|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: I call all homophobes to Hell - especially Russ
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Well, I realized the answer to my own question - if man and wife wank each other off, that is morally deficient, but not too bad, since at least now and again (presumably) they do baby-making-fucking.
Whereas 2 men or 2 women can't do b-m-f.
God worries about the right hole I suppose. Cum in vajayjay, good; cum in mouth, bad; cum in jacksie, bad; cum in ear, bad; cum in eye, bad.
Hey, I'm getting the hang of this.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jack o' the Green
Shipmate
# 11091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, I realized the answer to my own question - if man and wife wank each other off, that is morally deficient, but not too bad...
It reminds me of a joke:
Three men in a bar discussing their sexual prowess. The first man says "I made love to my wife last night and she floated off the bed 2 inches in ecstasy."
"That's nothing", says the second man. "I made love to my wife last night, and she floated off the bed 3 inches in ecstasy."
"That's nothing", said the third man. "I made love to my wife last night, wiped my hands on the curtains, and she went through the roof!"
Posts: 3121 | From: Lancashire, England | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
God worries about the right hole I suppose. Cum in vajayjay, good; cum in mouth, bad; cum in jacksie, bad; cum in ear, bad; cum in eye, bad.
If OT's anything to go by God was'nt too keen on cummin over the bed- sheets whilst asleep either. Not sure how he meant an Israelite soldier to avoid being " caught by chance" if masturbation was also off limits.
One can't help but doubt the Bible's reliability as a good sex guide in developed countries in 21st C.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
I may have misread, but I think this has broadly been the thrust of IngoB's argument in the past. It doesn't matter too much what one does in the sack (assuming m/f and married) as long as there is a penis in vagina moment(presumably including ejaculation if possible) and therefore the possibility of conception at some point.
... and therefore an overall orientation of this particular sexual encounter to procreation.
This is however intended as reasonable accommodation to couples and their situation and preferences, and simply as considering the details of their foreplay as too much information, not as a kind of license to do whatever one wants as long as there is an instant of token vaginal intercourse. The mainplay is supposed to be vaginal intercourse of some kind.
(And just to stress this: the above is my extrapolation from basic teaching. I think it is reasonable, but it is not official RC teaching, or at least I do not know that. There are perhaps Catholic moral manuals out there that discuss these things in detail, and priests need to learn it. But I don't own such a manual and I am not a priest. Regular and easily accessible Catholic literature, like the Catechism, is not offering much guidance there...)
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jemima the 9th
Shipmate
# 15106
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jack o' the Green:
I think natural law theorists (or at least some of them) would say that while it is perfectly acceptable for a married man to make love with his wife knowing full well that she is unable to conceive (for whatever reason), if the reason is due to a biological reason on her part, it would be immoral for him to have married her because she couldn't conceive.
While I can understand the latter part of this, I do think the former creates an inconsistency with condemning homosexual sexual acts, since there is an implicit acknowledgment that sex is about more than procreation, and as individuals, an infertile couple are no more likely to create life than a homosexual couple are.
Ah, but God in his infinite creativity & power can miraculously make an infertile woman fertile at any time, but having made men & women so complementary & different, He is not able to make conception possible for 2 people of the same gender. At least that's how I think the argument would go.
As for why f/f smut is so much less put down than m/m, my money would be on anything women do being less important than men. What with our only roles in life being bearers of children, support or temptation to the male.
Posts: 801 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
Ah, but God in his infinite creativity & power can miraculously make an infertile woman fertile at any time, but having made men & women so complementary & different, He is not able to make conception possible for 2 people of the same gender.
Nor is he able to break condoms. That one cracks me up.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
(And just to stress this: the above is my extrapolation from basic teaching.
The magisterium is silent on some issue, and rather than say "This issue clearly doesn't matter to the magisterium; people are free to do what they want in this area" you instead say "there must be some secret rules priests get that are far stricter than the officially published guidelines, because that's how I interpret the basic teachings."
You're not just making shit up and expecting us to take you seriously. You're making shit up and fondly thinking that maybe that's what the church REALLY meant. The very idea of any minutiae not being totally pinned down gives you apoplexy.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jemima the 9th
Shipmate
# 15106
|
Posted
IngoB, while you're here....this struck me.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I think the middle ages, and indeed antiquity, had a much better grasp on many metaphysical, religious and moral issues than we do. Thus the rational thing to do is to recover their thinking, with some mild adjustments as necessitated by our growth of knowledge in other areas.
What sort of issues, and what sort of mild adjustments? Indeed, what sort of knowledge growth do you think applicable?
I'm intrigued. When you have the time, like.
Posts: 801 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
They will have many and varied desires - and, just like you and me, some of those desires will be more wholesome and good than others. Marmite anyone?
Why don't you get that it's not about what they do, it's about who they are ? That's why skin colour is such a good analogy.
True that people have many and varied desires, But that says to me that they are not defined by any one of them.
Seems like you're identifying people with the label that your political mindset sticks on them. You think someone like Orfeo is a member of a particular downtrodden minority and so that's his identity in your eyes. You're saying that what he is is a member of a sociological class - reducing people to labels.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The magisterium is silent on some issue, and rather than say "This issue clearly doesn't matter to the magisterium; people are free to do what they want in this area" you instead say "there must be some secret rules priests get that are far stricter than the officially published guidelines, because that's how I interpret the basic teachings."
The idea that the magisterium has already spoken on absolutely everything of importance to RCs is of course ludicrous. The magisterium for the most part speaks only under the threat of grave crisis. The idea that RCs are free to do whatever they want as long as the magisterium hasn't said anything to the contrary is likewise risible. This pretends that people do not have their own conscience, and leads to a kind of "what can I possibly get away with" approach to Christianity that IIRC you yourself criticise with some regularity. I would expect priests to know some teaching or at least practical approach to the question of "non-vaginal foreplay", quite simply because I'm sure that it does come up in confession now and then. Finally, since the logic used against homosexuality by the RCC rests on the inseparability of unitive and procreative love, the question whether a heterosexual couple may have for example oral sex is obvious. That question has come up before on SoF, I have given an answer then that I think is reasonable, and I have repeated it here because this was mentioned. That's all.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
As for why f/f smut is so much less put down than m/m, my money would be on anything women do being less important than men.
This and it isn't a threat to manhood.
And all women love penis even if they do not yet know it. Just need the proper converting, don't you know.
--------------------
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
|
|
romanlion
editorial comment
# 10325
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
As for why f/f smut is so much less put down than m/m, my money would be on anything women do being less important than men.
This and it isn't a threat to manhood.
And all women love penis even if they do not yet know it. Just need the proper converting, don't you know.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
This is hilarious! And one of those rare gems that keeps me coming back....
So the disparity between the consumption of lesbian porn and male porn is a function of the fact that women are less important than men, and lesbian sex isn't a threat to masculinity?
That is some deep and twisted shit right there...
Thank you, thank you both!
--------------------
"You can't get rich in politics unless you're a crook" - Harry S. Truman
Posts: 1486 | From: White Rose City | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It seems equivalent to saying, "Ability to reproduce is important when we say it is, and not when we say it isn't." It smacks of after-the-fact rationalization. "We don't like gays. Let's think up a reason why."
Yup. This is it exactly.
Well, it's slightly more holy than that, in that it's not entirely "we don't like gays" and is partly "we're utterly convinced that God doesn't like gays", but from there the goal is to rationally derive why gays are so unlikable.
It'd be far more honest to just say "we think the Bible say that God doesn't like gays, and that's all there is to it". But people like Ingo in particular can't handle saying that there's no reason for that beyond God having an ick factor, not least because it's possible to have an equally trite response that the rest of us think they've got God wrong.
--------------------
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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The magisterium is silent on some issue, and rather than say "This issue clearly doesn't matter to the magisterium; people are free to do what they want in this area" you instead say "there must be some secret rules priests get that are far stricter than the officially published guidelines, because that's how I interpret the basic teachings."
The idea that the magisterium has already spoken on absolutely everything of importance to RCs is of course ludicrous.
So is the idea that the magisterium finds everything important that you find important. Mousethief's point is that you always choose one option and don't allow for the other.
quote:
The idea that RCs are free to do whatever they want as long as the magisterium hasn't said anything to the contrary is likewise risible. This pretends that people do not have their own conscience, and leads to a kind of "what can I possibly get away with" approach to Christianity that IIRC you yourself criticise with some regularity.
As to people having their own conscience, let's just emphasise what their own means. It doesn't mean, as you apparently think, that all good Catholics will come to the same conclusion as you and that anyone who doesn't is trying to "get away with" something.
quote:
Finally, since the logic used against homosexuality by the RCC rests on the inseparability of unitive and procreative love, the question whether a heterosexual couple may have for example oral sex is obvious. That question has come up before on SoF, I have given an answer then that I think is reasonable, and I have repeated it here because this was mentioned.
The fact that you've given your opinion on something about oral sex is not equivalent in any sane mind to saying "this is the Catholic opinion on something about oral sex".
quote:
That's all.
If only.
[ 30. August 2015, 22:46: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
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
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
As for why f/f smut is so much less put down than m/m, my money would be on anything women do being less important than men.
This and it isn't a threat to manhood.
And all women love penis even if they do not yet know it. Just need the proper converting, don't you know.
This is hilarious! And one of those rare gems that keeps me coming back....
So the disparity between the consumption of lesbian porn and male porn is a function of the fact that women are less important than men, and lesbian sex isn't a threat to masculinity?
That is some deep and twisted shit right there...
Thank you, thank you both!
Who said anything about disparity Of consumption? You are truly a Faux News disciple. Redirect and ridicule the straw man thereby created.
ETA: Tell us then, oh wise one, why male/male sex causes straight men to raise their fist, shaking at the sky and female/female sex cause them the lower their hand and shake towards their crotch?
[ 30. August 2015, 22:54: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Refresh my memory, what exactly, is the basis for your belief that homosexuality is wrong?
My belief is that only choices can be morally wrong. And homosexuality is not a choice.
My belief is that human beings (me included) are constantly tempted to double standards, to make one rule for ourselves and the people we sympathise with and another for the people we don't like.
My belief is that homosexuality is biologically speaking a perversion - a condition in which a natural desire has somehow been altered, become fixed on something other than its natural object. Like someone who wants to eat something other than food.
My belief is that this is a non-ideal state. Whilst not morally condemning it, because only choices can be moral, and no-one chooses their desires. (Being in love with someone who is in love with someone else is also a non-ideal state. So that a culture that idealises homosexuality is sub-optimal in the same sort of way as a culture that idealises doomed romance).
My belief is that many people are hard-wired to feel revulsion towards sexual perversions.
My belief is that we should tolerate just about anything that functioning adults consent to do together behind closed doors - that in a pluralistic society we need a significant gap between what we tolerate and what we idealise. And that part of the problem is binary thought processes that classify activities as either OK or not-OK.
My belief is that anyone who thinks that their particular sexual perversion deserves to be accepted whilst others aren't has probably succumbed to the temptation of double standards. When I say that having the desire is in itself not morally wrong, I have to mean it for those desires that disgust me most. When I say that children should grow up knowing what vanilla normal is before finding out at an appropriate age the various forms of deviant desire, I have to mean it for my own particular fetishes also.
Not trying to insult anyone or feel superior to anyone or judge anyone. I may be wrong. But you asked for a summary. Aim high and tolerate much.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
My belief is that we should tolerate just about anything that functioning adults consent to do together behind closed doors - that in a pluralistic society we need a significant gap between what we tolerate and what we idealise. And that part of the problem is binary thought processes that classify activities as either OK or not-OK.
Maybe one of the disconnects between thee and we is that some of us, at least, map the OK/not-OK dichotomy exactly onto the tolerated/not-tolerated dichotomy. If the set of things that are OK is the same as the set of things we should tolerate, and the set of things that are not OK is the same as the set of things we should not tolerate, then there is no No Man's Land (between "OK" and "tolerable") as you propose.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
My belief is that homosexuality is biologically speaking a perversion - a condition in which a natural desire has somehow been altered, become fixed on something other than its natural object. Like someone who wants to eat something other than food.
...
My belief is that many people are hard-wired to feel revulsion towards sexual perversions.
"Biologically speaking" a perversion?
Hate to break it to you, mister, but perversion isn't a biological concept. It's a moral one. It's all in The X-Men.
And someone who doesn't eat food will die. Someone who has homosexual sex won't. Enough with this utterly stupid comparison. It's instructive, isn't it, that you only seem to be able to compare homosexual sex to things that cause harm.
As for people being hard-wired... so now you're not only suggesting that homosexuals are defective, you're suggesting that all the people who don't dislike homosexuality are also defective. Even though they're in the majority in many countries. Nice. Classy. Have you thought about signing up for membership of Westboro Baptist? Because that's their basic philosophy, only in politer form.
[ 30. August 2015, 23:49: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Russ, do you understand how evolution works ?
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
It's always amusing to hear the attempts to discuss homosexuality as unnatural perversion. Are animals who are homosexual unnatural perverts as well?
Most of these theories of biological perversion have an antique air, as they ignore that for social organisms, an ability to have homosexual individuals might benefit the ability of the species to survive.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
Russ
Perversion = sexual behaviour that is considered abnormal and unacceptable.
It can't be morally right as well as abnormal and unacceptable.
Some sexual behaviour is perverse. In other words it is harmful to the person and/or others. It is wrong and should not happen or be tolerated. Sadly there is quite a list - but it boils down to lack of consent or 'consent' where the power balance was exploited.
You can't call something perverse and then, in the next breath say you tolerate it!!
I think you are tying your argument in knots in order not to come over as intolerant.
[ 31. August 2015, 07:52: Message edited by: Boogie ]
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
So the disparity between the consumption of lesbian porn and male porn is a function of the fact that women are less important than men, and lesbian sex isn't a threat to masculinity?
That is some deep and twisted shit right there...
Thank you, thank you both!
Well yeah, had me scratching my head too.
I'd put the disparity down to males having a shit-load more testosterone coursing through their veins than f/males and very little else.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
I'd put the disparity down to males having a shit-load more testosterone coursing through their veins than f/males and very little else.
I would put it down to female sexuality being far less visual than male (generally).
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
Probably at cross purposes here Boogie, but I would say female sexuality is pretty visual and generally on display most of the time. Not wanting too throw petrol and do the o'l female temptress bit.
When it comes to full on porn, bumping of the uglies etc. I wouldn't say the visual spectacle of a female in arousal is any less than that of the male in the same predicament.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
Sorry Rolyn - I meant that females need visual images far less than men do for sex/attraction/masturbation etc therefore porn is not required (generally speaking)
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Sorry Rolyn - I meant that females need visual images far less than men do for sex/attraction/masturbation etc therefore porn is not required (generally speaking)
Ah right, I understand what you mean now.
Suppose we had better return to the matter of tolerating the intolerable.
I think it boils down to different levels of tolerance and how far a person/ group of people is prepared to go in pursuit of their conviction of what they believe to be right.
Somewhat like war and conscientious objection. An extreme comparison yes, (and not comparing m/ homosexuality to either). But when reading these threads the depth of feeling aroused does seem strangly similar.....
......again leading back to patriarch ism.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jemima the 9th
Shipmate
# 15106
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
As for why f/f smut is so much less put down than m/m, my money would be on anything women do being less important than men.
This and it isn't a threat to manhood.
And all women love penis even if they do not yet know it. Just need the proper converting, don't you know.
This is hilarious! And one of those rare gems that keeps me coming back....
So the disparity between the consumption of lesbian porn and male porn is a function of the fact that women are less important than men, and lesbian sex isn't a threat to masculinity?
That is some deep and twisted shit right there...
Thank you, thank you both!
Sorry, my use of the word "smut" wasn't helpful there. I meant sexual practice, not porn. "Smut!" is an injoke in our house, one gets the pretend vapours at any showing of sex on the telly and shouts "Smut!"
lilBuddha, I agree. Somebody round these parts (chive, I think) has an excellent sig about not having met the right man yet.
Posts: 801 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
So the disparity between the consumption of lesbian porn and male porn is a function of the fact that women are less important than men, and lesbian sex isn't a threat to masculinity?
That is some deep and twisted shit right there...
Thank you, thank you both!
Well yeah, had me scratching my head too.
I'd put the disparity down to males having a shit-load more testosterone coursing through their veins than f/males and very little else.
romanlion misrepresented what Jemima and I were saying.
We were not speaking of relative consumption of, but divergent attitudes toward, different types of gay sex.
In other words: straight men get angry about gay male sex, but enjoy gay female sex. Or at least the fantasy of lesbian sex.
So I suppose it is apropos that romanlion was stroking himself off on a misrepresentation rather than reality.
ET Acknowledge an appropriately intertwined x-post.
Don't get to excited though, boys.
[ 31. August 2015, 11:27: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
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
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I think porn is quite complex. I was in an interdisciplinary team analyzing it for a while, and one thing that is apparent is the prominence of the penis in hard porn. The blow-job, hand-job, the famous money-shot, liberal amounts of semen everywhere - anyway, some people have seen this as a reassurance for men, that their dick is intact and powerful.
Suggests that some men think the opposite maybe. The feminist theorist Linda Williams' book 'Hard Core' is well known, but she cautions against taking one view of porn. The sub-title to her book is 'the frenzy of the visible', which I like. But there is quite a lot written about the female orgasm as invisible, and the male one as visible, but there are all kinds of contradictions here, as in intercourse, everything is invisible really, so has to be made visible in various ways.
PS. the idea of biological perversion is a hoot really, I mean risible.
[ 31. August 2015, 12:24: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
While I'm in summarising mode, might be helpful to say what the arguments against my position are that I'm hearing. So you can tell me where I've misunderstood them.
1) is that I've made a category error in classifying homosexuality with other deviations of sexual desire, so that whatever might be true of deviance in general doesn't apply to homosexuality because that's a different sort of thing entirely. Orfeo seems to be arguing this when he draws a distinction between permanent sexual orientation and more transient sexual desires. I don't immediately see the significance of the difference - isn't there thought to be a whole spectrum ?
2) is that I've made an is/ought error. That normality cannot be used to derive any sort of value judgment, and that therefore all deviance deserves equal approval with normal desires unless there are specific unrelated-to-normality reasons why not.
3) is that I'm cruel and unkind for believing anything to be true that might be derogatory to a disadvantaged minority, and that I should recognise my moral duty to stop trying to work out what is true and just feel that equal treatment is the loving thing to do.
Are there more, Other than Variations on these themes ? Have I missed any significantly different perspectives ?
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
On is/ought, it's considered a fallacy not because of 'normality', but because there is a dodgy segue from what is, to what ought to be.
Thus, from 'sex in humans sometimes produces babies', we get 'sex in humans ought to be produce babies'.
Now you can get from one to t'other, but you need some fancy foot-work.
You can do it by personal fiat - I hereby declare that sex ought to be used to make babies; or you can do it by divine fiat, hence, God intended sex to make babies, or you can go to population statistics - sex has to be make babies, otherwise we will all disappear.
So it's not that you can't get from is to ought, but that it seems quite flimsy.
[ 31. August 2015, 12:57: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
While I'm in summarising mode, might be helpful to say what the arguments against my position are that I'm hearing. So you can tell me where I've misunderstood them.
1) is that I've made a category error in classifying homosexuality with other deviations of sexual desire, so that whatever might be true of deviance in general doesn't apply to homosexuality because that's a different sort of thing entirely. Orfeo seems to be arguing this when he draws a distinction between permanent sexual orientation and more transient sexual desires. I don't immediately see the significance of the difference - isn't there thought to be a whole spectrum?
You are continuing to classify sexuality into deviations and "normal" behaviours, rather than consensual activities between consenting adults. This deviant versus normal acceptable sexuality is very much as you describe it, not as is understood more widely. According to Kinsey sexuality is more of a spectrum with homosexuality and heterosexuality as ends of that scale. There are arguments that asexuality is not included. Anecdotally I know young people who identify as bisexual. One I'm thinking of is in a monogamous heterosexual relationship.
There are also a wide range of behaviours that you seem to be classifying as deviant behaviours. I am getting the impression that you are regarding anything other than penis in vagina sex as deviant, so excluding a range of different sex acts that many people would see as normal, within a consensual relationship. (2007 research found 75% of heterosexual couples had taken part in oral sex and 33% in anal sex - those proportions are increasing - although not always consensually from anecdotal evidence.)
quote:
2) is that I've made an is/ought error. That normality cannot be used to derive any sort of value judgment, and that therefore all deviance deserves equal approval with normal desires unless there are specific unrelated-to-normality reasons why not.
Continuing to contrast normality and deviance is not helpful and actually downright offensive to many people, because the value judgement that defines normality here is flawed - see all the posts above arguing that.
Working with teenagers and watching homosexual youngsters not cope with their sexuality, particularly those from religious backgrounds, is quite an eye-opener. Disapproval is literally a killer in some cases.
quote:
3) is that I'm cruel and unkind for believing anything to be true that might be derogatory to a disadvantaged minority, and that I should recognise my moral duty to stop trying to work out what is true and just feel that equal treatment is the loving thing to do.
Russ, do you not know any gay couples? Have you not seen or heard about the way long-standing couples have been excluded from the funerals of their partners?
Have you seen teenagers and young people deal with the bullying for being gay when they are not dating the opposite sex? Have you seen teenagers try to deal with their sexuality when they aren't heterosexual?
quote:
Are there more, Other than Variations on these themes ? Have I missed any significantly different perspectives ?
Suicide rates of gay teenagers compared with heterosexual? Bullying and homophobic attacks on gay young people? The damage done by homophobia in society?
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
(Crosspost in reply to Russ - not that he answered my question, but there you go)
Point 2 is true, in my opinion. However, evolutionary processes suggest that continuing small changes are entirely normal and essential to the long term health and adaptation of the species.
[ 31. August 2015, 13:20: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
1) ... I've made a category error in classifying homosexuality with other deviations of sexual desire ... Orfeo seems to be arguing this when he draws a distinction between permanent sexual orientation and more transient sexual desires. I don't immediately see the significance of the difference - isn't there thought to be a whole spectrum ?...
Yes, you've made a category error. No, you don't see the difference because even though it's been explained several times on this thread, you're (possibly wilfully) stupid.
Sexual orientation determines *who* we want to have sex with. Much of what you call "more transient sexual desires" are the *activities* we like to do with the person we've chosen to have sex with. It's the difference between what you like to do and who you like to do it with. Since you say you can't tell those two apart, we can only conclude you'll fuck anything with an orifice.
--------------------
"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
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I think Russ is either confused, or is trying to confuse everyone else. The net result is the same, though.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
ET Acknowledge an appropriately intertwined x-post.
Don't get to excited though, boys.
The intertwined x-post position should only be attempted by consenting posters not suffering from a backspace condition.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
1) ... I've made a category error in classifying homosexuality with other deviations of sexual desire ... Orfeo seems to be arguing this when he draws a distinction between permanent sexual orientation and more transient sexual desires. I don't immediately see the significance of the difference - isn't there thought to be a whole spectrum ?...
Yes, you've made a category error. No, you don't see the difference because even though it's been explained several times on this thread, you're (possibly wilfully) stupid.
Sexual orientation determines *who* we want to have sex with. Much of what you call "more transient sexual desires" are the *activities* we like to do with the person we've chosen to have sex with. It's the difference between what you like to do and who you like to do it with. Since you say you can't tell those two apart, we can only conclude you'll fuck anything with an orifice.
Exactly this. Sexual orientation is orientation towards a kind of person. Not towards a kind of activity.
If you tried to always discuss what "consenting adults" did without obsessing over the gender of the adults, and you simply left non-consensual activities out of it as irrelevant, this whole conversation would be a lot simpler.
Because that's your whole argument basically: that the moral nature of a sexual activity can change just because of the gender of the person carrying out the activity.
(It mystifies me why people look at homosexual rape in the Bible and think it's a condemnation of homosexuality. The logical corollary of that is to suggest that heterosexual rape is just fine and dandy. This is what happens when you read Lot as saying "please, if you'd just prove your heterosexuality by raping my daughters everything will be fine".)
[ 31. August 2015, 23:36: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
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
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Sexual orientation is orientation towards a kind of person. Not towards a kind of activity.
Or rather, since you already indicate what the orientation is generally about through the adjective "sexual", then you only need to indicate the actual sex of the partner to specify the activity you desire. If your badminton orientation is same sex, then you are not going to play mixed doubles. If, however, you are telling us that you actually simply prefer the company of men, without attending sexual desire - i.e., the specific desire to have sex with them, an activity - then I have good news for you: nobody cares about such philandry, as long as you keep the misogyny in check.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Because that's your whole argument basically: that the moral nature of a sexual activity can change just because of the gender of the person carrying out the activity.
Well, because of the sex of both persons involved, yes. Homosexual acts are intrinsically wrong, wrong as such. There is no way in which homosexual acts can be performed that would make them morally licit. A discussion of consent is therefore besides the point. That is the basic contention. And yes, traditional Christianity does not define the morality of sexual activity based on consent alone.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I vaguely recall a previous pope saying something along the lines of, well if you are going to be a homosexual prostitue you probably should use a condom.
I would guess that the same guy would accept that rape is morally worse than consenual sex, regardless of the gender of the victim.
Do you think that is consistent with the teaching of the magesterium ?
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Sexual orientation is orientation towards a kind of person. Not towards a kind of activity.
Or rather, since you already indicate what the orientation is generally about through the adjective "sexual", then you only need to indicate the actual sex of the partner to specify the activity you desire.
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
No. No. A million times no. "Sex" is not just one activity. If you're going to jump into a conversation, could you at least read what Russ himself has talked about in terms of the range of what sex encompasses?
If a person says they like BDSM, that is not a sexual orientation. Without knowing more about them you don't have a clue who their preferred partner in a BDSM activity is.
Homosexuality is an orientation, not an activity. It tells you nothing about what sorts of sexual activities a homosexual person actually likes (hint: lots of gay men don't like anal sex, lots of straight men do) or whether they're doing any activities at all.
While you have a view that there is an inherent difference in the moral nature of heterosexual sex and homosexual sex, the whole notion that there is some difference in the physical nature of the activities undertaken in each case is just completely and utterly wrong. Anything that you would care to describe as "gay sex" is almost certainly happening among straight couples and probably happening a lot more among straight couples by sheer weight of numbers.
[ 01. September 2015, 07:32: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Because that's your whole argument basically: that the moral nature of a sexual activity can change just because of the gender of the person carrying out the activity.
Well, because of the sex of both persons involved, yes. Homosexual acts are intrinsically wrong, wrong as such. There is no way in which homosexual acts can be performed that would make them morally licit. A discussion of consent is therefore besides the point. That is the basic contention. And yes, traditional Christianity does not define the morality of sexual activity based on consent alone.
The discussion of consent is not besides the point, because of the fallacy of the undistributed middle. Russ sometimes seems to think that the only alternative to "all homosexual acts are morally illicit" is "all homosexual acts are morally licit", as if the rest of us are arguing for an anything goes attitude.
We're not. What we're arguing is that homosexual sex should be subject to exactly the same principles as heterosexual sex - and not all heterosexual sex is licit.
Consent is just one obvious and easy example of a relevant principle. No-one is suggesting that consent is sufficient, only that it is necessary. I'm terribly sorry to both of you that we can't boil down the whole of sexual ethics to one sentence so that it's not too difficult, but here in the real world there's usually a whole bunch of competing considerations to take into account.
And the original point of my comment was that it'd be damn nice if we could discuss one or other principle without being deviated into pointless sidetracks because some people feel the need to take silence on a particular point as if it implies a definitive position.
--------------------
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
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I vaguely recall a previous pope saying something along the lines of, well if you are going to be a homosexual prostitue you probably should use a condom. I would guess that the same guy would accept that rape is morally worse than consenual sex, regardless of the gender of the victim. Do you think that is consistent with the teaching of the magesterium ?
The question of condom usage is in my eyes a complete red herring, based on the common misconception that the RCC somehow has a problem with condoms as such. In fact, the only thing that the magisterium has officially forbidden is the usage of any contraceptive means within (heterosexual) marriage. You should of course not have any sex outside of (heterosexual) marriage, that's also a teaching of the magisterium. However, if you are having sex outside of (heterosexual) marriage anyway, then the magisterium says exactly nothing about how you should do that. In particular, the usage of means that protect against pregnancy and STDs like a condom is then under no kind of additional ban. Consequently, simple prudence would suggest that you use them, in particular but not exclusively if you work as a prostitute.
The question whether rape is morally worse than homosexual acts has two different answers, depending on what you mean. On the binary distinction of venial vs. mortal sin, both are a mortal sin as such (prior to taking any personal or circumstantial factors into account that could reduce culpability). One can of course say that it is much easier to think of reasons why culpability may be reduced in the case of homosexuality. Still, committing either of these acts as such is a ticket to hell, since this is a kind of "threshold system". If you cross the threshold, you are in trouble, no matter how far you have crossed it. (Worse sins will lead to worse punishment in hell - still, hell is hell.) This does not imply that rape is not "morally worse" than consensual homosexual acts, given that the former is done against the will of the victim. So for example, if we construct a moral dilemma where one is forced to choose between a rape (of any kind) and a consensual homosexual, then the latter would be the lesser evil.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
It's the difference between what you like to do and who you like to do it with.
That seems pretty clear cut.
But if we're saying there's a spectrum of who from exclusively homo to exclusively hetero with all possibilities in between. Is there also a spectrum of what ? Between exclusively vanilla and exclusively kinky, (using these terms very loosely to try to communicate the point) ?
If we use "orientation" to mean an innate consistent and continuing preference for who, what if anything is wrong with the suggestion that some people have an innate consistent and continuing preference for what ? And that this is something similar-in-kind ?
Is it that you're committed to seeing "gay" as an identity because you're coming at this politically instead of philosophically ?
--------------------
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:
Is it that you're committed to seeing "gay" as an identity because you're coming at this politically instead of philosophically ?
Ask those people who are gay.
Do you know any? - if not, there are plenty on the Ship right here.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
Gee, I don't know, Russ. Do you prefer Western or English tack? Remember, neither tack will work on a camel.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
Oh, and Russ: most people who are gay or lesbian say they have always felt they were gay or lesbian, even before puberty. Perhaps you can find us a counterexample of a six-year-old saying, "I can hardly wait to get into my first gimp suit."
--------------------
"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:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
It's the difference between what you like to do and who you like to do it with.
That seems pretty clear cut.
But if we're saying there's a spectrum of who from exclusively homo to exclusively hetero with all possibilities in between. Is there also a spectrum of what ? Between exclusively vanilla and exclusively kinky, (using these terms very loosely to try to communicate the point) ?
If we use "orientation" to mean an innate consistent and continuing preference for who, what if anything is wrong with the suggestion that some people have an innate consistent and continuing preference for what ? And that this is something similar-in-kind ?
Well if you're going to start arguing that, then we might as well start describing people as dog-oriented or cat-oriented, chemistry-oriented or physics-oriented, drama-oriented or comedy-oriented, oriented towards different flavours, different kinds of music...
Wow, you've discovered that there's more than one spectrum in the world, and what the word "orientation" means. Your degree in rocket science can't be far behind.
Sexual orientation is a specific term with a specific meaning. Etymology is not meaning. Get over it already.
--------------------
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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
ADDENDUM: And what is all this identity crap? I'm gay. That doesn't mean I have no other characteristics, any more than being Christian, a lawyer or a pianist represents the sum total of my existence.
But all of these things are part of my identity, just as various things about you are part of your identity. If you're going to suggest that there's something problematic about having gay as part of my identity, then are you also going to suggest that being straight shouldn't be part of someone's identity? That any signals of being straight, like being married and having a family, aren't part of a person's identity?
I think such a proposition would upset a hell of a lot of people.
--------------------
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
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Homosexuality is an orientation, not an activity. It tells you nothing about what sorts of sexual activities a homosexual person actually likes (hint: lots of gay men don't like anal sex, lots of straight men do) or whether they're doing any activities at all.
I have not said that homosexuality is an activity. But it indicates a desire for a kind of activity. I'm sure that this desire is often "unspecific", indeed, somebody who feels sexually attracted need not be thinking of any concrete activity at all. We are analysing this here in terms of the activities that are ultimately seen to fulfil this desire, not in terms of what is actually going on in someone's head at the time. That there are many different activities that can be so labeled is neither here nor there. That the mechanics of some of the activities can be performed between members of the opposite sex is also neither here nor there.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
While you have a view that there is an inherent difference in the moral nature of heterosexual sex and homosexual sex, the whole notion that there is some difference in the physical nature of the activities undertaken in each case is just completely and utterly wrong. Anything that you would care to describe as "gay sex" is almost certainly happening among straight couples and probably happening a lot more among straight couples by sheer weight of numbers.
But all this is of no importance whatsoever. The traditional position is not that anal sex is bad for this reason, oral sex is bad for that reason, etc. The traditional position is that vaginal intercourse open to procreation is good and all else is bad. One thing is allowed, everything else is not. Gay couples cannot perform this particular sex act, hence their sex is illicit no matter what it might be like. One can, and I personally do, argue that a heterosexual couple which performs other sexual acts as foreplay for vaginal intercourse should be left to their devices. But that's an accommodation to human fickleness, it's not an endorsement of these other sexual acts as such. Furthermore, one can argue that a heterosexual couple having (only) oral sex is "less wrong" than a homosexual couple, precisely from the point of view that only one kind of sexual act is truly licit. Namely, the heterosexual couple has at least chosen the right kind of partner, if for the wrong kind of sexual act. Whereas the homosexual couple errs on both counts.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The traditional position is that vaginal intercourse open to procreation is good and all else is bad. One thing is allowed, everything else is not. Gay couples cannot perform this particular sex act, hence their sex is illicit no matter what it might be like. One can, and I personally do, argue that a heterosexual couple which performs other sexual acts as foreplay for vaginal intercourse should be left to their devices. But that's an accommodation to human fickleness, it's not an endorsement of these other sexual acts as such. Furthermore, one can argue that a heterosexual couple having (only) oral sex is "less wrong" than a homosexual couple, precisely from the point of view that only one kind of sexual act is truly licit. Namely, the heterosexual couple has at least chosen the right kind of partner, if for the wrong kind of sexual act. Whereas the homosexual couple errs on both counts.
What a steaming pile of unremitting shit bollocks
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
