|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: I call all homophobes to Hell - especially Russ
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
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 ?
You're aiming to have things you consider perversions only happen behind closed doors where children won't find out about them until an appropriate age. Quite why you think that doesn't count as 'coming at this politically' I don't know.
Boogie is coming at this personally first and then politically, which is what coming a matter philosophically amounts to when done well: she is thinking about the real experiences of real people and how they can be made better or worse.
You're basically using 'politically' as a perjorative way for dismissing other people's arguments, as if your position isn't political.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
At this point, the thread basically serves as Russ and IngoB failing a Turing test. Repeatedly.
Bishōnen Jesus weeps at your de-humanizing polarization.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
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.
That you can still (claim to) believe this on the eleventh page of this thread is simply depressing. You are failing - wilfully - to consider or engage with any of the arguments made against you.
No one else is using "biological perversion" as a moral category. No one. IngoB's arguments are the closest to that, and they are still a fucking long way from it.
We don't need the moral category of "defect", "disorder" or "perversion" to be imported from some spurious biology to condemn rape or child abuse. If I were, for example, to entertain thoughts of having forced sex with a thirteen year old girl, and tried to persuade (to pick one of many possible names) orfeo that in fact my desire was due to adaptive biological traits, I might even succeed: a thirteen year old is quite likely to be fertile, and, if time, place and victim were carefully selected, might be impregnated without undue personal risk, so the activity could well be a biologically advantageous one. Do you suppose that if I successfully made that biological argument, orfeo would pause for a moment in condemning the intended rape? Do you think it would make any difference at all?
We simply don't care, morally speaking, whether rape is something that has actually been selected for at some stage or other in our evolution, or whether the tendency to do it is a maladaptive biological defect. It hurts people. That's the point. That's why it's wrong.
The point is not that "whatever might be true of deviance in general doesn't apply to homosexuality" as you misrepresent it. The point is that there is nothing that's (morally) true of deviance (biological sense) in general. Nothing. Proving that some sort of sex act either is or is not a deviation from some biological standard tells us nothing whatsoever about its ethics. Strict and exclusive monogamy is a biological deviation - you need look no further than your own bollocks to tell that*. Celibacy even more so. Rape may not be. Sex with (what we would consider to be) underage but fertile women very likely isn't. So what? It doesn't matter. Biology isn't ethics. I'm as much a "biological pervert" for being strictly faithful to my wife as any homosexual is. What double standard are you going to use to distinguish my perversion from paedophilia?
(*They are enormously bigger and more productive than they need to be for the mechanics of procreation. Why? Because you are descended from a long line of male apes who evolved to produce more sperm than their rivals. And the reason why almost all men have large testicles, is that our female ancestors cheated on their mates with sufficient frequency that this was a necessity - often enough, in fact, for all the small-bollocked males to die out. Biologically, we are adapted to pair bond AND to cheat.)
--------------------
"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
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
It is rather amusing to see IngoB to treat the vagina as if it were some sort of moral/sexual punctuation mark.
Oral, anal, vaginal; done!
"Honey, before your penis gets too soft, stick it in my vagina so Jesus doesn't get cross".
--------------------
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
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
So what part of adolescent necking and mutual sexploration is morally wrong in the IngoB universe? That adolescents fondle each other which doesn't involve plugging it in? Assuming that IngoB had an adolescence....
I'm having trouble with the shipname "In go" just now.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Surely it should more accurately be IngoP.
Normally I campaign against the name change amnesty, however....
--------------------
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
|
|
Ariston
Insane Unicorn
# 10894
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
Why say that the male/female divide is The Big One? What real and rational basis can you give for it?
I have already given you one rational reason, which you have simply ignored: it is the biggest systematic split, and importantly, it always has been. There just is no other group characteristic that sorts roughly one half of humanity into one group and the other half into the other. And importantly, has always done so and will do so for the foreseeable future. (It could be that at some point half of the world's population is Chinese, or half of the world's population is Christian, or whatever. But these are transient and contingent splits. The male-female divide has been there since time immemorial, and isn't going anywhere anytime soon.)
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
And to all of you knocking the Middle Ages as being irrational, or Platonic, or whatever: seriously, quit it. Thomistic natural law theory has, as I mentioned, absolutely nothing in common with whatever pseudo-scientific nonsense IngoB and Russ are trying to argue
If you could snap out of your crusade mode just for a second, and actually assess what I've been writing here and elsewhere, then I think you will have to agree that where I actually discuss natural moral law theory, I'm not so easily shown to be at odds with Thomistic thinking. On this thread, of course, I have mostly not been talking "natural moral law" at all. I have talked biology, and visions, and all manner of things. However, I have clearly said so, and even made explicit that these thoughts are not natural moral law arguments. I think you are being unfair to me here, and unlike orfeo, I think you know and care. If however you feel that where I actually have made natural moral law arguments I have strayed from Thomistic principles, I look forward to hearing more. You do tend to have a clue, and I appreciate that, even if we disagree.
Sorry for the late reply (and even now, it'll have to be hasty); Work leaves less time (and energy) than I'd like.
Following de Beauvoir, I'm still not convinced that the male/female division is quite as ontologically and naturally primal as you make it out to be—that it, it does not constitute a specific difference, enough or significant of one to transcend or be more important than the species "human," nor to be so absolutely overpowering as to be absolutely more important than any other difference.
Yes, I understand that, if you adhere to a view in which all of humanity is absolutely, completely, and perfectly separated into people who are either male or female, no grey areas, no ambiguity, no continuum, end of story, you might be able to make a case that it's the split that most nearly cleaves humanity in half, one that might make a good candidate for the first question in a taxonomic key of "what kind of human is this?"
There's a big difference, however, between making a taxonomic key and arguing for metaphysical differences significant enough to affect moral thought, however—and taxonomy can be a bit of an arbitrary science. Is there a reason why I look for color change to red when applying potassium hydroxide to the lichen thallus before pulling out my loupe and examining the fruiting bodies? Sure, there's a practical reason, based in our understanding of lichen taxonomy and field work techniques, but not a metaphysical one.
The I/You split is much more significant, and has far greater implications for ethics and metaphysics, than any sort of arbitrary other classification—even if it's the one you, or other people, happen to notice first. There's quite a bit of metaphysical heavy lifting you're trying to do with "but it just is, it always has been, isn't it obvious" that I don't quite buy.
What is unique about natural law theories (either the classical forms grounded in an understanding of the God's eternal law or contemporary ones based in rationally deriving what conditions and behaviors would produce certain human and social goods) and what distinguishes them from "law of nature" theories that rely on appeals to experiment, induction, and evolution?
First, they approach the is/ought copula in a different way. As Finnis is at pains to point out and argue, if you stay in the realm of practical reason, staying always in the kingdom of ethical thought, and never cross over into empirical observation, you can skirt the naturalistic fallacy. That is, there's nothing wrong with going from "this is ethical" to "therefore, we should do this." For that matter, there's nothing wrong with going from "these are human and social goods that we wish to secure" to "therefore, we should take these actions to procure them," or "here is the will of God for the universe, and this will ought to be discerned and followed" to "therefore, we ought to discern and follow it."
There is, however, a problem in moving from observed facts—humans are excited by X, humans have always done X—and deriving an ought from that. All you know from observing nature is that something is the case; it might be the case that humans are naturally inclined towards evil, and have a radical propensity towards it. Looking at how human beings naturally behave is no basis for ethics, nor is the "yuck factor" any guide for a good life!
Okay, gotta run. The bike shop calleth.
--------------------
“Therefore, let it be explained that nowhere are the proprieties quite so strictly enforced as in men’s colleges that invite young women guests, especially over-night visitors in the fraternity houses.” Emily Post, 1937.
Posts: 6849 | From: The People's Republic of Balcones | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And someone who doesn't eat food will die. Someone who has homosexual sex won't. Enough with this utterly stupid comparison.
Not stupid. If a person eats exclusively non-food then yes, they die. If a society engages in exclusively homosexual sex then...
If you're willing to admit that in (what I hope is) a non-controversial example, the question of the purpose of food has some relationship to the question " what should you eat?" then it might just dawn on you that a connection between the concepts of morality and purpose is not an unreasonable idea.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
If a society engages in exclusively homosexual sex then...
This would matter if we held some sort of Kantian theory according to which an action is only moral if it would be ok if everyone did it and nobody did anything else.
As we don't most of us hold that kind of Kantian theory (and indeed Kantian accounts of morality are generally opposed to accounts based on purpose), I don't see that you're making any kind of relevant point.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
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 .
No, I'm the one arguing against a binary OK/not-OK split.
And no, not all you good ladies and gentlemen who are arguing for the same conclusion are making the same argument.
If I have it right, you (Orfeo) are making argument #1 - that I've blundered by misclassifying the homosexuals with the deviants instead of with the left-handers. And if you get a bit upset by this, I wouldn't blame you - who wants to be lumped in with the perverts ?
Others (Eliab?) are making argument #2 - that I've made a classical mistake in philosophy by drawing an ought conclusion from an is premise. That there's no basis for deriving any value judgment that something is not-good merely from the fact that it is deviant. That starts to sound a bit like "anything goes", and some of the responses to them reflect that. (Whilst of course not denying that some forms of deviant behaviour may be morally wrong for other reasons). If they're right then being in the deviant category is nothing to be upset about...
And some people may be going further to make a new argument #4 - that the distinction between normal and deviant is meaningless anyway. And if they're right then your argument is undermined alongside mine - there isn't a deviant category to be inside of or outside of...
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
If a society engages in exclusively homosexual sex then...
This would matter if we held some sort of Kantian theory according to which an action is only moral if it would be ok if everyone did it and nobody did anything else.
And, of course, that reasoning would make contraception immoral as well as homosexuality. If all the world's women went on the pill, they might as well be lesbians as far as 'biological purpose' is concerned.
I'm aware that some Christians do consider artificial contraception immoral, but even they have little problem with natural family planning, and really, it's hard to imagine many things more aptly described as a "biological perversion" than deliberately seeking to identify the times when one is least likely to be fertile and copulating only at those times. An animal (wild or domesticated) that spontaneously began to act in that way would certainly be reckoned to have something wrong with it. And yet biological purpose is not generally thought to be morally relevant when humans choose to do this, in my view, rightly so.
(For clarity, this is not intended to be a critique of the RC position on contraception, which (unusually for the Protestant on the Ship) I think does coherently distinguish natural and artificial contraception. I still think the Catholic position is wrong, just not inconsistent. I'm attacking Russ's position, which does imply a rejection of all contraception, natural or otherwise, and which unlike the Catholic view, lacks any serious coherence or sense).
--------------------
"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
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Others (Eliab?) are making argument #2 - that I've made a classical mistake in philosophy by drawing an ought conclusion from an is premise. That there's no basis for deriving any value judgment that something is not-good merely from the fact that it is deviant. That starts to sound a bit like "anything goes", and some of the responses to them reflect that. (Whilst of course not denying that some forms of deviant behaviour may be morally wrong for other reasons). If they're right then being in the deviant category is nothing to be upset about...
That's a mind-fuckingly stupid response to my arguments.
Taking the non sequiturs in order:
1) No, I haven't argued or relied on the general philosophical point, nor have I said anything that could reasonably be interpreted that way.
2) You're equivocating on the word "deviant". As used in the premise of your argument, it is simply not a moral term at all, so yes, it is correct that no value judgment follows. You have to change the definition entirely to think that by pointing this out I'm arguing that "anything goes". Indeed, since I'm actually arguing for a thoroughly conservative, no-sex-before-marriage-and-strict-fidelity-thereafter, ethic, and have said so explicitly, you are simply lying about that. I cannot believe that you are so idiotic as to have misunderstood me so completely.
3) Yes, of course calling someone a deviant is insulting, as you know very well. The fact that some of us are doing you the courtesy of engaging with your arguments by using your chosen terminology of "defect", "disorder" and "perversion" in the narrow and technical (if ill-thought out) ways that your began to use them, does not mean that we've ceased to notice that they are also insults. Your comment is exactly as stupid as the claim that because there is no inherent culpability in being either sexually active or illegitimate, no one should object to being called a fucking bastard.
You are being rude. You are being deliberately rude. You know that you are being deliberately rude. Pretending otherwise does not make you look polite. It makes you look like a cretinous turd.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Eliab, I think I love you.
--------------------
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
|
|
Sandemaniac
Shipmate
# 12829
|
Posted
Careful now, Russ will get terribly upset if you mean that in a gay way.
AG
--------------------
"It becomes soon pleasantly apparent that change-ringing is by no means merely an excuse for beer" Charles Dickens gets it wrong, 1869
Posts: 3574 | From: The wardrobe of my soul | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
Following de Beauvoir, I'm still not convinced that the male/female division is quite as ontologically and naturally primal as you make it out to be—that it, it does not constitute a specific difference, enough or significant of one to transcend or be more important than the species "human," nor to be so absolutely overpowering as to be absolutely more important than any other difference.
Of course the male - female split, while most decidedly being present beyond humanity, is not more decisive than the human - non-human split. A male dog is less like to me (as a male human) than a female human. That is simply not under discussion, at all. That however among humans the male - female split is fundamental, arguably the most fundamental, is also entirely obvious. There is the simple strength of numbers, conserved through all history, which has been discussed above. There is also the undeniable fact that no human culture has ever existed anywhere on this planet in which male and female humans were not in some way culturally and socially distinct. We can go on to basic biology, and note the decidedly different roles in procreation, which inevitably and significantly shape adult human lives into two distinct types. And so on. Frankly, to argue for the significance of the male - female split is like arguing that water is wet. This is however not a justification of patriarchy, and feminists attacking the obvious importance of the male - female split over political concerns are really barking up the wrong tree.
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
Yes, I understand that, if you adhere to a view in which all of humanity is absolutely, completely, and perfectly separated into people who are either male or female, no grey areas, no ambiguity, no continuum, end of story, you might be able to make a case that it's the split that most nearly cleaves humanity in half, one that might make a good candidate for the first question in a taxonomic key of "what kind of human is this?"
I'm not declaring women to be a different species of human being, as would be appropriate to taxonomy. I'm saying that within the actual life and experience of a human being the "essential accident" of one's sex is of fundamental importance. The point is exactly that being a human being (not a dog, not another kind of ape, ...), living as rational animal, comes in two basic flavours. I note furthermore that for this picture it is entirely irrelevant that there are a few odd "intersex" cases. There is nothing in this view that requires the male - female split to be protected against possible biological corruption. If your bladder and bowels are fused then that does not indicate either that classifying them as different organs is mistaken. It just means that you are sick.
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
The I/You split is much more significant, and has far greater implications for ethics and metaphysics, than any sort of arbitrary other classification—even if it's the one you, or other people, happen to notice first.
This is both true and totally irrelevant. Of course, the I/you split is at the very root of human cognition, including moral cognition. And precisely because that is so, it tells us very little about anything. Any sort of moral system humans have seriously considered or deployed assumes the distinctions between I and you. Consequently, that distinction basically says nothing about morality other than that it is possible in the first place.
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
As Finnis is at pains to point out and argue, if you stay in the realm of practical reason, staying always in the kingdom of ethical thought, and never cross over into empirical observation, you can skirt the naturalistic fallacy.
John Finnis belongs to the "new natural moral law" theorists. He is precisely not a representative of classical (Aristotelian-Thomistic) natural moral law. You are really comparing apples and oranges there, they are not at all the same. Here's an article by Feser that somewhat accidentally summarises key differences.
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
There is, however, a problem in moving from observed facts—humans are excited by X, humans have always done X—and deriving an ought from that. All you know from observing nature is that something is the case; it might be the case that humans are naturally inclined towards evil, and have a radical propensity towards it. Looking at how human beings naturally behave is no basis for ethics, nor is the "yuck factor" any guide for a good life!
There simply is no other thing on which "non-revealed" morality could be based than rational analysis of human behaviour and "instinctive" evaluations thereof. The question is not that this will be done, for it most assuredly will be, but rather how it will be done.
--------------------
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 Eliab:
You are failing - wilfully - to consider or engage with any of the arguments made against you
I'm sorry that you're feeling not-listened to.
There are possibly a dozen people making worthwhile and interesting posts on this thread ( ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif) and Mousethief is hanging around too ) and I'm not up to making more than around 3 replies a day (and some people think that's 3 too many). So yes there are points going answered .
Part of the point of trying to list the arguments against my position was to acknowledge that alongside the gratuitous insults I am hearing reasoned arguments from people such as your good self.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Your sexual desire for your own gender is one of the less-than-ideal things about you. In terms of the ideals I hold to.
Unless this has been done in the, I think, 12 pages that follow:
?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
The fact that some of us are doing you the courtesy of engaging with your arguments by using your chosen terminology of "defect", "disorder" and "perversion" in the narrow and technical (if ill-thought out) ways that your began to use them, does not mean that we've ceased to notice that they are also insults.
I strongly suspect that you fully understand the concept that I struggle to put into words here. What polite word do you suggest I use as shorthand for the various disordered ways in which sexual desire driven by the biological urge to reproduce expresses itself in forms which create bonds that do not serve that end ?
"Difference" doesn't do it. Any two things not the same are different.
You disagree with my stated belief and that's fine. But if you think I'm stating it in language which is unnecessarily offensive, please do suggest a politer terminology that conveys the same idea.
If there really isn't any, if in the history of the English language there has never been the need to speak of sexual deviance in a value-free way, doesn't that tell you something ?
On your other point, I think we're all agreed that non-consensual sex acts are wrong and should not be tolerated.
So what do we say to those who have an innate, continuing and consistent desire to perform such acts ? I suggest that we say something like:
- we're sorry that you have this condition that tempts you to do very bad things
- we know it's not your fault; you are not to blame for these desires that you did not choose
- we would cure you if we could
- but whether you agree with us or not, we insist that you do not satisfy this desire.
Does this make us cruel and unkind ? No, it's a necessary part of being moral.
I am putting to you the argument that there is a non-empty category of consensual deviant sexual acts. That being consensual, they are very much less wrong than the other sort.
But if you have values beyond the value of consent (as you Eliab and many here have said they do) then these acts can fall short of gaining your approval, fall into your tolerance gap.
What do we say to those with the innate, continuing and consistent desire to do these things ?
That's the question here. Too late at night to continue. Trying to cram too much into one post again...
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
A cursory study of biology and sex shows that homosexuality is often part of a species survival strategy, not a divergence. And even where that is not clear, it is quite obviously not harmful to the species survival.
So we can discard your deviance bullshit and Bingo's "ordered to" obfuscation.
All you really have are some trivial, and contested, bits in a book neither of you hold completely and literally to.
[ 02. September 2015, 00:11: 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
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
What polite word do you suggest I use as shorthand for the various disordered ways in which sexual desire driven by the biological urge to reproduce expresses itself in forms which create bonds that do not serve that end ?
"Difference" doesn't do it. Any two things not the same are different.
You disagree with my stated belief and that's fine. But if you think I'm stating it in language which is unnecessarily offensive, please do suggest a politer terminology that conveys the same idea.
It's very easy to phrase what you purport to be trying to say in neutral language. The trouble (for you) is that expressing the biological idea without using terms which have impolite connotations immediately exposes your argument for the vacuous garbage that it is.
"Non-adaptive sexual behaviour".
"Sub-optimal reproductive strategy".
"Copying error in the genes that influence sexual attraction".
Those would be neutral, and meaningful, ways of expressing the idea of sexuality "going wrong" from a biological viewpoint - each of the three alternatives emphasising a slightly different aspect of what may be going wrong.
But you aren't going to use them in your argument, are you? You can't say "If you approve one sub-optimal reproductive strategy like homosexuality, on what basis can you condemn another sub-optimal reproductive strategy like paedophilia?" As soon as you express the idea like that, even you must see that it's bullshit. Because it's blindingly obvious, as soon as you've said it, that we don't care in the least whether paedophilia is a sub-optimal reproductive strategy or not, and if it is, that isn't why we consider it evil to rape children.
Your argument is wholly and entirely a clumsy attempt to persuade us that homosexuality is properly described as a "defect"* in some biological sense and then conflating it with activities which are plainly morally defective, and hoping that we don't notice that you've put the two in the same category by equivocal use of the word.
The thing is, we have noticed. You've been called on it. And you still haven't set out any sort of consistent principled stance in which the relatively uncontroversial biological point translates to ethics. You are still relying on an odious equivocation on the meaning of insulting terms, even after the fraud has been exposed. You are fooling no one, but you keep on banging the same drum because you have nothing else to say.
That's why my respect for your position, never very substantial, has entirely evaporated. There is no principle there, no engagement, no concern for either truth or fairness.
(*or disorder, deviation or perversion)
--------------------
"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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And someone who doesn't eat food will die. Someone who has homosexual sex won't. Enough with this utterly stupid comparison.
Not stupid. If a person eats exclusively non-food then yes, they die. If a society engages in exclusively homosexual sex then...
No-one is asking society to engage exclusively in homosexual sex, you twerp.
The difference between a proposition for an individual human being and a proposition for a whole society is blindingly obvious. So obvious that you realised you had to replace "person" with "society" while writing your statement, yet you still decided it was worth publishing the comment as if you were making a useful point.
There are a whole pile of things essential to your own survival that you don't do yourself. There are whole pile of things essential to society's survival that you let other people take care of for you. People don't grow their own food, construct their own houses, build their own water and sewage pipes etc etc etc.
Not only did this obvious factor have to be pointed out to Ingo with his spaceship story, you couldn't be arsed reading it at the time. What an utterly stupid proposition to raise, a dozen pages into the thread.
I think Eliab's right about you.
And hands off everybody, I proposed to Eliab years ago - the evidence is in the Quotes File, sadly proving that this conversation hasn't advanced one iota since.
[ 02. September 2015, 01:56: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
The5thMary
Shipmate
# 12953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It is rather amusing to see IngoB to treat the vagina as if it were some sort of moral/sexual punctuation mark.
Oral, anal, vaginal; done!
"Honey, before your penis gets too soft, stick it in my vagina so Jesus doesn't get cross".
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif) ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
God gave me my face but She let me pick my nose.
Posts: 3451 | From: Tacoma, WA USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
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.
You have run afoul of the two definitions of "sex." When you say "sexual orientation" you mean "oriented toward people of a particular sex" -- i.e. men or women. Not that you're oriented to having sexual relations, let alone sexual relations of some particular kind.
Sex(1) = physical gender
Sex(2) = bumping uglies
The same word means two different things. In the term "sexual orientation" it's being used in the FIRST sense, not the SECOND.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Others (Eliab?) are making argument #2 - that I've made a classical mistake in philosophy by drawing an ought conclusion from an is premise. That there's no basis for deriving any value judgment that something is not-good merely from the fact that it is deviant. That starts to sound a bit like "anything goes",
Only if "deviancy" (as you define it) (have you ever defined it, by the way?) is the only possible criterion for judging the moral status of an action. If there are other criteria that can be used to judge actions, then the "anything goes" charge is a straw man.
quote:
What polite word do you suggest I use as shorthand for the various disordered ways in which sexual desire driven by the biological urge to reproduce expresses itself in forms which create bonds that do not serve that end ?
Non-reproductive sexual variants. Which leaves open the question of whether or not they are morally culpable.
quote:
( and Mousethief is hanging around too )
Dear God, I hope you don't think you're being cute. Yes, I have noticed that my arguments sort of pass you by. Probably because you can't counter them, so you pretend to ignore me because I have strong opinions and express them strongly. We see what you're doing. Everybody else is just too polite to say it.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
you twerp.
twerp, really? This is the best description and/or insult you could manage?
Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I thought I might not be privy to some esoteric or obscure meaning, some slang. So I did a search. Nothing in English, American, Canadian or Australian did I find.* Nothing in the Urban Dictionary or any other slang repository I came across had any meaning than the commonly used one.
He's pages past any polite consideration.
*I even held the laptop upside down to better approximate your view.
--------------------
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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I was trying to be nice. You gotta problem with that, punk?
--------------------
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 mousethief:
Yes, I have noticed that my arguments sort of pass you by. Probably because you can't counter them, so you pretend to ignore me because I have strong opinions and express them strongly. We see what you're doing. Everybody else is just too polite to say it.
I was being ignored for a while. Now I'm being engaged with, and I'm resorting to words like "twerp".
I'm really not sure whether the situation has improved or not.
--------------------
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
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Spirit doesn't work so well when confined to a rigid cultural prison. Which is so much of the attack in this thread.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
The upside-down laptop snark was particularly amusing.
Other than that, I think we can gainfully appeal to Eliab's ego by communally proposing to be his pan-gendered harem.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
Eliab,
you say you value fidelity. Suppose you read about someone whose psyche is so wired that they are only sexually aroused by strangers. They're an entirely normal reasonable everyday person except for this desire.
What do you say to those who have such an innate, continuing and consistent desire ? What do you say that does justice to both your value and their humanity ?
You might say something like:
- you're sorry that they have this condition that prevents them from experiencing what you hold to be the ideal human relationship, a loving marriage
- you know it's not their fault; they are not to blame for these desires that they did not choose
- you would contribute to the cost of their therapy if you thought that would be effective but it isn't
- they're adults, it's their choice how they deal with the short straw they've drawn in life, if they want to satisfy their desire in promiscuity you will tolerate that
- but you retain the value that such a lifestyle is not ideal, you don't want your children to be subjected to propaganda saying what a great thing this is, and you argue against well-meaning people who want to say their promiscuity is the same thing as your marriage.
Can you see how you might think something along those lines ?
Do such thoughts make you cruel and unkind and full of hate ?
--------------------
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:
I strongly suspect that you fully understand the concept that I struggle to put into words here.
I'll help you.
You are saying -
"I am homophobic. I find the thought of homosexual sex ikky ikky ikky yuk yuk yuk and I will find as many ways to excuse that thought as I can.
Best Wishes from a well meaning and always with your best interests at heart, obviously.
Russ"
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
I'm not sure. It's making about as much sense as a real life soap opera character (married, has an affair getting pregnant, divorce, remarry a man not the father of the child, divorce, remarry the man who was the father of the child, then divorce again before getting married for the fourth time) deciding that her belief in what the Bible says about marriage means she can't issue marriage licenses for same sex couples, despite that being her job and the courts saying she has no choice but to do so unless she quits her job.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Suppose you read about someone whose psyche is so wired that they are only sexually aroused by strangers. They're an entirely normal reasonable everyday person except for this desire.
What do you say to those who have such an innate, continuing and consistent desire ?
Let's start with the sequence here. You read about these people and then you have to say something to them. All you know about them is what you've read - they haven't said anything to you - and yet you're in a position where you feel the obligation to say something to them.
That's on the face of it a rather bizarre situation.
How about you listen to what they have to say to you first?
Anyway, these people aren't real. They're thought experiments. Gay people are not thought experiments. Real people's lives are deeper and more coloured than can be captured in a thought experiment. So one can't answer your question about the thought experiment as if it were comparable until you've produced a series of fictional testimonies for your fictional group of sufficient richness to correspond to real people's lives.
(There are other salient differences one can point out between the situation of your thought experiment genetically non-intimates and the situation of homosexual people; but what I've said is enough for now.)
quote:
- but you retain the value that such a lifestyle is not ideal, you don't want your children to be subjected to propaganda saying what a great thing this is, and you argue against well-meaning people who want to say their promiscuity is the same thing as your marriage.
The word 'propaganda' here is objectionable. It implies that talking about real people's experiences is actually dishonesty or at least a selective approach to truth. It lumps together attempts to convey that homophobic bullying is wrong to lies in favour of a nation at war.
How do you propose to sanction what you call propaganda or not keeping homosexual lives behind closed doors? The usual methods of sanctioning in our society are still bullying, and in some cases beating. Do you object to bullying? Turn a blind eye and shrug shoulders? If not, how do you propose to enforce your no-propaganda ideal?
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Welease Woderwick
Sister Incubus Nightmare
# 10424
|
Posted
I think turning the laptop upside down only works if you then stand on your head to view it.
--------------------
I give thanks for unknown blessings already on their way.
Fancy a break in South India?
Accessible Homestay Guesthouse in Central Kerala, contact me for details
What part of Matt. 7:1 don't you understand?
Posts: 48139 | From: 1st on the right, straight on 'til morning | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Russ, it feels once again like all the discussion beyond "it's innate" has been completely ignored.
It's very simple. Show the harm that homosexuality causes. Not the offence to your morals, not your 'ick' factor, not the hypothetical death of the species if every single individual is exclusively homosexual. Show us actual, meaningful, practical real-world harm.
Because pretty well every example you come up with - whether it's people who can only have sex with strangers or people who want sex with children - carries with it rational, objective reasons why it would be or could be harmful.
There's no evidence that homosexuality is harmful, beyond the effects of the social stigma it carries which is of course a circular problem, making it harmful only because homophobes view it as harmful. Every other argument consists of "it's harmful because it's morally bad", which has no meaning to anyone who doesn't share the view that it's morally bad.
It's as simple as that: if you want to compare homosexuality to harmful things, show that it is a harmful thing.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Russ, libidos are not on the same spectrum as sexuality, it's another side issue you're trying to equate with homosexuality.
Anyway, why are you seeing promiscuity as such an issue. In evolutionary terms the human race is actually hard-wired for promiscuity, both genders in slightly different ways. Lots of evolutionary advantages for that one, not so many societal. It's even an unhelpful myth that promiscuity in women leads to higher incidences of gynaecological cancer.
Consenting adults partying is how many young people lead their lives. Preferably there should be no other non-consensual adults or children involved and the participants should be careful about STI transmission, but then what is the problem?
(Disclaimer: this is pure academic theory.)
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
One of the interesting things about this thread is how hesitant some theists seem to be about their bigotry. They have a quick fix, surely, by saying that God dislikes gay sex. I suppose that involves all that finagling with Biblical texts, which is tiresome, but at any rate, it is a time-honoured method.
But this suggests a hesitancy, as I said, and maybe a wish to appeal to secular audiences, with secular arguments. Hence, the bizarreness of 'biological perversity' and other ideas presented by Russ.
I suppose natural law without God is rather similar, although that seems to turn nature into God. God abhors entwined knobs, but so does nature! In the old phrase, homo erectus nobilis quimquam. Rough translation, a man with a stiffy earnestly seeks moist receptive receptacle.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Eliab,
you say you value fidelity. Suppose you read about someone whose psyche is so wired that they are only sexually aroused by strangers. They're an entirely normal reasonable everyday person except for this desire.
What do you say to those who have such an innate, continuing and consistent desire ? What do you say that does justice to both your value and their humanity ?
You might say something like:
- you're sorry that they have this condition that prevents them from experiencing what you hold to be the ideal human relationship, a loving marriage
- you know it's not their fault; they are not to blame for these desires that they did not choose
- you would contribute to the cost of their therapy if you thought that would be effective but it isn't
- they're adults, it's their choice how they deal with the short straw they've drawn in life, if they want to satisfy their desire in promiscuity you will tolerate that
- but you retain the value that such a lifestyle is not ideal, you don't want your children to be subjected to propaganda saying what a great thing this is, and you argue against well-meaning people who want to say their promiscuity is the same thing as your marriage.
Can you see how you might think something along those lines ?
Do such thoughts make you cruel and unkind and full of hate ?
But by proposing this analogy, you are saying that to be attracted to people of the opposite sex is analogous to being "wired" for fidelity, and being attracted to people of the same sex is analogous to being "wired" for multiple partners.
First off, there clearly is no such real life link. I'm heterosexual and I find chastity and fidelity a constant challenge - a thorn in my side.
And secondly, you are proposing a secular value judgement because you are taking a quality that is generally thought of in western society as a praise-worthy one (fidelity) and aligning it in your analogy with heterosexuality. But, as numerous people have pointed out, you are not showing your workings in how you get to the position that homosexuality is in the same set as a compulsion to seek out multiple partners (ie not a good characteristic).
Or to put it another way, I don't have to ask Eliab why he thinks fidelity is a good quality. But I do have to ask you why you think heterosexuality is a good quality.
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Russ: Suppose you read about someone whose psyche is so wired that they are only sexually aroused by strangers. They're an entirely normal reasonable everyday person except for this desire.
What do you say to those who have such an innate, continuing and consistent desire ? What do you say that does justice to both your value and their humanity ?
What exactly is the problem here?
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Russ: Suppose you read about someone whose psyche is so wired that they are only sexually aroused by strangers. They're an entirely normal reasonable everyday person except for this desire.
What do you say to those who have such an innate, continuing and consistent desire ? What do you say that does justice to both your value and their humanity ?
What exactly is the problem here?
No morning after sex.
--------------------
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
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Suppose you read about someone whose psyche is so wired that they are only sexually aroused by strangers. They're an entirely normal reasonable everyday person except for this desire.
What do you say to those who have such an innate, continuing and consistent desire ?
I share all the misgivings about this analogy already expressed by Dafyd and others.
Also, you haven't said all that much about this person's desires, and nothing about his/her values. Does he or she not experience feelings of attachment/commitment/love at all, or are they capable of falling in love but dissociate that feeling from sexual desire? Would they prefer to feel desire for their life partner, if they have one, but are unable to do so, or do they positively prefer the idea of having either a platonic partner or no partner at all? The answers would make an enormous difference to how this atypical sexual nature is likely to be expressed.
You also haven't mentioned their faith. That matters too. Someone who believes that there is a divinely given command that sex is licit only within marriage starts with a different ethical framework to someone who does not. It might, for example, be quite reasonable to say to a strict Catholic in this position "You cannot hope to fulfil the legitimate expectations of a spouse, therefore in justice you ought not to marry, and must be celibate", because that follows from principles they already accept. You could not expect an atheist to follow that guidance, unless you first persuaded them of the truth of (part of what is by some held to be) the Christian revelation.
Anyway, after finding out the answers to those questions, if I was invited to give some sort advice or counselling to someone like this I would:
a) note that their condition is a highly unusual one, and because I am neither a psychologist nor a sex therapist, nor any other sort of professional with expertise in the area, I am definitely not the best person to advise them;
b) absolutely not take your proposed line that they are some sort of moral cripple exempt (by incapacity) from following the rules that apply to everyone else so long as they keep it to themselves;
c) look for points for moral agreement. Can we agree that people ought to respect others, keep their promises, not cause unnecessary harm, and so on? Does the person recognise that they are unusual and there is a real risk that the 'strangers' they are attracted to may not share their detachment from emotional investment when engaging in sex? Do they recognise any sort of obligation to the people they (want to) have sex with? Having established (and discussed, and possibly tried to change their minds about) their basic ethical stance, I would help them to apply that in making the best decisions they could.
Assuming that the person is indeed "an entirely normal reasonable everyday person" I'm likely to find a substantial basis for moral agreement from which to discuss ethical sexual behaviour, based on respect, consideration, consent, equality, fairness, truthfulness and honour. And that is likely to rule out indiscriminate promiscuity as an ethical choice (at the very least it puts it up for discussion).
A major problem I have with your analogy is that it is expressed in a binary way: EITHER "ideal" marriage, OR wanton promiscuity. The real world just isn't like that. There are no ideal marriages. It's simply not the case that if this person is, for whatever reason, temprementally unsuited to (what most people consider to be) an essential part of the marriage, then it may indeed be unwise for them to marry. That doesn't mean that ethical discussion stops. There are better or worse ways of expressing any variety of sexual desire. If someone is, for example, totally incapable of both marriage and celibacy (for biological reasons beyond their control), they can still be capable of honesty and kindness. They are still a moral being. They still have choices to make.
I've answered as best I can to indicate the way I see sexual ethics. I find the analogy wholly unilluminating in dealing with the question of homosexuality. The hypothetical person you are discussing really does have some important ethical choices effectively closed to them (though by no means to the extent you imply) whereas a gay person has precisely the same set of moral choices as I do, and only the gender of their preferred partner differs.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Other than that, I think we can gainfully appeal to Eliab's ego by communally proposing to be his pan-gendered harem.
My ego does not need flattering, but somehow, it's never unwelcome.
![[Axe murder]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif) to you all.
--------------------
"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
|
|
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Tired of the usual homophobes? Let's do this woman!
Here's the thing I most don't understand about this particular case. The issuing of a marriage license is a mundane piece of administration. Why is it being performed by the holder of an elected office?
What does a county clerk do that justifies it being an elected position?
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Tired of the usual homophobes? Let's do this woman!
Well, aside from bigots and idiots not being my type, I'd doubt she'd consent.
Seriously though, why on earth do people think anyone even gives a shit what a public employee thinks? They are there to fulfill a service, full stop. Moral verification isn't part of the service or expectation and the fuckers don't withhold service for anything except same-sex marriages.
--------------------
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
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Your sexual desire for your own gender is one of the less-than-ideal things about you. In terms of the ideals I hold to.
Unless this has been done in the, I think, 12 pages that follow:
?
OK Russ mate, what is this ideal and where do you get it from?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Show the harm that homosexuality causes. Not the offence to your morals, not your 'ick' factor, not the hypothetical death of the species if every single individual is exclusively homosexual. Show us actual, meaningful, practical real-world harm.
I'd like to turn this around, and show the harm that discrimination causes. This comes down to fundamental human rights.
This link provides a PDF of the "Oppression Questionnaire". I encourage people to have a look at the questions and consider the position of people with 'other than hetero' sexual orientation and the consequences of discriminatory attitudes. It's beyond theory.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It's very simple. Show the harm that homosexuality causes. Not the offence to your morals, not your 'ick' factor, not the hypothetical death of the species if every single individual is exclusively homosexual. Show us actual, meaningful, practical real-world harm.
It's as simple as that: if you want to compare homosexuality to harmful things, show that it is a harmful thing.
What's icky for me may not be so for someone else and vice versa. And in any event, we're not talking about sexual practices but orientation. Ickiness is completely irrelevant.
Strange how some people are still so attracted to the Roman magisterium, founded as it is on the forgery called the Donation of Constantine.
[ 02. September 2015, 22:02: Message edited by: Gee D ]
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Tired of the usual homophobes? Let's do this woman!
Here's the thing I most don't understand about this particular case. The issuing of a marriage license is a mundane piece of administration. Why is it being performed by the holder of an elected office?
What does a county clerk do that justifies it being an elected position?
The USA has a fetish with elections. Seriously. It feels like there was such a strong intention to get away from the idea of power coming from on high that the early Americans concluded the people needed to decide everything.
--------------------
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
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
But by proposing this analogy, you are saying that to be attracted to people of the opposite sex is analogous to being "wired" for fidelity, and being attracted to people of the same sex is analogous to being "wired" for multiple partners.
Hi Erroneous.
No I'm not saying that. The point I was trying to make here is not about what homo- and hetero-sexuality are. The point here is about what are reasonable responses to other people whose innate unchosen desires conflict in some way with one's own values. I use the value of fidelity for this example purely because Eliab had said that was one of his values.
This may sound a strange question. But the point I'm struggling with here is when people all agree with me that there are values other than consent. And then turn around and say I'm some sort of bigot for suggesting that consent is perhaps not the only standard for judging in matters of sexuality.
Which is not saying that consent is unimportant.
It gets a little complicated because I believe that having a desire is not morally wrong but acting on it may be. And not all good is moral good but it is morally good to seek the good.
For example, if Mousethief's daughter works hard at her studies that's morally good, and I agree he's right to esteem her for it. If she gets an A grade that's good, but not morally good - the talent required is innate. But because an A grade is good, trying to get an A grade is morally good...
You may think that's obvious. Or totally crackers.
But the point I was trying to make in that question to Eliab was that judging particular acts to be morally wrong (and thus seeking to prevent the corresponding desires from being acted on) and also judging other (much-less-serious) acts to be less-than-ideal ( and thus tolerating the acts while seeking to prevent the corresponding desires from being promoted and encouraged and celebrated) are entirely rational acts for a person who thinks about morality.
Which is not to say that every act of thinking leads to the correct answer, any more than every student gets an A. But it is good to work at it.
quote:
I don't have to ask Eliab why he thinks fidelity is a good quality. But I do have to ask you why you think heterosexuality is a good quality.
As the above tries to explain, I don't see heterosexuality as either morally good in itself or something to be proud of.
I do feel heterosexuality to be good in two ways or senses, which may or may not amount to the same thing.
One is the science-fiction scenario where parents are choosing the characteristics of their offspring in the best interests of the child, where choosing heterosexuality gives that child the option of choosing the experience of siring/bearing and then raising their own children, which some people say they find to be one of the most meaningful experiences of their life.
Two is the suspicion that there is a connection between morality and using something for the purpose for which it was intended. And I know that raises a whole lot of questions. Such as whether that belief requires a God to intend. Or whether genes can in effect intend (as some who talk science sometimes seem to imply). And there are loads of examples where using ordinary household items for other purposes (stop cackling at the back there, it's all in your dirty mind) is either harmless or positively creative.
Personally I use an old screwdriver to stir paint. But I'd think twice if I thought this would permanently prevent me from using it as a screwdriver if the need arose. It would be a desecration, in a small way, to ruin a precisely-crafted and valuable tool for a job that any straight stick could do.
So I can't set out for you a convincing theory of value and purpose. And on that point Orfeo was right to point out that I'm in effect holding tentatively to a traditional position, until someone convincingly debunks the notion of a morality related to purpose.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
ETA: response to Gee D
Not attempting to interfere with sectarian squabble, but I don't think homophobia needs Rome.
[ 02. September 2015, 23:03: 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
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
