|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: I call all homophobes to Hell - especially Russ
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
(BTW is there a non-Aristotelian Thomist? Wouldn't that be an oxymoron?)
Perhaps a fan of the movie "Tommy"?
Every time I hear someone talking about that movie, I go out of my way to badmouth it. That's why they call me a tommyknocker.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Speaking as an Aristotelean Thomist, at least in some moods, I don't think Aristotelean Thomists are committed to thinking that a penis has to have a primary purpose. For that matter, I don't think our sexuality has to have a primary purpose.
But do they think sex does? That seems to be what our resident (and former) Aristotelian Thomists are pushing.
If you want to get current Roman Catholic sexual ethics out of Aristotelianism, you do have to argue that it does. If you're not committed to Roman Catholic sexual ethics, I don't think Aristotelians need to believe that any given organ or activity has only one primary purpose.
I'd develop this line of thought but I don't have the time and Hell isn't the place.
--------------------
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
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
Welcome back JimT, I am proud that this thread dragged you back in.
You seem like an intelligible Martin60 to me
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
To the Aristotelean Thomists Remaining on The Ship,
What is the primary purpose of a penis?
Speaking as an Aristotelean Thomist, at least in some moods, I don't think Aristotelean Thomists are committed to thinking that a penis has to have a primary purpose. For that matter, I don't think our sexuality has to have a primary purpose.
If it's not clear from the thread, I disagree with what is usually taken to be the Aristotelian Thomist position on same-sex sexual relationships.
Dafyd,
Thank you for this reply. To clarify just a bit on my compression of Thomism to "primary purpose," I realize that it was an oversimplification. But it was chosen because of my perception that earlier discussion had compressed the "essential or substantial" purpose of sexual desire to procreation only. Very early on, there was also discussion as to whether homosexuality was an "accidental" variation of sexual desire. When the word "accidental" arises in this way, I now know that I am hearing the strains of Aristotle and St. Thomas, both of whom I respect, admire, and read.
But I cannot see how even Thomism can be a useful framework to discuss this issue.
The Thomist arguments against homosexuality seem easily circumvented by changing the discussion from the "substance" or "essential purpose" of sexual organs, as I've said. Confusion multiplies when I read Aristotle and cannot see who "substance" and "accident" should even be applied to something like a "desire." I can understand a pre-scientific thinker positing that bread is "substantially" infused with some kind of "breadness" that makes bread be bread, while it also has "accidents" that cause some kinds to be white or brown. But for a 21st century person to posit that "sexual desire" is infused with a substance known as "reproductiveness" that make it truely and appropriately named "sexual desire," then reason that "homosexualness" cannot be a pure and true form of sexual desire, in accordance with Divine Intent is...I don't know...Spiritual Luddism? I would appreciate a comment from you on my understanding and my view on this if you have the time. You probably know more than me.
Do you know of any other Thomist arguments in support of homosexuality? I read one once in some kind of 80 page "Thomism for Dummies" book I picked up, that some Catholics had put forward a "Thomist" apology for homosexuality saying that if the homosexuals earnestly believed that it was possible, however remotely, for a miracle of God to bless them with children, it was permissible "accident" of sexual desire. Do you know of any such arguments?
Thanks once again.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Don't you be beguiled by his charming invective or his tempting insight, for fundamentally JimT is a heartless viper.
So long as he's an erudite and insightful viper, the Hell board will welcome him with open arms.
RooK, being one yourself, you should know that vipers have hearts. It is simply that their blood sometimes runs cold if it finds itself in the wrong environment. When that happens, they have no choice by to warm themselves in glorious sunshine.
Orfeo, just to check, you are actually calling me erudite and instightful, without qualification, and fully accepting me for who I am and what I am, essentially and substantively, right? I mean, there is an element of the subjunctive in what you said. I've recently warmed myself on a nearby rock and that always makes me a bit fragile and sensitive. Would you mind rephrasing it in a more declarative voice, or must I prove myself further?
[aside]somehow I just know he's going to say "prove yourself further"[/aside]
![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Welcome back, Jim! And your story-telling is in fine form!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Isn't it though? I wish I knew where it came from and how to properly control it. It kind of does it on its own, whenever it wants to, and all I can do is ride along. It pisses me off that I can't use it to rule the world, become fabulously wealthy, and have people worship me like a God.
[sigh]
God is so stingy sometimes. He gives us a little taste of what it's like to be Him, but then we have to go back to just being an inconsequential precious jewel of His Creation.
It sucks to be a jewel instead of a god.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
And you ought to know that I moved 700 miles away 7 years ago.
You are such a bitch.
No I'm not. I'm sparing you and others the crushing dullness of my real self, and presenting you with a likable altar ego [pun intended] that can exist only in cyberspace.
That's my story and I'm sticking with it.
[whisper]Actually, people clamor for me in real life, tearing at the hem of my garments. I just can't do it all. I wish I could. I'll PM you.[/whisper]
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
(BTW is there a non-Aristotelian Thomist? Wouldn't that be an oxymoron?)
Perhaps a fan of the movie "Tommy"?
Every time I hear someone talking about that movie, I go out of my way to badmouth it. That's why they call me a tommyknocker.
Hey mousethief. Nice to see you again.
[tongue in cheek]Don't you think you should have provided a link like this for Tommyknocker ? I'm very erudite but getting old (60 now). I knew I'd heard the term "tommyknocker" but couldn't remember where or in what exact context. I was able to surmise on my own that it is some kind of British/UK insult, but must confess I had to look it up in Wikipedia to know the exact meaning. I can't blame the Hosts for not chiding you on this, because it was a miniseries on TV and a Steve King novel, so I'm going to be big and overlook the whole thing. But I will say that it interrupted the flow of my interest in this thread, albeit for far less time than it took to write the drivel I just typed, but still. I'm only sayin'.[/remove tongue from cheek]
Cheers and best wishes.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Welcome back JimT, I am proud that this thread dragged you back in.
You seem like an intelligible Martin60 to me
Thank you. In my opinion this is an accurate description and well-deserved compliment to Martin60 and me.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
many of us are no longer horrified at the prospect and are convinced that homosexuality is not one of these things. Not because it is trendy or politically correct, but it is the reality based on gay people we've come to know well.
Hi JimT, and welcome back aboard. Thank you for your kind words, which are rare in Hell.
I can see that if you thought that homosexuality was a drive to commit moral evil, then your mind might be changed by finding that in reality homosexuals are ordinary nice people who just want to get on with their lives and show no apparent compulsion to pervert the universe.
But I'm struggling to see how your experience of meeting gay people - whether as valued colleagues at work, as good neighbours, or as fellow-enthusiasts in your leisure interests - would be evidence against the argument that they suffer from a faulty sex-drive that denies them the fulfilment of the ordinary man-woman-child relationships involved in marriage and family.
And if we were discussing some morally questionable activity (like for example sharing music files, about which there some seems to be some ethical dispute) then I suspect you'd be unimpressed by an argument that I've met people who do this and they're just ordinary nice people and don't seem the slightest bit evil at all...
For you alone, today, I offer
best wishes,
Russ
--------------------
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 Dafyd:
homosexuality is not a defect in the same way; there isn't anything that the homosexual wants to do that they can't do. So even if it means that one's genes aren't going to be passed on, calling it a defect from any perspective other than that of the genes looks like a leap of logic.
So what people want is the measure of all things ? Whatever else is fallen in this fallen world, wants aren't ?
quote:
(And even then you haven't got near establishing your further claims that children should be taught about heterosexual sex first, or that permanent faithful relationships between people of the same sex oughtn't to be called marriage.)
Indeed, you're quite right that those conclusions come a little further down the argument. If you don't see that homosexuality is sub-optimal, then you're probably not going to agree with those points.
quote:
Suppose a deaf person thinks that the deaf community is a different and equally good way of being human. I'm sure even such a person would agree that considered as an organ for hearing their ear is defective. They don't think it follows that being deaf is a defective way of being human
Such a person does not lack humanity, so I wouldn't call them a defective human. The qualities that make them human, that differentiate them from say animals, or robots, are fully functioning.
But if that deaf person were wishing their condition on others (e.g. by campaigning against research aimed at curing deafness), seeking to deny others a cure as a way of feeling better about themselves, then that seems to me morally wrong. Would you agree ?
They're entitled to make the decision - to embrace their sub-optimal state - for themselves but not for others.
quote:
personally I think the words 'objective' and 'subjective' almost always muddy the water when introduced into these discussions.
One of the things we learn as we grow up is that wishing things to be true doesn't make them so. Magical thinking gives way to appreciating a reality that exists regardless of our feelings about it. So there's a real and important point to the objective/subjective distinction.
But having said that, being social creatures, many of the things that we're interested in are social constructs, that have a reality outside the individual but not outside the social group. Like the meaning of words...
quote:
If we celebrate a couple's ruby wedding anniversary and regard their marriage as something to admire and imitate, we aren't celebrating how well their genitals fit together. So what qualities do you think we're celebrating in a marriage that means same-sex relationships don't count?
Celebrating a ruby wedding is like celebrating a long-lasting business partnership, and a civil partnership of 40 years could be celebrated for the same reason.
The act of marriage is celebrated as part of the Circle of Life - the child comes from a father and mother, grows up, marries, and from that union brings forth in turn a child. Gay partnerships are like going off at a tangent...
quote:
You have incidentally not answered my question about 'don't ask, don't tell.'
I've heard that phrase in the context of employer-employee relations. Where there can be a tension between the employer's legitimate interest in governing the workplace behaviour of the employees in a way that maintains productivity and the employee's legitimate interest in self-expression and having a private life and a private self outside of the company rulebook.
If a manager hears a rumour that Bob from marketing is having sex with Sue from accounts in the stationery cupboard at lunchtimes, then 'don't ask, don't tell' may be a way of neither prohibiting nor condoning this behaviour. Which may be preferable to either heavy-handedness or permissiveness.
But you may have some other meaning in mind ?
--------------------
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:
All those three alternatives, and probably quite a few more, are possible. All of them could potentially have resulted in a primate species ending up pretty much where we are now. And as far as I know, no one currently knows which for them is true.
So you're rejecting the argument that some here have put forward, that science has disproven my POV, or shown that homosexuality is a thing like heterosexuality ? You agree that the science isn't yet conclusive ?
quote:
What I don't see is how the true explanation, whatever it happens to be, would make the slightest bit of difference to what counts as ethical behaviour by gay people, or in any way affect their rights and freedoms, or the way that I should treat them.
What I've suggested follows directly from the idea that homosexuality is an impairment is:
a) that it is reasonable to think about and talk about the possibility of cure or prevention (whilst fully recognising people's right to refuse a cure they don't want)
b) that wishing homosexuality on others is ill-wishing them, is morally wrong.
Do you have in mind any particular examples of "maladaptive mutations" (your words) to which these wouldn't be reasonable responses ?
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
would be evidence against the argument that they suffer from a faulty sex-drive that denies them the fulfilment of the ordinary man-woman-child relationships involved in marriage and family.
My same sex friends have children - they seem pretty damn fulfilled to me and are excellent parents with happy children. I know plenty opposite sex couples who can't say the same thing and whose children have suffered. I've seen enough heterosexual families go badly wrong to know that the mix of chromosomes present in one's parents is utterly irrelevant to the important stuff. It can't guarantee love or empathy or good parenting. All these things are more important. They are not affected or made more or less likely by sexual orientation.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
It pisses me off that I can't use it to rule the world, become fabulously wealthy, and have people worship me like a God.
[sigh]
Well, you could always do an infomercial...
quote:
God is so stingy sometimes. He gives us a little taste of what it's like to be Him, but then we have to go back to just being an inconsequential precious jewel of His Creation.
It sucks to be a jewel instead of a god.
Ah, but each jewel is part of Indra's Net...
--------------------
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
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
[QUOTE]But I'm struggling to see how your experience of meeting gay people - whether as valued colleagues at work, as good neighbours, or as fellow-enthusiasts in your leisure interests - would be evidence against the argument that they suffer from a faulty sex-drive that denies them the fulfilment of the ordinary man-woman-child relationships involved in marriage and family.
Well, I do wonder what special cure you offer for celibate clergy or couples who chose not to have children.
Your nasty attempts to treat gay people as pathological remind me of the earlier racist attempts to characterize
The surgical peculiarities of the Negro
You are presenting just another pseudo scientific display of bigotry.
Best wishes for a cure of your defective brain.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Russ et al.--
Was Jesus defective for not getting married? Rev. Moon (Unification Church) sure thinks so. His whole church is founded on the idea that Jesus messed up by not getting married, so Moon was sent to create the perfect family.
--------------------
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
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
many of us are no longer horrified at the prospect and are convinced that homosexuality is not one of these things. Not because it is trendy or politically correct, but it is the reality based on gay people we've come to know well.
<snip>
But I'm struggling to see how your experience of meeting gay people - whether as valued colleagues at work, as good neighbours, or as fellow-enthusiasts in your leisure interests - would be evidence against the argument that they suffer from a faulty sex-drive that denies them the fulfilment of the ordinary man-woman-child relationships involved in marriage and family.
<snip>
Russ
Russ, it seems to me that your struggle is that you take the words "suffer," "faulty," and "ordinary" as givens, along with the phrase "denies them the fulfillment." This tells me that you are at heart a model of fatherhood (I say this in all sincerity without any hint of irony), because you derive a deep and meaningful purpose in being a father. To you it is one of the highest and most precious gifts from God that should and indeed must be accepted if one is to have a loving and obedient relationship with God. To be unable to perceive it, or to be seduced into thinking that other gifts are equally meaningful, is to suffer from faulty biology or faulty morality. Something like that?
The primary reason that I do not struggle as you do is that I do not see parenthood as the greatest gift from God. To me "the greatest gift from God" is to transcend animal beastliness and experience spiritual rebirth. How else could the Apostle Paul recommend eschewing marriage for the experience of Baptism into the Holy Spirit and voluntary slavery to the commands of Christ? Isn't the primary message of the Gospel "you cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven unless you are born again" not "you cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven unless you give birth to a child?" Aren't the "faulty and suffering" people those who cannot or will not participate in the creation of a spiritual family, having a potentially unlimited number of spiritual sons and daughters to mentor, a spectacular choice of multiple spiritual parents to respect, obey, and imitate, and countless spiritual brothers and sisters to love and be loved by?
I do not see homosexuals as suffering from either a faulty lack nor a perversion any more than I think that tone deaf people suffer from a faulty lack or perversion that prevents their appreciation of music. They each did not receive one of the many gifts from God, but they both have been given the essential gift that is offered to all: rebirth.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
Russ - my same sex friend is the same age as me. With her partner she has two boys the same ages as my boys. (artificial insemination by donor). One is at Cambridge studying physics and one runs a cats home. Their family is as normal as ours, with the same kinds of ups and downs we have had.
Would any of them attend a conservative Church? NO! But they wouldn't be wanted there anyway. (In your world such marriages should be kept hidden ![[Frown]](frown.gif) )
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Russ: quote:
Celebrating a ruby wedding is like celebrating a long-lasting business partnership...
Here is your problem. Right here. Your understanding of loving relationships is defective.
My parents celebrated their golden wedding anniversary recently, and their relationship bears absolutely no resemblance to a business partnership.
You really don't get it, do you?
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
From the perspective of over 47 years, if I told my wife I'm looking forward to the celebration of our 50 years long 'successful business partnership' I might not live long enough to celebrate even 48. I do think a long marriage has to be built but the cement which holds the bricks together is self-giving love. That ain't a business partnership.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erik
Shipmate
# 11406
|
Posted
Hi again Russ,
I would like to ask you what you consider to be the difference between long-term opposite-sex partnerships and long-term same-sex partnerships which means that one can be refered to as marriage and the other should not? Other than having children, as several posts from numerous shipmates have pointed out that same-sex couples can and do have children.
Thanks,
Erik
--------------------
One day I will think of something worth saying here.
Posts: 96 | From: Leeds, UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
JonahMan
Shipmate
# 12126
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Russ: quote:
Celebrating a ruby wedding is like celebrating a long-lasting business partnership...
Here is your problem. Right here. Your understanding of loving relationships is defective.
Have some compassion. Russ' understanding of loving isn't defective, just different.
Now, some people think he should be cured of this difference, by beating him around the head with a large stick labelled 'clue'.
Others believe that his different understanding is innate, and that so long as he harms no-one by shutting the fuck up about it, what he opines in the privacy of his own brain is no-ones business but his.
However, this may violate his human rights to express himself freely, and it should be recognised that people pointing at him and laughing could create serious psychological damage; so arguably he would be best served if society learned to accept his foibles, and whilst not being obliged to become fuckwits themselves, they should make allowances for his difference and enable him to participate in society the same as everyone else.
--------------------
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
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
homosexuality is not a defect in the same way; there isn't anything that the homosexual wants to do that they can't do. So even if it means that one's genes aren't going to be passed on, calling it a defect from any perspective other than that of the genes looks like a leap of logic.
So what people want is the measure of all things ? Whatever else is fallen in this fallen world, wants aren't ?
I'm puzzled as to how you can get to that from what I said.
What I said was that in the particular case we are talking about what people want is a disanalogy; and it is a disanalogy certainly looks relevant. Not wanting to do x isn't a defective ability to do x. You couldn't say a celibate monk's reproductive system is defective because he doesn't want to have children.
quote:
quote:
Suppose a deaf person thinks that the deaf community is a different and equally good way of being human. I'm sure even such a person would agree that considered as an organ for hearing their ear is defective. They don't think it follows that being deaf is a defective way of being human
Such a person does not lack humanity, so I wouldn't call them a defective human. The qualities that make them human, that differentiate them from say animals, or robots, are fully functioning.
But if that deaf person were wishing their condition on others (e.g. by campaigning against research aimed at curing deafness), seeking to deny others a cure as a way of feeling better about themselves, then that seems to me morally wrong. Would you agree ?
They're entitled to make the decision - to embrace their sub-optimal state - for themselves but not for others.
One would of course want to listen to deaf people who think that being deaf has benefits not available to people who can hear before one decided whether to discontinue attempts at a cure.
As I understand it, the matter is more nuanced than I believe can be conveniently discussed in this thread.
Whatever arguments there are in favour of seeking cures for common forms of deafness do not apply to homosexuality.
From a certain perspective being male is suboptimal (it appears to go along with increased risk-seeking behaviour and aggression). From another perspective being female is suboptimal (being female carries a significant risk of serious injury or death during reproduction). The mere existence of a perspective from which something is suboptimal is not of itself an argument that it is a condition that ought to be cured.
quote:
quote:
personally I think the words 'objective' and 'subjective' almost always muddy the water when introduced into these discussions.
One of the things we learn as we grow up is that wishing things to be true doesn't make them so. Magical thinking gives way to appreciating a reality that exists regardless of our feelings about it. So there's a real and important point to the objective/subjective distinction.
Oh there is if it's used properly. But generally one finds that it isn't used properly.
quote:
quote:
If we celebrate a couple's ruby wedding anniversary and regard their marriage as something to admire and imitate, we aren't celebrating how well their genitals fit together. So what qualities do you think we're celebrating in a marriage that means same-sex relationships don't count?
Celebrating a ruby wedding is like celebrating a long-lasting business partnership, and a civil partnership of 40 years could be celebrated for the same reason.
The act of marriage is celebrated as part of the Circle of Life - the child comes from a father and mother, grows up, marries, and from that union brings forth in turn a child. Gay partnerships are like going off at a tangent...
The act of marriage is celebrated as part of the Circle of Life, says the man who's just called marriage a business partnership. Who's got the reductive view of marriage really?
The Circle of Life may be how marriage got started but it is not of the essence of marriage. If a widow and widower who now have adult children decide to get married, we would all call that a marriage, yet it is at a tangent to the circle of life. Meanwhile, gay people do have and bring up children.
So, no, that just looks like special pleading.
quote:
quote:
You have incidentally not answered my question about 'don't ask, don't tell.'
I've heard that phrase in the context of employer-employee relations. Where there can be a tension between the employer's legitimate interest in governing the workplace behaviour of the employees in a way that maintains productivity and the employee's legitimate interest in self-expression and having a private life and a private self outside of the company rulebook.
Now I would say that forbidding Bob and Sue from having an affair but then turning a blind eye carries most of the disadvantages of heavy-handedness with most of the disadvantages of permissiveness. If an affair adversely affects their productivity, it will affect productivity more so if conducted in semi-secret. The pretence that nobody knows what is going on is not the same as toleration.
Privacy is of course relative to context. Someone's marriage is part of their private life, but nobody objects on those grounds when anybody wears a ring into the office.
'Don't ask, don't tell,' was a code of conduct introduced to the US Army at a point where gay people were forbidden to join; according to which gay people were still forbidden to join but the army would put no effort into investigating. As I said, that's not tolerance of gay people in the army. It's merely a mitigation of an intolerant policy.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
So you're rejecting the argument that some here have put forward, that science has disproven my POV, or shown that homosexuality is a thing like heterosexuality ?
You mean specifically the POV that homosexuality is a "defect"? No, I don't think that science has disproven that, though I do think that Darwinian thinking can produce scientifically plausible accounts which suggest that there might be more interesting reasons why homosexuality exists.
Homosexuality is, quite obviously, "a thing like heterosexuality" in terms of experience. The feelings of attraction, liking, arousal, frustration, jealousy, companionship and love that affect gay people are the same ones that straight people have too. It may, or may not, be "a thing like heterosexuality" in terms of its evolutionary origin, but you have yet answer how that could possibly be relevant to any ethical question. For that, I think, it suffices that gay people are human, with the same human feelings as I have.
quote:
You agree that the science isn't yet conclusive ?
As far as I am aware (and I speak as an interested non-scientist, and in no way an expert) the question of why some people are gay is an open one.
quote:
What I've suggested follows directly from the idea that homosexuality is an impairment is:
a) that it is reasonable to think about and talk about the possibility of cure or prevention (whilst fully recognising people's right to refuse a cure they don't want)
b) that wishing homosexuality on others is ill-wishing them, is morally wrong.
OK. This is an aspect of the discussion I've not really addressed, for the following reason - I don't think it's one that we (as a society) are yet ready to have.
I get what you are saying: homosexuality is, obviously, at least an obstacle to fertility in a relationship (in the sense that a homosexual couple cannot have children of whom they are both biological parents) and that although the desire for biological children is not universal, it is sufficiently common that it is "good" for a person to have the option of pursuing this source of human fulfilment. If my son had, for example, a gene that was likely to give him an ultra-low sperm count, and I could 'cure' that defect in infancy with a simple injection, you could certainly make a case that I ought to do it. So if he has a gene that was likely to cause him to fall for a partner with whom he could not have biological children, and a simple injection administered in infancy (before any affectionate attachments or sexual identity had developed) would instead cause him to be attracted to potentially fertile mates, the proposition is that it's the same procedure for the same intended effect, and therefore I should do the same. OK. That seems a simple enough argument.
Well, it would be if we were Vulcans, unburdened by emotion. Or if we lived in a world where homophobia was unknown. The thing is, we don't. We live in a world where gay people face discrimination, injustice, rejection, mockery and spite on a daily basis. A world where gay people are at increased risk of violence and suicide. A world where homosexuality is still treated as a crime in some countries (as it was in mine within living memory) and where equal treatment in law is a recent innovation, and equal treatment in society still an aspiration. A world where, even now, leaders of mainstream religions in civilised countries have publicly stated that certain natural disasters are examples of divine justice against our embryonic tolerance of gay people. We as a society have a legacy of hatred against gays people that we cannot sensibly ignore.
And in that context, I don't think our discussions about homosexuality should lead with "What's wrong with these people? How do we fix them?". I don't think it's possible to debate homosexuality as if it were simply a fertility problem and not look like an unwiped arse crack. So I don't want to do that. Sorry.
But there's a more specific reason why I see absolutely no obligation to put on my Vulcan ears and discuss that line with you. It's that you are not, in fact, trying to discuss homosexuality simply as a fertility problem. You've already said that you want to keep the knowledge that some people are gay from children, to subject gay people to a social burden of silence about who they love, and that you would even want it enshrined in our everyday language that gay relationships are second class, unworthy of being described in the same terms as straight ones. So your arguments about what, biologically speaking, might have gone wrong to make someone gay, and the ethics of attempting to remedy the developmental 'error' are neither scientific nor honest. They are a flimsy excuse to disguise your poisonous political opinions as 'tolerant'. They have prejudice in the blood, and I will not dignify your position as if it were intellectually respectable, when it is one that I have hold in utter contempt.
quote:
Do you have in mind any particular examples of "maladaptive mutations" (your words) to which these wouldn't be reasonable responses ?
Yes. I know many people who are woefully deficient in the (obviously evolved, and presumably, at one stage, adaptive) traits of physical aggression, duplicity, lust and sexual jealousy. But as I see that in the modern world we are no longer living in trees throwing our poo at rival bands of primates, I reckon that we now have the social superstructure in place to sustain a reasonable number of these defectives without endangering our or their survival and happiness, so we should be in no very urgent hurry to cure them. Who knows? It's just possible that some of them have something to teach us.
--------------------
"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 Eliab:
But as I see that in the modern world we are no longer living in trees throwing our poo at rival bands of primates,
Trees have been replaced by the internet, other than that, have we truly evolved very much?
--------------------
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
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
[I interrupt this programme to say:]
Bloody hell - JimT! Good to see you.
[/interruption]
Since I'm here, I'll add that I still think Russ is conducting a heroic effort under intense fire. YMMD (esp. if you're driving a VW).
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Since I'm here, I'll add that I still think Russ is conducting a heroic effort under intense fire. YMMD (esp. if you're driving a VW).
Regular George Wallace he is.
--------------------
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 Chesterbelloc:
I still think Russ is conducting a heroic effort under intense fire.
Oh, his effort isn't in question. What you're really trying to do, though, is approve of his goal.
Given that his goal appears to be to find a slightly new way every day to say that I'm a less fully realised human being than he is, I wish he'd put rather less effort in. Because the main reason I end up feeling bad about myself is because people like Russ put so much effort into making me feel bad about myself.
When the fuck are you going to treat my effort as heroic, eh? When are you going to applaud me for carrying on with life in the face of constant, sniping homophobia? Instead of applauding Russ for constantly choosing to walk up to the plate, is there any chance you'll ever applaud me for having to be caught up in this whether I want to or not just by virtue of being alive?
[ 10. October 2015, 04:48: 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
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JonahMan:
Have some compassion. Russ' understanding of loving isn't defective, just different.
Now, some people think he should be cured of this difference, by beating him around the head with a large stick labelled 'clue'.
Others believe that his different understanding is innate, and that so long as he harms no-one by shutting the fuck up about it, what he opines in the privacy of his own brain is no-ones business but his.
However, this may violate his human rights to express himself freely, and it should be recognised that people pointing at him and laughing could create serious psychological damage; so arguably he would be best served if society learned to accept his foibles, and whilst not being obliged to become fuckwits themselves, they should make allowances for his difference and enable him to participate in society the same as everyone else.
Where's your compassion for the children he damages by calling them defective; like the case I mentioned earlier in the thread.
I'm not at all interested in how Russ may be best served. I'm interested in how gay and straight children can not be damaged by Russ and his equally defective friends.
Why do you want to make allowances to best serve Russ so he can continue to do the damage he does?
[ 10. October 2015, 05:05: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Pssst...I think JonahMan plugged Russ into comments that Russ made about LGBT folks to prove a point.
[ 10. October 2015, 05:11: Message edited by: Golden Key ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
Sorry if I missed the sarcasm.
Russ seems to be defective in not understanding that not everything likes what Russ likes. If he likes blue shirts and chocolate ice cream, then everyone should wear blue shirts and have chocolate ice cream for dessert.
In similar fashion, not everyone wants the happiness of raising children. I've known plenty of older gay men who made the choice to marry a woman and raise children, and many of them were extremely unhappy in a situation where Russ would be happy. Fortunately people don't have to do what Russ dictates anymore.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
is there any chance you'll ever applaud me for having to be caught up in this whether I want to or not just by virtue of being alive?
What he said.
Russ is the bar room dipso who staggers to his feet at intervals and loudly challenges the other patrons to a fist-fight, while they all mutter, "Go home, Russ. You're drunk."
That's not heroic. It's pathetic.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
I still think Russ is conducting a heroic effort under intense fire.
Oh, his effort isn't in question. What you're really trying to do, though, is approve of his goal.
Given that his goal appears to be to find a slightly new way every day to say that I'm a less fully realised human being than he is, I wish he'd put rather less effort in. Because the main reason I end up feeling bad about myself is because people like Russ put so much effort into making me feel bad about myself.
If Russ has that much time and energy to devote to one, narrow aspect of all the sins in the world, he must have a very empty life.
It's that or everything else is OK by Russ, and by extension, by the Lord God Almighty too.
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
JonahMan
Shipmate
# 12126
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Sorry if I missed the sarcasm.
Maybe I should work on my sarcasm skills!
--------------------
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
If you want to get current Roman Catholic sexual ethics out of Aristotelianism, you do have to argue that it does. If you're not committed to Roman Catholic sexual ethics, I don't think Aristotelians need to believe that any given organ or activity has only one primary purpose.
Aristotelians in general, perhaps not. Thomists? Yeah.
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
Hey mousethief. Nice to see you again.
And your goodself. We have missed such wonderful creative writing since KenWritez died and you left us. Good to have you back.
quote:
[tongue in cheek]Don't you think you should have provided a link like this for Tommyknocker ? I'm very erudite but getting old (60 now).
What is this "erudite"? Was it "erudite" in 19th century Russia? I post good English word. Is not my fault if vocabularies are being underdeveloped in modern world.
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Your nasty attempts to treat gay people as pathological remind me of the earlier racist attempts to characterize The surgical peculiarities of the Negro
Perhaps gays have oddly shaped crania?
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
YMMD (esp. if you're driving a VW).
Quotes file.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Given that his goal appears to be to find a slightly new way every day to say that I'm a less fully realised human being than he is, I wish he'd put rather less effort in. Because the main reason I end up feeling bad about myself is because people like Russ put so much effort into making me feel bad about myself.
I can't say I empathize because I've never been in your shoes or anything like it. As a white middle class heterosexual cis-gendered liberal male, I'm very rarely treated the way you are, and I recognize this is in fact "privilege" (in the sociological sense). But I wish I could lift this burden from you.
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Russ seems to be defective in not understanding that not everything likes what Russ likes. If he likes blue shirts and chocolate ice cream, then everyone should wear blue shirts and have chocolate ice cream for dessert.
Well, not that they should, per se, but that their inability to do so is an evolutionary 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
Since I seem to have killed this thead, let me just point out the lovely ludicrosity, which escaped me earlier, of this combination of statements by our resident homophobe-in-chief:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I don't want to be dogmatic before the evidence is in.
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.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Since I seem to have killed this thead
........after 24 pages MT that's gotta be worth a couple of ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) an Alleluia, plus a fanfare of trumpets.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
This is an aspect of the discussion I've not really addressed, for the following reason - I don't think it's one that we (as a society) are yet ready to have.
I had hoped that we (on the Ship) have the maturity to discuss more or less anything.
I've previously indicated my willingness to abandon the topic if this is getting too personal for too many of those involved. But I'm not willing to concede that anyone is right on that basis.
quote:
We as a society have a legacy of hatred against gays people that we cannot sensibly ignore.
At this point you're moving on from discussion of the truth or otherwise of the proposition "homosexuality is an equally-good way to be human" to discussion of the ethics that either follow from that truth/falsity or that apply regardless of that truth/falsity. And that's fine; that's in a sense the other half of the question.
But you seem to me to be using "not ignoring the past" to mean "[i]even if it were true that homosexuality is a defect and not an equally-good alternative to heterosexuality, there's still a moral obligation on everyone to pretend the opposite, because homosexuals have been the victims of so much bullying and hate-speech and oppressive laws in the past".
Is that in fact your position, or have I misunderstood you ?
Are you making the Good Lie argument ?
--------------------
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 Sioni Sais:
If Russ has that much time and energy to devote to one, narrow aspect of all the sins in the world, he must have a very empty life.
It's that or everything else is OK by Russ, and by extension, by the Lord God Almighty too.
I was invited here by Boogie, and it seemed only polite to turn up...
I don't have the time and energy to reply to everyone, and have already apologised for that.
I'm inclined to stick around and try to answer the arguments made against my point of view (when anyone actually makes an argument, rather than just hurling insults or denying that any part of the burden of proof rests with them). And if other threads on more important issues are Russless in the meantime, that's no great loss.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
If you're not committed to Roman Catholic sexual ethics, I don't think Aristotelians need to believe that any given organ or activity has only one primary purpose.
Aristotelians in general, perhaps not. Thomists? Yeah.
On this point, I think Thomism doesn't differ from any other form of Aristotelianism. Nothing in the argument relies on any step specific to Thomism, and nothing specific to Thomism does anything to fix the argument in my opinion.
--------------------
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 Palimpsest:
Russ seems to be defective in not understanding that not everything likes what Russ likes. If he likes blue shirts and chocolate ice cream, then everyone should wear blue shirts and have chocolate ice cream for dessert.
In similar fashion, not everyone wants the happiness of raising children.
Think we're collectively struggling with the notion of choice here.
I've said that if a married couple decide not to have children, that's their choice to make.
That doesn't mean that there aren't good and bad choices.
But it seems a not-unreasonable choice to make in conditions where people feel that their parenting ability is below-average and their ability to serve society in other ways is above-average. For example.
To have that choice - the choice of marrying and having children - taken away from someone by a medical condition (or something similar) seems to me a bad thing. And that applies to a condition that takes away the sexual desire just as it does to a condition that takes away the physical ability.
I thought Eliab put it pretty well.
--------------------
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:
Since I seem to have killed this thead, let me just point out the lovely ludicrosity, which escaped me earlier, of this combination of statements by our resident homophobe-in-chief:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I don't want to be dogmatic before the evidence is in.
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.
Mousethief, your irony-meter is well and truly broken.
Second quote states my current belief. First quote says I'm open to evidence on the issue. (Pity you don't have any...) No contradiction at all.
You're not content with trying to bully me (by ranting and insults) into sharing your POV for the sake of bullied gay teenagers...
And you're going along with Boogie's pathological confusion between "good" and "left-wing", her inability to recognise that good people may not share her politics. All in the interests of "equal but different", of course...
--------------------
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:
Given that his goal appears to be to find a slightly new way every day to say that I'm a less fully realised human being than he is, I wish he'd put rather less effort in. Because the main reason I end up feeling bad about myself is because people like Russ put so much effort into making me feel bad about myself.
Orfeo, it's entirely possible that you're a better human being than I am. You're more fluent with words. Probably more musical. Your posts on the Ship are worth reading and occasionally insightful. You've probably got lots to be proud of in your career, your family, and your circle of friends.
I do not desire to make you feel bad about yourself.
I hope that your love life - whatever ability you have to unlock deeper levels of personal relationship through your homosexuality - works out well for you.
I just don't want you to spread to others what I see as a Lie, as the way to make yourself feel better.
You said something to the effect that you're a Christian who happens to be gay rather than a gay man who happens to be Christian. Good words.
--------------------
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
![[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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Sorry! Cross-post. That was for rolyn.
--------------------
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 Russ:
And you're going along with Boogie's pathological confusion between "good" and "left-wing", her inability to recognise that good people may not share her politics. All in the interests of "equal but different", of course...
Several things, as you make several gross errors in this very short space.
1. I never even mentioned left-wing. My argument has by and large been (a) you have no evidence or argument for your claim that homosexuals are defective, and (b) for the love of God, shut the fuck up, you are adding to the problem of low self-esteem and suicide among homosexuals. If you think a desire for compassion is left wing, then you must surely think the right wing are heartless monsters.
2. Confusion isn't pathological. Category error. Category error intended to insult and belittle, so ad hominem as well.
3. It's clear Boogie realizes people don't share her politics, or she wouldn't be arguing for them. This is a straw man.
4. I've stated quite plainly what my interests in this argument are, and it's not "equal but different." It's "compassion for the suffering." This is another straw man.
quote:
I've previously indicated my willingness to abandon the topic if this is getting too personal for too many of those involved.
So what's stopping you? You've been told already at least once that you're hitting too close to the bone. Make good on this promise and abandon the topic. Otherwise you risk coming off as a liar.
quote:
Mousethief, your irony-meter is well and truly broken.
People on the wrong side of Poe's Law really can't hope to post "irony" and expect people to catch it. Your entire history on this thread could be grossly ironic performance art for all I know.
It's like someone who bullies another person, then five pages in says something and defends it with "I was only joking, sheesh." No, once you've started bullying, you have lost the right to post a joke and have it taken as such. Similarly here (this is an analogy and you've said you like those, so I'm hoping it will get through), after a long string of offensive statements, you have lost the right to claim irony.
quote:
Second quote states my current belief.
States it quite dogmatically. My point stands.
quote:
First quote says I'm open to evidence on the issue. (Pity you don't have any...)
You make an unfounded claim and then complain that *I* don't have evidence to refute it? No, you are mistaken as to where the burden of proof lies. It has been consistently shown on this thread that you have no non-religious case for your claim that homosexuality is a defect, only bizarre and insulting analogies. Analogy is not proof. Analogy is not even evidence. Your claim is hollow and your argument for it is nonexistent.
You have actually been invited several times to admit your argument is religious and not scientific. It is based on a wholly unfounded concept of "perversion" or whatever synonym you're angling with this week.
--------------------
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:
You're not content with trying to bully me (by ranting and insults) into sharing your POV for the sake of bullied gay teenagers...
Seems to me what you're saying is you want mousethief and Boogie to Lie in order to make you feel better? So that you don't feel bad about yourself.
You think it's wrong for you to Lie in order to make other people not feel bad about themselves. Why are your feelings so much more precious than anyone else's?
Best wishes.
[ 11. October 2015, 19:03: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
Russ, why do you think my views on homosexuals are 'left wing'?
It was a right wing government which passed the bill for gay marriage!
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
