|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: I call all homophobes to Hell - especially Russ
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
My two bitches hump each other a lot - cushions too, but never legs. Must be a girl thing.
NSFW photo of two fit bitches humping.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Gk,
It isn't necessarily messy. Homosexuality appears to be part of the blueprint.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
to be clear, what I care about is not what gay men get up to in the privacy of their own bedroom. That really is their business. It's when they start parading through the streets telling everyone that they get up to things in their bedroom that I start to think something's wrong. And when primary school children start getting told in class to imagine what gay men get up to and what it feels like...
I care about tolerance. Applied to gays and to perverts and to religious conservatives. And one of the difficulties of tolerance is that doing anything to make it happen is itself an act of intolerance.
I care about free speech. I stand up against Boogie's Orwellian project of making dissent from her conclusions impossible to express.
Boogie's project is all about tolerance. She really doesn't care what values you hold in the privacy of your own bedroom. It's just that when you start parading through the streets and telling people about the values you hold in your bedroom, or when you start asking primary school children to imagine what it feels like to hold your values, that she objects.
I'm sure you realise now that Boogie doesn't mean any hostility towards you. It's just your values that she thinks are deviant and perverted.
That said, "primary school children start getting told in class to imagine what gay men get up to"? I assume you don't think that means shopping for groceries and going to the theatre together. I'm sure you've got a watertight source for what would otherwise look like deluded and vicious ravings?
Of course he hasn't. It's pure bullshit. Unless he can actually demonstrate otherwise.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Gk,
It isn't necessarily messy. Homosexuality appears to be part of the blueprint.
Well, I think the whole thing is messy. Birth, choices, cleaning up after lunch.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I don't know whether homosexuality is part of the original blueprint, or a later addition to it, or Life just developed it on its own. I just don't think it's bad.
What I was trying to say is that real life isn't as simple as neat lines on a blueprint.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
I'm not sure why anybody bothered reading past IngoB's "infertility isn't an impediment to marriage" hilarity. Even ignoring that traditionally failing to provide an heir was grounds for annulment, the statistics of divorce in the case of infertility are themselves mathematically irrefutable.
And what "tradition" has considered the failure to provide an heir as grounds of annulment? Perhaps the tradition of European nobility, who certainly sometimes pressured or bribed churchmen into finding other excuses for the annulment they wanted. But other excuses had to be found, for infertility is not grounds for annulment and never has been. Witness the Church of England. And I have a hard time seeing how large numbers of people divorcing secularly over their inability to procreate with each other speaks against any point I have made. It seems to me that if at all this is circumstantial evidence for the things I have been saying.
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
As is every other male-female reproductive pairing, from abalone to zebra, but they're not icons, are they? I guess there's some special magic about those human penes and vaginae. So what about single-celled organisms and bacteria? Or plants? How come their sex lives didn't get picked to represent creation? This is just more of your silly New Age pre-historic yin-yang yoni and lingam shit. FFS, you speak a language with THREE grammatical genders, so why is your brain stuck in fucking binary all the time?
Humans are created in the image and likeness of God, animals are not. So yes, animals cannot be icons of God, but we can be. We are the hinge of creation, the joint between the spiritual and material world, the only material being that can represent God. This is why we are the stewards of creation. And our ability is just not an arbitrary characteristic, it is our duty. In an ultimate sense it is our very purpose to be "God-like". But if you would like to take out your bible and read some Genesis, then you will find that we are not created in the image and likeness of God as individuals, but as male and female. Men and women are like a stereoscopic image of God. In a sense each man and each woman is on their own a icon of God, just like each side of a stereoscopic image functions as a picture in its own right. But it is in bringing these together, in seeing them in unity, that this picture becomes three-dimensional. It is precisely the slight differences, the slightly different angle on the same thing, that provides a vision with depth.
And yin-yang, yoni-lingam, etc. are precisely not "New Age". These concepts are of very old age, indeed, I think we can be sure that they have been there since whatever beginning the human race had. The devil is in the details in these matters, rather literally, but the general concept is as constant as human biology. And the reason why I'm thinking "binary" on these matters is because humans are "binary". They come in two flavours, men and women, not three.
All this talk about dogs is fundamentally mistaken. Quod licet bovi, non licet Iovi.
--------------------
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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Men and women are like a stereoscopic image of God.
See, now you're just making stuff up in an attempt to justify the kind of complementarity arguments we've already rubbished.
That's a complete misuse of what stereoscopic means. It means having two viewpoints, not having two objects to view. It is perfectly possible to have a stereoscopic view of a single object, indeed of a single man.
And I'm fascinated by your assertion that humans are made in the image of God, but animals aren't... as if there is any difference in the mechanics of sexual reproduction between human beings and pretty well most vertebrates, at least. "Male" and "female" are not human-only concepts, so it's pretty bloody mysterious as to why you'd suggest that there's something fundamentally God-like about human maleness and femaleness that is lacking from male and female dogs, male and female penguins or male and female antelope.
There are certainly things that could be argued to set us apart from the animals, but having two standard genders is most assuredly not one of them!
Oh, and if you're going to link to a Wikipedia page about a maxim that says "what is permissible for God is not permissible for the ox", could you have at least have the common sense to grasp that the maxim is not reversible?? The whole point is that if you are higher up the hierarchy you have more power. You can't switch it around and argue that being up the hierarchy takes away from what is permissible.
Honestly, your attempts to look like you're impressive and intellectual while saying something so profoundly stupid is the main reason I despise you so much. That's two Wikipedia links in one post, neither of which actually supports what you're saying. I mean for fuck's sake, stereoscopic!!
[ 09. September 2015, 08:56: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Quod licet bovi, non licet Iovi.
Also in the FFS department.
Having just warned the Mouse for untranslated Greek, you come in with untranslated Latin.
You have a lovely binary choice here, which should suit you down to the ground. Either translate the phrase, or don't post the phrase. I'm sharpening the hostly sickle.
DT
HH
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I care about tolerance. Applied to gays and to perverts and to religious conservatives. And one of the difficulties of tolerance is that doing anything to make it happen is itself an act of intolerance.
Some things should not be tolerated.
Racism is one - do you tolerate racism?
Sexism is another. There are plenty more things which should be fought against wherever they are found - plenty of which are done in privacy, sadly. Like child abuse.
Homophobia should not be tolerated either. And you have not given one reason why this statement should not be so.
(except an ikky ikky yuk yuk reason, of course)
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
And the reason why I'm thinking "binary" on these matters is because humans are "binary". They come in two flavours, men and women, not three.
Here you go Ingo - time you got yourself educated.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The things you mention, yes, no law speaks against them. But also, they say little concerning the question at hand. Whether it is kind or unkind to recommend a gay relationship to someone sexually attracted to the same sex depends on whether such a relationship is moral or immoral, respectively. It is not in fact unloving per se to deny somebody something and ask them to exercise self-control. If you are overweight, your doctor will recommend a diet. He is not hating you. What we talk about here is a fundamental question concerning human nature. It is not decided by peace, goodness, forbearance and what have you. It decides them. It tells us wherein all these nice things consist, and wherein not.
No, not really. True, better knowledge of human nature, and better realised ethics, can certainly inform what we judge to be kind and loving, but it is also true that we have in general a pretty good idea what kindness and love consist of, and whether something seems to make people more kind and loving is usually a good clue as to its morality.
Anti gay practices hurt people. And yes, sometimes it's ethical to hurt people, but in those cases some greater moral benefit is always apparent. To put pressure (social, legal or religious) on a gay person not ever to form a loving relationship with a partner is to do something which almost any straight person would feel as an injury were the same to be done to them. To justify causing what might fairly be described as misery, it would be helpful to show some demonstrable harm that follows from allowing gay people to form relationships exactly as straight people do. To the best of my knowledge, this has never been done. In my view, while the ethical status of gay relationships is in doubt, but the visible harm seems to be all on one side, the default position for those who value love and kindness is reasonably clear.
quote:
But morals, all morals, including yours, come from the gut first and foremost. If you are right in your claim that Russ' presentation is not up to scratch, it does not follow that his gut feeling was not right.
Yes, that's what I meant by "moral intuition". That's the starting point - "what do I, as a matter of observed fact, actually care about?"
It isn't the end point, as we both agree. I can, by observing other people or attending to a tradition I have accepted as authoritative, conclude that I care about some things which I shouldn't, and don't care about things where I should. A large part of that process consists of reasoning from things I accept and value as morally true, and testing the less certain conclusions against the more certain. For example, if I feel certain that all human beings are morally entitled to defend themselves against violence, AND I believe all wars to be wrong, I have some work to do to reconcile those sentiments: if it turns out that I would only deny a man the right to shoot back at an attacker if he is wearing a uniform, and agree that this is not actually a morally relevant factor, I need to revise one or both of my opinions.
Hence my critique of Russ's position. His inconsistency in applying his ONLY stated reason for thinking homosexuality is wrong is not merely a problem of presentation. It is a strong indication that his moral reasoning is wrong, and that the conclusions he reaches are not to be trusted. I'll allow that there might be someone, somewhere, who can make a convincing case for those same conclusions, but whoever they are, they appear not to have internet access.
quote:
The very reason why you don't seem to see anybody else who has this moral insight is quite simply that you dismiss as "bigot" everybody who does, and who doesn't command the machinery of traditional Catholic argument on this topic to keep your judgement at bay. Russ, whatever shortcomings his actual argument might have, is articulating a moral insight along the same lines as the RCC. Perhaps what he says is not coherent and insufficient. So what?! All this says is that he is not using a millennium of thought to shape his gut feelings.
I'm saying that the act of presenting as a reason against homosexuality a criterion which quite obviously is not applied to straights is itself an act of bigotry. If you (generic 'you') are not being consistent, and you know that you are not being consistent, and yet you continue to make rules for a group you despise that you would never apply to yourself and would find intolerable if someone else did, then you are a bigot. Even if some better and wiser reason exists for differential treatment, if you don't know or understand that reason, it cannot justify your conduct.
Illustration: suppose I set up an ice cream shop, and hang a 'no blacks' sign on the door. It may be that all the black people in my area come from an ethnic group which is very seriously lactose intolerant. But unless I know and understand that, and can clearly demonstrate that my stated reason for putting up my sign is a justifiable concern for the health of others, I'm still a fucking racist. A better nuitritionist might have a defence for acting in the way that I do, but I can't avail myself of that defence unless I personally understand why, unusually, there is in this case a hidden benefit to an apparently unjust action.
It is true that an action can be objectively justified, even if the person doing it can't articulate the reasons why. But it is also true that there is a moral responsibility to have good and defensible reasons which can be articulated for treating people in a way that at first sight is grossly unfair. The anti-gay side has largely (entirely?) failed in that responsibility.
To avoid misunderstanding, I want to disinguish the 'moral insight' that sex should be ordered to procreation, from the 'moral insight' that gay sex is wrong. It's the first of these that I think has been reasoned through and consistently applied by the RC, but which I doubt is actually moral because other than the RC, practically no one has it. It appears not to be part of the moral feeling common to humanity, and not only does no one care about it, until they have it explained, no one would even consider it as a concept that they might possibly care about.
The 'insight' that gay sex is wrong is much more common. It is not identical with, but does substantially overlap, the feeling (which I would call a prejudice) that gay people are vile and what they do is repulsive. It also has parallels with the a common tendancy, readily observable in children, that sex which one personally feels no current interest in having is rather disgusting. That is, it is a feeling which is mixed up with various non-moral factors of a sort which can and do cause morally unjustified beliefs. The demand that consistent principles which can be seen and applied as generally good should be produced in support of this insight is, in the circumstances, a reasonable one, and a necessary one in order to discover the extent to which the sentiment has any moral weight.
Therefore I don't really see you and Russ as arguing on the same lines. You are arguing from a consistent principle which I (currently) reject. I have grave doubts whether he is arguing from any real principles at all.
quote:
If you have difficulties with finding the prohibition of homosexuality in scripture, then I would recommend Robert Gagnon on this matter. On his website you can find links to a good number of videos of talks that explore this issue in depth (scroll down to the pink box).
There are a lot of links. The accompanying commentary elsewhere on the site disinclines me to investigate them all. Pick one (ideally not one I need to sign up for anything in order to view), and let's discuss it.
Unfortunately, though, I have no difficulty finding prohibitions on homosexuality in scripture. I know the passages, and I know the 'liberal' arguments against the traditional interpretation. I wish I could be wholly persuaded that the liberal case is right, but I'm not. Hence I cannot, and do not, assert that homosexuality is definitely permitted for Christians, and why I would never seek to change the mind of a gay Christian who thought that obedience to scripture required that he or she remain celibate. On the contrary, I would greatly respect that degree of commitment, and consider such a person my spiritual superior. That does not change the fact that I cannot even begin to comprehend any possible justification for the prohibition. I could not (not to save my life) hope to explain or convincingly defend it to someone who rejected scriptural authority. My best moral reasoning is that the prohibition is unjust, and that makes me doubt that the traditional interpretation is correct. (I know from past discussions that we hold different views on God and morality: I think that the biblical assertion that "God is just" rules out objectively unjust ideas as being unworthy of God, and is properly employed as an intrepretive tool to that very end. Therefore this casts doubt on any interpretations of scripture that appear, on the best moral reasoning we can manage, to portray God as objectively unjust. Hence my grave doubts about what appears to be right are in a currently unresolved tension with what scripture appears to say).
On your particular argument about the iconic nature of marriage, I have no issues at all. It seems to me to be a classic argument from authority (of a sort which I personally find congenial, FWIW) which within it's proper limits ("what can an iconodule Christian church properly celebrate as having this specific meaning?") is unobjectionable. I have no problem with a person of a particular sexual expression (a celibate, for instance) being iconic of some particular theological truth, and therefore no problem thinking of an opposite sex couple in that way. This does not inherently lead to an argument against the equal social and legal treatment of gay people, which is what I most care about.
--------------------
"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
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Illustration: suppose I set up an ice cream shop, and hang a 'no blacks' sign on the door. It may be that all the black people in my area come from an ethnic group which is very seriously lactose intolerant. But unless I know and understand that, and can clearly demonstrate that my stated reason for putting up my sign is a justifiable concern for the health of others, I'm still a fucking racist. A better nuitritionist might have a defence for acting in the way that I do, but I can't avail myself of that defence unless I personally understand why, unusually, there is in this case a hidden benefit to an apparently unjust action.
It is true that an action can be objectively justified, even if the person doing it can't articulate the reasons why. But it is also true that there is a moral responsibility to have good and defensible reasons which can be articulated for treating people in a way that at first sight is grossly unfair. The anti-gay side has largely (entirely?) failed in that responsibility.
There is a famous ethical problem about icecream (I've forgotten where I saw it) which goes like this: boy goes to icecream van and asks for icecream. Ice cream van seller refuses to serve him. Is he being an arse? Is there any way he might not be being an arse?
It turns out that the boy is an Orthodox Jew. Is there any way that the ice cream seller is not being racist?
It turns out that the ice-cream seller is also an Orthodox Jew and he knows the ice-cream contains gelatine. What now?
I'm not sure if that is a bit clearer than the example you've given above?
I think it is quite a tricky area, but morally I don't think the seller of a product has much moral basis to refuse to sell a product to someone just on the basis that he knows or thinks he knows that the purchaser is doing something morally objectionable.
First, he might be wrong. Second, the individual has agency and must make the decision themselves, providing they have proper information about the thing and the consequences.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
What is an Orthodox Jew doing selling non-kosher icecream to anyone? And why doesn't he have a notice up about the contents? Vegetarians and Hindus would need to know about that gelatine as well.
But I actually came in to dispute IngoB's argument about humanity being binary. And not from the point of all the variations linked to above. The fruit of that binary definition has been the way that women have been treated over the millenia because the default state of human has been believed to be male. We need to see humanity as one, but with differing external features or internal attitudes.
Admittedly, IngoB suggests that the Genesis description of God making man (that's the inclusive man, of course, homo not vir, anthropos not andros - is that clear without my trying to translate words which have been conflated in English, and bearing in mind the bit outside the brackets) in His own image, male and female, means that each sex is an imperfect icon of God, and both are needed to represent Him. This is not the way things have been presented traditionally - you'd need a couple at the altar, wouldn't you? It also suggests an imperfection in the lives of the single, whether through choice or accident.
I repeat that we need to get away from seeing humankind as binary. Everyone is fully human, surely? The way that men (vir and andros this time) have been so insistent on our being binary, and have then gone on to "other" the other part of the twosome has been the root of much wrong, and has also led to the wrongs being done to those who challenge that binary us and the others vision, such as homosexuals, and all the rest.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I'm not sure if that is a bit clearer than the example you've given above?
That depends whether the "hidden reason" for the ban is something that is itself up for discussion. My example assumes that the reason can at least be accepted as a good one for the sake of argument*: the point is that even if the hidden reason is an excellent one that no one in their right mind could dispute, you (generic you) can only plead it in defence of a charge of prejudice if you know about it.
You could break my analogy by saying that the hidden reason would justify a warning, but not a ban - which would be fair enough. The point is, that knowing the hidden reason could only ever be an excuse for someone who knows about it.
Russ clearly has no idea what a good hidden reason for denying full equality might be. Therefore he is without excuse. IngoB has at least a candidate hidden reason, I just think he's wrong about it.
--------------------
"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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
τελεος
Translation, please. You know the rules.
DT
HH
Right, sorry. It's Greek for "end" in the sense of "purpose" or "target state of being."
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Quod licet bovi, non licet Iovi.
Also in the FFS department. Having just warned the Mouse for untranslated Greek, you come in with untranslated Latin. You have a lovely binary choice here, which should suit you down to the ground. Either translate the phrase, or don't post the phrase. I'm sharpening the hostly sickle.
The phrase itself is a URL link to a Wikipedia translation and explanation of the phrase. Just click on it. I have used this method many times before on SoF, with no hostly concern ever expressed before. Hence I consider this call a simple oversight on your part. Otherwise I will take it to Styx.
Edited to add: unless you consider the wordplay of switching "bovi" and "Iovi" as too difficult to get from the comparison of the unadulterated English and the Latin on Wikipedia. I think this is simple pattern matching though, not a language issue.
[ 09. September 2015, 16:28: 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
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Hence I consider this call a simple oversight on your part. Otherwise I will take it to Styx.
Hostly furry hat on.
Damn right you will. I was explicitly clear, and you know how to query a hostly ruling. Also, referred to Admin.
DT
HH
Hostly furry hat off
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
That's a complete misuse of what stereoscopic means. It means having two viewpoints, not having two objects to view. It is perfectly possible to have a stereoscopic view of a single object, indeed of a single man.
So it's a misuse, but precisely a correct use. My point was exactly that every man and every woman is per se an image and likeness of God. It's not like a man or a woman alone is just 50% of an image and likeness of God. Still, neither is it true that having both man and woman together adds nothing to this human representation of God. It is like seeing this image and likeness of God in human form from two slightly shifted angles, which allows a more in-depth vision considered together.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And I'm fascinated by your assertion that humans are made in the image of God, but animals aren't... as if there is any difference in the mechanics of sexual reproduction between human beings and pretty well most vertebrates, at least. "Male" and "female" are not human-only concepts, so it's pretty bloody mysterious as to why you'd suggest that there's something fundamentally God-like about human maleness and femaleness that is lacking from male and female dogs, male and female penguins or male and female antelope.
First, biologically speaking sex life is quite variable across the animal kingdom. This is perhaps primarily seen in the sex-related behaviour. But is is even true concerning the sex of an animal itself. Many snails are for example hermaphrodites. Second, humans are distinct from animals by being rational animals, not by any specific sexual features. Third, however, this rationality which sets humans apart is not some kind of isolated feature. Rather, it suffuses absolutely everything a human being is. In classical terms, the rational soul of a human being encompasses the animated souls and even the vegetative soul. To put it simply, nothing of your embodiment is separated from your human understanding. You cannot in fact "fuck like a animal", that is impossible for you. There is no way for you to fully set aside your human understanding in anything you do (at least while you are of sound mind and not drugged). Fourth, in a positive sense this is saying nothing else than the modern statement that "sex happens primarily in the mind" - for humans, that is.
The upshot of this is that the same sort of embodiment in a human and an animal does not mean the same. You cannot in fact "hump a leg" like a dog does. That's not to say that you cannot hump a leg, of course you can. But for a dog this is a simple following of sexual urges to the nearest suitable target (though humans may disagree on the suitability). For you it cannot be that. You can basically not avoid conceptualising what this activity means, this is just what humans do. So all this stupid discussion about how a dog might be concerned with the sex of a leg has it exactly the wrong way around. A dog isn't concerned with that at all, true, but that does not show in the slightest that a human should not be so concerned. To the contrary, it is exactly in this that we can see how human sexuality, even if "mechanically equivalent", does not mean the same. You as a human in fact have a "conceptual issue" with anything you do, including all sexual behaviour.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Oh, and if you're going to link to a Wikipedia page about a maxim that says "what is permissible for God is not permissible for the ox", could you have at least have the common sense to grasp that the maxim is not reversible??
The whole point of me reversing the maxim is of course exactly to say that yes, indeed, there is a sense in which this can be reversed. And it is just in the way I have just discussed. A dog can simply hump a leg. You cannot. And you cannot because you are a god (well, God-like). You cannot reduce your humanity to the point where you are just humping a leg. There is no way for you to escape the meaningfulness of your actions to yourself and others.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Honestly, your attempts to look like you're impressive and intellectual while saying something so profoundly stupid is the main reason I despise you so much.
I'm not sure why you keep repeating this. Do you expect to get some kind of rise out of me with this? I'm seriously not tying my self-esteem to any kind of feedback you could possibly provide. And for the record, I can truly say that I do not despise anybody posting on this thread, indeed, on SoF.
--------------------
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:
It is like seeing this image and likeness of God in human form from two slightly shifted angles, which allows a more in-depth vision considered together.
Good.
Now notice that there are a few more angles and you are getting somewhere.
[hostly edit to fix link ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif) ]
[ 09. September 2015, 20:43: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
JonahMan
Shipmate
# 12126
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
humans are distinct from animals by being rational animals,
Except, it seems, where sex or religion are involved.
--------------------
Thank God for the aged
And old age itself, and illness and the grave
For when you're old, or ill and particularly in the coffin
It's no trouble to behave
Posts: 914 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
St Deird
Shipmate
# 7631
|
Posted
I'm still rather fascinated by Bingo's insistence that God is best reflected in a binary. Isn't there rather a lot said about us having a triune deity?
[ 09. September 2015, 21:40: Message edited by: St Deird ]
--------------------
They're not hobbies; they're a robust post-apocalyptic skill-set.
Posts: 319 | From: the other side of nowhere | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Maybe God uses a different number system? Maybe God's an irrational number, or transcendental, or transfinite?
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I'm not sure why you keep repeating this.
I'm expressing my feelings. Also, you're not the sole reader here.
I'm not sure why you keep repeating things that people have explained, quite articulately in some cases, are objectively complete bullshit, so I don't feel terribly bad about repeating things that are clearly a matter of my personal subjective opinion. I'm still being more rational than you.
--------------------
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
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
I would not bother, Orfeo. Some years ago, I realised that there was no point in trying to debate with IngoB - he is incapable of it. Since then, my life has been happier, I've slept better, the sun's shone nicely, the birds have been singing - what more could a person of mature years want?
--------------------
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
A husband?
Anyway, yeah, my Ingo reading is a lot more selective now. I have an authorisation to not read his shit, and I do use it from time to time, it's quite liberating.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by St Deird:
I'm still rather fascinated by Bingo's insistence that God is best reflected in a binary. Isn't there rather a lot said about us having a triune deity?
I am not sure how much mileage there is in playing around with this, given that there was only one Incarnation in one sex. But if you wish, you can speculatively map the Trinity onto man - woman - child.
--------------------
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by St Deird:
I'm still rather fascinated by Bingo's insistence that God is best reflected in a binary. Isn't there rather a lot said about us having a triune deity?
I am not sure how much mileage there is in playing around with this, given that there was only one Incarnation in one sex. But if you wish, you can speculatively map the Trinity onto man - woman - child.
As long as child never grows up to be man or woman.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
So it's a misuse, but precisely a correct use.
Huh? If it's a correct use it can't be a misuse. This is gobbledygook.
quote:
It is like seeing this image and likeness of God in human form from two slightly shifted angles, which allows a more in-depth vision considered together
Sure. But from this it in no wise follows that both are necessary to make a valid marriage. So in essence this is irrelevant to the conversation.
quote:
You cannot in fact "hump a leg" like a dog does. That's not to say that you cannot hump a leg, of course you can. But for a dog this is a simple following of sexual urges to the nearest suitable target (though humans may disagree on the suitability). For you it cannot be that. You can basically not avoid conceptualising what this activity means, this is just what humans do.
I don't see how this leads to your conclusion. Humans conceptualize things. Yes, yes, all well and good. Therefore you can't just hump a leg. Why not? Just because humans conceptualize things? What's the connection? MUST we conceptualize everything? I mean, sometimes isn't a cigar just a cigar?
quote:
Originally posted by JonahMan:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
humans are distinct from animals by being rational animals,
Except, it seems, where sex or religion are involved.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
--------------------
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 Gee D:
what more could a person of mature years want?
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
A husband?
Wait, what?! You are saying when I get older I'll want a husband? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
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
*Shrug* People vary. You might want a sports car instead. Or some cats.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
*Shrug* People vary. You might want a sports car instead. Or some cats.
Already have a sports car. And I am already loony so do not need cats to accentuate that.
--------------------
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
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
A husband?
Anyway, yeah, my Ingo reading is a lot more selective now. I have an authorisation to not read his shit, and I do use it from time to time, it's quite liberating.
I have no wish to divorce Madame, so in acquiring a husband I'd be committing bigamy.
And L'il Buddha, in Hearing Secret Harmonies Peter Templar, one of the male characters, is now getting around with a boyfriend. Templar featured as being almost aggressively straight in earlier volumes of the sequence. Another character comments on the change in direction saying that it does occur as a result of excessive womanising in earlier years. You may change - I don't think that I shall.
[ 10. September 2015, 03:39: Message edited by: Gee D ]
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
I thought it was established that, after teens of pags of this thread, we all want Eliab?
Well, I also find myself wanting to turn IngoB's avatar into a butt plug - as being circumstantially apt. And to update his signature to being:
Pie Jesu Domine, dona eis requiem.
Dona eis requiem sempiternam.
Translation (chanted by monks in Monty Python's "Holy Grail"):
Merciful Lord Jesus, grant them rest.
Grant them eternal rest.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
I apologise - that should have read Mousethief, not LilBuddha. I apologise to both of you. Too late to edit.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The upshot of this is that the same sort of embodiment in a human and an animal does not mean the same. You cannot in fact "hump a leg" like a dog does. That's not to say that you cannot hump a leg, of course you can. But for a dog this is a simple following of sexual urges to the nearest suitable target (though humans may disagree on the suitability). For you it cannot be that. You can basically not avoid conceptualising what this activity means, this is just what humans do. So all this stupid discussion about how a dog might be concerned with the sex of a leg has it exactly the wrong way around. A dog isn't concerned with that at all, true, but that does not show in the slightest that a human should not be so concerned. To the contrary, it is exactly in this that we can see how human sexuality, even if "mechanically equivalent", does not mean the same. You as a human in fact have a "conceptual issue" with anything you do, including all sexual behaviour.
If you don't think that humans can conceptualise the humping of legs you've obviously never commuted regularly as a woman on London Underground, this delightful gentleman is not alone in his activities. Neither is it new as that article implies.
You are also very, very sheltered. Some students of my acquaintance had a score chart in their toilet with a range of possible sexual activities, which included many alternatives to penis in vagina sex. They were keeping score of how many they achieved over the year.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Portnoy humps the family dinner, liver, wasn't it? There's something about his sister's bra, as well, if I remember. I shall draw a veil over that in my mind's eye, oh damn, too late.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I am so tempted to rename this thread "I call all homophones to Hell".
What ringtone does a homophone have ?
--------------------
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
The same. And where do you get your ideal from?
--------------------
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:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Eliab's recent post suggests that he's talking about love while I'm talking about sex.
But that is what homosexuality is!
Disagree.
Someone who sexually desires their own sex and only their own sex is homosexual even if they never fall in love or even are incapable of falling in love.
Conversely, someone who is attracted to others in an entirely non-sexual way is not homosexual.
It's about sex.
Often love and sex go together. But it's the sex element that defines the condition we're talking about. As one look at the word should tell you.
I'm still fairly taken aback by the notion you seem to be putting forward. That a religious fundamentalism that believes on the authority of revelation that unrepentant homosexuals will rightly burn in hell is to be disagreed with respectfully. But a version of natural law thinking that believes on the authority of reason and moral intuition that homosexuals are ordinary people on whom the moral imperative to be discreet weighs slightly more heavily, is to be condemned as bigotry.
It has to be reason and moral intuition, because reason needs an "ought" premise to derive an "ought" conclusion.
Do you agree that only choices can be morally wrong ?
I'm accepting - unless there's evidence to the contrary - the conclusion that homosexuality is not a choice, that it's caused by some combination of genetics and the action of hormones in the womb. So the questions are
a) what can we say about the morality of homosexual acts ?
b) can we say anything about whether the orientation itself is good or bad or neutral ? Because things can be good without being morally good.
Do you agree that far ?
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Because things can be good without being morally good.
If a thing is good, but not morally good, there is something wrong with the moral standard not the thing.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Someone who sexually desires their own sex and only their own sex is homosexual even if they never fall in love or even are incapable of falling in love.
Conversely, someone who is attracted to others in an entirely non-sexual way is not homosexual.
It's about sex.
Nobody is campaigning for people of the same gender to marry because they think the sex will be better.
--------------------
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I apologise - that should have read Mousethief, not LilBuddha. I apologise to both of you. Too late to edit.
If that's the case, I don't know what words of mine you were responding to.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Often love and sex go together. But it's the sex element that defines the condition we're talking about. As one look at the word should tell you.
I already disabused IngoB of this logical blunder, and I (being the nice guy I am) will do the same for you. There are two meanings of sex:
1. doing the naughty
2. physical gender
The "sex" in "homosexual" refers to #2, not #1. It's someone who likes members of the same (homo) sex(2) (sexual). Not someone who wants to have sex(1) with someone who is the same. Same what? It doesn't make any sense at all if you are reading "sex" as sex(1). It's just not what the word means. It can't. If it meant what you want it to mean it would have to be homosexusexual.
[ 11. September 2015, 01:21: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I already disabused IngoB of this logical blunder, and I (being the nice guy I am) will do the same for you. There are two meanings of sex:
1. doing the naughty
2. physical gender
The "sex" in "homosexual" refers to #2, not #1. It's someone who likes members of the same (homo) sex(2) (sexual). Not someone who wants to have sex(1) with someone who is the same. Same what? It doesn't make any sense at all if you are reading "sex" as sex(1). It's just not what the word means. It can't. If it meant what you want it to mean it would have to be homosexusexual.
Complete rubbish. Then you and I and all other male beings on this plant would be "homosexual", simply by virtue of having the same physical gender. Nobody uses the word that way. Most of us are not "homosexual", because we do not desire "doing the naughty" with those of the same sex. The OED (Mac) definition of homosexual is "sexually attracted to people of one's own sex." Note the double appearance of the word "sex" I have emphasised in the definition. It is the combination of being sexually attracted - desiring doing the naughty - and being attracted to those of one's own sex that defines homosexuality. You are not homosexual if you are not attracted to your own sex. But you are also not homosexual if your attraction is not about doing the naughty. If you are asexually (non-naughtily) attracted to men then that is philandry, and to women philogyny, but neither is homosexuality irrespective of what sex you have yourself. Wanting to do the naughty is the missing component there. Your logic chopping simply fails to capture the actual semantics of common language usage.
--------------------
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
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
What is this oxymoronic asexual attraction of which you speak?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
What is this oxymoronic asexual attraction of which you speak?
Are all your attractions sexual? Men who prefer the company of other men but bed women are not exactly a rarity. Neither are women who prefer the company of other women but bed men. I don't have statistical data on this, but if people name their best friend, then from my life experience I would expect that a majority of them would name someone of the same sex.
--------------------
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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I'm finding myself agreeing with Ingo at the moment.
Normal service will be resumed shortly.
--------------------
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
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'm finding myself agreeing with Ingo at the moment.
Shall we say that sexuality refers to a complex of physical desire, lust, romantic love, and affection.
While you can't isolate out the physical desire bit, and say that sexual orientation is really about the rest, you can't isolate out the physical desire, or the physical desire and the lust, and say sexual orientation is only about that element either.
--------------------
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
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Shall we say that sexuality refers to a complex of physical desire, lust, romantic love, and affection.
I mean of course the potentials for these things, rather than their invariable presence.
--------------------
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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'm finding myself agreeing with Ingo at the moment.
Shall we say that sexuality refers to a complex of physical desire, lust, romantic love, and affection.
While you can't isolate out the physical desire bit, and say that sexual orientation is really about the rest, you can't isolate out the physical desire, or the physical desire and the lust, and say sexual orientation is only about that element either.
Well...
There was in fact a time in my life, before coming out, where I genuinely struggled with bringing the elements together. I knew very well that the physical desire side was directed at men, but I struggled with the notion of loving a man in the sense of settling down with him and having a life together because I had, in my desperation to be straight, constructed an image in my head that involved a woman.
Because I could most definitely have affection for a woman. Heck, right now in Australia we're having a series of The Bachelor, and the girl that's just been evicted is utterly lovely and I think spending a lot of time with her would be a total delight. I just have zero interest in having sex with her.
I think there's a rather crucial difference between saying that sexual orientation is about things other than sexual desire, and saying that a proper expression of sexual desire involves other elements.
I also confess to not really understanding whether you see a difference between "physical desire" and "lust", and whether you think it's even possible to have something that is "romantic love" without the desire/lust. I suppose I could charm and serenade a woman without having sexual lust for her, it's just a little difficult to conceive why I'd bother.
--------------------
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
I'd also observe that the classic behaviour of a good gay Christian boy in the closet is to marry a girl he has a great deal of affection for. His best friend, basically.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
