|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: I call all homophobes to Hell - especially Russ
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
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.
The problem with analogies is that they're so rarely fit for purpose.
The parents in your scenario would surely decide to have their child find both male and female sexually attractive, as would all the other parents of all the other children. The minorities would be those who only had either same-sex or hetero- only proclivities.
So why not just talk about homosexuality and what it means to you, without saying 'what it's like'. It's a thing in itself, and can be discussed as such.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The parents in your scenario would surely decide to have their child find both male and female sexually attractive, as would all the other parents of all the other children. The minorities would be those who only had either same-sex or hetero- only proclivities.
I'm not actually sure that that's right.
If people in this society tend to form lifelong pair bonds, and you wanted your children to have the experience of raising their own biological child, you'd want them to be heterosexual only. If your child is bi, there's even odds that the first person they meet and fall mutually in love with will be of the same sex, thus ruling out children the old-fashioned way.
I would tend to assume, however, that a society capable of such successful sexuality determination would also be able to construct (and artificially gestate if necessary) a child from the genetic material of a same-sex couple.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
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.
What would it take? Biology and sociology convincingly indicate that homosexuality is natural and, for at least some species, a positive survival trait.
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
If people in this society tend to form lifelong pair bonds, and you wanted your children to have the experience of raising their own biological child, you'd want them to be heterosexual only.
Why is raising your own biological children such a positive? There are surplus children in every society and always have been. Why not allow homosexual couples to raise them?
BTW, your example ignores that pairings are often not lifelong. Gives bisexuals a second chance to get it right, no?
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
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.
Why is there a need for a response at all, if conflict with one's own values is the sum total of the objection? One's own values are of relevance to one's own life. A huge part of the problem here is that you show an interest in applying your own values to the life of others.
One might equally ask: what is a reasonable response to a person who decides to inform one that one's "lifestyle" conflicts with that other person's values. I think the only reason LGBT people even bother engaging in these debates is because we don't yet have full equality. If we did, the response would be to say "mind your own business".
And honestly, I'm not even sure if the word "values" is right here. It sounds more like "prejudices" at times, because to me a "value" is some sort of organising principle for life. You're basically just saying that you don't approve of homosexual sex, which has no relevance to your own life whatsoever given that you don't want to partake in homosexual sex and no-one's likely to ask you to partake in it.
It's difficult to conceive of a reason why the gender of another person's partner affects you, and I think even if that other person was your own child, there's a serious question as to why it would actually be important whether you were inviting a son-in-law or a daughter-in-law into your family.
[ 03. September 2015, 01:19: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Why is raising your own biological children such a positive?
That was a premise is Russ's hypothetical universe - what choice should people who thought that raising their own personal biological children was one of the best things in life make for the sexuality of their children.
quote:
BTW, your example ignores that pairings are often not lifelong. Gives bisexuals a second chance to get it right, no?
Sure. Assume everyone forms two pair-bonds, and the chance of "getting it right" increases from 50% to 75%, which is still rather less than the 100% you'd get with everyone being straight.
Unless you assume that there's some extra social cue that leads people to have homosexual starter relationships, but then finding an opposite-sex partner to raise children with, in which case you could raise the number higher, but, "lesbian until graduation "notwithstanding, it seems rather contrived, and not a good fit for the way we currently understand homosexuality.
I agree with Doc Tor that Russland isn't a useful analogy in any way - I just don't think he has the right answer to the question as posed.
If you really do think that the most important thing in life is to raise your personal biological children then choosing anything other than a pure heterosexual orientation is a sub-optimal strategy.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
He should write ad copy for adoption agencies.
"Almost as good as Real children".
Just love him more each time he posts.
--------------------
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Hey, progress! He didn't address any of my arguments, but he did mention my daughter.
Unfortunately he thinks getting an A has more to do with talent than effort. Clearly he never had to work for grades.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
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.
This is in effect saying two things:
Firstly children are there to give their parents grandchildren. It's something I'm seeing among my peer group at the moment - a real pressure for youngsters to "make their mothers happy by making them grandmothers". So reproduction is the most important thing we can do. Really?
Secondly, anyone who isn't a parent is a second class citizen, heterosexual or homosexual. What about those who have chosen not to have children because of the risks of Huntington's chorea or because they are carrying other genetic conditions? What about women who cannot carry babies to term? Women who have heart conditions that mean a pregnancy could kill them? Did you know that around 10% of women of childbearing age are infertile and there are additional male infertility causes? That's a higher percentage than are homosexual.
Whether God is choosing who to have children or infertility is a form of natural selection, many people are not "intended" to have children. Is homosexuality just another subgroup of this "barren" group?
Societally, morally there are good arguments for not everyone having children. Increasing populations mean fewer resources. We can argue that we should all be having fewer children.
I could argue that this emphasis on everyone reproducing is actually immoral. That it leads to unwanted children and that we should be far more careful about reproducing.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
ETA: response to Gee D
Not attempting to interfere with sectarian squabble, but I don't think homophobia needs Rome.
Agreed, but a poster upthread seemed to rely heavily upon the teachings of the magisterium in support of his argument. So heavy-handed I thought it might just have been an attempt at sarcasm or irony, but on reflection, no, it was serious.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
If people in this society tend to form lifelong pair bonds, and you wanted your children to have the experience of raising their own biological child, you'd want them to be heterosexual only.
Russ specifically said he wants his children to have the option. He's not claiming to want to force them into having children. Since it's having the option open that he says is important to him, he should go for bisexuality as that gives more options, at least under Russ-world logic.
[ 03. September 2015, 08:12: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
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.
It's worth pointing out that the hypothetical example of someone only attracted to strangers doesn't in fact conflict with the value of fidelity at all.
It is almost certainly unwise for that person to marry. It may be unfair for them to marry, knowing that they will never want sex with their spouse (unless, of course, the spouse is fully aware of and accepts or welcomes that condition). But they are in no way exempt from the ordinary moral obligation to keep promises and not to betray trusts. Nothing in your analogy suggest that the person would want to break a commitment once made, and the specification that they are decent and reasonable strongly implies the opposite.
The point is important. Desires do not determine values. Your hypothetical person could reject marriage, monogamy and commitment completely as so much incomprehensible cultural baggage, or he/she could value and honour marriage as the highest human aspiration and be genuinely sorry that he or she was unsuited to it. We cannot tell which because ALL you've told us on the point is that they have or lack certain desires.
Guess what? Knowing that someone is gay tells you nothing about their values either. Absolutely nothing. But since gay people are people like the rest of us, reason predicts, and experience confirms, that most of them have very similar values to most straights. They value love, companionship, commitment, honesty, fidelity, goodness, and (the increasingly civilised world is beginning to see) marriage exactly as much as you might expect from ordinary people. So once we have a social consensus on what is or is not ethical, why is there any difficulty in applying that the straights and gays with absolute equality?
--------------------
"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
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
So once we have a social consensus on what is or is not ethical, why is there any difficulty in applying that the straights and gays with absolute equality?
Because homophobic people do not care about equality, any more than racist or sexist people do.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
Hi Russ
Thanks for responding.
i think you're saying that you think that it is inherently wrong to act on homosexual desire because:
1) Being homosexual means you can't conceive children in the natural way; and
2) It's like taking the top off a bottle with your teeth instead of a bottle-opener.
I think that a lot of people probably do actually think this way. I'm not going to say I think your thoughts about this are "wrong".
For me, though:
1) As a heterosexual person, I don't know what it feels like to realise that because I'm attracted only to people of the same sex, I'm never going to conceive a child in the course of PIV sex. I don't know if that would be a source of regret to me or not. I don't spend a lot of time regretting the fact that, because I need to breathe air to live, I can't live under the sea.
2) Again, as a straight person, for me (and I cannot speak for anyone else, whether straight or gay), to have sex with a person of the same sex would, indeed, be like using something for the wrong purpose. However, in this case, I think a same-sex attracted person would feel the same way about having sex with an opposite sex person - that the "wrong" thing is to do something that doesn't feel "right" to you, just because it might be a fleeting turn-on.
So - after a long ramble - I think I'm saying that since I'm straight, I can't use "what would the consequences be for me?" as a way to decide what is good or moral in relation to same sex attraction.
It isn't me - it's a person who is only attracted to others of the same sex. For them, conceiving naturally, or (metaphorically) using a bottle opener instead of teeth, were never options.
--------------------
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
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
homophobic people do not care about equality, any more than racist or sexist people do.
Should have asked you this earlier, Boogie.
What is that you mean by "homophobe" ?
Do you mean the same as the dictionary definition I quoted earlier - someone who feels hate or fear for homosexuals ?
Or is it to you a word that means only someone who doesn't agree that homosexuality is and should be treated as equal in every way with heterosexuality ?
Are those who disagree with you, not through hate or fear but through holding a worldview in which other values are more important than equality, homophobes or not ? In your usage of the term.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
Well, I'd call someone who didn't treat a black man as well as a white man a racist, no matter their motivation. A homophobe, whatever its exact etymology, is what we get to call those who don't treat homosexuals as well as heterosexuals.
Which, it appears, is you.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
i think you're saying that you think that it is inherently wrong to act on homosexual desire
because:
1) Being homosexual means you can't conceive children in the natural way; and
2) It's like taking the top off a bottle with your teeth instead of a bottle-opener.
Don't think I've said it's morally wrong to act on the desire. But rather that having the desire is a less-than-ideal state which, if you believe in a moral duty to choose the good, you wouldn't choose.
For something like the reasons as you've put them.
Dental work is really expensive, and what you get is never quite as good as your own natural teeth. But that's consequentialist thinking which isn't what I'm getting at.
Sometimes there are no good choices, and we just have to choose what we see as least-bad.
The celibate life held no attraction for me when younger; I can't condemn those who don't choose it.
But I can and do feel it as a wrong when tolerance is not reciprocated, and when the least-bad choice starts to be held up as the ideal.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Since it's having the option open that he says is important to him, he should go for bisexuality as that gives more options, at least under Russ-world logic.
It depends, I think.
If you think the number of potential suitable partners is small, then you might choose bisexuality to double your chances of finding a partner.
I don't - I don't subscribe to the "soulmate" myth - I think that most people can find a large number of potential partners that they could make successful marriages with.
That being the case, having a larger pool of potential partners isn't very helpful - everyone who's vaguely marriageable will be able to meet several suitable partners anyway, you can't marry more than one of them, and there's no reason to choose one over another.
It would be like me offering you a choice between six different hundred dollar bills. It's not a useful choice - it doesn't actually put you in a better situation than if I were to offer you one hundred dollar bill.
So in my model, you fall in mutual love with the first suitably compatible person you meet. If you are straight, that person is of the opposite sex, and you are probably free to choose whether or not to have kids (assuming neither of you is infertile...)
If you are bi, there's a 50% chance that you can't have kids with that person, so (if you want kids) you are forced to choose between the heartache of giving up your biological offspring plans or the heartache of giving up the person you've fallen in love with. (Some straight couples face the same decision - when one of them wants kids but the other is adamant that they don't, or when one is infertile, but all same-sex couples would face this choice.)
So if you really thought that having biological children with your spouse was the most important thing, you would only choose to date and marry people of the opposite sex. In which case it would be better for you if you removed the possibility of falling in love with someone of the same sex.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
Hi Eliab.
Seems like you're saying a lot of true things and at the same time somehow ducking the point.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
It is almost certainly unwise for that person to marry. It may be unfair for them to marry, knowing that they will never want sex with their spouse (unless, of course, the spouse is fully aware of and accepts or welcomes that condition). But they are in no way exempt from the ordinary moral obligation to keep promises and not to betray trusts. Nothing in your analogy suggest that the person would want to break a commitment once made, and the specification that they are decent and reasonable strongly implies the opposite.
Yes
quote:
Desires do not determine values. Your hypothetical person could reject marriage, monogamy and commitment completely as so much incomprehensible cultural baggage, or he/she could value and honour marriage as the highest human aspiration and be genuinely sorry that he or she was unsuited to it. We cannot tell which because ALL you've told us on the point is that they have or lack certain desires.
Guess what? Knowing that someone is gay tells you nothing about their values either. Absolutely nothing. But since gay people are people like the rest of us, reason predicts, and experience confirms, that most of them have very similar values to most straights. They value love, companionship, commitment, honesty, fidelity, goodness,
Yes.
quote:
and (the increasingly civilised world is beginning to see) marriage
No. Now you're talking about "valuing marriage" in two different senses. In the first sense the hypothetical person wired for promiscuity may as you say value marriage as an ideal for others that they're not (by accident of birth) suited for. Gay people can be just as noble of spirit, just as open to idealism, as anyone else. No surprise and no controversy if they value marriage as an ideal for others that they're not (by accident of birth) suited for.
The question you're ducking is whether you
- think promiscuity is morally wrong and that the unfortunate individual's condition is no excuse; they have a moral duty to remain celibate (condemnation) or
- let them make what choices they may - that's their business (tolerance)
- celebrate the diversity of human sexuality by recognising their one-night-stands as an equally-good path to fulfilment (approval)
- pass laws to say that this is just a different type of marriage, and tell all the children to think about how they might grow up to be promiscuous too (ramming it down other people's throats).
If you think these options too stark, feel free to sketch out where in between you feel the right balance lies
--------------------
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
I see my earlier elation was ill-placed.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
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.
Why do you need to respond to them at all? Unless, like, they ask you for driving directions, in which case what do their innate unchosen desires have to do with it?
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
If you think the number of potential suitable partners is small, then you might choose bisexuality to double your chances of finding a partner.
I don't - I don't subscribe to the "soulmate" myth - I think that most people can find a large number of potential partners that they could make successful marriages with.
Soulmate nonsense has nowt to do with it. Yes there may be "a large number of potential partners" for any given schmuck, but the trick is finding them. I know lots of people who would love to be married, and there are presumably a ton of people out there that they could in fact make a happy long-term marriage with. But they haven't found them. Sometimes after decades of looking. Doubling your odds in such cases would seem a very practical thing to do.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
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.
What do you usually do? Surely there must be people in your community, if not your immediate circle, whose intimate lives fall short of your ideals. There is no need for you to resort to analogy and theory when real life beckons!
Tell you what: find the first ten people who fail to live up to your ideal sexual ethics, and explain to them how and why they are failing to live up to their biological (and therefore moral) purpose as you see it. Report back.
Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
At the end of the day, everyone of us in some way or another have beliefs, characteristics, "innate unchosen desires" etc that come into conflict with the values of everyone else. They might be trivial, a preference for choc mint chip ice cream rather than strawberry, they may be more significant. But, we all tolerate those differences, at least up to the point where they directly affect our lives.
Letting other people live according to who they are, to marry those they love and want to spend the rest of their lives with, doesn't affect anyone else. I suppose if friends or relatives decide to get married and send you an invite you may need to decide whether or not to accept. But, no one's going to come along and say your marriage is invalid, nor force you into a relationship that doesn't match your sexuality. It's not even (to quote a definition of homophobia I saw on Facebook) as though two gay men are going to break into your house and redecorate without your permission.
Why, when something doesn't not affect you do you feel the need to respond at all?
--------------------
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
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
And, let's be clear here, we're not just talking about "responding" or even "expressing one's personal opinion". Legislation to deny a subset of people access to rights/privileges/responsibilities readily available to most everybody else is a gigantic fuckload more dire than merely a conflict of opinion or expression.
Regardless of what you tell yourself or anybody else is the reasoning in your heart or mind or soul, if you support the restriction of access of homosexuals to fundamental aspects of our society - you are functionally a homophobe.
In much the same way that, despite respecting arachnids and having well-thought-out reasons for why I don't want them in my house, the fact that I scream involuntarily and try to crush them with flailing pipe wrenches whenever I see them makes me an arachnophobe in every way that matters.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Do you mean the same as the dictionary definition I quoted earlier - someone who feels hate or fear for homosexuals ?
Or is it to you a word that means only someone who doesn't agree that homosexuality is and should be treated as equal in every way with heterosexuality ?
Both of these.
Like I said - homophobes have no wish for equality for homosexual people. Just as racists and sexists don't for other groups. Homophobes want different rules according to sexuality. They excuse this by lumping homosexuals with people who cause sexual harm to others - plus many and varied religious rationalisations. Their motivations are many and varied, I'm sure. But much of it will boil down to fear.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
The label "homophobia", as well as the comparisons to racism and sexism and the direct accusation of bigotry, serve a simple rhetorical purpose: they attempt to shut the discussion down, painting the opposition in the worst socio-cultural terms available in a simple attempt to shame them into silence and compliance.
However, we do not consider the opinion that stealing is immoral as "kleptophobia". We do not compare the non-acceptance of thievery with racism and sexism, and we do not call people bigots who think that one should not steal. There are kleptomaniacs in this world, people who have the strong urge to steal as part of their psychological makeup and who often end up stealing. Still, we do not accuse those who think stealing is immoral of oppressing kleptomaniacs.
The difference is quite simply that we all agree that stealing is immoral, whereas we do not all agree that homosexual acts are immoral. The difference is that we all agree that stealing is not an acceptable variation of one's attitude to property, whereas we do not all agree that homosexual acts are not an acceptable variation of sexuality.
But that's actually the discussion we should be having. The shouts of "homophobia" and "bigotry" from one side are exactly as unhelpful as the shouts of "debauchery" and "perversion" from the other side. That on SoF mostly one side is doing the shouting does not change that one bit. In the end it is not convincing anybody to simply assert that which is under contention, and that's what these labels de facto do.
[ 04. September 2015, 08:04: Message edited by: IngoB ]
--------------------
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
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
But Ingo, there is a difference between someone who is a thief and someone who is a homosexual: the first is someone whose behaviour is damaging to other individuals and wider society - they compulsively take things that don't belong to them.
A homosexual is someone who does something you morally don't agree with. In and of themselves, none of their behaviours have any damaging wider effects on society.
Saying that one is not a bigot because one campaigns against the rights of homosexuals because one believes them to be acting in a morally wrong way is clearly wrong. It is as much bigotry as campaigning against the rights of other religions to have the same access to planning regulations, using blasphemy laws against atheists and so on.
You wouldn't compare Hindus or atheists to thieves (even though, presumably, these groups act in supposedly ungodly ways) yet you somehow think you are entitled to make these slurs against homosexuals.
That's just a category error. Society is full of people who act in ways that other groups find morally reprehensible. That's why we are a free society.
Society also has laws which protect the people within it from damaging, selfish and spiteful behaviours.
Those two things are clearly not the same.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
Except that, yet again, your stupid fucking analogies break down at the first hint of a firing neuron.
There are many, many situations in which societies legally sanctions theft, and conversely, criminalises thieves who steal simply to survive.
So, seriously. If you're going to talk about homosexuality, talk about it. Stop comparing it with this and that and the other. We pretty much understand it and are capable of discussing it within its own frame of reference.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
The one who campaigns against gay marriage is basically saying that their understanding of what marriage is trumps the state's rights to recognise relationships.
That I-know-better and I-will-prevent-others-from-having-state-rights is almost the definition of bigotry.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Seems like you're saying a lot of true things and at the same time somehow ducking the point.
Not intentionally. The issues are considerably more nuanced than you appear to imply, however, so I probably can't give you a simple answer.
quote:
Now you're talking about "valuing marriage" in two different senses.
I can think of at least three ways to value marriage, but the purpose of my comment, they are equivalent.
It's possible to value marriage on a intellectual level, thinking it good for relationships and for society. This might lead someone to support the promotion and incentivisation of marriage. It's possible to feel that marriage is a good thing emotionally. This would lead some, in ordinary circumstances, to feel happy when a close friend marries and sad if they divorce. It's possible to value marriage personally, wanting it for oneself. This might lead someone to ask the person they love to marry them, or to say yes if the other person asks first.
In each of these case, gay people can and do value marriage in exactly the same way that straight people do. And, of course, both gay and straight people can not-value marriage. The range of possible opinions on marriage is identical for all sexualities.
It may be that the distribution of opinion within those ranges is not identical - in an unequal society, gay and straight experiences will differ and that may mean that either more, or fewer, gay people will say that they value marriage. That's a different point - my contention is that there is no degree of "valuing marriage" within the ordinary range of straight experience that is inaccessible to (or would even be surprising in) a gay person. When it comes to values, gay and straight people are (un)remarkably similar.
quote:
No surprise and no controversy if they value marriage as an ideal for others that they're not (by accident of birth) suited for.
Hang on a sec - "not suited for"? Gay people have been, and in many places, still are, excluded from marriage by an accident of birth, but are not, as a class, inherently unsuited to it. Your hypothetical example of a person who cannot feel attraction to anyone they know well enough to have married does have a problem in meeting what most people think is a basic expectation of marriage, but a gay person has no analogous difficulty. You might, I suppose, have a terminological difficulty in calling a commited and exclusive personal and sexual relationship sealed by formal covenant a "marriage" if the people are of the same sex, but as far as the relationship itself goes, they have as good a shot at making it work as anyone else.
quote:
The question you're ducking is whether you
- think promiscuity is morally wrong and that the unfortunate individual's condition is no excuse; they have a moral duty to remain celibate (condemnation) or
- let them make what choices they may - that's their business (tolerance)
- celebrate the diversity of human sexuality by recognising their one-night-stands as an equally-good path to fulfilment (approval)
- pass laws to say that this is just a different type of marriage, and tell all the children to think about how they might grow up to be promiscuous too (ramming it down other people's throats).
I may have mistaken your question. I'd taken "What do you say to those who..." as implying some sort of personal-counselling/advice-to-a-friend situation. In that case, as I have more fully expressed before on this thread, it's "none of the above". I would ascertain the friend's own values, possible argue about those values if I think they are missing something important or have gone badly wrong, but ultimately try to help them make the best decisions they could within the context of the ethical truths they accept. So the answers would be different, as I said, for a Catholic and an atheist, because the Catholic is likely to accept parameters, such as "no sex other than within marriage", as absolute rules which the atheist is more likely to reject.
It's an important point that "approval" or "disapproval" in this context is not a binary thing. There are better and worse ways of being promiscuous. Someone who regularly has sex with strangers AND takes steps to ensure that he is being honest about his intentions, not taking advantage of damaged or desperate people, not poking at the cracks in other people's commited relationships, taking precautions against disease and pregnancy, and doing his best to ensure that his partners have as enjoyable a transient experience as possible, just is behaving more morally than someone with far fewer notches on the bed post who takes none of those steps.
That's all on the personal level of ethics. But the above seems to ask about the social and political level. It seems to me to be a rather pointless question on that level, because "sex with strangers" is already tolerated within most Western societies, and that seems unlikely to change for better or worse. Obviously as I am (on this issue) a relatively conservative and orthodox Christian, I consider promiscuity to be morally wrong, but I live in a society where it happens, and I'm in no hurry to start ostracising bed-hoppers. Couldn't you have guessed that already?
I do have to point out that this:
quote:
- pass laws to say that this is just a different type of marriage, and tell all the children to think about how they might grow up to be promiscuous too (ramming it down other people's throats).
is nonsense. No one thinks that sex with a stranger, whose name you might not know and whom you expect never to see again, is "just a different type of marriage", much less proposes to legislate to that effect. You aren't talking about anything remotely realistic here.
Of course, some people are both married and promiscuous. Sometimes as a deliberate ethical choice (open marriages, polyamory* and the like). We already recognise these people's marriages in law. I've yet to hear it suggested that by doing so, society is "ramming it down other people's throats".
(*not implying that all polyamorists are promiscuous. Some are, but many are not).
Last point - yes, I certainly do want my children to be taught about promiscuity. Why: firstly because they are very likely going to grow up to have sexual interest in people and to have others sexually interested in them, and some of those people might be intending promiscuity. I want my children to know about that so that they are forewarned when they negotiate mutual expectations. I hope that they, like me, aspire to a process of friendship-attraction-love-marriage-sex but I'm not fooling myself, and don't want to fool them, that everyone they meet will have the same aspiration. Some people just want to fuck. I think it's as well that children knew that. Secondly, if, contrary to my hopes, my children choose lives of promiscuity, I want them to know about, and avoid, the inherent risks associated with that choice. I am in favour of education.
--------------------
"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
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
A homosexual is someone who does something you morally don't agree with. In and of themselves, none of their behaviours have any damaging wider effects on society.
Let's first clarify that by "damage" you mean here exclusively the secular lowest common denominator of directly interfering with property, well being or consent of another. Well then, what about the HIV epidemic? There can be no reasonable doubt that without "males having sex with males" (MSM) there never would have been one, and would not be one now. Yes, HIV is also transmitted by heterosexual intercourse, but epidemics require high enough infections rates to sustain themselves. HIV was initially found among MSM, and is still sustained by this group. The HIV epidemic comes at significant costs to society in any sense of the word (not just but certainly also a pecuniary one). Also about 75% of syphilis cases are found among MSM, they have higher rates of Hep A, Hep B, HPV, anal cancer, ... One should also point out that in judging the psychological and social effects of homosexuality, it is often glibly assumed that all of the negative indicators (higher suicide rates etc.) are solely due to interactions with "homophobic" society. One of the upsides of the current trend towards the total acceptance of homosexuality is hence that we are basically conducting a social experiment that will tell us whether that is true. Best I know there is so far no indication from supposedly "gay friendly" places like the Netherlands of a significant change.
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Saying that one is not a bigot because one campaigns against the rights of homosexuals because one believes them to be acting in a morally wrong way is clearly wrong. It is as much bigotry as campaigning against the rights of other religions to have the same access to planning regulations, using blasphemy laws against atheists and so on.
"Bigotry" is not defined by the category of things one is opinionated about, but by how one maintains that opinion. Says the OED (Mac): "bigoted - having or revealing an obstinate belief in the superiority of one's own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others." Frankly, by that definition I might as well call almost everybody who has contributed here on this thread on the "pro gay" side a bigot.
You may wish to argue that there is no space for any "moral" considerations in the political life of a secular nation. That's ... worrisome, but has as such nothing to do with bigotry. And most religions in fact make the distinction between faith and morals themselves, certainly Christianity does. You may consider it a sound principle that no religion is privileged in a secular state. However, that does not speak at all to whether the political process should be guided by morals.
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
If you're going to talk about homosexuality, talk about it. Stop comparing it with this and that and the other.
Well, yes, let's just talk about homosexuality - without these constant comparisons with racism, sexism or even slavery. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
--------------------
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
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Let's first clarify that by "damage" you mean here exclusively the secular lowest common denominator of directly interfering with property, well being or consent of another. Well then, what about the HIV epidemic?
What about it?
<snipped a bunch of old, hackney shite which claims that somehow homosexuals are responsible for AIDS>
You are clearly a total prick, blaming victims in the most disgusting way possible. You might as well say that Sierra Leoneans are responsible for the Ebola epidemic because they're black and live in Africa.
quote:
"Bigotry" is not defined by the category of things one is opinionated about, but by how one maintains that opinion. Says the OED (Mac): "bigoted - having or revealing an obstinate belief in the superiority of one's own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others." Frankly, by that definition I might as well call almost everybody who has contributed here on this thread on the "pro gay" side a bigot.
Yes, you could - if you think that people who protect and want to extend the rights of people are bigots. Funnily enough, bigotry is uniquely associated with small minded people who want to limit the rights of others.
quote:
You may wish to argue that there is no space for any "moral" considerations in the political life of a secular nation. That's ... worrisome, but has as such nothing to do with bigotry. And most religions in fact make the distinction between faith and morals themselves, certainly Christianity does. You may consider it a sound principle that no religion is privileged in a secular state. However, that does not speak at all to whether the political process should be guided by morals.
Fuck off and die. I don't know why I even bothered - you just have straw for brains.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Let's first clarify that by "damage" you mean here exclusively the secular lowest common denominator of directly interfering with property, well being or consent of another. Well then, what about the HIV epidemic? There can be no reasonable doubt that without "males having sex with males" (MSM) there never would have been one, and would not be one now. Yes, HIV is also transmitted by heterosexual intercourse, but epidemics require high enough infections rates to sustain themselves. HIV was initially found among MSM, and is still sustained by this group.
I am surprised that over two thirds of AIDS deaths are in Sub-Saharan Africa, spread by mostly heterosexual sex, transfusions and from pregnant mothers to children that the total rubbish about HIV being some sort of gay plague is still being spread by even the ignorant.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
TomM
Shipmate
# 4618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
A homosexual is someone who does something you morally don't agree with. In and of themselves, none of their behaviours have any damaging wider effects on society.
Let's first clarify that by "damage" you mean here exclusively the secular lowest common denominator of directly interfering with property, well being or consent of another. Well then, what about the HIV epidemic? There can be no reasonable doubt that without "males having sex with males" (MSM) there never would have been one, and would not be one now. Yes, HIV is also transmitted by heterosexual intercourse, but epidemics require high enough infections rates to sustain themselves. HIV was initially found among MSM, and is still sustained by this group. The HIV epidemic comes at significant costs to society in any sense of the word (not just but certainly also a pecuniary one). Also about 75% of syphilis cases are found among MSM, they have higher rates of Hep A, Hep B, HPV, anal cancer,
Would you care to reference some of those claims?
Posts: 405 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Well then, what about the HIV epidemic? There can be no reasonable doubt that without "males having sex with males" (MSM) there never would have been one, and would not be one now. Yes, HIV is also transmitted by heterosexual intercourse, but epidemics require high enough infections rates to sustain themselves. HIV was initially found among MSM, and is still sustained by this group. The HIV epidemic comes at significant costs to society in any sense of the word (not just but certainly also a pecuniary one).
Can you prove that one? The AIDs Institute suggests that the origins are from eating chimpanzee meat in Africa, was brought to Hawaii in the 1960s by a single infected individual and was slowly transmitted across Hawaii and then into the USA. The gay community, blood transfusions and drug users are all implicated in the spread of HIV as is the multiple use of needles in Africa. More here.
The statistics I can find are showing world wide incidence is mostly from SubSaharan Africa and spread as a result of heterosexual polyamorous relationships or sex workers in West Africa.
quote:
Also about 75% of syphilis cases are found among MSM, they have higher rates of Hep A, Hep B, HPV, anal cancer, ...
Your quotation there is from US statistics not global statistics. There are worrying rises in syphilis across the world particularly among young people, including the 16-19 age group in the UK.
Basically any risky sexual behaviour leaves the protagonists more likely to be infected with STIs, and men who have sex with men as well as young people are more likely to indulge in risky behaviours. Guess who are less likely to be given the education and support, particularly in the USA? Funnily enough young people and men who have sex with men. Because refusing to educate and support people is the best way to stop that behaviour, it's been shown over and over again. Not.
HPV is found in 57% of men who have sex with men and and globally at 11.7% in women. I suspect more women will be infected with HPV on those statistics. And that one is very very difficult to protect against.
(I am so glad I've been looking up these statistics again. I need to write some teaching resources on this lot.)
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I'm trying to grasp the connection between morality and epidemiology. I doubt if it's a crude one, e.g. that because gay sex is immoral, therefore it is bound to spread diseases.
I suppose it's an 'and/or' one? Thus, 'gay sex is immoral and spreads diseases'.
Unless someone is willing to go down the road of providence - God has vouchsafed straight sex as the most healthy, and therefore anyone who strays outside gets diseases. That's Pat Robertson territory, I think, or whoever the latest conservative mogul is.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I'm trying to grasp the connection between morality and epidemiology. I doubt if it's a crude one, e.g. that because gay sex is immoral, therefore it is bound to spread diseases.
I doubt that too. IngoB is a proponent of deontological not consequentialist ethics. The point I think he is making is not about whether homosexuality is wrong, but about whether and when social and political action can be justified to regulate sexual behaviour.
He's making the point that sexual behaviour can have serious social consequences, and that (in particular times and places - though he didn't say that explicitly) homosexuality can be of particular concern. He's making that point to answer the opposing view that homosexuality, even if "immoral" by some people's standards, should be invisible to law and to politics because it does no harm. Within limits (specific sexual behaviours can indeed be disproportionately associated with specific social harms) it's a sort-of valid point. I think it needs the causation point to be unpicked first (to do the work that I think IngoB wants it to do, homosexuality would need to be inherently causative of disease rather than merely associated with it in some instance, and the African example tells against that). That's a substance/accidents distinction that I'm surprised to see a Catholic thinker miss, and I think it's fatal to his point.
The example is, of course, quite breathtakingly tactless even by IngoB's high standards, But it's a pretty safe assumption that if a comment by IngoB can be read in two ways, one ignorant and stupid, and the other logically valid but tactless, tactless is always the way to bet.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Are those who disagree with you, not through hate or fear but through holding a worldview in which other values are more important than equality, homophobes or not ? In your usage of the term.
You're previously said that many people are hard-wired to feel revulsion towards homosexuality. I think you're therefore on thin ground in claiming your attitude has nothing to do with hate or fear.
In any case, merely because your position is based upon values doesn't mean it's necessarily free of condemnation. If you hold values more important than equality, then it's a bit of a cheek to ask the people who are treated less than equally as a result to respect your values, when your values don't treat them with respect.
Have you tried to work out whether homosexual couples really can't express your values? (By you know, talking to homosexual couples and trying to find common ground.) Or are your values just essentially that you don't like homosexual couples? (In which case one has to ask whether your reasons for holding those values are quite so innocent.)
--------------------
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
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
He's making the point that sexual behaviour can have serious social consequences
There is a case to be made to ban anal sex. There is a case to be made to ban those with STDs, including HIV, from sexual activity until they are disease-free.
To say that anal sex and STDs are only a problem for gays and that's why gay sex is bad and wrong is a crashing non sequitur, and rather gives the game away.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
There is a case to be made to ban anal sex.
Nope, pretty sure there isn't.
quote:
There is a case to be made to ban those with STDs, including HIV, from sexual activity until they are disease-free.
This is a bit more tricky, but even here, I think it is a tough call to "ban" human behaviours because one thinks they individuals are likely to infect the rest of the population.
I think that would have to be on a very isolated case-by-case basis to avoid all kinds of human rights excesses.
quote:
To say that anal sex and STDs are only a problem for gays and that's why gay sex is bad and wrong is a crashing non sequitur, and rather gives the game away.
Rather more than that, to imply that those things are so important that homosexuals uniquely should be somehow deprived of the normal freedoms everyone else enjoys is utterly wrong.
Fairly obviously. This is like playing pick-a-group-you-don't-like and then find a reason that they pose a danger to the rest of society.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
Oh my fucking weakly-godlike-expletive. IngoB, do you not even bother to think through your own rhetoric?
Consider, perhaps as already well-stated between our posts, that the actual root cause of the epidemiological effect you try to cite is fundamentally risky sexual behaviour. Not sexual orientation. But that it is exactly the kind of systemic marginalization you and Russ advocate that have traditionally driven homosexuals to be furtive, which by its very nature tends to limit engagement to the riskier end of the sexual activity spectrum.
This kind of logical blunder is the hallmark of "ew ick" avoidance thinking. Though, somehow, I have little hope of you recognizing this, or the general scramble to justify your preconceived barbaric dogma.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
The gay community, blood transfusions and drug users are all implicated in the spread of HIV as is the multiple use of needles in Africa. More here. The statistics I can find are showing world wide incidence is mostly from SubSaharan Africa and spread as a result of heterosexual polyamorous relationships or sex workers in West Africa.
I was thinking in terms of the West world, since that's also what our discussion of homosexuality focuses on (Africans do not share Western views on this issue, much). But I will quite happily extend what I said to the usage of illegal drugs and heterosexual polyamorous relationships (blood transfusions are a special and tragic case, which however has been largely eliminated). In each of these it is the behaviour of the person that puts them - and through them others - at considerably greater risk to be infected with a disease that used to be very deadly and even now can only be managed at great costs. It is not who they are or where they live, at least not primarily. It's what they do. And the claim that there is no discernible "damage" to the common good due to homosexuality is simply shown to be false by this, which was the point.
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
There are worrying rises in syphilis across the world particularly among young people, including the 16-19 age group in the UK. Basically any risky sexual behaviour leaves the protagonists more likely to be infected with STIs, and men who have sex with men as well as young people are more likely to indulge in risky behaviours.
Exactly. As it happens, I happen to oppose all of these risky sexual behaviours on moral grounds, not just homosexuality. But we were talking about homosexuality. The "left" dream that such risk can be managed away by sex education and the provision of condoms has failed, and will fail in future. Even in the USA I assume there is now not less sex education and less access to condoms than there was in the past. And yet STIs are on the rise. But that's not really something we need to discuss, we just need to wait for the evidence. This is one advantage of "left" conceptions taking over the political process in many places. They can now prove themselves - or, as I expect, show their inadequacy.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I think it needs the causation point to be unpicked first (to do the work that I think IngoB wants it to do, homosexuality would need to be inherently causative of disease rather than merely associated with it in some instance, and the African example tells against that).
Given our much better control of blood transfusions, the two remaining key risk factors for HIV in the West are homosexuality and drug usage (the kind that involves needles). I might be underestimating the prevalence of the latter if I say that homosexuality is keeping the epidemic alive in the West. Or possibly I'm underestimating the role of immigration. Those are factual questions, which can be answered. Though I don't necessarily trust what advocacy groups have to say on this, and if you have ever played around with mathematical disease models (I have, who else here has?) then you know that simplistic arguments about small subgroups do not work.
Anyway, my point about the disease impact of homosexuality in the West cannot be answered with a point about disease impact of heterosexual polyamory in Africa. They in Africa ought to stop doing that, too. It also is immoral. But just because that immoral behaviour there increases the worldwide HIV numbers most does not somehow change that other immoral behaviour changes the local numbers here.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
The example is, of course, quite breathtakingly tactless even by IngoB's high standards, But it's a pretty safe assumption that if a comment by IngoB can be read in two ways, one ignorant and stupid, and the other logically valid but tactless, tactless is always the way to bet.
First, the "pro gay" side on this thread at least - and even you - cannot really demand any "tact". You all have shown little to none yourself. Second, if we define "damage" so as to exclude any kind of moral and religious concern (as "subjective" and irrelevant to a pluralistic society), and furthermore blame all social and psychological issues on society with gays being pure victims (as is the usual modus operandi), then unfortunately there's little else left to discuss other than that practiced homosexuality is risky, and that this risk taking is often costly, to individuals and society. It is of course very convenient to now also eliminate this point as "tactless". If we define every damage that homosexuality does as not eligible for discussion, then we find that in our discussion no damage of homosexuality can be found. Amazing how that works...
--------------------
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 label "homophobia", as well as the comparisons to racism and sexism and the direct accusation of bigotry, serve a simple rhetorical purpose: they attempt to shut the discussion down, painting the opposition in the worst socio-cultural terms available in a simple attempt to shame them into silence and compliance.
That's because homophobia is treating a group of people differently, without equality, as having to go by different rules. There is no 'opposition'.
If you are racist or sexist then I would hope you'd feel shame when it was pointed out. But I doubt it. You's simply say "I'm not racist but .... " AS with homophobia - "You are trying to not feel ashamed by saying my words are rhetorical. They are not. I am talking about real harm caused to real people who have done no wrong or harm by simply not being heterosexual/having homosexual sex.
The same with homophobia. It is one of the worst socio-cultural problems. Not in terms of numbers but in terms of intent.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I was thinking in terms of the West world, since that's also what our discussion of homosexuality focuses on (Africans do not share Western views on this issue, much). But I will quite happily extend what I said to the usage of illegal drugs and heterosexual polyamorous relationships (blood transfusions are a special and tragic case, which however has been largely eliminated). In each of these it is the behaviour of the person that puts them - and through them others - at considerably greater risk to be infected with a disease that used to be very deadly and even now can only be managed at great costs. It is not who they are or where they live, at least not primarily. It's what they do. And the claim that there is no discernible "damage" to the common good due to homosexuality is simply shown to be false by this, which was the point.
According to these statistics to the end of 2011, 40.1% of Western and Central European new cases are from homosexual transmissions and 46% from heterosexual transmission. An additional 1% is mother to baby and there are also injected drug user transmissions.
quote:
As it happens, I happen to oppose all of these risky sexual behaviours on moral grounds, not just homosexuality. But we were talking about homosexuality. The "left" dream that such risk can be managed away by sex education and the provision of condoms has failed, and will fail in future. Even in the USA I assume there is now not less sex education and less access to condoms than there was in the past. And yet STIs are on the rise. But that's not really something we need to discuss, we just need to wait for the evidence. This is one advantage of "left" conceptions taking over the political process in many places. They can now prove themselves - or, as I expect, show their inadequacy.
Actually I teach all teenagers I work with that they need to be aware that they are risking an STI and/or pregnancy every time they have sex and they need to be aware of that. And quite what those risks mean. Including things like needing to use protection for oral sex because HPV can also cause cancer of the larynx and throat.
But young people believe they are invincible and stigma makes it harder for people, including men who have sex with men, to find support and advice.
Many censure any teaching about safe homosexual sex or subjects such as consent to teenagers because that's encouraging teenagers to think that homosexual sex is OK, so no, the "left" conceptions are not being given a fair trial. It's still a taboo subject in much sex ed teaching.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
First, the "pro gay" side on this thread at least - and even you - cannot really demand any "tact". You all have shown little to none yourself.
Bullshit. At the very beginning of this thread, several people (not me) made an effort to respond politely to Russ and asked others (like me) to give him the benefit of the doubt. Even now, people are seriously, and much more considerately than he has been, addressing his rubbish.
You have a long history on SOF of pretzel logic on this subject, so the question of tact, or any courtesy, in addressing your commentary is well past.
--------------------
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
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
According to these statistics to the end of 2011, 40.1% of Western and Central European new cases are from homosexual transmissions and 46% from heterosexual transmission. An additional 1% is mother to baby and there are also injected drug user transmissions.
Your link says this: "In 2011, MSM transmission accounted for 40.1 percent of new infections in Western Europe, and 27.3 percent in Central Europe. This is the dominant transmission route across the region." If I read the original source (linked from your link) right, then this is because in the West (unclear definition) it is 37.9% hetero but 40.1% MSM. I am in a rush though right now, so better check yourself. At any rate, if you want to know whether an epidemic will sustain itself or fade away, then the real discussion is one about infection rates vs. mortality and/or disease healing / infection suppression, not about current "absolute numbers" of infections. There are a lot more heterosexual couples, that MSM numbers are comparable or larger shows the big difference in infection rates. We also need to know about "cross talk" between these groups (i.e., for the MSM group we need to know about bisexuals, for drug users about their heterosexual partners). If we get all these numbers, then we can estimate where the epidemic is going and why. But it is clear that if the MSM did not have sex, or heterosexual encounters instead, then the total HIV numbers would be significantly lower.
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Many censure any teaching about safe homosexual sex or subjects such as consent to teenagers because that's encouraging teenagers to think that homosexual sex is OK, so no, the "left" conceptions are not being given a fair trial. It's still a taboo subject in much sex ed teaching.
Yet. I think there are clear trends in Western societies, and we will see whether there are corresponding trends in STIs. Things are getting better, from your perspective, so the numbers should be getting better with some lag as well.
Mind you, personally I am not particularly opposed to "sex ed". I do not think that knowledge hurts. Even if presented in an "equalitarian" non-moral manner, I think ignorance will hurt more.
--------------------
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
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I suppose in the US, the Constitution guarantees equal protection under the law, so equality for gays and lesbians was inevitable in the long run, as for women and black people. Homophobes have had a stab at delaying this, as racists did, but it's difficult to see how they could have done this for ever, or how it would be reversed. But maybe a very right-wing President/Congress might try.
I suppose that somewhere like the UK is more messy in legal terms, and there has been a series of ad hoc measures about equality, although the Equality Act 2010 may have tried to subsume all of this. Again, it's hard to see this being reversed, although again, a very right-wing govt might try.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Originally posted by Eliab:
First, the "pro gay" side on this thread at least - and even you - cannot really demand any "tact". You all have shown little to none yourself.
Fair enough. Tact is not a quality I especially value, and, especially in Hell, should not be allowed to get in the way of a robust excahnge of ideas.
BUT the association between gay people (all gay people, not just those engaged in risky behaviour) and AIDS has been such a staple of undoubtedly homophobic abuse that mentioning the two together in an argument is almost guaranteed to be inflammatory. It will signal hatred of gays even if that was not intended. You will need to be very, very careful to set out exactly what you mean and what you don't mean to imply if you want any serious point you are making not to be lost or misconstrued. I don't particularly expect (or want) you to care about the illustrations in support of your arguments upsetting people here - I do expect you to care that your illustrations are not in fact clarifying your arguments but instead causing your point to be lost, which is what has in fact happened.
quote:
Second, if we define "damage" so as to exclude any kind of moral and religious concern (as "subjective" and irrelevant to a pluralistic society), and furthermore blame all social and psychological issues on society with gays being pure victims (as is the usual modus operandi), then unfortunately there's little else left to discuss other than that practiced homosexuality is risky, and that this risk taking is often costly, to individuals and society. It is of course very convenient to now also eliminate this point as "tactless". If we define every damage that homosexuality does as not eligible for discussion, then we find that in our discussion no damage of homosexuality can be found. Amazing how that works...
Suppose we agree that "immorality" and "harm" are two conditions that need to be satisfied for a free society to consider regulating or banning an activity. Take these two possible positions:
1. Boxing should be banned or regulated. It is immoral, and it is harmful because it causes brain damage. In support of the latter I refer you to these medical reports of trauma caused by beating about the head which occured at a local boxing club.
2. Dancing should be banned or regulated. It is immoral, and it is harmful because it causes brain damage. In support of the latter I refer you to these medical reports of trauma caused by an outbreak of meningitis which occured at a local dance studio.
The first of these presents a valid case. Beating about the head and consequent trauma is part of the risk of boxing. Very likely, the speaker believes boxing to be immoral in large part because of that inherent risk, and if the risk could somehow be eliminated, much of the objection would disappear. The second argument is invalid. Outbreaks of meningitis can occur in any place in which people are in close proximity, for all sorts of social activities, including many that the speaker would not consider immoral. Further the alleged immorality of dancing is not likely to be due to possible exposure to pathogens causing this specific symptom. It is only fortuitously that the argument is available to offer purported support to the case against dancing - in a different time and place it wouldn't be. It may be true that in my particular town it happened to be a dance studio where this occurred, but that is an accidental feature, not a substantive one. It may further be true that these particular people wouldn't have sickened had they not gone dancing, but essentially the reason they were affected was bad luck - the outbreak could just as easily have occurred at the bridge club.
The HIV/gay link is more accidental than substantive. Where the outbreak of the disease is originally amongst gays, gay sex is riskier than straight sex. Where the opposite is true, the opposite conclusion is true. For both gays and straights, the precautions against infection that can be taken are similar. There probably are societal reasons why those precautions have not been taken, and why riskier (more promiscuous) behaviour has occurred more in some sub-cultures than others, and of course these need to be addressed, but that does not make it true to say that homosexuality (as such) is inherently more liable to cause harm than heterosexuality.
In particular, two men who, but for gender, follow the same sexual ethics that you and I would both endorse: chastity until marriage, then lifelong fidelity; run as little risk for sexually transmitted infection as a man and a woman.
The HIV argument wasn't available before AIDS was first identified. It isn't available wherever AIDS has spread equally to the straight population. It won't be available at all (please God) once AIDS is finally cured. As none of those factors make any difference to the traditional and scriptural Christian arguments that homosexual sex is immoral, the HIV issue is merely a temporary and fortuitous point which, given its historic misuse, tends to be unhelpful in discussing the substantive ethical issues.
--------------------
"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
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Although you could argue that God has vouchsafed straight sex, and therefore, it carries risks that are not as heavy as other kinds of sex. I would think that this used to be quite a common argument, along the lines of providential care by God. Probably less common today, as providence is something of a hot potato.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Why would that matter to IngoB? His entire argument is based on his church's position. All the rest is attempting to reconcile that with reality, even though it has no direct link.
--------------------
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
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
When you take maternal mortality figures into account I don't think you can really say that heterosexual sex is all that risk free. It's not as if pregnancy isn't a consequence of heterosexual sex.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Yeah, but the wimminz don't count. A woman 's duty is to submit to a husband and live long enough to pop out a bunch of little ones to be indoctrinated into the faith.
[ 04. September 2015, 15:56: 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
