|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: I call all homophobes to Hell - especially Russ
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I don't have horns. I'm arguing for tolerance not persecution, for reasoned and consistent thought not peer-pressure, for a middle ground where tradition is neither as authoritative as IngoB would have it nor as oppressive as Boogie would have it.
You advocate oppression of homosexual people then call those who will not tolerate that 'oppressive'?
Looks like projection to me.
read the sentence again, Boogie. It says that IngoB thinks tradition is authoritative, that you think tradition is oppressive, and that I hold an intermediate view.
That intermediate view being, as orfeo recognised, that tradition is a starting point, a default to adopt until one has reasoned one's way to something better.
But you don't accept that as an approach.
quote:
And you wonder why I called you and all who spout your cruel nonsense to Hell ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Your emotion is an inadequate substitute for reasoned argument. If we face each other across the left-right divide and you call me heartless and I call you stupid, where does it get us ?
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Funny, I'm not creating an entire culture either.
It's not funny at all. You're buying into that culture, and aiding and abetting it.
[/qb]
That's part of the issue here, isn't it ?
That I'm naively expecting a discussion where you say what you think and I say what I think and we work out where we've got common ground and where we differ and why we differ. And we maintain mutual respect through the process, and - to the extent that we each succeed in making a good case for our points of view - we both end up with a more nuanced understanding and a recognition that the opposing position may be more tenable than we initially thought.
And you're seeing the process as something different. As a clash between pro-gay and anti-gay cultures where no compromise is either desirable or possible. And the only question is who sides with the oppressors and who sides with the victims ?
quote:
And I don't recall calling anybody evil.
Yes I'm sure some kid who hears that he's defective, and it would be morally wrong to choose to be as he is, would never conclude you think he's evil. </sarcasm> [/QB][/QUOTE]
Imagine you see a teenager in a wheelchair, and conclude that this is because of an impairment of normal function, a defect in the operation of some element of her locomotory system (whether the issue is with the legs, the brain, or the nervous system that connects the two).
Is she a defective person ? No. The problem is not in her personhood. She is a person using a wheelchair to cope with a defect of the body.
Would it be morally wrong to wish her condition on others ? Yes.
Is she evil ? Certainly not for being in a wheelchair. (Doesn't of course prove that she's not sitting there thinking evil thoughts and planning evil deeds...)
So if you can appreciate these distinctions in the case of someone with physical injury, what is so very difficult in maintaining them when it comes to thinking about someone whose impairment is more of a psychological nature ?
--------------------
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:
And you're seeing the process as something different. As a clash between pro-gay and anti-gay cultures where no compromise is either desirable or possible.
There is a marked difference between the posts directed at you, Russ, that those dealing with other people of your beliefs. I've seen discussions with some of them in DH and no thought of calling them to Hell. Why do you think that is?
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
And the only question is who sides with the oppressors and who sides with the victims ?
Gee, this is such a difficult question.
Your POV oppresses LGBT people. Actually causes real problems. Having to fight for the right to marry, for equal employment rights, the right to raise children, the right to be by one's beloved's side in hospital, etc.
For those on the Equality side, we do not oppress you. You can believe what you wish. You can get hetero-married, go to a heter0-only marriage church, etc. You lose nothing except the right to oppress others.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I'm naively expecting a discussion where you say what you think and I say what I think and we work out where we've got common ground and where we differ and why we differ.
I have seen no evidence. None. That this is your intent. You have been asked a hundred times for your arguments for your position, and you refuse to give them. In absence of that, how can I possibly know why we differ?
What common ground do we have? You want to tell gays they're broken, EVEN IF IT KILLS THEM. What kind of common ground can someone have with a person who doesn't care if someone dies due to their actions? I am not seeing any common ground here. You don't care if people die because of your words. I find that despicable. I don't necessarily WANT to find common ground with someone who doesn't mind being accessory to murder.
What, you don't want to be accessory to murder? Then why don't you talk about that instead of this whining about how poor Russ is trying to have a rational discussion and everybody else is being so mean.
You could actually, you know, ADDRESS THE POINT, and say that you actually give a fuck about suicidal gay teens, and what you think you might do about it, in terms of your toxic beliefs.
Would that be difficult? Would that contribute to mutual understanding more than whining that you're not being treated fairly, that you're trying to be dispassionate (dispassionate about people dying -- there's something wrong about that, but I can't put my finger on it) while everybody else is drunk with emotion. How dare we be upset that people are dying because of rhetoric like yours? We're so unfair.
quote:
And we maintain mutual respect through the process,
I have tried to respect you, but you have long frayed that nerve past breaking, Russ. Why? Why? A thousand times why? Why won't you give your reasons? Why won't you address the children who are dying? Why is your chief response to these charges whiny self-defense instead of actually, you know, discussing the charges and what they mean and why you don't really want to see people die and how you intend to act so that you don't contribute to that? Why?
quote:
and - to the extent that we each succeed in making a good case for our points of view
You haven't made ANY case for your point of view, you've only made offensive analogies. Analogies aren't a case, they're an illumination. They don't argue, they only explain. Make a case. Go on. Make one. Argue for your point of view from something other than a faulty analogy. All of your analogies, by the way, have been thoroughly decimated by others. None of them have stood up. Not one. None.
quote:
And you're seeing the process as something different. As a clash between pro-gay and anti-gay cultures where no compromise is either desirable or possible. And the only question is who sides with the oppressors and who sides with the victims ?
You can fix that by showing that you side with the victims, and what you're going to do to prevent your anti-gay rhetoric from making more victims. I dare you.
quote:
quote:
quote:
And I don't recall calling anybody evil.
Yes I'm sure some kid who hears that he's defective, and it would be morally wrong to choose to be as he is, would never conclude you think he's evil. </sarcasm>
Imagine you see a teenager in a wheelchair, and conclude that this is because of an impairment of normal function,
NO MORE STUPID ANALOGIES. I will not entertain any more of your analogies. Either step up to the plate and argue like a man (or woman), or admit you cannot and step down. But the stupid analogies are no longer welcome.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I can, for example, assert that science is the highest and best enterprise that the human mind can aspire to, without thinking it immoral to study law, or theology, or art. Even if those other disciplines are lesser "goods", they remain good, and therefore may be pursued without moral fault.
Your example works because, unfortunately, human nature being what it is, we do need lawyers. And of course we need farmers to grow the food to feed the scientists, and glassblowers to make the test tubes for them to do their science in, etc. Nothing wrong with taking the humbler role if that role needs to he filled by someone. But if it were a feasible proposition for everyone to be a scientist, and everyone believed that this is what everyone should want so that any other career required a positive choice to reject science, then it seems to me not so clear-cut.
Now, you could argue that if your aptitude and talent is such that you'd be a first-rate artist but only a tenth-rate scientist, then maybe it's better to do the less-worthwhile thing well.
quote:
[wb]And yet what you think morality demands of homosexuals is that they live functionally asexual lives. You want them to keep their imperfectly good sexuality secret from children, and others, as if it were a source of shame and social embarrassment, and instead pretend to something which, according to your logic, is still further removed from the "ideal" that we should be presenting to our children as the unexceptional norm.
[/QB]
There's a middle ground between hiding something and advertising it. Just as between being ashamed and being proud.
It would be much simpler if I thought homosexual acts were always and everywhere morally wrong. But it seems to me entirely possible that someone who is exclusively homosexual in their desires may rightly decide that the best life they can live is one where their desires are physically expressed in the context of a permanent, exclusive and loving relationship with someone who shares that orientation.
Whilst at the same time believing that such an orientation is a sub-optimal state that no-one of goodwill could wish on another person as an alternative to default-normal heterosexual desires.
So I can stand neither with the traditionalists who condemn the activity nor with the progressives who want to celebrate it as of equal value with the sacrament of marriage.
Sexuality can unlock both the best and the worst in us.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
I've stayed out of this until now, but now it seems to me someone has to say something a little different.
Russ, I think, is engaging in a purely theoretical argument that has nothing at all to do with the real world people live in. And he continues to discuss as if the matter is purely theoretical, with no actual relationship to concrete reality, because he is not interested in discussing real people in real situations, only theological abstractions.
I don't share some of the negative opinions people have expressed about Russ, because I think he honestly doesn't understand that discussion about this particular Dead Horse cannot be a discussion about theory unrelated to the real world.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
But John, Russ is then extending his theoretical findings to the real world and saying things like
quote:
I don't want to see anybody locked up for the consensual activities that they undertake in private. In private implying that they're not forcing this activity to the attention of unwilling third parties
He is against the portrayal of same sex couples or homosexuality in children's films.
quote:
Traditionally, children's films don't include homosexuality either. How long do you suppose such protection can continue in a world where the prevailing political philosophy is that homosexuals have a right to full cultural equality?
and the sex and relationships syllabuses because Russ fears that we are losing:
quote:
the value of protecting children from too-young exposure <snip>.
I want to hear that you have the backbone to stand up and defend that value against those who might wish to try to improve the effectiveness of their social engineering by starting younger.
He says he is arguing that his
quote:
aim here is to show that it is entirely possible for a reasonable and rational person to not buy into the progressive orthodoxy that homosexuality should be promoted as having equal value with heterosexuality.
Eliab has been arguing on a purely theoretical and moral basis and because Eliab is so much better at unpicking and arguing against that strand of the argument I have been leaving that to him.
The argument has ranged really widely. We have discussed:
- whether homosexuality is innate, and agreed that it is;
- whether a cure would be a good idea and concluded that we don't know enough and at our present stage of knowledge that a cure may do more damage than it would solve;
- that there are evolutionary reasons that homosexuality may have evolved within the human race, that one we've done several times;
- pages of discussion about what a secular ethical code of sexual conduct would look like, that it would be based on consensual activity between competent adults. That some people would also include that sex should only happen within a committed relationship. That that code does not preclude same sex relationships (including liberal helpings of side discussions on lesbian relationships and gay spaceships);
- Ariston's discussion on natural law and the difficulties of using it as an argument for moral laws or evolutionary purpose, that one continued for quite a few pages too;
- children's understanding of sex and sexuality - not sure we've reached a resolution on that one;
- complementarism, masculinity and femininity, whether it is traditionally mandated;
- whether homosexuality is a disorder or defect, with analogies comparing it to deafness, ASC, left-handedness, red-hair and the thought experiment of someone who was wired to only have sex with strangers - that one we are still arguing pages later;
- the purpose of human sexuality - a consensus on it not just being for procreation, but also for pair bonding, disagreement about some of the other purposes being morally neutral;
- how important procreation is for everyone, homosexual acts not leading to pregnancy, but that it is a false argument as there are numbers of people in heterosexual relationships who cannot be parents;
- the relationship between children and marriage;
- that giving equal rights to homosexuality does not mean that it is being recommended for everyone, that morally there is not a problem with recommending something that doesn't allow for normal reproduction (the Kantian imperative;
- various aspects of morality and goods - beauty, working hard, achieving;
- the dangers of risky sexual behaviours, including anal sex;
- sex and relationship education in schools and the new recommended guidelines;
- the effects of discriminating against homosexuality on suicide rates of young people.
Does that seem a reasonable summary?
Some of the points of discussion have been purely theoretical arguments some has been based on concrete reality. Because much of the argument has been based on analogies, concrete reality has been discussed regularly.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
So I can stand neither with the traditionalists who condemn the activity nor with the progressives who want to celebrate it as of equal value with the sacrament of marriage.
So, how about neither condemning nor celebrating but accepting?
If I were your homosexual son/daughter that's what I would ask for more than anything - that my father accepted me.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
I've stayed out of this until now, but now it seems to me someone has to say something a little different.
Russ, I think, is engaging in a purely theoretical argument that has nothing at all to do with the real world people live in. And he continues to discuss as if the matter is purely theoretical, with no actual relationship to concrete reality, because he is not interested in discussing real people in real situations, only theological abstractions.
Hi John.
Different perspectives welcome.
Regarding real people in real situations, seems to me that I would have to be an awfully close friend of orfeo's before I ventured any opinion at all on whether he as a person has chosen rightly in his particular situation. Whether to him or to anyone who knows him.
But any Fool who holds any sort of moral theory or moral system at all is probably saying something thereby about what are good choices or how such choices should be made in general.
So yes, I think it proper that there is some sort of disconnect or tension (if that's the right word) between what we say at the level of individuals and what we say in terms of high-level generalisations. In the abstract, wide-ranging free speech. In the particular case, respect for the autonomy and dignity of the individual person.
I wouldn't dream of adopting a position that I didn't think was true, just for the sake of not offending orfeo. But I equally wouldn't dream of going up to him in real life and pressing upon him an opinion that was at all likely to prove offensive to him.
And if there's a messy grey area in the middle, well that's life.
And yes, I'd tend to agree that any moral theory is an abstraction. Any political theory too, come to that.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I wouldn't dream of adopting a position that I didn't think was true, just for the sake of not offending orfeo. But I equally wouldn't dream of going up to him in real life and pressing upon him an opinion that was at all likely to prove offensive to him.
But you happily say it on a message board?
I don't get that - I don't say anything on here that I'm not comfortable to say in RL. Maybe it's just me and most other people are more cagey in RL? What I find is that 'difficult' subjects tend not to be discussed in RL until a few pints have been had!
Also, you didn't answer my question - How about neither condemning nor celebrating but accepting?
If I were your homosexual son/daughter that's what I would ask for more than anything - that my father accepted me.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
And the only question is who sides with the oppressors and who sides with the victims ?
Gee, this is such a difficult question.
Your POV oppresses LGBT people. Actually causes real problems. Having to fight for the right to marry, for equal employment rights, the right to raise children, the right to be by one's beloved's side in hospital, etc.
It's a "have you stopped beating your wife yet ?" question. If you accept the premise of the question then you've already swallowed the lie.
And no, I haven't said anything to suggest that gay people shouldn't have equal employment rights, and this is just more of the same problem - you're reacting to the attitudes that you think might accompany my POV instead of what I actually say.
No-one has a right to raise children. Children are people, not commodities. If the evidence suggests (as I have been told is the case) that there are no negative impacts on children from being raised by a homosexual couple then it follows that homosexuality shouldn't be a bar to adoption. If conversely, the evidence were to suggest that being raised by a married man-woman couple (the historical norm) is better for the child then "equality" considerations shouldn't get a look-in.
The interests of the child come first and I'll go with the hard scientific evidence on what best serves those interests.
No, my moderate intermediate POV oppresses no-one.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I wouldn't dream of adopting a position that I didn't think was true, just for the sake of not offending orfeo. But I equally wouldn't dream of going up to him in real life and pressing upon him an opinion that was at all likely to prove offensive to him.
But you happily say it on a message board?
I don't get that - I don't say anything on here that I'm not comfortable to say in RL. Maybe it's just me and most other people are more cagey in RL? What I find is that 'difficult' subjects tend not to be discussed in RL until a few pints have been had!
Also, you didn't answer my question - How about neither condemning nor celebrating but accepting?
If I were your homosexual son/daughter that's what I would ask for more than anything - that my father accepted me.
Hi Boogie.
On a message board that's there explicitly for the purpose of serious high-level discussion (rather than for just hanging out with people you like) ? Absolutely.
Yes, I didn't answer your question. Feels like I'm in a many-to-one situation here, and there's probably a big backlog of points worth responding to. But there's an opportunity now.
I think "doing the best you can with what you've got" involves an acceptance of how things are and a forward-looking commitment to the good in the light of whatever philosophy the individual holds. Is that "accepting" in your book ?
Or does acceptance mean to you that any shortcoming, impairment, defect or fault (choose whichever word you think best) in someone you love is not an impairment etc at all because love transforms everything ?
You think love is blind to faults ? Romantic love, maybe.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
... Imagine you see a teenager in a wheelchair, and conclude that this is because of an impairment of normal function, a defect in the operation of some element of her locomotory system (whether the issue is with the legs, the brain, or the nervous system that connects the two). ...
And yet another fucking analogy - "hey, gay kids, being gay is like being unable to walk!"
Russ, you fucking pervert, there's no nice way to tell a kid you think they're inferior. Or defective. Or evil. Or no better than a thief or child rapist. But you insist on doing it. Over and over and over. That's why you've been called to Hell and that's why you're being told to shut up.
And if you think you're being dogpiled here, let me tell you, it's nothing compared to what queer kids and adults go through every day of their lives. No one, let me repeat, NO ONE is going to rape you or beat you to death to make you give up your beliefs. Your beliefs result in other people getting raped or beaten to death.
So, yeah, you have the right to express those beliefs, and the rest of us have to a right to tell you that your beliefs are deadly. Now it's up to you to choose between killing people or keeping your mouth shut.
Best wishes, fuck off, die, etc.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I'm not sure why Russ is flapping about so much. He thinks homosexuality is inferior/defective. Errm, OK. I don't mean, OK, I agree, but OK, I get that.
--------------------
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 Curiosity killed ...:
There is an increased suicide rate amongst LGBT youth compared to heterosexual youth, particularly those from a religious background (not just Christian).
Think I owe you a response on the question of bullying and suicide.
The suicide statistics for Ireland National Suicide Research
show that males are approximately four times more likely to commit suicide than females.
It's a big subject in its own right, and not to be trivialised. But I note in passing that nobody seems to be calling for males to be given higher social status to reduce their suicide rate.
In other words, there are other ways of tackling this than applying the political paradigm of oppressors and oppressed. However attached the left-wingers amongst us are to that particular way of looking at things.
Bullying is wrong. Unequivocally.
I see it in terms of a bully taking out his/her frustrations on someone, a victim to whom the bully thinks the normal rules of behaviour don't apply because that person has put themselves outside the group by not conforming in some (possibly very minor) way.
Often backed up by a crowd of people who are happy to see conformity enforced in this way.
So the victim is chosen for a particular characteristic that the victim has, but the problem is essentially in the mind of the bully (and with the crowd where that applies).
It's endemic in schools, ever since there have been schools. Or at least from Tom Brown onwards. And all good schools nowadays try to do something about it, with varying rates of success.
With me so far ?
The characteristic of the victim may be effeminacy (in a boy), or it may be red hair, or it may be a different accent, or non-Caucasian features, or any one of a number of things. It may be something like intelligence that the school staff see as a positive thing but which counts against the victim in terms of peer-group solidarity.
If you adopt the left-wing response of dealing with anti-gay bullying by trying to raise the social status of gay people (or the equivalent for red-haired people or whatever) you don't deal with the problem. The bully is still a bully. He/she picks on someone else for some other characteristic.
Actually tackling bullying involves striving for a different sort of change to the culture. It's about the rules applying to everyone in dealing with everyone. The rules of decent behaviour - the right and wrong ways of treating people - apply equally in dealing with those we like, those we despise, those we envy, and everything in between. Whether the characteristics that mark them out from us are innate or chosen. (And again having the feelings isn't wrong; it's treating people badly because of those feelings which is wrong).
Not saying it's easy, either. Bullying behaviour can be seen in the animal kingdom too; it goes quite deep in our nature.
So no, I'm not at all in favour of bullying, and no I don't see the increased incidence of bullying of homosexuals as requiring a political solution or as changing the nature of what homosexuality is.
Hope I've said that close enough to right for you to get what I'm on about.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I'm not sure why Russ is flapping about so much. He thinks homosexuality is inferior/defective. Errm, OK. I don't mean, OK, I agree, but OK, I get that.
Perhaps deep down he realizes that's not right, and he's hoping someone will help him overcome his outer hate. But the hate is too strong, so the love can't get in and reach the core.
It's an analogy.
[ 20. September 2015, 16:20: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I'm not sure why Russ is flapping about so much. He thinks homosexuality is inferior/defective. Errm, OK. I don't mean, OK, I agree, but OK, I get that.
Perhaps deep down he realizes that's not right, and he's hoping someone will help him overcome his outer hate. But the hate is too strong, so the love can't get in and reach the core.
It's an analogy.
Good point. Yes, it would explain all the verbals, an uneasy conscience.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
Well. Or... it could be that Russ is just a decent guy, a person of intelligence and goodwill who cares when he is demonised for his opinions by others he deems also to be of goodwill - who cares enough to try, repeatedly and against fierce odds, to explain his opinions in such a way that they can be understood and, even if still forcefully rejected by his interlocutors, understood as not being intentionally or recklessly malicious. Mutual toleration - all of that.
Or, it could be because he gets replies which, after all his efforts and obvious sincerity, are like this one:
quote:
Now it's up to you to choose between killing people or keeping your mouth shut.
Best wishes, fuck off, die, etc.
Just, you know, a couple of alternative hypotheses to mull over.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
It's a big subject in its own right, and not to be trivialised. But I note in passing that nobody seems to be calling for males to be given higher social status to reduce their suicide rate.
I did know that suicide was the biggest cause of death in young men. The suicide rate rises with age, and the highest rate is for men aged 40-49. CALM - the Campaign Against Living Miserably is a specific initiative to support men. Tom Robinson's new single is in support of this organisation, so we may hear more about it. That doesn't detract from the figures that show that gay or seeking youngsters have even higher rates of suicide than those you've quoted.
quote:
In other words, there are other ways of tackling this than applying the political paradigm of oppressors and oppressed. However attached the left-wingers amongst us are to that particular way of looking at things.
I am not sure how you are reading my words as being descriptive of a "political paradigm of oppressors and oppressed". As I type I am visualising young people I have worked/am working with, struggling to come to terms with their sexuality. Some have come from homes where homosexuality is unacceptable - a range of homes - and they have had a much harder time coming to terms with themselves.
The atmosphere in schools, particularly when Section 28 was still in place (repealed in 2003), made it incredibly difficult to support young people who might have been homosexual. I have seen a huge amount of bullying for young people not already heterosexually involved at 12 or 13. This isn't the only bullying I have had to deal with in schools of children and young people who don't fit in, but a significant amount has been unashamably homophobic.
quote:
Bullying is wrong. Unequivocally.
Agreed
quote:
I see it in terms of a bully taking out his/her frustrations on someone, a victim to whom the bully thinks the normal rules of behaviour don't apply because that person has put themselves outside the group by not conforming in some (possibly very minor) way.
Often backed up by a crowd of people who are happy to see conformity enforced in this way.
It's usually more complicated than that.
quote:
So the victim is chosen for a particular characteristic that the victim has, but the problem is essentially in the mind of the bully (and with the crowd where that applies).
Not necessarily - some of the nastier mobile phone bullying, the so-called happy slapping, I have encountered was just someone being in the wrong place at the wrong time. The crowd wanted a victim to film, to build kudos on youtube.
quote:
It's endemic in schools, ever since there have been schools. Or at least from Tom Brown onwards. And all good schools nowadays try to do something about it, with varying rates of success.
Schools have huge anti-bullying campaigns, but as I also quoted earlier, homophobic bullying is such a significant problem in schools, the Archbishop of Canterbury has announced that it should be tackled in church schools and Nicky Morgan announced a Ł2 million fund to tackle homophobic bullying.
quote:
With me so far ?
<snipping out a big section generalising bullying>
So no, I'm not at all in favour of bullying, and no I don't see the increased incidence of bullying of homosexuals as requiring a political solution or as changing the nature of what homosexuality is.
Hope I've said that close enough to right for you to get what I'm on about.
But you are minimising the problem of homophobic bullying. The Stonewall's The Teachers' Report 2014: Homophobic bullying in schools (pdf) gives these headline figures:
quote:
Eighty six per cent of secondary school and 45 per cent of primary school teachers still say that pupils in their school, regardless of sexual orientation, experience homophobic bullying.
So, however much you try to minimise it, homophobic bullying in schools is still such a significant issue that there are a number of initiatives trying to tackle it.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Sorry Chesterbelloc, but that ignores the history of this thread.
It began in DH with civil engagement it was brought here to Hell when Russ couldn't, or wouldn't, phrase his thoughts without insult. Even here, has been at least as much attempt at instruction as insult for the majority of the thread.
It is difficult to credit accident with a consistent level of analogy and phrasing seemingly designed to cause ire.
--------------------
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
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
... But I note in passing that nobody seems to be calling for males to be given higher social status to reduce their suicide rate. ...
Boy, you really are dumb, aren't you? In case you hadn't noticed, males already have higher social status. Fear or shame about not ranking high enough or of losing that status - particularly where employment or being the head of the family is concerned - is a huge factor in male suicide. Men tragically die by suicide when their wives leave them or when they lose their jobs. The response to that is not to raise or lower anyone's status; it's to support anybody who thinks their whole world is ending and wants to end themselves, and sometimes others, with it.
And the fact that after 19 fucking pages, you still think human rights means raising or lowering someone's status, rather than treating all people fairly .... well, to call your brain reptilian would be an insult to reptiles.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Russ: In other words, there are other ways of tackling this than applying the political paradigm of oppressors and oppressed. However attached the left-wingers amongst us are to that particular way of looking at things.
I have worked with young people a lot, and I am trained in how to address bullying. Nothing of this has to do with applying a political paradigm of oppressors and oppressed. But don't let me be the one two rob you of a nice little prejudice against "left-wingers".
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Or does acceptance mean to you that any shortcoming, impairment, defect or fault (choose whichever word you think best) in someone you love is not an impairment etc at all because love transforms everything ?
None of the above. Homosexuality is a difference, not a fault.
If my son came out as gay I would accept him as a person, just as I am. With all the faults and foibles of humanity - but a different sexuality not a faulty sexuality.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Or does acceptance mean to you that any shortcoming, impairment, defect or fault (choose whichever word you think best) in someone you love is not an impairment etc at all because love transforms everything ?
None of the above. Homosexuality is a difference, not a fault.
If my son came out as gay I would accept him as a person, just as I am. With all the faults and foibles of humanity - but a different sexuality not a faulty sexuality.
Which is the bottom line, and which Russ will not discuss, or barely. Why does he think homosexuality faulty? Not a word, beyond flimsy analogies and nonsense about reproduction which he admits doesn't apply to heterosexuals (i.e. couples who know they are unable to have children).
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JonahMan
Shipmate
# 12126
|
Posted
It seems to me that the only argument that has been advanced that holds a shred of logic to it is the "homosexuals can't reproduce".
Which is easily countered with a simple phrase: turkey baster*
* I have never come across this in any context other than d-i-y artificial insemination, but presume they have some function in cookery.
--------------------
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
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
No, my moderate intermediate POV oppresses no-one.
Really, the only question left is if you're a hurtful idiot, or an avoidant asshole.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
I cannot believe this thread is still going on and that the complexities of sexuality have not been realized by our rusty friend.
Here's another set of lessons from biology, that sexuality is a lot more complicated that plugging in a toaster. Beyond X and Y:
I like the slipper limpets the best:
quote:
When it comes to Slipper limpets boys will be boys, but not for very long. Also known as the fornicating slipper snail... Each limpet starts off life as a male... After finding a female on a rock, he settles down on her and mates. After breeding, the male undergoes a 60-day sex change and then waits for a new male to come along and extend the stack, making them both sequential hermaphrodites and serial daters.
Isn't it just a little possible that some additional biological stuff (let alone psychological and social) is going on with us slightly more complicated human beings?
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
It would be much simpler if I thought homosexual acts were always and everywhere morally wrong. But it seems to me entirely possible that someone who is exclusively homosexual in their desires may rightly decide that the best life they can live is one where their desires are physically expressed in the context of a permanent, exclusive and loving relationship with someone who shares that orientation.
Whilst at the same time believing that such an orientation is a sub-optimal state that no-one of goodwill could wish on another person as an alternative to default-normal heterosexual desires.
There still seems to me to be a massive disconnect between these two paragraphs.
And the disconnect continues to be a failure to properly explore this claim that being homosexual is sub-optimal.
Because heterosexuality doesn't guarantee procreation any more than homosexuality rules it out. And the whole argument continues, it seems to me, to rest on a notion that an individual's capacity to procreate is inherently good.
I'm not even 100% sure that's true in a biological sense. It might be, but people have pointed out more than once in this thread that there are many purposes to sex besides procreation, and Russ you still seem to be claiming that procreative sex is just better. Maybe you're now conceding weakly and faintly, that one can discard the procreative function if (and only if) that will enable all the other functions to be achieved?
I'm really, really worried though, by an assumption that it's true in a moral sense. Russ disclaims a universal moral rule against homosexuality, but then there is still this sense that one ought, if possible, engage in heterosexual activity in preference to homosexual activity.
We're heading into the territory of ideas that childlessness is a kind of curse. And of course, while it doesn't inherently focus on the childlessness of women, past experience is that women tended to be the ones labelled as a problem if a pairing was not fertile and that marriage was fundamentally about a man acquiring a means of having children.
Same-sex relationships arise, in a very real sense, from the emancipation of women. They are a logical extension of feminism, of saying that women are persons in their own right and can find fulfilment in other ways besides bearing children.
[ 21. September 2015, 05:52: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JonahMan:
It seems to me that the only argument that has been advanced that holds a shred of logic to it is the "homosexuals can't reproduce".
Which is easily countered with a simple phrase: turkey baster*
* I have never come across this in any context other than d-i-y artificial insemination, but presume they have some function in cookery.
My first son was conceived by turkey baster ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) The doctor did it, but the principle was the same. I can tell you that anything bigger than a sperm passing through the cervix hurts! The same son once had a urine infection and said 'you have no idea what it's like when your plumbing hurts' I just gave a wry smile.
(Apologies for those who can't bear TMI!)
[ 21. September 2015, 07:48: Message edited by: Boogie ]
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
orfeo wrote:
Same-sex relationships arise, in a very real sense, from the emancipation of women. They are a logical extension of feminism, of saying that women are persons in their own right and can find fulfilment in other ways besides bearing children.
Yes, you can link misogyny and homophobia within patriarchal social systems. They both stem from the dominance of men, and heterosexual men at that, who have to breed, and women have to be the breeders. Some anthropologists have investigated these links, for example, the cult of machismo round the Med, often misogynistic and hostile to gays. And there are probably interesting socio-economic explanations for machismo, however, going o/t.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Anyone want take a punt on whether we tolerate or accept those whose choose to shag pigs heads ?
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JonahMan:
It seems to me that the only argument that has been advanced that holds a shred of logic to it is the "homosexuals can't reproduce".
A second argument might be that reproduction by hand job isn't possible either, whether as sex for one or for more.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Anyone want take a punt on whether we tolerate or accept those whose choose to shag pigs heads ?
Natural condoms are lamb gut not pig gut.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
a different sexuality not a faulty sexuality.
That seems a concise summary of your view.
One of the things I was trying to ask you earlier was whether you see this statement as factually true. i.e. is it your belief that the evidence, the science, is sufficient to distinguish a different sexuality from a faulty sexuality ?
Because what I've seen amounts to no more than biologists speculating about why the genetic component of homosexuality hasn't been selected out of the human race.
Or is it your view that any conceivable finding of science could be interpreted as either meaning "faulty" or "just different" ? So that it's all in the values that we overlay on the evidence, and it's not a factual true/false question at all ?
The third possibility seems to be that science may in future throw greater light on this question but at this stage we just don't know.
Or do you see other possibilities ?
--------------------
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 Doublethink.:
Anyone want take a punt on whether we tolerate or accept those whose choose to shag pigs heads ?
Alright, I'll have a go.
You tolerate a pig-fucker if you approve of him also fucking the general population.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
a different sexuality not a faulty sexuality.
That seems a concise summary of your view.
One of the things I was trying to ask you earlier was whether you see this statement as factually true. i.e. is it your belief that the evidence, the science, is sufficient to distinguish a different sexuality from a faulty sexuality ?
How about you instead give us a concise SCIENTIFIC definition of "faulty."
--------------------
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
As you like analogies Russ, to give you just two, I definitely see it as a different sexuality rather than a faulty sexuality in the same way that having red hair is a different hair colour and being left handed is just a different handedness. All are different, all have some small disadvantages, particularly in certain situations, but all three are just quirks in the variations that make up the richness of humankind.
And I would prevent bullying for all three cases.
We have spent some time on this thread discussing the genetics and inheritance of all three of these traits.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
Why do we need science to prove or disprove a biological cause for homosexuality?
If people self identity as homosexual, then that is what we should accept.
Just as with gender. A person can appear biologically female and be, in fact, male.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Anyone want take a punt on whether we tolerate or accept those whose choose to shag pigs heads ?
It depends if the pig heads can reproduce. A look at the current cabinet suggests that people who shag pig heads may be in the clear on this point.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
Wow, we've gone from "sub-optimal" to "faulty". Russhole, as long as your entire view of homosexuality is "there's something wrong with those people!!!", you will be considered an asshole and an idiot. And I shouldn't have to remind you that it wasn't that long ago that the Irish were considered to be sub-human.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Soror Magna--
FWIW: I brought up the treatment of the Irish a couple of pages back, but he didn't respond. Don't hold your breath.
--------------------
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
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
I've stayed out of this until now, but now it seems to me someone has to say something a little different.
Russ, I think, is engaging in a purely theoretical argument that has nothing at all to do with the real world people live in. And he continues to discuss as if the matter is purely theoretical, with no actual relationship to concrete reality, because he is not interested in discussing real people in real situations, only theological abstractions.
I don't share some of the negative opinions people have expressed about Russ, because I think he honestly doesn't understand that discussion about this particular Dead Horse cannot be a discussion about theory unrelated to the real world.
John
That’s key I think. Christians discuss “gays” like they’re an abstract problem that can be solved by applying a handy set of rules rather than seeing them as actual, real people. Some of whom they might actually know. Which is a shame. Because maybe if Christians started seeing Gays as people created in the image of God or as the neighbour that Jesus told them to love as themselves then maybe they wouldn’t be quite as hateful.
Russ, I can honestly say that if you said half the stuff you posted here to an actual person, let alone an actual gay person, it wouldn’t end well. Because a lot of what you say is vile … Maybe try substituting “black” or “women” to get an idea of how bad it sounds … Although in some sections of the church that wouldn’t be a problem either. Sadly.
Or, and here may be a radical thought, read back some of your posts and substitute the word Russ for every homosexual or gay.
Tubbs
[ 24. September 2015, 10:46: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
He routinely ignores absolutely everything I post - possibly because I am a gay woman.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
He routinely ignores absolutely everything I post - possibly because I am a gay woman.
Or possibly because you're making points he can't immediately refute?
--------------------
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
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Tubbs, in my experience it is "gays" who
quote:
discuss “gays” like they’re an abstract problem that can be solved by applying a handy set of rules rather than seeing them as actual, real people.
That is, it is "gays" who talk about "gay" as a rather undifferentiated lump thing and avoid detail discussion.
by Tubbs;
quote:
Because maybe if Christians started seeing Gays as people created in the image of God
We see all sinners (including the sinners we are ourselves) as 'created in the image of God' - but sin is still sin and was not created by God; in the case of acts of gay sex, Romans 1 indicates a very different situation. We do not hide in other areas behind an idea that 'God made us so' and that therefore our sins are actually good and approved by God....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
We see all sinners (including the sinners we are ourselves) as 'created in the image of God' - but sin is still sin and was not created by God; in the case of acts of gay sex, Romans 1 indicates a very different situation. We do not hide in other areas behind an idea that 'God made us so' and that therefore our sins are actually good and approved by God....
Round and round we go one homophobe disappears and another pops up to take his place. Can someone please explain why they are all men?
Have you read this thread Steve Langton?#
Calling homosexual sex a sin is ignorant and homophobic. Heterosexual sex is not a sin, neither is homosexual sex.
The issue is consent. Sex between consenting adults has nothing whatever to do with us 'all being sinners'. Where no one is hurt there is no sin. Please educate yourself.
[ 25. September 2015, 12:15: Message edited by: Boogie ]
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Interesting question, Boogie, about why most homophobes appear to be men (although I've never seen any stats).
I can think of 3 reasons, but there are probably others, plus a 4th which is left-field.
1. Homophobia has been a bulwark of patriarchal societies, ideologically speaking, and therefore you would expect men to defend it (and perhaps women not to?).
2. Some men may feel threatened by gays, and therefore are homophobic.
3. In terms of religions, they have tended to be patriarchal in structure and ideology, so again, you would expect them to be anti-gay, and religious men, ditto.
(4. There is the left-field idea that some homophobes are secretly attracted to men, a bit of research in favour of this, but one might also say that some men are made anxious by gay sex, anxiety being rather ambiguous).
I don't know how many women are hostile to lesbians, or in fact, male gays.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't know how many women are hostile to lesbians, or in fact, male gays.
I don't know about many, but they exist in significant numbers. And hostile is a relative term.
But, yes, men are vastly worse.
Men are supposed to be "strong" and "in control". Homosexuality is considered weak, like a female. And weakness is bad.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Roman views of gay sex seem to involve notions of dominance and subordination. Being a penetrator was OK for adult men, but being penetrated was restricted to slaves, prostitutes and youths. There are some interesting words for the passive partner, 'pullus' (chick), 'delicatus', 'mollis' (soft), 'debilis' (weak), 'effiminatus', 'discinctus' (loose-belted). (Wiki).
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Tubbs, in my experience it is "gays" who
quote:
discuss “gays” like they’re an abstract problem that can be solved by applying a handy set of rules rather than seeing them as actual, real people.
That is, it is "gays" who talk about "gay" as a rather undifferentiated lump thing and avoid detail discussion.
by Tubbs;
quote:
Because maybe if Christians started seeing Gays as people created in the image of God
We see all sinners (including the sinners we are ourselves) as 'created in the image of God' - but sin is still sin and was not created by God; in the case of acts of gay sex, Romans 1 indicates a very different situation. We do not hide in other areas behind an idea that 'God made us so' and that therefore our sins are actually good and approved by God....
Do you think that you would consider the matter so blithely if you had homosexual orientation? Could you go through life just telling yourself that all people are sinners and that it just happens to be your lot to have to struggle with these "sinful" impulses all the days of your life, being treated with suspicion and/or pity by your fellow Christians who wonder if you are really being celibate, and seeing other people with a religiously sanctioned outlet (heterosexual marriage) for their yearning for intimate love?
quote:
They bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men's shoulders; but themselves will not move them with their finger. Matt. 23:4
This is why many (most?) homosexual people and many of their allies say, "Screw Christianity and the horse it came in on!" ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
