? - you look the other way/change channels. It's your problem, not the person with the open wound/snot/too much public snogging. Of course, there is a limit to plenty of behaviours covered by decency laws etc. Everything else is permissable and the one who doesn't want to see shouldn't look - simples.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
Hostly paper hat wrestled from the confines of the cracker and jammed crookedly on head
Bzzt. Time's up.
So, given a stellar example of what happens when the Dead Horse escapes the paddock, we here in Hell have decided to put this particular incarnation of the old nag out of its misery.
Consider it a late Christmas present. Thread closed.
DT
HH
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
