|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: GLBT is a facade
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Where are we commanded to love tenderly?
By the chap who stated to Love God and to love our neighbour. I think we call him Lord and Saviour.
I read one writer who said that sex, like everything, ultimately finds its ethics in Christ's command to love God and love thy neighbor as thyself. This doesn't make it easier, but it does mean that instead of looking to verses from Leviticus to decide on sexual ethics, we should look instead to the context of Christ's moral teaching in the Gospels.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Originally posted by pjkirk:
Merlin's mistake (well, one of hundreds) is to assume that it is biology that has dictated social mores. And that it is biology that dictates morality (best as I can infer from what he keeps spewing here, talking about how it's not from religion, and it's demonstrably not from reason).
Your powers of inference are weak, then: as I never said squat about what dictates morality beyond the majority saying so.
So morality is whatever the majority thinks is right? I'm reading your wrong, or your position is more stupid than I thought.
quote:
And yes sir, here we have it. Out of the closet in full battle regalia: the "you're a bigot and homophobe" champion has just shown his true colors: in fact bigotry is nearly always demonstrated first and most clearly by the first accuser.
Uhmm...get over yourself.
--------------------
Dear God, I would like to file a bug report -- Randall Munroe (http://xkcd.com/258/)
Posts: 1177 | From: Swinging on a hammock, chatting with Bokonon | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Oh, please! I was never taught to hate any people, only certain physical behaviors as "sinful".
Yet you're calling those of other raes objectively repugnant.
quote:
[/qb]Oh, please, again! It is a fact that MOST men are fascinated by their own junk, and make comparisons all the time to other men. Don't bother to protest or I will think less of you as an honest person.[/qb]
My own, possibly. Excluding medical visits, I've had a total of two conversations in my life with other men about theirs. I just don't care.
quote:
I awoke to the reality that the world is on the contrary IMPROVING generally, with a few "hot spots" of unrest and languishing inequality. The West is concerned to upgrade everyone to a good living standard and opened opportunities to education and equality with "us". That cannot fit the apocalyptic image of a "fallen world" hastening to the fiery destruction of the wicked: there is no rapidly hastening "separation of the righteous and the wicked" as I was raised to believe.
There is something we can agree on!
quote:
Well, sure. That's what my OP proposed: equal and fair treatment based on the SAME "laws" of sexual morality.
You mean the OP in which you put scare quotes round the word marriage, and later in the thread clarified that you thought "Largely, the push for "marriage" is a facade to obtain special laws recognizing and protecting GLBT as a minority group."
If you want the same laws for sexual morality, start campaigning for gay marriage. Not against it, or for separate but equal. Instead you want to impose rules without granting the societal sanction - i.e. you want to explicitely make things harder for gay people than you do for straight ones.
quote:
Not religious ones, to be sure: but social laws of equality will only work if everyone defines what fidelity means without any gender considerations whatsoever.
Fine. So give them legal protection under the law. I.e. Marriage.
quote:
I will not stop "projecting" whatever it is that you want to call it. That's your problem not mine. No matter how many times I say it in how many ways, some people just can't read for context. They don't recognize truth in the written word. I don't possess a homophobic bone in my body.
I have no idea what your 'bone' is doing when you think about gay people. I do know that you are in favour of institutional discrimination against them. You want to continue their pain and their status as second class under the law. That's more than enough for me to consider you a homophobe.
quote:
Consider this a challenge, since you keep underscoring this assertion of homophobia in me: find ONE contextual comment of mine where I have advocated hurting homosexuals or denying them happiness.
Your entire OP is an accusation of arguing in bad faith. And you are trying to deny equality under the law. You can, I suppose, make the claim that hurting them is not denying them happiness.
quote:
Ah, the "racist card", yet again. Did you bother reading through this thread?
"some races are repugnant in appearance" - you can not make a statement like that without being racist yourself. Especially as it's obvious if you have any knowledge of history that standards of attractiveness change over time. And that sociologically most people find their own groups generally more attractive. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder - your attempt to claim that some races were repugnant is your attempt to claim that only your eyes matter.
quote:
The last c. three pages have been almost exclusively a debate on the (un)wisdom of fighting to change the word "marriage" in the legalese to mean something it has never meant before.
You mean the last few pages have been you kicking and screaming to ensure that marriage means only what you want it to mean and not what others do?
quote:
I said that this "fight" matters to me: both because I like to preserve the definition of ancient words/concepts, and I can't resist a lost cause: they draw me in when they are right. The rightness and wrongness of homosexuality is not what this discussion is about. Get up to speed.
No. Just because you think that words are completely abstract entities whose meaning doesn't hurt people doesn't make it so. Rightness and wrongness may not be. But privilege and pain and suffering are. And you are on the side that is in favour of continued pain and suffering. Just because you want to fight for a lost cause. Get up to speed.
quote:
I don't discuss my sexuality with anyone I'm not sexually involved with....
Yet you apparently discuss your junk with them.
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
If the MAJORITY no longer possess the power to define the legalese they way that they choose, they have had that power and right stolen by a minority agenda....
And if the majority disagrees with you, do you instantly swing to the side of the majority? If not, why not? Because what the majority believes is rapidly changing on this issue. If you end up in the minority (as you will), are you going to try and steal the power and right for your agenda?
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
It would interesting (possibly upsetting) to be able to tell how many of us are devoid of these prejudices. As human beings are essentially unchanged throughout recorded history, I am pessimistic that MOST of our species have suddenly gotten enlightenment and are all in love with our new-found touchy-feely affections for each other and our differences.
In the words of Avenue Q, "Everyone's a little bit racist". And no one is utterly devoid of prejudice. I do my best to get over it. And as for "suddenly", human organisation and interactions have been changed markedly since the Industrial Revolution, since decent public health, and since the internet. If I'm right when I read you, you're at the left wing of your own society - and wouldn't have a clue of how right wing that society was without sites such as this.
[ 08. November 2010, 12:15: Message edited by: Justinian ]
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
<<snip>> There's a statistic I read recently (I can't remember the source, and I tried to track it down without success--but why should I hold myself to more stringent standards of evidence than initiator of this thread?) that many people (in the 20-40% range, IIRC) who identify as straight, and who have never had a same-sex encounter, admit they find the idea of same-sex encounters appealing, at least in the abstract. <<snip>>
That last bit -- "in the abstract" --is very important. I am closely acquainted with a rape survivor who (pre-attack; no longer) used to have sexual fantasies about rape. In fantasies, the fantasizer is always in control of what happens and can direct the fantasy along whatever lines she or he chooses.
In real life, not so much; and therein lies all the difference.
--------------------
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
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
Let's try another angle. Merlin: Two couples present themselves at City Hall for marriage licenses.
All four individuals are adult residents of the city in question. They are all legally competent, currently unmarried, and none is closely related to another by blood. They have done the medical tests &/or waiting periods or whatever local ordinances require. All four individuals are law-abiding citizens; they all vote, own property, and pay taxes to the city in question.
Couple A consists of a man and a woman; couple B consists of two women.
On what legal or logical basis -- in a country claiming equality under the law for all citizens -- can a city clerk grant a marriage license to Couple A and deny one to Couple B?
--------------------
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
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
... we can learn, or unlearn our biologically-mandated feelings enough to behave better. ...
Merlin,
Please can you provide some evidence that these feelings are "biologically-mandated"?
Joanna
If they are not biological, how does the GLBTQ get away with claiming: "I do not have a choice in who/what I find myself sexually attracted to"?...
Nor do straight people.
But it isn't merely biology, it's cultural conditioning. When you said that you find some races repugnant, people have attacked you for being racist. However, some people simply don't fancy Chinese people or whatever - that's cultural rather than biological, I expect.
[ 08. November 2010, 14:18: 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
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
But it isn't merely biology, it's cultural conditioning. When you said that you find some races repugnant, people have attacked you for being racist. However, some people simply don't fancy Chinese people or whatever - that's cultural rather than biological, I expect.
Correction. What he actually said was "some races are repugnant in appearance". He did not merely say that he found some races repugnant. He said that they were repugnant. An entirely different kettle of fish. He appears to think that his tastes are more than just his tastes and are some universal moral principle. If he'd said "Some people don't fancy people of other races" or "Some people don't fancy people of specific races", putting the eye of the beholder into the foreground then it would have been IMO a simple factual statement.
As it is, his arguments appear to be entirely those of the sort of reactionary jackass who thinks that the Supreme Court made the wrong decision in Loving v Virginia - with, I think, all his arguments here (including "some races are repugnant in appearance" as well as his insistance that democracy is three wolves and a sheep arguing about dinner) applying equally to that case and decision.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
But it isn't merely biology, it's cultural conditioning. When you said that you find some races repugnant, people have attacked you for being racist. However, some people simply don't fancy Chinese people or whatever - that's cultural rather than biological, I expect.
Biological or cultural it is clearly racist of course.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
How is it racist if a person is simply not sexually attracted to somebody of a different race or genetic heritage? Some white person might not find black people attractive, or some person from east Asia might not fight people with stereotypically western European features attractive. How is that racist? In order to be non-racist do I have to try to force myself to feel sexual attraction toward people I just don't? To avoid being homophobic, then, should I try to manufacture sexual feelings towards other men?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
"Repugnant" is a heck of a lot stronger than "not attracted to"!
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
But it isn't merely biology, it's cultural conditioning. When you said that you find some races repugnant, people have attacked you for being racist. However, some people simply don't fancy Chinese people or whatever - that's cultural rather than biological, I expect.
Biological or cultural it is clearly racist of course.
You have here explicitly stated that not fancying Chinese people is "clearly racist." Have you changed your mind?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JoannaP
Shipmate
# 4493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
Merlin,
Please can you provide some evidence that these feelings are "biologically-mandated"?
Joanna
If they are not biological, how does the GLBTQ get away with claiming: "I do not have a choice in who/what I find myself sexually attracted to"?...
When you posted on 3 November
quote:
But we also retain our prejudices that are visceral, biological mandates on our natural feelings. Nothing is more clearly defined in this area than sexuality. You think that just because human reason has sided with "live and let live", i.e. equal rights for homosexuals, that the visceral disgust of the biological imperative is somehow weakened in most heterosexuals?
I assumed that you were saying that heterosexual prejudice against homosexuality was biologically-mandated, rather than the homosexuality itself.
This was confirmed, I thought, later in that post:
quote:
quote:
I do not think it is too much for the average person's levels of empathy to imagine that a gay person's feelings for their partner are pretty much the same as a straight person's.
If feelings and empathy were all that is involved I'd agree with you. But we are talking about real people with deep-seated biological points of view overlaid on religion and their perception of sexual ethics, etc. What you are not pessimistic about seems to be an inexplicable overturning of our entire evolutionary structure in the main.
If I was wrong, please can you explain what you meant in the bits I have quoted above. Otherwise, please give some evidence that prejudices are biological.
Or are you seriously equating one person's sexuality with your "visceral disgust" at it?
--------------------
"Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow." R. H. Tawney (quoted by Isaiah Berlin)
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 1877 | From: England | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
A Christian sexual ethic rooted not in patriarchal heterosexism, should IMHO be rooted in a humble acceptance of the role of desire for both men and women. All people are sexual beings and desire intimacy in its many forms: spiritual, emotional, and physical. And yet this desire does demand responsibility. Not responsibility in the sense that everyone must live according to a rigid, written code of thou shalt and thou shalt nots. But responsibility, in the Christian fashion, to the command to love tenderly and attentively. As Christians, Our Lord teaches us to treat each other as fellow brothers and sisters, not objects that we can use and abuse.
Amen
This is the best word on the subject I've heard for a very long time.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
I say Amen to that as well.
But the Real World is populated by religious opinions that are Legion. All the while said-religious opinions also have plenty to say about how to love your fellow man and woman.
In the modern democracy we the people accept equal rights under the law for everyone. We also accept that majority does rule where preferences are concerned. This neo-liberal trend of allowing a minority voice to steal what the majority wants to remain traditional has got to stop; it's already been running amok for far too long....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pjkirk:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Originally posted by pjkirk:
Merlin's mistake (well, one of hundreds) is to assume that it is biology that has dictated social mores. And that it is biology that dictates morality (best as I can infer from what he keeps spewing here, talking about how it's not from religion, and it's demonstrably not from reason).
Your powers of inference are weak, then: as I never said squat about what dictates morality beyond the majority saying so.
So morality is whatever the majority thinks is right? I'm reading your wrong, or your position is more stupid than I thought.
...
Then you'll have to move to a more enlightened country, because in the West that is exactly how morality and the law intertwine: the majority agrees on the existence of the concept of morality in the first place: the minority that asserts that there is only relativity, that morality is merely a human construct and never absolute, are a lot closer to understanding this than you obviously are. If the majority cannot have the power to define morality FOR society, then we do not have a hope of democracy ever remaining: we will find the world slipping back into secular and religious tyranny of the elites over the masses: whatever seemeth good to the elite ruling classes will be the law: it will be their morality and none other....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
...
If you want the same laws for sexual morality, start campaigning for gay marriage. Not against it, or for separate but equal. Instead you want to impose rules without granting the societal sanction - i.e. you want to explicitely make things harder for gay people than you do for straight ones.
I won't campaign for giving the power of the minority to dictate to the majority in matters of choosing the legalese.
You continue to dissemble, refuse to quote me, and misconstrue even what the OP was saying....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
Let's try another angle. Merlin: Two couples present themselves at City Hall for marriage licenses.
All four individuals are adult residents of the city in question. They are all legally competent, currently unmarried, and none is closely related to another by blood. They have done the medical tests &/or waiting periods or whatever local ordinances require. All four individuals are law-abiding citizens; they all vote, own property, and pay taxes to the city in question.
Couple A consists of a man and a woman; couple B consists of two women.
On what legal or logical basis -- in a country claiming equality under the law for all citizens -- can a city clerk grant a marriage license to Couple A and deny one to Couple B?
The legalese hasn't been brought up to speed? "Marriage" is "man and woman"; almost everywhere, as I understand this issue, THAT is clearly defined: even in the UK where same-sex "unions" are legally recognized they are not called "marriage". Otherwise, equal in every way....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
... we can learn, or unlearn our biologically-mandated feelings enough to behave better. ...
Merlin,
Please can you provide some evidence that these feelings are "biologically-mandated"?
Joanna
If they are not biological, how does the GLBTQ get away with claiming: "I do not have a choice in who/what I find myself sexually attracted to"?...
Nor do straight people.
But it isn't merely biology, it's cultural conditioning. When you said that you find some races repugnant, people have attacked you for being racist. However, some people simply don't fancy Chinese people or whatever - that's cultural rather than biological, I expect.
I said that racism finds some races repugnant; that is the basis for racism, it's how it exists in the first place. Observing racism does not make one a racist. (how many times have I said this by now?)
If sexual attraction isn't mandated almost entirely by biology, then the heterosexuals who fear that homosexuality will increase if it is condoned are right to fear: and homosexuals who shoot back with, "We're not trying to recruit anyone; we just want to love each other and be accepted for our love like you are", are dissembling with the truth. Actually "you" would be tickled if the GLBTQs inherited the earth....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
Merlin,
Please can you provide some evidence that these feelings are "biologically-mandated"?
Joanna
If they are not biological, how does the GLBTQ get away with claiming: "I do not have a choice in who/what I find myself sexually attracted to"?...
When you posted on 3 November
quote:
But we also retain our prejudices that are visceral, biological mandates on our natural feelings. Nothing is more clearly defined in this area than sexuality. You think that just because human reason has sided with "live and let live", i.e. equal rights for homosexuals, that the visceral disgust of the biological imperative is somehow weakened in most heterosexuals?
I assumed that you were saying that heterosexual prejudice against homosexuality was biologically-mandated, rather than the homosexuality itself.
This was confirmed, I thought, later in that post:
quote:
quote:
I do not think it is too much for the average person's levels of empathy to imagine that a gay person's feelings for their partner are pretty much the same as a straight person's.
If feelings and empathy were all that is involved I'd agree with you. But we are talking about real people with deep-seated biological points of view overlaid on religion and their perception of sexual ethics, etc. What you are not pessimistic about seems to be an inexplicable overturning of our entire evolutionary structure in the main.
If I was wrong, please can you explain what you meant in the bits I have quoted above. Otherwise, please give some evidence that prejudices are biological.
Or are you seriously equating one person's sexuality with your "visceral disgust" at it?
I'm having difficulty understanding exactly what your difficulty is with what I said.
Biologically mandated feelings are our most dominant, instinctual reaction to other people and situations, etc. So how can a "hardwired" sexuality NOT be biological? How can the GLBTQs claim to be what they are "from birth" if their sexuality isn't biological? Of course there is social overlaying of mores including "morality".
I am in the camp that believes that sexuality is a combination of both birth (biology) and socially inculcating what defines outward sexual expression for the genders. This is all lately in a great deal of flux and confusion.
As far as I recall, the "visceral disgust" I was referring to was an observation of its real existence in all of us: don't try and turn the observation into a guessing game about me. I speak in general terms, not about individuals (especially not myself)....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
Let's try another angle. Merlin: Two couples present themselves at City Hall for marriage licenses.
All four individuals are adult residents of the city in question. They are all legally competent, currently unmarried, and none is closely related to another by blood. They have done the medical tests &/or waiting periods or whatever local ordinances require. All four individuals are law-abiding citizens; they all vote, own property, and pay taxes to the city in question.
Couple A consists of a man and a woman; couple B consists of two women.
On what legal or logical basis -- in a country claiming equality under the law for all citizens -- can a city clerk grant a marriage license to Couple A and deny one to Couple B?
The legalese hasn't been brought up to speed? "Marriage" is "man and woman"; almost everywhere, as I understand this issue, THAT is clearly defined: even in the UK where same-sex "unions" are legally recognized they are not called "marriage". Otherwise, equal in every way....
How about addressing the question and the point?
Citizens should be treated equally. So where's the logic in denying a civil license to marry to any couple which meet the criteria -- pairs of competent adult unrelated unmarried resident citizens?
--------------------
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
|
|
JoannaP
Shipmate
# 4493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
So how can a "hardwired" sexuality NOT be biological? How can the GLBTQs claim to be what they are "from birth" if their sexuality isn't biological? Of course there is social overlaying of mores including "morality".
I am in the camp that believes that sexuality is a combination of both birth (biology) and socially inculcating what defines outward sexual expression for the genders. This is all lately in a great deal of flux and confusion.
I agree with all this. What I am trying to work out is whether you also believe that the "visceral disgust" that some people feel at homosexuality is as biologically "hard-wired" as the sexuality.
I don't know that I can put it any simpler than that.
--------------------
"Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow." R. H. Tawney (quoted by Isaiah Berlin)
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 1877 | From: England | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
As far as I recall, the "visceral disgust" I was referring to was an observation of its real existence in all of us:
But "we" don't all have "visceral disgust" for homosexuality. Some of "us" do. Some feel it for all homosexuality. Some have it for certain acts but not others. Some have it for gay men but not lesbians (and possibly v.v.). Some start off feeling it and then get used to (or even enthusuiastic about) the idea. Some of "us" feels it intensely. Some experience only mild distaste. Some see it as a moral insight. Some see it as morally irrelevant. Some see it as a fault. And some of "us" do not feel it at all.
If you are going to assert disgust for homosexuality as a biologically hard-wired fact in 90% of the population, you need some evidence for it, because all my experience (and, from this thread, not just mine) suggests that this isn't so.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
...
If you want the same laws for sexual morality, start campaigning for gay marriage. Not against it, or for separate but equal. Instead you want to impose rules without granting the societal sanction - i.e. you want to explicitely make things harder for gay people than you do for straight ones.
I won't campaign for giving the power of the minority to dictate to the majority in matters of choosing the legalese.
And here you miss quite what campaigning is meant to do. It is meant to change which the majority position is. As you tie your defence to the majority, I assume that as soon as the demographic changes swing it so the majority position is in favour of marriage equality and preventing the minority dictating who can't get married, you will then support the majority position and oppose the minority dictating who can and can't get married? Or is this a spurious argument? Also, you are ducking the issue of Loving v Virginia and that your logic is claiming that it was a bad decision. Was it?
quote:
You continue to dissemble, refuse to quote me, and misconstrue even what the OP was saying....
We can see the post that MtM was responding to, how much of it he quoted, and how much of one of his I was quoting. It's pretty obvious who's not quoting whom, and who's dissembling. As for the OP - unlike you I understand the consequences of what you were writing.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
You have here explicitly stated that not fancying Chinese people is "clearly racist." Have you changed your mind?
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Like Leo, I was talking about Merlin's clearly expressed racism. That's surely obvious.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I said that racism finds some races repugnant; that is the basis for racism, it's how it exists in the first place. Observing racism does not make one a racist. (how many times have I said this by now?)
Except that's not what you said. What you said was For instance, racial prejudice is never going to entirely vanish or even significantly diminish any further as long as sexual attraction is involved: simply because some races are repugnant in appearance, which transforms into a racial rejection. A mature, compassionate person will train himself to behave justly toward all human beings; but that is a learned response demanded by a society that promotes justice for all. Divorce and abortion are not biologically mandated; sexuality is. That's why comparing this "marriage for all" issue to that kind of societal change wrought by changes in the laws is comparing
You said that some races are repugnant in appearance. Phrased as an objective fact. Not that "racism finds" - whoever racism is. Or even that you do. You said they were - and are now trying to spin what you said into something else with an apparent lack of awareness that we can see what you actually said.
And for the record, standards of attractiveness have changed massively over time - and racism as we know it didn't even really get rolling until the abolitionist movement got underway and the conservatives were trying to find a justification for slavery. The claim you are now claiming you made was wrong. The claim you made at the time isn't what you are now dissembling to.
quote:
If sexual attraction isn't mandated almost entirely by biology,
It isn't. There's definitely sociology involved. And personal history. And tastes.
quote:
then the heterosexuals who fear that homosexuality will increase if it is condoned are right to fear:
Oh, it will. People will come out of the closet because they will no longer fear getting beaten up for it.
quote:
and homosexuals who shoot back with, "We're not trying to recruit anyone; we just want to love each other and be accepted for our love like you are", are dissembling with the truth.
No they aren't. People leaving the closet will be a consequence of what they want. That doesn't mean the goal is to recruit. It means that more people will be able to be honest.
quote:
Actually "you" would be tickled if the GLBTQs inherited the earth....
I'd be impressed if GLs inerited the earth. I'd also wonder how that was achieved.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
You have here explicitly stated that not fancying Chinese people is "clearly racist." Have you changed your mind?
Like Leo, I was talking about Merlin's clearly expressed racism. That's surely obvious.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
You have here explicitly stated that not fancying Chinese people is "clearly racist." Have you changed your mind?
Like Leo, I was talking about Merlin's clearly expressed racism. That's surely obvious.
No, it was not. You clearly riffed upon the words in Leo's final post, in which he gave an opinion that such-and-such a thing --which was other than what Merlin had said-- was not racist. You linked to the adjectives in his claim that something wasn't racist, then said it was. You may have not meant that, but that's what you did.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
infinite_monkey
Shipmate
# 11333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
In the modern democracy we the people accept equal rights under the law for everyone. We also accept that majority does rule where preferences are concerned. This neo-liberal trend of allowing a minority voice to steal what the majority wants to remain traditional has got to stop; it's already been running amok for far too long....
As another poster has noted with regards to Loving Vs. Virginia, marriage is an equal-rights-under-the-law kind of thing, despite "majority rule where preferences are concerned" lining up more at that time with the asinine statement by trial judge Leon Brazile :
quote:
Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.
Honestly, Merlin, your insufficient appeals to various biological imperatives and the "majority view" remind me a fair bit of this kind of logic: putting forth as self-evident something that may well, on later reflection, be seen as spectacularly fallacious and exceptionally unsound.
ETA that, in reality, I understand and freely admit that good solid people can have different opinions on gay marriage at this stage in the game. What's tweaking me off more on this thread is the OP's general tendency to put forward extremely flawed views of minority populations (be they the "repugnant" other races, the deviant biracial couples, or the wildly non-monogamous non-heterosexuals) as self-evident representations of How Things Really Are.
[ 10. November 2010, 14:01: Message edited by: infinite_monkey ]
--------------------
His light was lifted just above the Law,
And now we have to live with what we did with what we saw.
--Dar Williams, And a God Descended
Obligatory Blog Flog: www.otherteacher.wordpress.com
Posts: 1423 | From: left coast united states | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
What I am trying to work out is whether you also believe that the "visceral disgust" that some people feel at homosexuality is as biologically "hard-wired" as the sexuality.
I don't know that I can put it any simpler than that.
I can't possibly say. Can anybody, really? Isn't this what all the arguing is about? Three camps: homosexuality is learned, ergo there is no excuse for BEING a GLBTQ (that's the hardline hetero camp): homosexuality is biological, ergo "I have been this way from birth and cannot change what I am" (that's the GLBTQ camp): and homosexuality is a combination of biological and social conditioning (that's the middle-of-the-road camp, mine). There is too much variation here for justifying either assertion that sexuality is entirely biological or socially inculcated. So my hypothesis is that at birth, MOST people are actually biologically bisexual (especially females?). And it is the natural mandate of survival that pushes the vast majority of us into heterosexuality.
If this is true, then there really is some substance to the hetero fear that condoning/encouraging homosexuality will see a marked increase in the percentage of homosexuals....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
As far as I recall, the "visceral disgust" I was referring to was an observation of its real existence in all of us:
But "we" don't all have "visceral disgust" for homosexuality. Some of "us" do. Some feel it for all homosexuality. Some have it for certain acts but not others. Some have it for gay men but not lesbians (and possibly v.v.). Some start off feeling it and then get used to (or even enthusuiastic about) the idea. Some of "us" feels it intensely. Some experience only mild distaste. Some see it as a moral insight. Some see it as morally irrelevant. Some see it as a fault. And some of "us" do not feel it at all.
If you are going to assert disgust for homosexuality as a biologically hard-wired fact in 90% of the population, you need some evidence for it, because all my experience (and, from this thread, not just mine) suggests that this isn't so.
I wasn't suggesting that ALL 90 to 99% of the population feel "visceral disgust" for ALL homosexual expressions. But I dare say that MOST heterosexuals are less than interested in exploring the possibilities, for a complex of reasons. You are quite right: nothing is more complex than sexuality! And it changes with the aging person....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I won't campaign for giving the power of the minority to dictate to the majority in matters of choosing the legalese.
And here you miss quite what campaigning is meant to do. It is meant to change which the majority position is. As you tie your defence to the majority, I assume that as soon as the demographic changes swing it so the majority position is in favour of marriage equality and preventing the minority dictating who can't get married, you will then support the majority position and oppose the minority dictating who can and can't get married? Or is this a spurious argument?
I've made clear my reasons for discussing/debating the (un)wisdom of changing the traditional definition of "marriage" to include homosexuality: I can't resist fighting for "lost causes" that I consider right. And I want "marriage" to retain its historic definition by preserving the word in the legalese to be "man and woman". "You" can have your domestic partnership, and even "marriage" can be a domestic partnership; but only "man and woman" can be referred to in the legalese as a "marriage".
quote:
Also, you are ducking the issue of Loving v Virginia and that your logic is claiming that it was a bad decision. Was it?
I said, Loving v. Virginia is asserted by the GLBTQ advocacy to apply to them: when in fact the SC decision and legalese applied ONLY to "marriage" as understood in 1967.
Prop 8 will likely be the SC case that turns the word "marriage" into an unprecedented definition: the traditional meaning will be lost on future generations: which will form a confusing split requiring education in order to clearly see what "marriage" meant in pre-21st century times.
...
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
...What you said was For instance, racial prejudice is never going to entirely vanish or even significantly diminish any further as long as sexual attraction is involved: simply because some races are repugnant in appearance, which transforms into a racial rejection. A mature, compassionate person will train himself to behave justly toward all human beings; but that is a learned response demanded by a society that promotes justice for all. Divorce and abortion are not biologically mandated; sexuality is. That's why comparing this "marriage for all" issue to that kind of societal change wrought by changes in the laws is comparing
You said that some races are repugnant in appearance. Phrased as an objective fact. Not that "racism finds" - whoever racism is. Or even that you do. You said they were - and are now trying to spin what you said into something else with an apparent lack of awareness that we can see what you actually said.
I guess you want me to be a racist, then. Fine. Have it your way. I don't have to deal with any of this where I actually live, because I don't come across to anyone, ever, as a racist.
I do appreciate you finding and quoting me in full. That is friendly. The clue to the context I intended is there: "racism finds" is poorly stating an observation that crosses over into every culture and perceived racial difference. And I was specifically talking about racism not ever vanishing as long as racial differences are attached to sexual attraction: because some racial types are "repugnant" sexually: stating that isn't anything but fact: everyone has physical types that they find either utterly unattractive or even repulsive: "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder", is one of our oldest aphorisms, it is universal: what part of this do you not get? And that's all I meant: racism will never die out as long as differences are perceived through sexuality, which I consider to be and to remain inevitable.
quote:
And for the record, standards of attractiveness have changed massively over time - and racism as we know it didn't even really get rolling until the abolitionist movement got underway and the conservatives were trying to find a justification for slavery.
In the USA, but racism is as old as people have been around. I marvel at your altruistic lens on the past ages of mankind.
quote:
If sexual attraction isn't mandated almost entirely by biology, quote:
It isn't. There's definitely sociology involved. And personal history. And tastes.
We disagree is all. Imho, biology is the mainspring of sexual feelings. A more melting pot kind of culture is going to possess far more broadly admitted and accepted sexually attractive types, that's all: such a culture will not eradicate sexual prejudices entirely.
quote:
then the heterosexuals who fear that homosexuality will increase if it is condoned are right to fear: quote:
Oh, it will. People will come out of the closet because they will no longer fear getting beaten up for it.
That's not an increase in incidence; only increased visibility. That's not what heterosexual fear is about and I think you know it: heteros fear that by encouraging homosexual behavior/identification, that a significantly larger proportion of the rising generation will ID as GLBTQ: and the generation following theirs will do likewise, increasing the real presence of homosexuality as society becomes altered by it. If sexuality is partially socially inculcated, it remains unknown to what degree: it could be a lot, and that would completely change everything, including population growth....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by infinite_monkey:
As another poster has noted with regards to Loving Vs. Virginia, marriage is an equal-rights-under-the-law kind of thing, despite "majority rule where preferences are concerned" lining up more at that time with the asinine statement by trial judge Leon Brazile :
quote:
Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.
Honestly, Merlin, your insufficient appeals to various biological imperatives and the "majority view" remind me a fair bit of this kind of logic: putting forth as self-evident something that may well, on later reflection, be seen as spectacularly fallacious and exceptionally unsound.
ETA that, in reality, I understand and freely admit that good solid people can have different opinions on gay marriage at this stage in the game. What's tweaking me off more on this thread is the OP's general tendency to put forward extremely flawed views of minority populations (be they the "repugnant" other races, the deviant biracial couples, or the wildly non-monogamous non-heterosexuals) as self-evident representations of How Things Really Are.
'Tis a complex subject! One can easily become confused as to intent. I've already cleared up the Loving v. Virginia reference: "marriage is a right" was ONLY about marriage as understood in 1967; there wasn't the slightest trace of "gay marriage" about any of it: Loving v. Virginia was about "man and woman", period. Any SC justice worth his/her salt will toss the GLBTQ cause harnessed to Loving v. Virginia out of court. Context is everything; context is what must be used to establish definition of precedent....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Three camps: homosexuality is learned, ergo there is no excuse for BEING a GLBTQ (that's the hardline hetero camp
No, that’s not the “hardline hetero” camp. That’s the hardline homophobe camp.
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
If this is true, then there really is some substance to the hetero fear that condoning/encouraging homosexuality will see a marked increase in the percentage of homosexuals....
“Hetero fear”??? Once again, you’re lumping all heterosexual persons with your homophobic bunch. I’m hetero, and I do NOT want to included in these generalizations.
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I guess you want me to be a racist, then. Fine. Have it your way. I don't have to deal with any of this where I actually live, because I don't come across to anyone, ever, as a racist.
Where you actually live, over 95% of the population is white, according to Wikipedia. So that may be why you don’t “come across as a racist.”
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
…because some racial types are "repugnant" sexually: stating that isn't anything but fact
No, it’s an opinion – and a pretty disgusting one.
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
That's not what heterosexual fear is about and I think you know it: heteros fear that by encouraging homosexual behavior/identification, that a significantly larger proportion of the rising generation will ID as GLBTQ: and the generation following theirs will do likewise, increasing the real presence of homosexuality as society becomes altered by it.
You did it again! This hetero doesn’t fear a larger number of people identifying as GLBTQ. Would you please stop lumping all heterosexual people in with the homophobes! Why would we care how many people identify as gay? I’d much rather have my gay friends (and other gays, for that matter) be able to be open and honest about who they are than face all sorts of discrimination by coming out.
If you want to be racist and homophobic that’s up to you, but I seriously doubt that a majority of heterosexuals share your prejudices.
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Pigwidgeon:
and
and
and
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Why would we care how many people identify as gay? I’d much rather have my gay friends (and other gays, for that matter) be able to be open and honest about who they are than face all sorts of discrimination by coming out.
If you want to be racist and homophobic that’s up to you, but I seriously doubt that a majority of heterosexuals share your prejudices.
Amen - very well said Pigwidgeon.
I don't know ANY heterosexuals who share such racism or homophobia - PTL X100000000000.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Three camps: homosexuality is learned, ergo there is no excuse for BEING a GLBTQ (that's the hardline hetero camp
No, that’s not the “hardline hetero” camp. That’s the hardline homophobe camp.
OKAY. But did you ever meet a homosexual who was a homophobe? Eh??
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
If this is true, then there really is some substance to the hetero fear that condoning/encouraging homosexuality will see a marked increase in the percentage of homosexuals.... quote:
“Hetero fear”??? Once again, you’re lumping all heterosexual persons with your homophobic bunch. I’m hetero, and I do NOT want to included in these generalizations.
Ditto my first response: you've really got to develop some capacity for reading nuance into the context of what people say.
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I guess you want me to be a racist, then. Fine. Have it your way. I don't have to deal with any of this where I actually live, because I don't come across to anyone, ever, as a racist. quote:
Where you actually live, over 95% of the population is white, according to Wikipedia. So that may be why you don’t “come across as a racist.”
Malarky! HALF of the population where I live (west side of Salt Lake valley) is Hispanic: of the rest a portion are S. Pacific islander and Black and Asian. I am actually a minority now; not being part of the dominant demographic group. I've watched this shift happen in my 31+ years living in the same house: and trust me: IF I was going to be racist, it would be directed toward Mexicans.
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
…because some racial types are "repugnant" sexually: stating that isn't anything but fact quote:
No, it’s an opinion – and a pretty disgusting one.
I'm not talking about YOU. I'm talking about the human race, worldwide, and "there" racism is a fact of life from the beginning. If you deny it that's your problem; living in the world and not understanding or admitting its characteristics has to be pretty hard.
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
That's not what heterosexual fear is about and I think you know it: heteros fear that by encouraging homosexual behavior/identification, that a significantly larger proportion of the rising generation will ID as GLBTQ: and the generation following theirs will do likewise, increasing the real presence of homosexuality as society becomes altered by it. quote:
You did it again! This hetero doesn’t fear a larger number of people identifying as GLBTQ.
At this point that doesn't surprise me at all. Again, I am not talking about YOU, but rather a huge segment of heterosexuals that you claim to not agree with.
quote:
Would you please stop lumping all heterosexual people in with the homophobes!
I didn't: you asserted that is what I meant.
quote:
Why would we care how many people identify as gay?
Who's this "we"? Are you now asserting that ALL heterosexuals have no fear of GLBTQs "inheriting the earth"? Are you talking to the only hetero homophobe on the planet? (me, as far as you're concerned)
quote:
I’d much rather have my gay friends (and other gays, for that matter) be able to be open and honest about who they are than face all sorts of discrimination by coming out.
That's happening. It will be a fully realized change within a few more years, or I am much mistaken.
quote:
If you want to be racist and homophobic that’s up to you, but I seriously doubt that a majority of heterosexuals share your prejudices.
I never asserted a percentage of heterosexuals as homophobic or racist; I never asserted that homosexuals are NOT heterophobic (I haven't even used the term till this moment) or NOT racist. You will find communication much easier if you don't leap to these conclusions....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Why would we care how many people identify as gay? I’d much rather have my gay friends (and other gays, for that matter) be able to be open and honest about who they are than face all sorts of discrimination by coming out.
If you want to be racist and homophobic that’s up to you, but I seriously doubt that a majority of heterosexuals share your prejudices.
Amen - very well said Pigwidgeon.
I don't know ANY heterosexuals who share such racism or homophobia - PTL X100000000000.
Then mingle with a more diverse portion of your "fellowman". That will solve your myopia and hubris!...
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Three camps: homosexuality is learned, ergo there is no excuse for BEING a GLBTQ (that's the hardline hetero camp
No, that’s not the “hardline hetero” camp. That’s the hardline homophobe camp.
OKAY. But did you ever meet a homosexual who was a homophobe? Eh??
I don't presume to answer for Pigwidgeon, but in my own personal experience, I have met at least two homophobic homosexual people (out of I-don't actually-recall-how-many homosexual people I've known).
Hating oneself for some slaient aspect of one's own identity is a well-known and particularly damaging side-effect of prejudice and discrimination.
--------------------
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 MerlintheMad:
I guess you want me to be a racist, then. Fine. Have it your way. I don't have to deal with any of this where I actually live, because I don't come across to anyone, ever, as a racist.
If that is true then you must be a good actor. Much of what you post here is explicitly, objectively, and quite nastily racist, and I think you know it. So if it doesn't show at home you must be putting on an act either here or their.
"Repugnant" did it for me. Either you aren't telling the truth or you are in fact something of a bigot. Either way I guess this thread can;t contain the discussion.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Three camps: homosexuality is learned, ergo there is no excuse for BEING a GLBTQ (that's the hardline hetero camp
No, that’s not the “hardline hetero” camp. That’s the hardline homophobe camp.
OKAY. But did you ever meet a homosexual who was a homophobe? Eh??
I don't presume to answer for Pigwidgeon, but in my own personal experience, I have met at least two homophobic homosexual people (out of I-don't actually-recall-how-many homosexual people I've known).
Hating oneself for some slaient aspect of one's own identity is a well-known and particularly damaging side-effect of prejudice and discrimination.
Meet my friend Peter. He spent years angrily denouncing gay people before finally coming to terms, in his 50s, with the fact that he was one of them. Something he'd known all along.
Peter is hardly unique.
--------------------
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 ken:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I guess you want me to be a racist, then. Fine. Have it your way. I don't have to deal with any of this where I actually live, because I don't come across to anyone, ever, as a racist.
If that is true then you must be a good actor. Much of what you post here is explicitly, objectively, and quite nastily racist, and I think you know it. So if it doesn't show at home you must be putting on an act either here or their.
One could also consistently come across as not-racist simply by only being in the company of people more racist than oneself.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Three camps: homosexuality is learned, ergo there is no excuse for BEING a GLBTQ (that's the hardline hetero camp
No, that’s not the “hardline hetero” camp. That’s the hardline homophobe camp.
OKAY. But did you ever meet a homosexual who was a homophobe? Eh??
I don't presume to answer for Pigwidgeon, but in my own personal experience, I have met at least two homophobic homosexual people (out of I-don't actually-recall-how-many homosexual people I've known).
Hating oneself for some slaient aspect of one's own identity is a well-known and particularly damaging side-effect of prejudice and discrimination.
Meet my friend Peter. He spent years angrily denouncing gay people before finally coming to terms, in his 50s, with the fact that he was one of them. Something he'd known all along.
Peter is hardly unique.
This is quite common actually (and sadly.)
--------------------
"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
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Three camps: homosexuality is learned, ergo there is no excuse for BEING a GLBTQ (that's the hardline hetero camp
No, that’s not the “hardline hetero” camp. That’s the hardline homophobe camp.
OKAY. But did you ever meet a homosexual who was a homophobe? Eh??
I don't presume to answer for Pigwidgeon, but in my own personal experience, I have met at least two homophobic homosexual people (out of I-don't actually-recall-how-many homosexual people I've known).
Hating oneself for some slaient aspect of one's own identity is a well-known and particularly damaging side-effect of prejudice and discrimination.
And you win! If pointing out that mentally and emotionally ill people are among us, then you win. The topic, I thought, was pointing out the existence in mainstream humanity of commonly held prejudices. Personally I have not experienced a homosexual who is also homophobic; and even if I did know a GLBTQ who hated him/herself, I wouldn't leap to the assertion that s/he is homophobic. I have known quite a number of (I assume) heterosexuals who hate themselves sexually, or apparently do. These I would assume to have some latent problem with SEX per se; and I would not assert that their self-hate is because they are somehow heterophobic!...
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I guess you want me to be a racist, then. Fine. Have it your way. I don't have to deal with any of this where I actually live, because I don't come across to anyone, ever, as a racist.
If that is true then you must be a good actor. Much of what you post here is explicitly, objectively, and quite nastily racist, and I think you know it. So if it doesn't show at home you must be putting on an act either here or their.
"Repugnant" did it for me. Either you aren't telling the truth or you are in fact something of a bigot. Either way I guess this thread can;t contain the discussion.
"Repugnant! Repugnant!! REPUGNANT!!! Don't be silly. I was specifically referring to the factual observation that people who are racists do NOT find the object of their bigotry/prejudice sexually attractive because instead they find them repugnant sexually. I never knew a racist who wanted to have sex with the race that they hate. All you can do is pick on little ol' me, instead of addressing this fact in our midst. I further elucidated, in the face of "your" failure to read what I said in context, that I find women in virtually all races sexually appealing: that I judge (or rather my body does) each woman I see on an individual basis: and when I find myself sexually attracted to an individual it has NOTHING whatsoever to do with race. This shared fact about myself I offered as evidence that I am not in any way a racist. But by now "you" will simply accuse me of protesting too much. To which I will reply now: "Fine. Have it your way. I don't live anywhere near you and don't have to care what you think about me"....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Meet my friend Peter. He spent years angrily denouncing gay people before finally coming to terms, in his 50s, with the fact that he was one of them. Something he'd known all along.
Peter is hardly unique.
And Peter is not a homophobic homosexual. He's a homosexual who for years was living a lie, but finally came to terms with his own sexuality. To be a homophobic homosexual the person in question would have to admit they are in fact homosexual, and at the same time blatantly feel irrational hatred for homosexuals. Sound like anybody you know?...
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
One could also consistently come across as not-racist simply by only being in the company of people more racist than oneself.
Then the community I live in must be composed of even better actors than myself....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jahlove
Tied to the mast
# 10290
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I guess you want me to be a racist, then. Fine. Have it your way. I don't have to deal with any of this where I actually live, because I don't come across to anyone, ever, as a racist.
If that is true then you must be a good actor. Much of what you post here is explicitly, objectively, and quite nastily racist, and I think you know it. So if it doesn't show at home you must be putting on an act either here or their.
"Repugnant" did it for me. Either you aren't telling the truth or you are in fact something of a bigot. Either way I guess this thread can;t contain the discussion.
"Repugnant! Repugnant!! REPUGNANT!!! Don't be silly. I was specifically referring to the factual observation that people who are racists do NOT find the object of their bigotry/prejudice sexually attractive because instead they find them repugnant sexually. I never knew a racist who wanted to have sex with the race that they hate. All you can do is pick on little ol' me, instead of addressing this fact in our midst. I further elucidated, in the face of "your" failure to read what I said in context, that I find women in virtually all races sexually appealing: that I judge (or rather my body does) each woman I see on an individual basis: and when I find myself sexually attracted to an individual it has NOTHING whatsoever to do with race. This shared fact about myself I offered as evidence that I am not in any way a racist. But by now "you" will simply accuse me of protesting too much. To which I will reply now: "Fine. Have it your way. I don't live anywhere near you and don't have to care what you think about me"....
Um, slave-owners are well-documented as producing mixed-race children; slaves on the way from Africa are well-documented as having been raped by the ship crews - oh well, you might say, there was nothing better available - but if they were truly repugnant, say as appealing as a Brussel Sprout (pace all vegephiles out there), then they would not even have contemplated such a thing!
Clue: not everyone sees everyone else thru the lens of sexuality derrrrr - that your dick rules your brain is your issue.
--------------------
“Sing like no one's listening, love like you've never been hurt, dance like nobody's watching, and live like its heaven on earth.” - Mark Twain
Posts: 6477 | From: Alice's Restaurant (UK Franchise) | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
There are huge populations of mixed race people in historically highly racist societies: apartheid South Africa, German South West Africa (Namibia today), colonial Angola, Moçambique, Rhodesia, Kenya, Algeria and with the Mestizo (mixed Native-Spanish) populations of Latin America. Racists may find people inferior but not physically repugnant.
[ 12. November 2010, 18:37: 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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Meet my friend Peter. He spent years angrily denouncing gay people before finally coming to terms, in his 50s, with the fact that he was one of them. Something he'd known all along.
Peter is hardly unique.
And Peter is not a homophobic homosexual. He's a homosexual who for years was living a lie, but finally came to terms with his own sexuality. To be a homophobic homosexual the person in question would have to admit they are in fact homosexual, and at the same time blatantly feel irrational hatred for homosexuals. Sound like anybody you know?...
Yeah. Peter during the years that he knew perfectly well he was homosexual.
The first person you admit your homosexuality to is yourself. I fail to see why it requires a worldwide audience to pass that test.
--------------------
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
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
People: I think we've lost the focus here. I only brought up the racism presence (still very strongly with us) to show evidence for the point I was making about how homosexuals and heterosexuals are alike repelled by contemplation of sex with the opposite gender or the same gender, respectively. We can refer to this "repugnance" as essentially biological: it cannot be unlearned (if it could, then the GLBTQ assertion that they cannot change something they were born with would be shot down): at best, a victim of this biologically mandated perspective can recognize it for the bigotry-producing feeling that it is, and not give it expression. The same holds true for the racist bigot: his/her "repugnance" for the other race is irrational because it is connected to a complex of mandated feelings: biological attraction/repugnance and socially inculcated mores. It may take a lifetime to overcome these feelings enough to not give them expression. And many (most?) never get over their bigotry (e.g. famously Mel Gibson and even more so his father)....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
