|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: I call all homophobes to Hell - especially Russ
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Written into creation by whom? Um, the inscrutable deity, innit? That's a distinction without a difference.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Gay people exist. Either you accept that they are human beings worthy of equal moral and legal consideration with everyone else, or you don't. Why they exist is an interesting scientific question. It does not determine how we treat them.
Briefly and bluntly:
Yes, gay people exist, and are human beings worthy of equal moral and legal consideration with everyone else.
But on my understanding of the facts, their defect - their malfunctioning sex-drive - is not of equal worth with the normal healthy sex-drive of which it is a perversion, and so there is no obligation to treat it as morally and legally identical.
The principle of equality doesn't mean that different things have to be treated as the same.
Maybe you're seeing homosexuals as a different sort of people ? Rather than as the normal sort of people but with a particular condition ?
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
But on my understanding of the facts, their defect - their malfunctioning sex-drive - is not of equal worth with the normal healthy sex-drive of which it is a perversion, and so there is no obligation to treat it as morally and legally identical.
You have not, after 30-odd pages, provided any 'facts' on which you base your opinions. And something tells me you're not going to start now.
Just acknowledge that you're prejudiced against gays and you're not going to change, and stop trying to justify it.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
There really are two things going on here. A scientific argument (or lack thereof) and a moral argument (or lack thereof). Now, science is not our instrument for discerning morality. It’s our instrument for describing, understanding, predicting, and controlling the physical world. The fact that the universe is diffused with morality (if it is) is irrelevant to science because morality is not its remit.
So, one could argue that homosexuality is morally inferior to breeding, or that homosexuality is scientifically inferior to breeding. To argue the former is to argue religiously, as (as I’ve said) we don’t (and can’t) (and for God’s sake shouldn’t) look to science to tell us what is moral. So if you want to say “my religion says homosexuality is wrong,” then we can say, “Well ours doesn’t.” You might be able to convince us that our religion is wrong about that, but you wouldn’t do so using science. For abovementioned reasons.
Now one might want to argue that homosexuality is BOTH scientifically defective AND morally wrong. Which might be an interesting topic of discussion once demonstrated. But to demonstrate it, you have to demonstrate the two halves, the scientific half and the moral half, and they must be done independently. For abovementioned reasons.
So leaving aside morality, let’s just look at science. Russ claims that from a strictly scientific point of view, homosexuality is defective (or whatever his malphemism of the day is). But as has been pointed out (AND NOT REFUTED), there is no scientifically correct sex drive, from which too great a variation is "defective." That's not how science works. It is descriptive, and doesn't make pronouncements of the "sex drives OUGHT to be THIS way" variety.
Science says, "Oh, look at the ways sex is used in this species. Are these all selected for, do you think, or are some by-products of other things that were selected for, or perhaps complete accidents of reproduction?" What it doesn't say is, "Which one is normal and which one is defective?"
The idea that every member of a sexually reproducing species ought to want to fuck in such a way as to reproduce is not a scientific idea. I think if you asked someone studying human sexuality, "Scientifically speaking, shouldn't all humans be driven to create as many offspring as possible?" the answer (if they didn’t just laugh in your face) would likely start with some variation on, “that’s a misunderstanding of how natural selection works.”
If it is unnatural to not be driven to reproduce (driven by one's desires, that is), then family planning of any sort is unnatural. If the bottom line (no pun intended) is that as members of a biologically-reproducing species our passions and appetites are out of whack unless they lead us to reproduce biologically, then ANY drives or desires in the sexuality department that don't lead directly to reproduction are defective. Not just homosexuality. Warmth, love, human connection, family, pursued as ends in themselves, and not as stepping stones to reproduction, are defective. Properly seen, they are only tools to get tab A into slot B and crank out another baby. Because anything that doesn’t lead to that is defective.
That is so mind-bogglingly dehumanizing. We’re not thinking, loving, feeling agents. We are tools used by our genes to reproduce, and if we don’t cooperate with them, we’re defective.
It's certainly not Christian.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Bravo!
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
A fantastic post, mousethief. Russ's views are indeed utterly dehumanizing, and reduce love, and sex itself, to a kind of mechanical device, which must be done 'correctly'.
What a hideous view of life and of humans.
And also an irrational view, which continually muddles up function and purpose.
Brilliant on your part.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
...
But on my understanding of the facts, their defect - their malfunctioning sex-drive - is not of equal worth with the normal healthy sex-drive of which it is a perversion, and so there is no obligation to treat it as morally and legally identical. ...
Russ, care to answer how you apply this to persons with disabilities?
--------------------
"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
Now, Eliab should marry mousethief for the collective good of our species.
Edited because: Fuck you very much Autocorrect.
[ 08. November 2015, 15:14: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
... And if somebody gets their kicks out of having their genitals nailed to a plank ...
Russ, you really need to book yourself a session with a dom and get all this out of your system. You keep telling us you don't want to hear about other people's sex lives and yet you keep sharing your fantasies. What's up with that?
--------------------
"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
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Yes, gay people exist, and are human beings worthy of equal moral and legal consideration with everyone else.
But on my understanding of the facts, their defect - their malfunctioning sex-drive - is not of equal worth with the normal healthy sex-drive of which it is a perversion, and so there is no obligation to treat it as morally and legally identical.
If you can explain to me how you can in concrete and practical terms treat someone's sex-drive in any way without treating that person in the same way I'd like to see it.
You object to gay people holding hands obviously in the street where people can see them. You're not objecting to their sex-drives. Sex-drives don't hold hands. People hold hands. If you're trying to treat the sex-drives unequally you're treating the people unequally.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
But I believe neither in the absence of objective value, nor in objective value as dictated by an inscrutable Deity, but rather in a morality written into Creation to which we can observe and reason our way.
If you believed in objective value to which we can observe and reason our way, you would not have dismissed gay people's experience as subjective and therefore irrelevant.
If you think that values are objective and written into creation, then you think that those who are best placed to observe them are the most reliable sources. Not infallible, obviously, but more reliable than anyone reasoning a priori without observation. And that means you would be trying to take gay people's experience into account when trying to discover values.
But you're not. You think that because you think gay people have defective sex drives that suffices for it to be true that they have defective sex drives, and that their experience is irrelevant. That's functionally subjective.
'Objective' does not mean ignoring other people's experience. It actually means acknowledging that other people's experience might show you to be wrong.
[ 08. November 2015, 15:33: 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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Now, Eliab should marry mousethief for the collective good of our species.
I'm taken. Although Josephine and I haven't helped the collective good of our species, inasmuch as we have no offspring from our joint loins. Which of course is the only benefit to humanity that counts.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
Clearly, Russ is using "objective" to mean "god says so". Essentially, Russ is claiming to be the one with the clearest channel of communication with god.
What's that, god? You say that Russ is really just an oedipal complex stuffed haggis-like into a cloaca? Yeah, thanks - we already figured that out.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Just dropping this in the mix:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-34744903
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
About the testosterone - womb thing. What about twins who are a boy and a girl (as are the twins in our family) how come they are not equally affected?
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Because testosterone does different things in the womb for boys and girls. The idea is - that research I quoted way back on this thread - that reduced testosterone for boys can be a cause of male homosexuality, whereas, from that article, increased testosterone causes homosexuality in girls.
The more testosterone the more "masculine" behaviour.
Epigenetics is all about the switching on and off of genes and various other effects that lead to the differences between twins
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
I knew a pair of boy twins who seemed to have responded differently to testosterone, one very masculine, one very not so. Even at primary age. I don't know how they have grown up.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Clearly, Russ is using "objective" to mean "god says so". Essentially, Russ is claiming to be the one with the clearest channel of communication with god.
I think he's using objective to mean 'I say so.' Although Russ might think that my interpretation is essentially the same as yours.
--------------------
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
|
|
St Deird
Shipmate
# 7631
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
If you hold the sort of worldview that denies any objective reality to values, so that "good" means no more than something that the speaker happens to like, then how could you agree that perversion is not good ? That would then be only a statement of personal taste. And if somebody gets their kicks out of having their genitals nailed to a plank, then that's "good" for them and no-one else has grounds for making any sort of judgment at all.
I really hate this. It's categorising everyone into two neat boxes:
1) People who believe in objective morality, and hence agree with me
2) People who are wishy-washy morons who think everything's fine as long as it feels good
...and then smugly assuming that box 2 can be dismissed without further comment.
Newsflash, imbecile:
- I believe that there is an objective morality.
- I believe you are incorrect about what things are moral.
Go jump.
--------------------
They're not hobbies; they're a robust post-apocalyptic skill-set.
Posts: 319 | From: the other side of nowhere | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Which negative group-labels do you think individual homosexuals are innocent of ?
And what connection do you see between those specific prejudices and the argument I've been putting forward ?
OK, I'm not Golden Key. But, here are some common group labels that don't actually apply to the majority of homosexuals. Do I really need to join the dots for you?
- Homosexuals are "unnatural", also add in there words like "pervert", "defective", "malfunctioning" ...
- Homosexuals are promiscuous (or, significantly more promiscuous than heterosexuals)
- Homosexual acts are not mutually consensual - most often a claim made implicitly by statements suggesting similarity to sexual activity where one side didn't/is unable to consent - rape, paedophilia or bestiality, for example.
- Homosexuals are intent on "converting" our sons and daughters into homosexuals
The list could go on. But, if we start by eliminating such prejudice the world would be a much better place for everyone.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Clearly, Russ is using "objective" to mean "god says so". Essentially, Russ is claiming to be the one with the clearest channel of communication with god.
I think he's using objective to mean 'I say so.' Although Russ might think that my interpretation is essentially the same as yours.
I question whether Russ is capable of distinguishing between "God says so" and "I say so." Reminding one of the old adage, "You know you have created God in your own image when he hates all the same people you do."
--------------------
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
Russ, you are basically turning into Ingo, with longer and longer versions of "I think sex is only good sex if it makes babies".
Just because he's gone doesn't need we require a replacement.
--------------------
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
|
|
ldjjd
Shipmate
# 17390
|
Posted
Russ informs us that the "normal" sex drive is "healthy"
He's got me worried that I may not be horny enough, so for my good health, I'm going to cancel my gym membership and invest the proceeds in porn.
Posts: 294 | Registered: Oct 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Macrina
Shipmate
# 8807
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Briefly and bluntly:
Yes, gay people exist, and are human beings worthy of equal moral and legal consideration with everyone else.
But on my understanding of the facts, their defect - their malfunctioning sex-drive - is not of equal worth with the normal healthy sex-drive of which it is a perversion, and so there is no obligation to treat it as morally and legally identical.
The principle of equality doesn't mean that different things have to be treated as the same.
Maybe you're seeing homosexuals as a different sort of people ? Rather than as the normal sort of people but with a particular condition ?
Oh you are an absolute utterly irreedemable twonk. Deeply and fundamentally munted.
You know what I think is defective...your capacity for empathy.
I am a PERSON you idiot. A human being. I have needs, wants, feelings and desires. My biggest desire is to feel love and affection for a person and have them return that love and affection for me. How the flying FUCK is that defective?
Why don't you just say 'Well I don't know why I'm supposed to hate people but my religion says I'm supposed to so I will.' because you have NO other fucking leg to stand on.
Idiot.
Posts: 535 | From: Christchurch, New Zealand | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Russ informs us that the "normal" sex drive is "healthy"
He's got me worried that I may not be horny enough, so for my good health, I'm going to cancel my gym membership and invest the proceeds in porn.
As long as it is not gay porn. Lesbian porn is OK if you are a man. If you are a single lesbian, it is probably OK. But, to be safe, try to include a penis in there somewhere.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Gay people exist. Either you accept that they are human beings worthy of equal moral and legal consideration with everyone else, or you don't. Why they exist is an interesting scientific question. It does not determine how we treat them.
Briefly and bluntly:
Yes, gay people exist, and are human beings worthy of equal moral and legal consideration with everyone else.
But on my understanding of the facts, their defect - their malfunctioning sex-drive - is not of equal worth with the normal healthy sex-drive of which it is a perversion, and so there is no obligation to treat it as morally and legally identical.
The principle of equality doesn't mean that different things have to be treated as the same.
Maybe you're seeing homosexuals as a different sort of people ? Rather than as the normal sort of people but with a particular condition ?
I've kept away from posting on this thread as most of it is so circular - Russ makes a comment, X asks for the argument in support of that comment, then there's a general discussion but nowhere does Russ actually answer what he's asked. Instead, he makes a further comment and the cycle starts again.
But this post from him is too much. Let's ignore the bits about being a perversion of a healthy sex drive, and all the nastiness that contains. Let's even ignore the different but equal bit. The US Supreme Court put paid to that sort of theory 60 years ago. What is really bad is the word "condition" at the very end, with its inherent suggestion of gays being ill, of homosexuality (and lesbianism etc) being an illness. I'd have thought that by this stage, Russ would have learnt better than that. Maybe his mother can teach him.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
Compare and contrast.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ 2001:
It is the shouting about sexuality, the demands for equal status, the militancy which seems to me wrong, unloving, putting one's own feelings before the feelings of others.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ 2015:
People should be as free as possible to choose the course of their own lives. The "born gays" should have equal legal rights, including the right to form a civil contract which gives partnered gay couples the same legal rights., tax status etc as married couples. I'm not looking to oppress anyone...
So fourteen years ago Russ 2001 was willing to "oppress" gay people, by the standards of Russ 2015. One way to look at this is personal growth. Maybe in another fourteen years Russ 2029 might even concede homosexuals aren't necessarily evil! Another way to look at it is a calculated degree of hate, spitefully trying to constrain the lives of homosexuals to the maximum degree considered publicly palatable. So in 2001 this consisted of denying them legal equality. In 2015 that doesn't seem to be an option any more, hence the advocacy of shaming, closeting, and denunciation as evildoers.
Also interesting is the way what was regarded as "militancy" (gay citizens demanding equal treatment under the law as their heterosexual peers) is now acknowledged as basic fairness by a previous opponent. One might even go so far as to credit that "militancy" with the change.
It's also interesting how Russ claims his morality is "objective", yet it seems remarkably pliable. Did the basic underlying reality of the Universe change since 2001?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Organ Builder
Shipmate
# 12478
|
Posted
Kudos to you, Croesos, for finding that little nugget. I’m afraid I wouldn’t have had the patience, but it certainly sheds interesting light on Russ.
--------------------
How desperately difficult it is to be honest with oneself. It is much easier to be honest with other people.--E.F. Benson
Posts: 3337 | From: ...somewhere in between 40 and death... | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
ldjjd
Shipmate
# 17390
|
Posted
For Russ to say in his 2001 post that the Gay and Lesbian community's demand for equal rights is "unloving" was an incredible insult to all the oppressed groups throught history who have struggled for such basic rights.
"Often, "militancy" was the only way to win these rights.
Russ felt (and perhaps still feels) sorry for the hurt feelings of the precious oppressors.
Pathetic!
[ 09. November 2015, 21:30: Message edited by: ldjjd ]
Posts: 294 | Registered: Oct 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Russ--
Thanks for your response. The comparison I was trying to make is pretty much one to one: the kind of disgust that Irish immigrants met in the US is the same kind LGBT folks meet every day. Even the morality aspect.
So...was the treatment of Irish immigrants right? If not, then why is it right to treat LGBT folks that way?
--------------------
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
There's no point in arguing with Russ. His defect is that his conditioning has made him a piece of shit. I hope he dies in a ditch by the side of the road soon. In the meantime we can be glad that he and the others like him no longer can control the lives of gay people in the country he infests.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liopleurodon
Mighty sea creature
# 4836
|
Posted
I've noticed this, though - when the homophobes were dead set against civil partnerships, they went on and on about how they were in favour of legalisation but against civil partnerships.* Then when the debate moved on to actual marriage the exact same people started on about "I'm completely in favour of civil partnerships but marriage is a step too far." The same damn people kick and scream about the current battle, whatever it is, while pretending that they weren't among those who lost the last battle that came up. I don't understand why but it always seems to happen.
* For what it's worth, I never wanted civil partnerships. I didn't want a "separate but equal" step on the way to equal marriage. I wanted equal marriage. So I got really frustrated when some LGBTQ peeps accepted these crumbs off the table and paved the way for "The gay community said all they wanted was civil partnerships, but no! They always want more more more! You can't trust them!"
Posts: 1921 | From: Lurking under the ship | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Macrina
Shipmate
# 8807
|
Posted
Alright so I've had my rant and calmed down. Now I am going to ask a question. Russ, why am I defective? Why not just different? Humans have enormous rates of genetic variation, most mutations are completely neutral. Some of course are actively harmful but let's stick that to one side.
I've had a look at a list of 'neutral mutations' things in our genome that are different but don't cause actual harm.
Lack of Wisdom teeth
Attached or unattached earlobes
Blue eyes/green eyes
Left handedness
Skin colour
Tongue rolling
Dimples
Freckles
Curly hair
If you can taste the 5th taste (the bitter one)
So okay that's a long list. They are all examples of differences, we know what happens when society deems a difference to be defective. At least two things on that list have been heavily stigmatized in the past.
Sexual preference (aside from the social stigma and associated illnesses caused by having to live in a society that treats you like a pathogen) is not an jinherantly harmful mutation. So why do you call it defective? Why can't you just call it different?
Posts: 535 | From: Christchurch, New Zealand | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
JonahMan
Shipmate
# 12126
|
Posted
This reminds me of the famous
blue/brown eyes discrimination experiment. .
With Russ as the child who, several weeks after the thing has been explained and deconstructed, is still insisting that his blue eyes are natural and that brown eyed people are defective.
And God is the teacher with her head in her hands wondering why she did this experiment in the first place.
--------------------
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
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
The other interesting bit is the very careful parsing involved in Russ' claim to not want to oppress anyone. First he makes the distinct between the "born gay" and the "confused" and insists that, in his utopia, they should not be treated the same. Then he very carefully indicates that "[t]he "born gays" should have equal legal rights". I don't think it's reading too much into this careful omission to assume that Russ feels the "confused" should not have equal rights. And, of course, he leaves completely open the question of what standard will be used to determine who is really gay and who is just confused, and who would be the ones to make that determination.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariston
Insane Unicorn
# 10894
|
Posted
"Not reading too much into?" Why, I think you'd have to not be reading things at all to think the "confused" or "experimenting" should be given any rights under his scheme!
All I can see is someone trying very, very hard to deny that anything other than cisgendered hetrosexuality is real and equivalent to his own lived experience.
It must be a phase. It's just a phase. It's girlish experimentation. It's confusion. Poor parenting. A domineering mother, an absent father. A sinful society. Unnatural. Perverted. Just a phase we're going through. It'll pass. It'll all pass. All go away. Just a phase.
Denial's a bitch, ain't it?
--------------------
“Therefore, let it be explained that nowhere are the proprieties quite so strictly enforced as in men’s colleges that invite young women guests, especially over-night visitors in the fraternity houses.” Emily Post, 1937.
Posts: 6849 | From: The People's Republic of Balcones | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
No, denial is lovely. Like a hateful Walter Mitty, it allows him escape from the bitch that is Reality.
[ 10. November 2015, 16:02: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Organ Builder
Shipmate
# 12478
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
...their defect - their malfunctioning...not of equal worth ...perversion...no obligation to treat it as morally and legally identical.
The problem with these sort of phrases, of course, is that one never applies them to oneself. No matter what Russ’s physical condition, I’m sure he doesn’t think of himself as “defective”. Arthritis will be “normal wear and tear”, heart trouble would be “something I inherited from my Father and Grandfather”, or perhaps simply “the natural aging process.”
We only use terms like perversion and defect when we are judging other people EXACTLY in the manner Christ told us not to. They are never objective terms when applied to other people, but they are always excuses to treat other people like objects. The Image of God is a much a part of the homosexual as the heterosexual. If Russ cannot see the real harm his attitudes have caused over the last few decades--well, under the circumstances I’ll just say it’s sad, and refrain from calling it a defect.
--------------------
How desperately difficult it is to be honest with oneself. It is much easier to be honest with other people.--E.F. Benson
Posts: 3337 | From: ...somewhere in between 40 and death... | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Re Macrina's list:
And sometimes blue eyes turn into green eyes. Mine did.
--------------------
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
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Russ--
You don't have to answer this, ok?
Re people not born gay who are confused, etc.:
I'm wondering if maybe, somewhere along the line, you've known people who were confused? Or maybe even experimented, and now regret it?
I know I can get pretty upset on the behalf of friends who've been through difficult times, of any sort.
--------------------
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
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Now, Eliab should marry mousethief for the collective good of our species.
I'm taken. Although Josephine and I haven't helped the collective good of our species, inasmuch as we have no offspring from our joint loins. Which of course is the only benefit to humanity that counts.
How 'sexually malfunctioning and defective' of you! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) But then, what do I know. According to Greek philosophy as endorsed by the early Church Fathers, I am in utero a failed man! If only I wasn't menopausing, I could've redeemed myself through child-bearing. Oh woe is me! ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
Oh, WTF does any of this matter ????
I.
--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)
Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
But according to modern science, it isn't that women are missing the dangly bits essential for being fully human, its the men who are missing essential bits of chromosome - a nice joke to be hidden where the Greeks and the Fathers couldn't find it.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
I.
--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)
Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carex
Shipmate
# 9643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
- not offend those with a "higher" view of sacraments than mine by taking in vain the name of one of the sacraments of the Christian religion.
You know, I'd be willing to consider this side of it if the the name had been chosen specifically to annoy or make fun of Christian sacraments.
But it wasn't. It is the existing secular word for a legal relationship between two people that allows joint filing of tax returns, automatic next-of-kin status to visit each other in the hospital or to inherit the partner's estate in case of death, and generally (though not always) indicates an intention that the relationship is primary for both partners and they intend to maintain it for an extended period of time.
That's what "marriage" means. That's also why alternative phrases such as "civil partnership" or "domestic partnership" do NOT provide an equal legal basis: there are thousands of laws that give married couples / spouses certain rights that are not available to non-married people, regardless of what their relationship is titled. There is no practical way to change all such laws to cover other types of relationship, which is why equality in marriage is important.
Besides, if you want to complain about infidels taking the names of Christian sacraments in vain, you should start with Physicists and all the disrespectful things they do with Mass.
Posts: 1425 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Giggle, re last paragraph.
--------------------
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
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
Today, I received confirmation from the courier services that a parcel I had sent had arrived. Oops! They have taken in vain the name of one of the sacraments of the Christian religion.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
Russ may claim he holds a high view of the sacrament of marriage, but he doesn't have a problem with the millions upon millions of non-sacramental Hindu, Sikh, Muslim, Jewish, atheist, Presbyterian, etc. marriages. His "high view" is that marriage is defined by penis-into-vagina intercourse and nothing else. His "high view" is that atheist opposite-sex weddings are "sacramental" but a same-sex couple getting married in, oh, say, the United Church of Canada, cannot be. His "high view" is really just a dog-whistle for heterosexual.
--------------------
"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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Oh, WTF does any of this matter ????
Have you no concern at all for the possible slight raise in heart rate of Russ' mother?
Not to mention the general queasiness of Russ' stomach.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
According to Greek philosophy as endorsed by the early Church Fathers, I am in utero a failed man! If only I wasn't menopausing, I could've redeemed myself through child-bearing. Oh woe is me!
Fortunately for you, nearly all the early Church Fathers are dead.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
