|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: I call all homophobes to Hell - especially Russ
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Sorry, you are both wrong. He is arguing from bigotry. The ignorance is just a side note.
--------------------
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
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
The ignorance feeds the bigotry in a big way imo.
People who have good friends or family who are homosexual are rarely homophobic ime.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
I can't imagine you are really so naïve that you believe that significant numbers of gay people have never shared common goals, and aspirations for their status in society. SSM is probably the most recent example of something which may be fairly described as coming from a gay agenda, but you could say the same about legalization in the sixties, for example. It is ironic that you accuse me of a non-existent phobia, because I mentioned something that has actually existed for a very long time.
In which case it's a curious thing that the only people who use the phrase 'the gay agenda' are opposing parts of it or want to oppose parts of it or defending the right to oppose parts of it.
You never get gay rights organisations using the phrase 'gay agenda'. Why do you think that is?
We don't usually describe someone's aspirations as their agenda. Nor do we usually use the phrase 'the x agenda' with the definite article of any group of people with diverse but shared aspirations. The phrase 'the agenda' is used to distance the goals being talked about from the lives of the people whose goals they are, as if they're just means to some other unspecified end. (The same goes for Russ' vaguely pejorative use of the word 'political'.)
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
Perhaps we should start reading 'the gay agenda' as 'human rights', as in:
quote:
SSM is probably the most recent example of something which may be fairly described as coming from human rights
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Soror Magna;
quote:
It is English, you dickwad. It is the standard vocabulary used in the social sciences and psychology. If you really don't understand what Rook means, you're obviously arguing from ignorance.
As it happens, I do understand what Rook meant; but he could have said exactly the same thing in about the same space in much more everyday and less jargon-ridden English. And I can't help wondering if psychology (and the social sciences) might be done better in that more ordinary English. What Rook wrote may - just - be English; it is English pretentious to the point of near incomprehensibility.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Doc Tor;
quote:
Perhaps we should start reading 'the gay agenda' as 'human rights', as in:
quote:
quote:
SSM is probably the most recent example of something which may be fairly described as coming from human rights
As far as I'm concerned I'm not denying you your human rights; I am in favour of the state allowing SSM to those who hold such beliefs. But an even more basic human right is the right to disagree and the requirement that you allow others that right. It is NOT a human right that you are allowed to put your position legally beyond disagreement and challenge; on the contrary, that is pretty much the definition of tyranny.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
But an even more basic human right is the right to disagree and the requirement that you allow others that right. It is NOT a human right that you are allowed to put your position legally beyond disagreement and challenge; on the contrary, that is pretty much the definition of tyranny.
Disagree away! But when your disagreement descends to the level of homophobic bullying, you can fuck right off. The right to swing your fist ends at my nose.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
The Rhythm Methodist wrote:
I think you'll find the clue to people claiming it is, would be in the word phobia, which has various definitions along the lines of an anxiety disorder, or an overwhelming, debilitating or morbid fear. These are mental health issues, of course. Homophobia is not a recognised mental health condition - it is merely a word contrived to insult, silence or intimidate people who are judged to be anti-gay, or even just not pro-gay enough for someone's liking.
Keep 'em coming! I love the smell of crappy etymology in the morning, so often used to defend crappy arguments. You'll be telling us next that hysteria refers to a woman's womb, and that December is the tenth month!
See mousethief's excellent summary - meaning is use, and believe it or not, language is changing all the time. Homophobia doesn't mean fear.
Orfeo - thank you for your post above, which made me blush, as I tend to go in for abstract arguments against homophobia, when the hurt, and harm done by it is palpable, inhuman and cruel. The bigots are beyond contempt in their inhumanity.
[ 30. September 2015, 11:50: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Romans 1: 26-28 is really subject to interpretation in all senses of that word.
(And shouldn't we be having this conversation in Dead Horses?)
I've started a Dead Horses thread on the interpretation issue, for those who wish to discuss the point without acrimony.
What I've never managed to get anyone to articulate is why of the issues that Jesus or Paul talked about, the one that Christians get so over exited about is homosexuality. Or why this has officially become The Worst Sin Ever.
The fact that when we get to heaven St Peter might check whether our name is in the book of life, but not ask us who we shagged is going to come as a big surprise to many.
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
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
One explanation, is that conservatives can't persecute divorced people, as half the congregation probably are, but gays can be persecuted safely enough. On the other hand, it's said that knowing friends and relatives who are gay, can deconvert homophobes (from homophobia). I remember that my parents had a gay friend, and it did help them (and me) to see it differently, as I grew up in an almost completely homophobic environment (not Christian).
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Or maybe some Christians are fascinated by bottoms? They don't seem to get exercised by cunnilingus.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Or maybe some Christians are fascinated by bottoms? They don't seem to get exercised by cunnilingus.
Then they're not doing it right.
--------------------
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 lilBuddha:
Sorry, you are both wrong. He is arguing from bigotry. The ignorance is just a side note.
Ignorance and bigotry share opposite faces of the same coin.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
But an even more basic human right is the right to disagree and the requirement that you allow others that right. It is NOT a human right that you are allowed to put your position legally beyond disagreement and challenge; on the contrary, that is pretty much the definition of tyranny.
How people like you disagree in the privacy of your own home is your business. I just wish I didn't have to witness Public Displays of Disagreement. Why do you have to flaunt it?
--------------------
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
Anyway, the notion that people have a right to disagree and that it's tyranny to have a definitive answer is complete bunkum. Here is a short list of things that are not legally disputable.
There are 100 cents in a dollar.
We use dollars.
The speed limit on a road.
The minimum hourly wage.
Whether it's okay to fire someone for being gay, or pregnant, or insert something else here depending where you live.
Whether you can sell something that hasn't met certain standards.
Whether it's okay to sell contaminated peanut butter.
I just get really sick of people who bleat thought bubbles about how life is regulated when they've put no thought into what rule of law actually means. It means there is a great big pile of stuff where your personal opinion doesn't mean shit. If that's tyranny then every parent who told a child what to do is a tyrant.
--------------------
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
Just a footnote, that anthropologists have begun to examine homophobia around the world, looking at the different cultural aspects of it in different countries. I am familiar with the classic 'Manhood in the Making' (David Gilmore), which in part looks at homophobia round the Mediterranean, which seems to reinforce notions of masculinity (including machismo), and the denigration of women.
A more recent book is by David Murray, 'Homophobia: Lust and Loathing Across Time and Space', which appears to look more widely at different cultures, (haven't read it). Areas covered include American Christian churches, modern Greece, the Caribbean, New York City, and Australia.
I expect that there will be more books like this, as anthropologists try to understand the apparent growth of homophobia in some areas, such as Africa, and the struggle against it in many countries.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I used "corrupted" because Eliab (if I remember right) objected to the technical sense of "perverted". What word do you suggest to convey this concept ?
And you thought "corrupted" was an improvement? Seriously?
Here's the rule: if the primary meaning and/or use of a word is derogatory, don't use it about people who haven't first used it about themselves, unless you wish to insult them.
If you want to say that homosexuality is a sub-optimal reproductive strategy, without implying personal disapproval, then say it's a sub-optimal reproductive strategy. If you want to say that, and at the same time to express disgust and contempt, then say that it's a corruption and perversion of human sexuality. Either approach allows the rest of us to understand what you mean.
It seems to me that the word you are looking for is one that makes it sound as if you are being neutral and technical in noting a biological feature of homosexuality, AND that suggests that for neutral biological reasons homosexuality is morally wrong. You want a linguistic disguise for a logical fallacy - a word with both disapproval and plausible deniability built in. Why not, instead, just say what you fucking mean? If you are being technically biological, use neutral language, and admit that no moral conclusions follow. If you intend all the moral connotations of "perversion" and "corruption", have the guts to admit that that's why you are using those words.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
What I've never managed to get anyone to articulate is why of the issues that Jesus or Paul talked about, the one that Christians get so over exited about is homosexuality. Or why this has officially become The Worst Sin Ever.
Yeah about 3 references to it and 28 to greed. Hmmmm. Interesting what got American conservatives knickers in a twist about Pope Francis' speech.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Sorry, you are both wrong. He is arguing from bigotry. The ignorance is just a side note.
Ignorance and bigotry share opposite faces of the same coin.
Sometimes. Never underestimate hate, pride or power.
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
One explanation, is that conservatives can't persecute divorced people, as half the congregation probably are,
I think this a very solid thought. One method of building power is to unite against a "threat".
--------------------
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
lilBuddha
Another solid thought from you - otherization is probably crucial to the maintenance of power and paranoia, which often seem to go together.
Conservatives seem to require gallons of enemies, in order to feel unsafe, and therefore belligerent. See the bizarre spectacle of homophobic bullies complaining at becoming martyrs to the 'gay agenda'. Ah, the poor wee lambs.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Rhythm Methodist
Shipmate
# 17064
|
Posted
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Rhythm man, get it into your thick skull. "Homophobia" is not being used by anybody as the name of a medical condition.
I couldn't agree more. It is merely intended to sound like a medical condition, presumably to maximise the offence cause by implying that the 'homophobe' has mental health issues.
As for what you describe as the 'gay agenda bullshit', I'm happy to be corrected. If you are saying there has never been any concerted effort, no common cause made...and no campaign instigated, embraced or led by gay people to alter legislation, then I will accept that all such changes have been entirely the product of the 'straight' community. But you're not really saying that, are you?
If, as I now suspect from your post, your real objection to my mention of the gay agenda is that you associate that phrase with people you perceive as anti-gay - then I should tell you that I neither knew such people used it like that, nor did I intend any offence by using it myself. It just seemed a perfectly reasonable shorthand way of describing a raft of issues that I felt were important to gay people.
I am going to withdraw from this thread, though I would encourage you to have the last word, if that suits. In truth, I have been somewhat disturbed by a post which spoke of distress caused by some of the stuff which has come up. I may have already inadvertently added to that - in which case, I am truly sorry. In any event, I can avoid the possibility of causing further grief by bowing out.
Posts: 202 | From: Wales | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
I couldn't agree more. It is merely intended to sound like a medical condition, presumably to maximise the offence cause by implying that the 'homophobe' has mental health issues.
No, it really isn't. It is a word that has come to mean "people who are bigoted against gay people". You could call such people "sexualityist" if you like, but that sounds stupid.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
The only time I've heard homophobia discussed in a mental health context, is, ironically, in terms of 'internalized homophobia' in gays and lesbians, in other words, self-hating gays.
For some people, this can be debilitating, as it attacks self-esteem and is often linked with depression, and even suicidal thoughts.
Of course, there is a fairly complex analysis of how gays internalize such values and ideas, and how it can be remedied.
I have literally never heard homophobia itself discussed as a mental health issue among heterosexual people, except in extreme cases, e.g. where it is associated with violent aggression, psychotic traits, and so on.
--------------------
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 The Rhythm Methodist:
It is merely intended to sound like a medical condition, presumably to maximise the offence cause by implying that the 'homophobe' has mental health issues.
You truly allow your irrational prejudice to influence your outlook to the point of making it appear to be a mental health issue.
It is amusing that many people who think penises in anuses are soo bad spend most of their time with their head up one.
--------------------
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
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
If, as I now suspect from your post, your real objection to my mention of the gay agenda is that you associate that phrase with people you perceive as anti-gay - then I should tell you that I neither knew such people used it like that, nor did I intend any offence by using it myself. It just seemed a perfectly reasonable shorthand way of describing a raft of issues that I felt were important to gay people.
Then what cultural desert have you heen a hermit in for the last 50 years or so.
"The gay agenda" has been a stock phrase in anti-gay statements for at least that long. It has only been used in anti-gay statements for at least that long.
And you want us to believe that you invented it all by yourself to describe something about gay issues without any awareness at all about how it's used and has been used for decades in discussions about gay issues?
Sorry, I don't buy it. And because this is Hell, I can say that, that being the case, I have ceased to give any credence at all to what you might say on any topic at all.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
Tangentially: I just discovered that Neoreactionary is actually a thing.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
As for what you describe as the 'gay agenda bullshit', I'm happy to be corrected. If you are saying there has never been any concerted effort, no common cause made...and no campaign instigated, embraced or led by gay people to alter legislation, then I will accept that all such changes have been entirely the product of the 'straight' community.
To repeat, I don't think that's what the word 'agenda' usually means or conveys. According to the OED the word in this sort of context means:
quote:
A campaign, programme, or plan of action arising from a set of underlying principles or motives. Hence: the underlying intentions or motives of a particular person or group.
That is, there is a strong implication that the person or group with an agenda is not acting out of their professed principles or motives, but out of their underlying motives. The term is pejorative and implies dishonesty or insincerity. (All the OED's examples are pejorative.)
'Hidden agenda' is something of a pleonasm.
--------------------
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
by Doc Tor
quote:
The right to swing your fist ends at my nose.
As a pacifist, I won't be swinging my fist any time soon. Simply disagreeing with you is not bullying.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Doc Tor
quote:
The right to swing your fist ends at my nose.
As a pacifist, I won't be swinging my fist any time soon. Simply disagreeing with you is not bullying.
So you can't even do metaphor? Or are you saying that despite your disagreement, you treat all lesbian and gay people you meet exactly the same as all straight people?
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
Fuck that noise.
We are discussing how society should treat its members. The insistence that some members of society should arbitrarily be subjected to systemic assaults on their rights and freedoms is worse than mere bullying.
It's akin to the social shitstains who suggest that they aren't hurting anybody by their refusal to vaccinate. Fucking troglodytes.
[ 30. September 2015, 22:10: Message edited by: RooK ]
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
I couldn't agree more. It is merely intended to sound like a medical condition, presumably to maximise the offence cause by implying that the 'homophobe' has mental health issues.
You know what? I'm getting really sick of this idea that everyone got together and carefully planned the usage of a word just to piss you off.
Maybe someone, somewhere did. But I think the main reason the word took off is simply because the fucking vowel sounds work, and that while it's easy to say "sexism" and "racism", "sexualityism" is impossible and "homosexualism" isn't much better.
Seriously, if you're going to get so worked up about the standard word, COME UP WITH A FUCKING VIABLE ALTERNATIVE!
--------------------
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 The Rhythm Methodist:
I am going to withdraw from this thread,
Yet another case of a person who uses the rhythm method but withdraws too late, after the damage is done.
--------------------
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
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
Having just come in from minuting the neighbourhood meeting, I am wondering about the items on this agenda. Obviously,
1. Members present
2. Apologies for absence
3. Minutes of the previous meeting
4. Matters arising
5. Chairs' report
6. Secretary's report
And somewhere at the end,
A.O.B
Date and venue of next meeting
That's an agenda. Just what do people suppose the missing items are?
There was a good cartoon, I think in the Oldie. Men around a table, and the Chair addresses one in the corner. "Henry, we all know you have a hidden agenda. And we need you to produce it now, or we can't have the meeting..."
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Just what do people suppose the missing items are?
Ah, but what did you hide under "matters arising"? It could have been about how to turn the kiddies into homos. It could have been about how to drive the Muslims out.
It could also have been about possible ways of stopping Mrs Henderson's dachshund from digging up the flower bed next to the village green, but we just don't know, do we? And what have you got against Mrs Henderson?
--------------------
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
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
I was carefully avoiding stereotypical assumptions such as organising a group discount at the gym, or redecorating Mrs Henderson's house for her in the latest fashion of Farrow and Ball colours.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
I am going to withdraw from this thread,
Yet another case of a person who uses the rhythm method but withdraws too late, after the damage is done.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
... I couldn't agree more. It is merely intended to sound like a medical condition, presumably to maximise the offence cause by implying that the 'homophobe' has mental health issues. ...
No, not really. Nobody thinks homophobes are mentally ill. Mentally ill people can be treated and be valuable members of society. Homophobes are cruel, self-righteous douchebags, for which there is no treatment. And "gay agenda" is a dog whistle and you know it is, which makes you a dissembling, cruel, self-righteous douchebag.
--------------------
"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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
And "gay agenda" is a dog whistle and you know it is, which makes you a dissembling, cruel, self-righteous douchebag.
This. There is no plausibility to his denials, and no deniability in his statement.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
As far as I'm concerned I'm not denying you your human rights; I am in favour of the state allowing SSM to those who hold such beliefs. But an even more basic human right is the right to disagree and the requirement that you allow others that right. It is NOT a human right that you are allowed to put your position legally beyond disagreement and challenge; on the contrary, that is pretty much the definition of tyranny.
So do people have the fundamental right to disagree that you have a right to live? Or is that position legally beyond disagreement and challenge?
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
Just to point out that there continues to be a resounding dearth of "recent [psychological] discoveries [which] undermine some of the simplistic assertions of the 'pro-gay agenda'".
Feel free any time, Steve, to show us that you haven't just made shit up to justify your bigoted preconceptions. Or are the lies that you convince yourself with so precious and fragile that they cannot withstand real examination?
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
As far as I'm concerned I'm not denying you your human rights; I am in favour of the state allowing SSM to those who hold such beliefs. But an even more basic human right is the right to disagree and the requirement that you allow others that right. It is NOT a human right that you are allowed to put your position legally beyond disagreement and challenge; on the contrary, that is pretty much the definition of tyranny.
So do people have the fundamental right to disagree that you have a right to live? Or is that position legally beyond disagreement and challenge?
It would be tyranny to deny me the right to deny Steve the right to live. Right?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I was carefully avoiding stereotypical assumptions such as organising a group discount at the gym, or redecorating Mrs Henderson's house for her in the latest fashion of Farrow and Ball colours.
As far as I can tell, the "gay agenda" seems to be remarkably similar to the "hetrosexual agenda".
All these gay people, wanting to work support themselves and contribute to society, hang out with friends, have a nice home and maybe, find love. Whilst not being judged solely on what they do in bed and treated like everyone else.
How outrageous! I notice that none of the true believers has actually managed to answer my question about why being gay is the Worst Sin Ever based on what it says in the Bible. Could it be because the whole "gay agenda" and "worst sin ever" thing be a man-made construct that doesn't actually stand up to close examination?! Nah ... Because that would be stupid and bigoted. And those aren't Christian virtues at all
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
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
There's also the point, which comes up in a long thread like this, that there don't seem to be any secular arguments against gay sex, which pass muster.
You can see Russ straining to achieve this, with his use of terms like 'faulty' and 'defective', but as has been pointed out, this relies on an equivocation between functional and moral senses of those terms. It also crosses the is/ought barrier derived from Hume's famous argument, crudely, that you can't get an ought from an is.
But all of the arguments - gay sex isn't reproductive, it causes diseases, it's promiscuous, it's unnatural, kids need a mommy and daddy - are car crashes really. For one thing, they tend to be too powerful - for example, the mommy/daddy argument seems to condemn single parents.
Of course, there are the theistic arguments, but as already noted, they are perhaps seen as irrelevant by many people in a secular society.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
As far as I can tell, the "gay agenda" seems to be remarkably similar to the "hetrosexual agenda".
They're both trying to undermine marriage, heterosexual people by getting divorced, and gay people by... um... getting married.
You might not understand how getting married undermines marriage but that just shows that our minds aren't devious enough to understand the gay agenda.
--------------------
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
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Well, if the gay guy next door to me gets married, my own marriage is rendered tawdry and meretricious. This is true, by gum, it's true, I swear, as sure as eggs are egs. Plus, the thought of all that bum sex next door is really off-putting. I want some!
--------------------
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 mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
But an even more basic human right is the right to disagree and the requirement that you allow others that right. It is NOT a human right that you are allowed to put your position legally beyond disagreement and challenge; on the contrary, that is pretty much the definition of tyranny.
So do people have the fundamental right to disagree that you have a right to live? Or is that position legally beyond disagreement and challenge?
It would be tyranny to deny me the right to deny Steve the right to live. Right?
You may of course express a view that the world would be a better place without Bible-based Christians. Or a view that there are no such thing as "rights". That's freedom of speech.
If you express such a view in a way that amounts to threatening any individual then that's a crime.
--------------------
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 Eliab:
If you want to say that homosexuality is a sub-optimal reproductive strategy, without implying personal disapproval, then say it's a sub-optimal reproductive strategy.
I don't see homosexuality as a strategy. I see it as possibly something like one of your other suggestions - the outcome of a relatively-common failure in the copying of a gene.
Except that science hasn't yet ISTM reached a clear conclusion as to how much is genetic and how much is developmental and what the mechanisms involved are. I don't want to be dogmatic before the evidence is in.
Also, seems like the human species has been pretty successful at reproducing...
quote:
It seems to me that the word you are looking for is one that makes it sound as if you are being neutral and technical in noting a biological feature of homosexuality, AND that suggests that for neutral biological reasons homosexuality is morally wrong.
No, only choices can be morally wrong. What I'm suggesting follows from the biological facts is not in the first instance a moral conclusion. But a rebuttal of the symmetry implied by the left-handed analogy. Homosexuality is not an equally-valuable thing that is just like heterosexuality; it is a non-functional distortion of heterosexuality.
Heterosexuality is the normality, the strategy for continuing the species (insofar as one can use that word without misattributing mind).
Once we've established what homosexuality is, only then is there a sound basis for thinking about the moral questions around it.
And the answers I'm suggesting are along the lines that
- those whom nature has left unequipped for heterosexual relations should (in the absence of a cure) be tolerated in whatever harmless style of personal life they choose
- but those who are not thus unequipped should be encouraged to hold marriage and family as good (whilst equally being tolerated in choosing for themselves how they live, following their own talents and aptitude without harming others).
--------------------
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 Tubbs:
I notice that none of the true believers has actually managed to answer my question about why being gay is the Worst Sin Ever based on what it says in the Bible. Could it be because the whole "gay agenda" and "worst sin ever" thing be a man-made construct that doesn't actually stand up to close examination?! Nah ... Because that would be stupid and bigoted. And those aren't Christian virtues at all
Stupid bigotry may not be a Christian virtue, but there sure as hell is a lot of it in the Church.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It would be tyranny to deny me the right to deny Steve the right to live. Right?
You may of course express a view that the world would be a better place without Bible-based Christians. Or a view that there are no such thing as "rights". That's freedom of speech.
If you express such a view in a way that amounts to threatening any individual then that's a crime.
I wasn't asking if I could express it. I was asking if it was tyranny. Somehow I knew you wouldn't answer the question I asked. You've done so little of that in this thread already. I had no reason to think this would be the point where you turned over a new leaf. And I was right.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I don't want to be dogmatic before the evidence is in.
Then stop.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Homosexuality is not an equally-valuable thing that is just like heterosexuality; it is a non-functional distortion of heterosexuality.
Only if the only function of heterosexuality is reproduction. Which nobody here but you accepts (now that IngoB is gone).
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
Once again, Russ flaunts his ignorance, this time of biology. Russ, if you're going to use big fancy technical words like "reproductive strategies" and "species", you need to understand that the non-reproductive members also form part of the reproductive strategy of the species. So, for example, corvids have helpers at the nest. This is an example of cooperative breeding, which has been observed in birds, mammals, fish and insects. The non-reproducers are contributing to the success of the reproducers, so they are helping the species continue even though they have no offspring of their own.
I'll repeat that for you: the non-reproducers are contributing to the success of the reproducers, so they are helping the species continue even though they have no offspring of their own.
But of course, you weren't really talking about species and reproductive strategies. You were just trying to use your little pea brain to figure out yet another way to say there's something terribly awful and horribly wrong with anyone who isn't mating and having vast numbers of offspring. It's like you're the walking, talking embodiment of an Irish joke.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
... Homosexuality is not an equally-valuable thing that is just like heterosexuality; it is a non-functional distortion of heterosexuality. ...
Two words: disability studies.
--------------------
"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
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Bible-based Christians
AKA: No True Christian.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
