|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: I call all homophobes to Hell - especially Russ
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
We of course know that...
It's been my experience on the internet that this phrase is usually followed by an unsubstantiated assertion.
Is there another kind of assertion?
Yes, but is now the time to talk about corporate reporting? ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'm gay because Jonathan Rhys Meyers makes my heart race and my knees go weak
Nobody, on or off the screen, really makes my heart race or my knees go weak. Am I asexual?
Maybe. I am and no one makes me want to jump them. I try to explain it to people by likening it to them knowing a person is attractive but that person not being the gender they like so there isn't anything sexual there. Granted since I don't really know what sexual attraction is supposed to feel like I am flying a bit blind but I do my best.
That sounds like as good an explanation as any.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I can't begin to think how your brain must work...
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
... if homosexuality could be shown to be the result of a flawed copy of a particular gene, then scientists would try to cure it (although it would be for individual sufferers of the condition and their families to decide whether the pain of the cure was preferable to living with the condition).
:
Hi Boogie,
Good of you to invite me to your place. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Which half of the quote are you objecting to ? The bit which says that if homosexuality is a genetic defect then scientists would try to find a cure ? Or the bit which says that I'm not advocating that such a cure be forced on anyone but leave it to them to decide ?
Or is it just the rather stilted English sentence ? Or the over-simplified picture of genetics ?
If Orfeo were a child and my son, so that the decision were mine and his mother's to make, then yes I'd pay for and support him through the treatment for his homosexuality. In exactly the same way as treatment for his goofy teeth. And for the same reason - to improve the quality of his future life. And get it done in childhood, before adolescence kicks in...
If there were a.cure, of course. I suspect there never will be.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
orfeo--
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Would someone please point me to the thread in question? Thx.
Boogie provided the link in the opening post.
Or you could just wander over to Dead Horses. You can't miss it, it's where most of the chunks of decaying flesh are being flayed off at the moment.
Thanks, and sorry. The link only underlined one small word, and I missed it.
--------------------
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 Russ:
If Orfeo were a child and my son, so that the decision were mine and his mother's to make, then yes I'd pay for and support him through the treatment for his homosexuality.
If I were your son I'd disown you.
Not least because of your poor understanding of what gene therapy is and what kinds of problems it can actually solve. It would be embarrassing enough that my parents were homophobes, but being scientifically illiterate as well would be more than I could bear.
[ 12. August 2015, 01:22: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
If there were a.cure, of course. I suspect there never will be.
Even if you could change a person's orientation, it would not be a cure because it is not a defect.
Get it through your skulls, homophobes, the bible is not a science text. It is also not consistent and there is a lot of interpretation going on no matter which bits you buy into.
--------------------
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
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Russ:
If your child was born left-handed, would you have the child undergo treatment to change that?
Being LGB (not sure about T) is like being left-handed, and has been loaded down with the same cultural fears. It's a difference. Sometimes, people are born that way; sometimes, there may be other factors; and, sometimes, people might step outside their usual zone, and find they like it.
I grew up fundamentalist, and I've found the left-handed analogy useful. FWIW.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Which half of the quote are you objecting to ? The bit which says that if homosexuality is a genetic defect then scientists would try to find a cure ? Or the bit which says that I'm not advocating that such a cure be forced on anyone but leave it to them to decide ?
Or is it just the rather stilted English sentence ? Or the over-simplified picture of genetics ?
If Orfeo were a child and my son, so that the decision were mine and his mother's to make, then yes I'd pay for and support him through the treatment for his homosexuality. In exactly the same way as treatment for his goofy teeth. And for the same reason - to improve the quality of his future life. And get it done in childhood, before adolescence kicks in...
If there were a.cure, of course. I suspect there never will be.
I have highlighted the part I object to, in the strongest possible terms. I very, very rarely swear and almost never in print. But this attitude of yours warranted it in my OP in my view. Your lack of kindness and thought for LGBT people absolutely astounds me. Even now you are flippantly equating one of the deepest, most important aspects of a person with goofy teeth. Words fail me.
I am also irritated when you deliver person shattering comments with 'best wishes'. You do
not wish LGBT well, you wish them abject misery.
![[Frown]](frown.gif) ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Welease Woderwick
Sister Incubus Nightmare
# 10424
|
Posted
Boogie, you're a mate of mine - I understand your anger, I respect your views, I really do - this is a battle I have been fighting all my life, even within my own family.
But I have come to the conclusion over the years that a bigot is a bigot is a BIGOT. I really think you're wasting your breath, or your fingers on the keyboard.
These are the people who, not many generations were using The Curse of Ham to justify racism; who were, more recently and still today, using concepts of Male Headship to justify sexism; who centuries ago expelled the Jews from Britain. All very justified & righteous, in their view, Christian actions and viewpoints.
We need to love them and cherish them - but we don't need to listen to them and their barnpot notions or take them too seriously. It really is a waste of energy.
--------------------
I give thanks for unknown blessings already on their way.
Fancy a break in South India?
Accessible Homestay Guesthouse in Central Kerala, contact me for details
What part of Matt. 7:1 don't you understand?
Posts: 48139 | From: 1st on the right, straight on 'til morning | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
if homosexuality is a genetic defect then scientists would try to find a cure ?
Why do you refer to homosexuality as a defect?
Do you consider homosexuals to be defective?
This gets to my remark about gene therapy. Russ is attempting to treat homosexuality having a genetic component as equivalent to saying that homosexuality occurs when the "heterosexual gene" isn't working properly.
That's what a defect is. An absence of the intended function.
Deafness is an absence of hearing (although there are deaf people that would seriously question whether deafness needs to be "fixed" and they are particularly keen on pointing out that an absence of hearing is not an absence of language). Blindness is an absence of sight. Lactose intolerance is an absence of the enzyme needed to metabolise lactose.
Homosexuality is not an absence of heterosexuality, any more than a bicycle is an absence of car.
It is not an absence of capacity to procreate. It is not an absence of romance. It is not an absence of love.
[ 12. August 2015, 08:01: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
And the function of sexual desire is ?
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
And the function of sexual desire is ?
To addle your wife's brains so much that she'll agree to let you fuck her despite how odious you are.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
And the function of sexual desire is ?
Now let me give you the more serious answer, although it won't be any less cutting.
The function of sexual attraction is to create a bond. If you think that the only purpose of that bond is to make babies, then you are a freaking idiot. In a world where homosexuals are sometimes accused of loveless sex, YOU would be reducing human beings to carriers of genes. Not me, you. YOU would be mounting an argument for your wife to divorce you once the kids have grown up and moved out.
I am sick to fucking death of people like you trying to suggest that same-sex love is deficient in any meaningful way, not least because people like you catch childless straight couples in the crossfire.
What was the purpose of my infertile male relative's sexual desire for his wife? Given that he got married knowing full well he couldn't have children, and given that his bride said "that's okay, I don't want children", do you have a problem with their marriage?
If so, then bloody well get out there and campaign for a law change that requires fertility tests before a wedding. If not, then shut the fuck up. Because apart from children, my sexual desire is capable of producing exactly the same results as any heterosexual person's sexual desire, and if you accept that a childless heterosexual person is allowed to get on with the business of being attracted and falling in love then anything further you say after that about homosexuality being some kind of defect just exposes you for the snivelling, pathetic worm of a bigot you are currently portraying yourself to be.
Best Fucking Wishes with a red hot poker,
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
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Welease Woderwick:
But I have come to the conclusion over the years that a bigot is a bigot is a BIGOT. I really think you're wasting your breath, or your fingers on the keyboard.
Thank you WW Yes, you are right, it's time I left them to it. I feel very deeply for all who suffer this way and the fact that it's Christians causing it does my head in and makes me want to leave the Church to it.
But I am very lucky IRL, I know no people like this, even in my con-evo Methodist Church (unless they save their real thoughts until they are 'privately' online of course, which is always possible)
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Welease Woderwick:
But I have come to the conclusion over the years that a bigot is a bigot is a BIGOT.
I prefer to think that a bigot is a bigot is a really good foundation for a patio.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The function of sexual attraction is to create a bond. If you think that the only purpose of that bond is to make babies, then you are a freaking idiot. In a world where homosexuals are sometimes accused of loveless sex, YOU would be reducing human beings to carriers of genes. Not me, you. YOU would be mounting an argument for your wife to divorce you once the kids have grown up and moved out.
Preach, preach, preach it from the rooftops. Copulation is about procreation; lizards do that. Sex is about pair bonding, and therefore means affection, foreplay, verbal and nonverbal communication are on an equal level of importance in strengthening the pair bond.
This is not fucking arcana hidden away in a grotto somewhere-- look up the mating behavior of chimps, gorillas, dolphins, elephants, any social animal with a well developed cerebral cortex. Affection and sex play cues the couple in on their respective needs, moods, health. Affection and sex play teaches pairs to emotionally hone in on each other.
Companionship--affection, attention, love-- is a much more basic need than procreation. You can literally die without it. The Bible says God gave Eve to Adam " because he was alone" not " to make a bunch of little Adams" so even God gets that, if you want to stick to that story alone.
And if you check the divorce rates if some of those people most vocally against SSM, you'll notice a lot of them have no problem whatever with yanking a woman out of the pair bonds she has developed as part of her natural, God- given make up in the name of some sort of pseudo- Darwinist rational of fertility pursuit that unnaturally divorces pair bonding from copulation.
[ 12. August 2015, 17:06: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The function of sexual attraction is to create a bond. If you think that the only purpose of that bond is to make babies, then you are a freaking idiot. In a world where homosexuals are sometimes accused of loveless sex, YOU would be reducing human beings to carriers of genes. Not me, you. YOU would be mounting an argument for your wife to divorce you once the kids have grown up and moved out.
Preach, preach, preach it from the rooftops. Copulation is about procreation; lizards do that. Sex is about pair bonding, and therefore means affection, foreplay, verbal and nonverbal communication are on an equal level of importance in strengthening the pair bond.
Didn't someone once say (and I can't remember who it was but I think it was a famous writer) that gay sex is unique as it's the only form of sexual intercourse where both parties know what the other is feeling? In that sense, it's an even better bond...
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by Welease Woderwick:
But I have come to the conclusion over the years that a bigot is a bigot is a BIGOT.
I prefer to think that a bigot is a bigot is a really good foundation for a patio.
They tend to cave in when the bigot decomposes. Don't ask me how I know this.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
And the function of sexual desire is ?
I think you are confusing 'what is the function of sexual desire' with 'what is the evolutionary explanation of the existence of sexual desire?' The second question may have the answer you want, but it's pertinence to the question at hand is limited.
There were no doubt dinosaurs who said 'the function of feathers is display and keeping warm; this flying business is unnatural'.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I think you are confusing 'what is the function of sexual desire' with 'what is the evolutionary explanation of the existence of sexual desire?'
The second question may have the answer you want, but it's pertinence to the question at hand is limited.
There were no doubt dinosaurs
--------------------
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
If you're suggesting that dinosaurs died out because they chose not to learn to fly then maybe it's a waste of time trying to talk science with you. Just maybe keeping warm was the critical factor...
As for "intended purpose", there's no reason why something cannot have both primary and secondary purposes. I have no problem as such with the secondary purpose being sufficient reason for doing it on any particular occasion.
Play the hand you're dealt, make do as best you can, but don't hold up that making-do as being the same thing as the ideal because it just isn't.
Constructing one's self-esteem in ways that depend on maintaining a lie is one of the temptations to be avoided.
And those who are getting hot under the collar might feel a little less so if they focused on the words that I struggle to put together rather than the attitudes that they imagine might lie behind them.
Just a thought...
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
Possibly if the words you so carefully choose didn't consistently imply that you were a sanctimonious prick that might be a little easier.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Play the hand you're dealt, make do as best you can, but don't hold up that making-do as being the same thing as the ideal because it just isn't.
I've always been skeptical of this "one true purpose" way of thinking. If a woman has sex with her (cisgendered) husband, she could be doing it because:
- she wants to have a child
- she wants to deepen her emotional bond with her husband
- she's horny and wants sexual release
- she's seeking validation of her sexual attractiveness
- she wants to do something pleasing for her husband
- any combination of the above, plus a whole bunch of other potential motives I haven't thought of
Under the "one true purpose/function" rubric, there's only valid reason on that list (which one it is varies by who's doing the choosing) and any sexual contact that doesn't involve it is just "making-do", which seems an especially cramped and joyless approach to sex.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
cramped and joyless approach to sex.
Welcome to conservative Christianity!
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
cramped and joyless approach to sex.
Welcome to conservative Christianity!
Cramped and joyless and under the control of a religious institution whose attitudes were set by neo-Platonists with an ideological commitment to despising the human body.
That's all right then. Or possibly as wrong as it could possibly get.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
... Play the hand you're dealt, make do as best you can, but don't hold up that making-do as being the same thing as the ideal because it just isn't. ...
Is that what you tell people with disabilities as well?
quote:
And those who are getting hot under the collar might feel a little less so if they focused on the words that I struggle to put together rather than the attitudes that they imagine might lie behind them.
Just a thought...
What, no best wishes?
--------------------
"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
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I think you are confusing 'what is the function of sexual desire' with 'what is the evolutionary explanation of the existence of sexual desire?'
The evolutionary answer does at least have the merit that it doesn't imply having a hotline to God...
--------------------
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 Soror Magna:
[QUOTE]What, no best wishes?
Wishing people well seems to be making things uncomfortable for those who'd like to paint me as a hate-filled bigot just because I don't agree with their way of looking at the world...
Besides, Twilight asked nicely
--------------------
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 orfeo:
Best Fucking Wishes with a red hot poker,
Orfeo
Hmmm, wonder where you want to put that...
--------------------
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:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
[QUOTE]What, no best wishes?
Wishing people well seems to be making things uncomfortable for those who'd like to paint me as a hate-filled bigot just because I don't agree with their way of looking at the world.
No, it makes you look like more of a douche. Not saying this as an insult, but as a statement of fact.
For the record, I don't think you are hate-filled. But it is fairly difficult to conclude other than you are a bigot.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Even now you are flippantly equating one of the deepest, most important aspects of a person with goofy teeth. Words fail me.
Can one be sanctimonious and flippant at the same time ?
On the serious point, no I do not consider his homosexuality to be one of the most important aspects of Orfeo.
That seems to me a step towards seeing people only as members of a class - the reductionism of left-wing sociologists.
He's an educated, intelligent, caring and artistic human being(*). And would still be one even if whatever caused his homosexuality hadn't done so.
Unless you actually have some scientific evidence to the contrary ?
This hypothetical cure-in-childhood that we're debating would not steal his soul. Is that in effect what you're accusing me of ?
"Gay" is not the totality of his identity.
(*)He may have some strange ideas, but then don't we all ?
I wish him well. And you too.
--------------------
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 lilBuddha:
For the record, I don't think you are hate-filled. But it is fairly difficult to conclude other than you are a bigot.
Dictionary.com gives
quote:
bigot
noun
1.
a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion, politics, or race
Is that what you mean ? How am I less tolerant of opposing ideas than those who are arguing the other side of the question ? What makes you think that I am not as open to evidence or soundly-reasoned logical argument as anyone else is ?
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
[QUOTE]What, no best wishes?
Wishing people well seems to be making things uncomfortable for those who'd like to paint me as a hate-filled bigot just because I don't agree with their way of looking at the world...
Besides, Twilight asked nicely
You really think that's it?
Wishing people well every single time just makes your wishes look completely insincere. It makes it look like a reflex action, not something you actually think about. For all we know you could kill someone and then leave a note saying "Best Wishes". That's how devoid of meaning your wishes have become.
--------------------
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
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Play the hand you're dealt, make do as best you can, but don't hold up that making-do as being the same thing as the ideal because it just isn't.
I've always been skeptical of this "one true purpose" way of thinking. If a woman has sex with her (cisgendered) husband, she could be doing it because:
- she wants to have a child
- she wants to deepen her emotional bond with her husband
- she's horny and wants sexual release
- she's seeking validation of her sexual attractiveness
- she wants to do something pleasing for her husband
- any combination of the above, plus a whole bunch of other potential motives I haven't thought of
Under the "one true purpose/function" rubric, there's only valid reason on that list (which one it is varies by who's doing the choosing) and any sexual contact that doesn't involve it is just "making-do", which seems an especially cramped and joyless approach to sex.
I wanna cry. Perfect. Thank you. Bless you.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
This is the definition I am working off. quote:
a state of mind where a person is obstinately, irrationally, or unfairly intolerant of ideas
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
How am I less tolerant of opposing ideas than those who are arguing the other side of the question ? What makes you think that I am not as open to evidence or soundly-reasoned logical argument as anyone else is ?
One, the research doesn't support your ideas and you don't seem to have a functional understanding of genetics or behaviour and yet you reference them.
Two, your insistence on using terms like "defect". At the very best this makes you tone deaf.
Three, it is a fallacy to state that both sides of every argument have equal merit.
Four, you insist on a particular interpretation of a few bible passages, but totally ignore or discount inconvenient bits.
Five, the position of equal marriage has no functional effect on you. Your position has had a very real effect on LGBT people for a long time.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Play the hand you're dealt, make do as best you can, but don't hold up that making-do as being the same thing as the ideal because it just isn't.
Yeah, yeah, you've been listening in when your wife talks to her best friend.
By your logic, this man has a perfect sex life.
--------------------
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
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
The good news is that they're working on isolating genetic causes of excess religiosity. So with luck Russ, your defects can be mended and your habitual unpleasantness toward others will stop. Isn't science wonderful?
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
One, the research doesn't support your ideas and you don't seem to have a functional understanding of genetics or behaviour and yet you reference them.
OK, let's start with the science. Perhaps you could summarise what it is that you think research tells us that I am choosing to ignore ? You helpfully provided a link earlier. It seemed to say that
- scientists have not so far discovered how homosexuality is caused
- the best conjecture at this stage is that it involves some combination of genetic susceptibility and post-natal environmental trigger
- but it's fairly clear that homosexuality is not a choice that people make.
Is that your understanding also ? Is there a key point I've missed ?
Agreed, "defective gene" is an over-simplification. It's not an explanation I'm committed to. It has the merit that nobody is to blame.
If the process involves multiple stages (susceptibility plus trigger), does that not imply more possibility for future medical intervention, rather than less ?
The interesting question ISTM is the philosophical one - if there were either a cure or a preventative, would you want it for your children ? I've said yes. So far no-one has explicitly come out and said no, they're totally happy for their kids to grow up to be gay, and explained why they want that for them.
Of course you'll love them anyway for the people they are. That's not the point. The point is - if you had the choice what would you choose ?
How does simplifying the science for discussion purposes constitute bigoted refusal to accept scientific evidence ? I really don't see where you're coming from on this point.
What I'm left to infer is that there's a Progressive Syllogism that goes something like:
- the modern position on homosexuality is to be in favour of gay marriage
- science informs modern thinking
- therefore the science is in favour of gay marriage.
--------------------
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:
So far no-one has explicitly come out and said no, they're totally happy for their kids to grow up to be gay, and explained why they want that for them.
Before my boys reached puberty I told them I was more than happy if they turned out to be gay and - if that were the case - to not be afraid of telling me.
Did I mean it? Of course. But I would have worried about them due to the bigotry and discrimination which is still rife, even among otherwise good, reasonable people
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
One of the biggest predictors of male homosexuality is the number of older brothers. Researchers have postulated that the mechanism there was none of those you've given. One of the other links to later homosexuality is the level of in utero exposure to testosterone. The researchers postulated that something happens in utero to younger sons to reduce the testosterone exposure - that maybe the mother gets better at mopping up any excess testerone in the system, reducing in utero levels.
Both these observations point to a pre-natal mechanism, but no one explanation covers all cases of homosexuality; it looks to be something that can be caused by a number of different routes.
In answer to your question, Russ, cases like David Reimer are enough to make me think we have to be careful. We are very good at assuming a little knowledge leads us to know everything, gender and sexuality are complicated and we don't know enough to be able to tamper with them.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Agreed, "defective gene" is an over-simplification. It's not an explanation I'm committed to. It has the merit that nobody is to blame.
Oh for fuck's sake you really don't get it, do you?
Nobody is to blame? "It's not your fault, you're just defective" is hardly a ringing endorsement is it?
Different gene. DIFFERENT. Not defective, you idiot. If you want to stop casting aspersions on people, stop using judgement-laden evaluations. You are continuing to assert, in every subtle way that you can, that a homosexual is a heterosexual with a defect.
If you can grasp that a woman is not a defective man, and that a black person is not a white person with an unfortunate melanin problem, then you ought to be able to bloody grasp that the end result of whatever led me to be homosexual (and there's fair evidence that it was pre-natal, not post-natal) does not have to be portrayed as "oh dear, really you were supposed to be heterosexual but something went terribly wrong and you're to be pitied, if only we could have fixed it when you were a child".
What fucking needs to be fixed is your patronising attitude. And on that issue, I think we can discard "nobody is to blame" as an option.
[ 13. August 2015, 14:01: 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
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I would have felt fine if my son had turned out gay. Of course, there is the proviso that he would be warned about people like Russ, who I find absolutely chilling and scary.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
.... If the process involves multiple stages (susceptibility plus trigger), does that not imply more possibility for future medical intervention, rather than less ?...
In other words, you're a eugenist nutjob. Fuck you and your defective X chromosome too.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
So far no-one has explicitly come out and said no, they're totally happy for their kids to grow up to be gay, and explained why they want that for them.
Of course you'll love them anyway for the people they are. That's not the point. The point is - if you had the choice what would you choose?
I would choose for any future children of mine to be the people they are, rather than the people I want them to be.
And before you jump all over that comment by pointing out that my hypothetical preference would be for them to be straight, I'll point out that I also have a hypothetical preference for my children to be boys who love sports, especially cricket and rugby. But that doesn't mean I'd use genetic engineering to guarantee that they turned out that way, any more than it means I'd consider any ballet-loving daughters to be defective.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
So far no-one has explicitly come out and said no, they're totally happy for their kids to grow up to be gay, and explained why they want that for them.
It's not about what I WANT. What I want is for my children to be who they are, and for society to accept them as they are. Not to call them "defective."
quote:
Of course you'll love them anyway for the people they are. That's not the point.
That is the ONLY point.
quote:
The point is - if you had the choice what would you choose?
That's eugenics. And I reject eugenics. And still, underlying this question, is the idea that homosexuality is a defect.
--------------------
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 Curiosity killed ...:
One of the biggest predictors of male homosexuality is the number of older brothers. Researchers have postulated that the mechanism there was none of those you've given. One of the other links to later homosexuality is the level of in utero exposure to testosterone. The researchers postulated that something happens in utero to younger sons to reduce the testosterone exposure - that maybe the mother gets better at mopping up any excess testerone in the system, reducing in utero levels.
That's fascinating, if it's true. It would drive a stake through the idea that homosexuality is a "choice," and also answer the homophobe's question, "If it's genetic, then why aren't the numbers thus-and-such?" Because there's more to innate than genetic
--------------------
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 Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
One, the research doesn't support your ideas and you don't seem to have a functional understanding of genetics or behaviour and yet you reference them.
OK, let's start with the science. Perhaps you could summarise what it is that you think research tells us that I am choosing to ignore ? You helpfully provided a link earlier. It seemed to say that
- scientists have not so far discovered how homosexuality is caused
- the best conjecture at this stage is that it involves some combination of genetic susceptibility and post-natal environmental trigger
- but it's fairly clear that homosexuality is not a choice that people make.
Is that your understanding also ? Is there a key point I've missed ?
Agreed, "defective gene" is an over-simplification.
Defective is wrong, not overly simple.
DNA is not a strict blueprint where only one outcome is correct, but a guideline where multiple outcome are correct.
Environmental factors are part of the process, not causes of aberration.
In science, not being absolutely certain of every possibility is not the same as not understanding anything.
No, I would not opt for a "cure." No more than I would change skin colour for a more acceptable one. In neither case is there a defect. Well, there appears to be a defect in some observers, yes. As it becomes more apparent you are immune to reason, would you submit to a medical procedure to cure your inability to grasp this?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
The interesting question ISTM is the philosophical one - if there were either a cure or a preventative, would you want it for your children ? I've said yes. So far no-one has explicitly come out and said no, they're totally happy for their kids to grow up to be gay, and explained why they want that for them.
mousethief has clarified my discomfort with this point of view; this is a particularly egocentric view of children - that they should be what I want them to be, not their own person. That goes with an attitude that my children are there to meet my requirements, and, of course, they should be straight, someone I can present to all my friends as boasting material and produce adorable (white?, heterosexual, non-disabled) grandchildren.
I experienced and saw too many parents trying to force their children into their own preferences and moulds, pushing the career or hobbies they regretted not achieving themselves, wanting to live vicariously through their children, pushing an appearance to fit their own prejudices. Your expression of choosing for your child (to fit your mould) is just a part of the same.
I would prefer my child was not subject to prejudice, although the peer groups of young people tend to be far less judgemental and accepting of different sexualities and ways of being, so that is likely, as long as they stay out of church circles. I would also prefer that they could make their own decisions without feeling disapproved of or unsupported. That they could develop their own hobbies and lifestyle.
quote:
Of course you'll love them anyway for the people they are. That's not the point. The point is - if you had the choice what would you choose ?
I don't think I have any right to choose for my child. Support, advise, help, mentor, care for - but not make choices for them. Even a toddler can choose the clothes they want to wear.
I agree with the others, this choosing the child you want is eugenics. Choosing to abort the potential child that isn't perfect, has Down's Syndrome or a club foot, is just another step along this continuum.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Good point about church circles. My advice to my putative gay child is therefore, (1) avoid patronizing shits like Russ; (2) steer well clear of Christians, and in fact, any theists liable to homophobia.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
