|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: I call all homophobes to Hell - especially Russ
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
As regards 'gay issues' I'm again not trying to 'make' the state do things - but since we are in a nominally pluralist society, why can't I argue my case about those issues?? Assuming, that is, that the people on the gay side are willing to have serious discussion, and not just 'make' the state do what they want....
When "what they want" is to not be discriminated against and harrassed and murdered, yes I think they are completely justified in trying to "make" the state do what they want. Why do you think they would be willing to have a "serious discussion" about having their rights curtailed? Who on earth would be able to have a dispassionate discussion about being made a second class citizen? You? Certainly not me.
You have hit upon the fundamental logical problem that occurs when anyone who wishes to control others invokes notions of pluralism, tolerance and the like.
Because the one thing that "tolerance" can't allow, however much people make the appeal, is intolerance. Logically, something has to give.
Tolerance and pluralism doesn't actually mean a free-for-all that allows everything including those who would attempt to undo the principles of tolerance and pluralism. It means setting rules that forbid intolerance and forcing others into line.
Is there an irony there? Only for those who can't actually grasp the logic of the situation.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
Karl Popper
"If we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them."
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
Homophobes used to be in the majority, they could spout their intolerance whenever and wherever they liked. Anyone who knew they were wrong had to be subversive, not open - it was against the law to be homosexual.
The tables have turned. Homophobes are in the minority, even in a lot of the Church. They are beginning to shout 'persecution!'.
But it's a general question too, not just related to the problem of homophobia.
So I have started a thread.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Historically Marriage means a relationship between one man and as many women as he can afford. That's at least 4000 years of the last 6000. You wouldn't want to change that traditional meaning would you?
Don't think that's quite accurate. I'd guess that in most cultures where a man is allowed more than one wife, then the man has multiple marriages - one with each wife - rather than a single marriage that involves all of them.
In some cultures, a man can have only one wife, and the rest would be concubines... If you want to say that marriage customs vary, I don't think anyone will argue.
But I suggest that in every culture, marriage has always been about congress between man and woman. The more variation you point to, the more that common characteristic can be seen to be the essence of what the word means.
Seems like everyone's happy with the idea that the religious aspect can be dealt with by having separate words for Christian marriage and civil partnership. With the point of argument being who gets dibs on the existing word...
I think it's more complex than that. There's a whole spectrum of people who go to a church only for weddings and funerals, or who have rejected everything about religion except the idea that marriage is a God-solemn promise. Drawing a dividing line between those who have a religious aspect to their marriage and those who don't seems difficult. But drawing a line between marriage and same-sex unions is really simple...
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
"Simple" is not a word of approbation but a descriptive word. When Ronald Reagan said his favorite hymn was the one that started "Tis a gift to be simple" he was mocked because he was a simpleton himself. Just because it's easy to discriminate between same-sex and opposite-sex marriage (assuming it is in most cases; there are still intersex people who make all of these facile comparisons much more complicated than the ignorant might suppose) doesn't mean there's anything good about it. "Kill them all and let God sort 'em out" is a simple rule, say when you're defending a doorway or invading a country. Very, very simple. "Shoot at anything that moves" is simple. "Always vote Republican" is simple. But they're all mindbogglingly stupid. Simple is not the same as good.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
...
But I suggest that in every culture, marriage has always been about congress between man and woman. The more variation you point to, the more that common characteristic can be seen to be the essence of what the word means...
Well, well, you found your little thesaurus, so now we're talking about "congress". You are just reiterating that for you, marriage means a penis goes into a vagina. Nothing else will do and nothing can make up for its absence; one act is the absolute required minimum, with no further obligations; and whether or not offspring result is irrelevant. That's your definition of marriage, Russ, so why won't you at least be honest and up front about it?
You've tried cloaking your disgusting, reductionist view of marriage with words like "the circle of life", or blathering about boys following their fathers, or how not wanting to reproduce is defective and perverted, but really, those are all just attempts to buttress your sexually reductive definition of the most valuable and intimate relationship of many people's lives. You're the one who's judging and valuing human relationships in terms of genital pairings.
--------------------
"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 Russ:
But I suggest that in every culture, marriage has always been about congress between man and woman.
You can suggest it all you like. There's still evidence from various parts of the world that you're wrong.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
But I suggest that in every culture, marriage has always been about congress between man and woman. The more variation you point to, the more that common characteristic can be seen to be the essence of what the word means.
Is that's what Joseph and Mary were up to in their marriage. congress? I don't think so.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Seems like everyone's happy with the idea that the religious aspect can be dealt with by having separate words for Christian marriage and civil partnership. With the point of argument being who gets dibs on the existing word...
I think it's more complex than that. There's a whole spectrum of people who go to a church only for weddings and funerals, or who have rejected everything about religion except the idea that marriage is a God-solemn promise. Drawing a dividing line between those who have a religious aspect to their marriage and those who don't seems difficult. But drawing a line between marriage and same-sex unions is really simple...
And not drawing a line is even simpler...
You can still have your Christian partnership and the state can continue to conduct civil marriages.
There are also Christian Churches which offer religious marriages to same sex couples. They seem to think that it's a God given promise as well. You've got a lot of fancy line drawing to do in order to separate those couples out so you can hate on them.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
But I suggest that in every culture, marriage has always been about congress between man and woman.
Do you realise how stupid that line of argument is?
If even one of the examples described here then your argument based on universal practice is blown out of the water.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
You don't really care about people reading about California girls ... but really want us to reply to your post.
--------------------
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
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
I am becoming terrified of a potential future where my mind stops even trying to evaluate the world around me in terms of pragmatic ideals, and instead just blithely processes every facet through an all-consuming confirmation bias to render it into swallowable chunks of what I am already comfortable with believing and a slurry of inconvenient facts I can spit out through my mind's baleen without retaining any of it. Like Russ does.
Don't even get me started with whateverthefuck Steve Langton is doing. That's a run-on sentence that would make James Joyce blush.
In the mean time, may I note for posterity that perhaps this thread serves much the same function as Tarantino's Django Unchained? Not really so much for the blatantly oppressed, but as a vehicle for fantasizing revenge by those of us disgusted by the connections we have with the oppressors?
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
You don't really care about people reading about California girls ... but really want us to reply to your post.
That was a very polite way of saying "Palimpsest, what the fuck is wrong with your link".
In my Hellhost capacity, I could attempt to at least minimise the damage, but on the whole I think this is a case where it's best to just let the error stand in all of its glory. Besides, I'm not going to waste time speculating where the link was supposed to go.
--------------------
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 RooK:
Don't even get me started with whateverthefuck Steve Langton is doing. That's a run-on sentence that would make James Joyce blush.
In the mean time, may I note for posterity that perhaps this thread serves much the same function as Tarantino's Django Unchained? Not really so much for the blatantly oppressed, but as a vehicle for fantasizing revenge by those of us disgusted by the connections we have with the oppressors?
I just read an article reminding me it's time to reread The Dead
If you remember the ending of the play "Amadeus" you'll know what the revenge on Russ will be. He's lived to a time where his ideals are shared by a shrinking set of bigots who grow old and die with the general disdain of the rest of society.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Mousethief;
quote:
You have hit upon the fundamental logical problem that occurs when anyone who wishes to control others invokes notions of pluralism, tolerance and the like.
Because the one thing that "tolerance" can't allow, however much people make the appeal, is intolerance. Logically, something has to give.
Ah, somebody finally noticed....
The problem here is simple - neither 'tolerance' not 'intolerance' are absolute virtues without qualification. It's like say 'loyalty'; on the whole loyalty is a good thing - but it can require qualification depending on the circumstances. If you lived in 1930s Germany, would 'loyalty' to the Fuhrer really be a virtue?? Actually I would answer 'Yes', I should be loyal to him - but as my idea of being a loyal friend with his best interests at heart would have been massively critical of many of his key ideas and practices, I suspect he wouldn't have thought me very loyal and my 'disloyalty' - in his eyes - would have got me a one-way ticket to the cell next door to Dietrich Bonhoeffer....
Which serves to indicate how complex some of these issues can be; and also how important it is to preserve the possibility of what I meant above by 'serious discussion' rather than a situation where dissent from a current majority opinion gets automatically condemned as 'hate speech' or some such.
I don't want to 'control' anybody. I do hope occasionally to persuade people to voluntarily accept my views; views which do NOT include having the state pass laws against other people's beliefs and practices except in the clearest of circumstances. Insisting that homosexuality is so right it must be beyond criticism, and disagreement criminalised, is not (yet) a clear case, especially as a lot of the arguments used by the gay side are somewhat incoherent.
In some cases this is a 'world-view' conflict. Yes, in say an atheist world-view, all the logic of that position may favour the gay case. But from a non-atheist position, the rights and wrongs may look very different and that world-view may contain reasons to regard gay sex as wrong. The issue is can we live together in reasonable peace with these diverse views - and the answer can be 'yes' so long as neither side insists on legally coercing its view, and we try to limit the places where our disagreement matters too much.
Neither side may get everything it wants from the situation - but the situation may still be better than both sides going for a totalitarian result their way, and provoking actual persecution/war rather than just occasional friction. Or for that matter either side 'winning' by force but unfortunately being ultimately wrong.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
<nip> Insisting that homosexuality is so right it must be beyond criticism, and disagreement criminalised, is not (yet) a clear case, especially as a lot of the arguments used by the gay side are somewhat incoherent.
Disagrement is not criminalised. It is discrimination that is and should be criminalised.
Those businesses and individuals that want to be able to make a faith-based exception in on the basis of another persons sexual preference (or any number of other characteristics) are not expressing disagreement, they are actively discriminating, and that must be illegal.
Hope that's coherent enough for you.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
But I suggest that in every culture, marriage has always been about congress between man and woman.
Do you realise how stupid that line of argument is?
If even one of the examples described here then your argument based on universal practice is blown out of the water.
Following Alan's link I found the ideas of 'adelphopoiesis' and
quote:
In late medieval France, it is possible the practice of entering a legal contract of "enbrotherment" (affrèrement) provided a vehicle for civil unions between unrelated male adults who pledged to live together sharing ‘un pain, un vin, et une bourse’ – one bread, one wine, and one purse. This legal category may represent one of the earliest forms of sanctioned same-sex unions.
Both these sound like the kind of non-sexual civil relationship partnership I was speculating on above. As opposed to a 'same-sex marriage which is clearly a sexual relationship....
But I agree with Alan that the various sexual relationships also mentioned in the link do contradict Russ's over-simple assumption that marriage has always been heterosexual only.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Steve, with all due respect (and yes, I'm saying that in Hell, but bear with me): not only am I gay, I spent about 17 years of my life trying very hard not be gay.
Which means that anytime someone suggests, in any kind of way, that homosexuality is not inherent, I end up with steam coming out of my ears.
So please take that into account when I tell you with some vehemence that I don't give a shit about anyone trying to frame homosexuality in terms of whether it's "right" or not. It just is. It fucking is. It doesn't matter how many people try to line up to suggest that homosexuality is "wrong", I will still be homosexual. We spent a few generations trying to tell everyone that homosexuality was wrong? Did it remove homosexuality? No, it bloody well did not.
So face that reality. Then ask yourself, GIVEN THAT REALITY, what's an appropriate way to treat homosexuals?
It's not about my "rightness" or "wrongness", it's about my bloody existence. I am here whether you want me to be or not. Choose how to treat me accordingly.
Being an insensitive arsehole, on the other hand, is still widely considered to be a conscious choice.
[ 23. November 2015, 11:20: 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
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Sioni Sais;
quote:
Disagreement is not criminalised. It is discrimination that is and should be criminalised.
Depends.... Am I 'discriminating' against a rugby player if he joins my soccer club and I expect him to play according to the rules of soccer? Yes I'm 'discriminating' - but it would be hard to say it was bad discrimination. On the contrary, if he were to insist on being allowed to play by rugby rules in our soccer games, surely he would be the intolerant bad guy??
I'm not in favour of the state discriminating (the equivalent of passing a law saying "You're only allowed to play soccer and rugby is illegal"). Go back and read my argument above a bit more carefully please.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Sioni Sais;
quote:
Disagreement is not criminalised. It is discrimination that is and should be criminalised.
Depends.... Am I 'discriminating' against a rugby player if he joins my soccer club and I expect him to play according to the rules of soccer? Yes I'm 'discriminating' - but it would be hard to say it was bad discrimination. On the contrary, if he were to insist on being allowed to play by rugby rules in our soccer games, surely he would be the intolerant bad guy??
I'm not in favour of the state discriminating (the equivalent of passing a law saying "You're only allowed to play soccer and rugby is illegal"). Go back and read my argument above a bit more carefully please.
Steve, you're a smart guy, so if you have to resort to that kind of response I have to ask what legitimacy your point of view has? I'm disappointed.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Sioni Sais;
quote:
Disagreement is not criminalised. It is discrimination that is and should be criminalised.
Depends.... Am I 'discriminating' against a rugby player if he joins my soccer club and I expect him to play according to the rules of soccer?
OK
1. Being homosexual is not about what you do, it's about who you are.
2. There are no 'rules' about simple human decency, equality and kindness, which is all that's being asked for here.
3. There are plenty of laws against discrimination - so it would be YOU doing the soccer instead of rugby silly analogy, not the other way round.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erik
Shipmate
# 11406
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Mousethief;
[QUOTE] [b]But from a non-atheist position, the rights and wrongs may look very different and that world-view may contain reasons to regard gay sex as wrong.
The thing is, I have heard this said before but no one seems to be able to come up with any legitimate examples of such reasons. Do you have any?
I also find your repeated assertion that Christianity and approval of same-sex relationships are incompatable irritating. There are many Christians on this site alone who are repeatedly stating their acceptance and approval of same-sex relationships and that they should be equal to heterosexual relationships, both legally and culturally. It feels like you are implying that we are not really Christians.
--------------------
One day I will think of something worth saying here.
Posts: 96 | From: Leeds, UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Sioni Sais;
quote:
Disagreement is not criminalised. It is discrimination that is and should be criminalised.
Depends.... Am I 'discriminating' against a rugby player if he joins my soccer club and I expect him to play according to the rules of soccer? Yes I'm 'discriminating' - but it would be hard to say it was bad discrimination. On the contrary, if he were to insist on being allowed to play by rugby rules in our soccer games, surely he would be the intolerant bad guy??
I'm not in favour of the state discriminating (the equivalent of passing a law saying "You're only allowed to play soccer and rugby is illegal"). Go back and read my argument above a bit more carefully please.
Oh dear Lord and His Blessed Mother.
Talk about the Thing. Not about stupid analogies for the Thing that break down the millisecond someone with half a brain cell looks at it and says "that's not even wrong".
If you want an analogy of my frustration, imagine me trying to use your head as a rugby ball as I attempt a conversion.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
JonahMan
Shipmate
# 12126
|
Posted
Do all homophobes subscribe to Crap Analogy Monthly? Or is it just Russ, SteveL and Bingo?
--------------------
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
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
If you want an analogy of my frustration, imagine me trying to use your head as a rugby ball as I attempt a conversion.
Nice use of the language! But you'll score the extra two on the field afore you'll see a change in either of these two.
[ 23. November 2015, 15:46: 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
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
3. There are plenty of laws against discrimination - so it would be YOU doing the soccer instead of rugby silly analogy, not the other way round.
Silly analogies aside, trying to argue about what the law should be based on what the law currently is tends to get very circular very quickly.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
These 'reasons to regard gay sex as wrong' are often being referred to by homophobes. Yet when we get down to brass tacks, they are always the same reasons, e.g. gays don't have kids, they spread disease, the Bible says so, the gay 'life-style', and some finagling with so-called natural law.
They are tired worn-out old reasons, which have been shredded again and again, and now lie, like some old condom, on the refuse-pile.
Time to move on.
--------------------
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 Steve Langton:
Depends.... Am I 'discriminating' against a rugby player if he joins my soccer club and I expect him to play according to the rules of soccer? Yes I'm 'discriminating' - but it would be hard to say it was bad discrimination. On the contrary, if he were to insist on being allowed to play by rugby rules in our soccer games, surely he would be the intolerant bad guy??
I'm not in favour of the state discriminating (the equivalent of passing a law saying "You're only allowed to play soccer and rugby is illegal"). Go back and read my argument above a bit more carefully please.
Except that your analogy sucks. A more accurate version would be that sports teams can be legal entities and form leagues and associations, and hold public events and sell tickets, but only if they are coed. You can play men's handball or women's basketkball informally all you want - heck, you can even dress up in uniforms and invite your friends to watch - but you can't have formal, official, legal same-sex teams or leagues or games.
A wise colleague once told me, analogies are like cars. They all break down eventually. Anyway...
The homophobes like Russ and Steve have presented not one solid argument = zero, none, nada, zilch - for why the state would have a legitimate interest in requiring couples to be potentially able to have penis-in-vagina sex in order to be legally married. The state does not require that they have children, and does not check to see if they've actually had sex before certifying the marriage as legal. The only requirement for homophobic "marriage" is the possibility of p-i-v sex. Or as Russ so delicately calls it, "congress". ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Mousethief;
quote:
You have hit upon the fundamental logical problem that occurs when anyone who wishes to control others invokes notions of pluralism, tolerance and the like.
Because the one thing that "tolerance" can't allow, however much people make the appeal, is intolerance. Logically, something has to give.
Ahhhh, no. I didn't say that. Orfeo did. About me, granted (the first word, "you," is addressed to me). But not by me. Please learn how to use the quote system. You might also want to take a course in editing. A course in critical thought wouldn't be amiss but now I'm editorializing.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Fantasising. It is a fantasy that he will have thought, much less a critical one.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
In the United States, there's a folk opinion that the kids who shoot up schools are boys with Asperger's syndrome gone wrong, not just idiots in a society that allows guns everywhere.
So, surely Steve you would agree that those people have the rights to their views and to try to protect the other children by making it unpleasant for kids with Asperger's syndrome to be at school It doesn't require any government regulation, just the persistent telling such children that they are defective and need to stay away.
I'm sure you would never be as intolerant as to say such people need to be prevented from expressing their views and acting on them.
As for me I would.. but then I think "holding views" is trumped by not allowing persecuting people.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Soror Magna;
quote:
Except that your analogy sucks. A more accurate version would be that sports teams can be legal entities and form leagues and associations, and hold public events and sell tickets, but only if they are coed. You can play men's handball or women's basketkball informally all you want - heck, you can even dress up in uniforms and invite your friends to watch - but you can't have formal, official, legal same-sex teams or leagues or games.
A wise colleague once told me, analogies are like cars. They all break down eventually. Anyway...
With you on the point that all analogies break down eventually - but used sensibly they can still be helpful.
Having said that, I'm not sure your analogy is addressing the same point I was; indeed I'm not clear what point it is supposed to be addressing.
I'm thinking your analogy is not a serious suggestion because I can see problems with the suggestion of only allowing 'coed' teams. The most basic one being, do you insist on equal representation by sex, or do you choose the team on the basis of ability? As I understand it, if you choose by ability in most sports, there won't be many mixed teams, and in most cases the unmixed teams will be all male. Reality tends to 'trump' attempts to produce artificial equality....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
In the United States, there's a folk opinion that the kids who shoot up schools are boys with Asperger's syndrome gone wrong, not just idiots in a society that allows guns everywhere.
So, surely Steve you would agree that those people have the rights to their views and to try to protect the other children by making it unpleasant for kids with Asperger's syndrome to be at school It doesn't require any government regulation, just the persistent telling such children that they are defective and need to stay away.
I'm sure you would never be as intolerant as to say such people need to be prevented from expressing their views and acting on them.
As for me I would.. but then I think "holding views" is trumped by not allowing persecuting people.
The 'folk opinion' is very likely right; or partly, anyway. Of course when a person with AS has been bullied/teased beyond endurance it doesn't exactly help if he can easily get a gun
because of an idiotic lack of proper gun control. The proper answer is to do something to stop Aspies being bullied, not to make it worse.
I don't allow 'persecuting people'; but disagreeing with you and saying you're wrong is NOT persecution and had better not be regarded as such.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Sorry mousethief and orfeo that I misattributed a quote earlier. My comment on the quote still basically stands whoever said it....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
With you on the point that all analogies break down eventually - but used sensibly they can still be helpful.
Shaka, when the walls fell.
--------------------
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
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
.....Having said that, I'm not sure your analogy is addressing the same point I was; indeed I'm not clear what point it is supposed to be addressing....
Probably because you're stupid. I'm sure everyone else understood.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Being homosexual is not about what you do, it's about who you are.
And morality is not about who you are, it is about what you do.
From which we can conclude that being homosexual is not in itself a moral issue. (And the same can be said of any other variety of sexual desire - having the desire is not a choice and therefore not a sin).
What I don't think you can validly argue is that some particular act is morally good or morally neutral just because someone wants to do it.
Which I think you're trying to do by appealing to "equality".
It doesn't work. A morally less-good act is not equal to a morally more-good act. You have to make a reasoned moral case first, before you can invoke a principle of equality.
If Mousethief were a sadist, you might feel sympathy for him because he would be part of a minority that gets a bad press. But that doesn't mean that any sadistic acts that he may commit can be justified as being his equivalent of normal and therefore create some sort of obligation to be treated equally. First you have to ask yourself whether anyone is harmed by such acts. You could conceivably reach a moral conclusion that some desires are better left unsatisfied.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
The thing is, we're all sadists. We obviously get our kicks out of bashing heads on walls by trying to discuss things with you.
--------------------
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
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Are you sure you don't mean masochists ?
(Though I have to admit I never really got that vibe from Venus in Furs.)
[ 24. November 2015, 22:32: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Probably. I'm still finishing my morning coffee.
But, 'sadist' was the word Russ used and I was playing off that. I'm sure Russ would only know both are 'icky' and therefore 'against nature' and should be opposed with all the 'arguments' he can muster (ie: a lot of hot air and nothing more), and not be able to make the distinction.
--------------------
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
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
If Mousethief were a sadist, you might feel sympathy for him because he would be part of a minority that gets a bad press. But that doesn't mean that any sadistic acts that he may commit can be justified as being his equivalent of normal and therefore create some sort of obligation to be treated equally. First you have to ask yourself whether anyone is harmed by such acts. You could conceivably reach a moral conclusion that some desires are better left unsatisfied.
The obvious flaw in your analogy is right there, and it's like you haven't even noticed. The moral concern raised about a sadist is the propensity to cause harm.
The less-obvious flaw is that "sadist" is an ambiguous term. Someone who enjoys cruelty and the infliction of real and unwelcome suffering can be called a sadist. But so can someone with a sexual kink that means that they like causing pleasure to a partner with a complementary kink by engaging in a particular sort of consensual sex play. It may be that you disapprove of both, but the moral issues involved are clearly very different. We might, for example, consider that a sadist of the first sort should go to prison if they indulge their desires, but that the private life of a 'sadist' of the second sort is none of our business, and certainly not a reason for denying them basic human rights, such as the right to marry a consenting partner, even though the details of their sex life might not be to everyone's taste. As, indeed, is the actual legal position where I live, and probably where everyone else on this thread lives, too. So if you want to treat consensual gay sex like we treat consensual BDSM, your own analogy is giving your argument a sound spanking.
[ 24. November 2015, 22:53: Message edited by: Eliab ]
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
With you on the point that all analogies break down eventually - but used sensibly they can still be helpful.
Shaka, when the walls fell.
...from one of the best Star Trek episodes ever--"Darmok". (Memory Alpha Wikia)
--------------------
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
|
|
Erik
Shipmate
# 11406
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Boogie:
[qb]
What I don't think you can validly argue is that some particular act is morally good or morally neutral just because someone wants to do it.
Which I think you're trying to do by appealing to "equality".
It doesn't work. A morally less-good act is not equal to a morally more-good act. You have to make a reasoned moral case first, before you can invoke a principle of equality.
I think part of the problem here is that very few (if any) other people on this thread agree with your statement that sex between gay people is morally less-good than between heterosexual people (leaving aside for now the oft-repeated assertion that relationships are about more than just sex). The only reason, AFAICS, that you have given why this should be so is the lack of baby-making ability. You might see this as a significant difference which justifies viewing them as morally different but I certainly don't. I think taking such a subjective reason as the basis for morally judging a set of people is harmful.
In a number of cases over this thread you have given the impression that you are choosing to view homosexuality in a negative light. Both in this case and earlier when you stated that there was not enough scientific evidence currently to explain the biological reasons for homosexuality and yet proceeded to base your opposition to it on the claim that it was against the natural order of things. To choose this approach in an area which could cause such harm to others does not reflect well on you.
--------------------
One day I will think of something worth saying here.
Posts: 96 | From: Leeds, UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
What I don't think you can validly argue is that some particular act is morally good or morally neutral just because someone wants to do it.
On a natural law standpoint, that somebody acts towards an end is an argument in favour of considering that end morally good. It's a defeasible argument to be sure, but it's nevertheless an argument.
You have to show that the end pursued is being pursued in such a way as to defeat a greater good. And that you haven't done.
The reproductive argument falls foul of three considerations:
- you don't consider sex bad where the woman is above child-bearing age;
- reproduction is a good for the species as a whole, which even a significant number of homosexuals in the population does not defeat;
- the goods aimed at by homosexual sex include (as with heterosexual sex) goods that are more important than reproduction, namely mutual affection, support, and pleasure in the other person's pleasure.
It seems to me that a cavalier dismissal of what other people want is a fundamentally flawed basis for anything claiming to be a moral argument.
quote:
A morally less-good act is not equal to a morally more-good act. You have to make a reasoned moral case first, before you can invoke a principle of equality.
Other way round, by basic logic. You have to make reasoned moral case first, before you can reject a principle of equality. If you can't make a case either way, equality holds. In order to reasonably treat two cases differently, you have to be able to exhibit a principle that holds in the one and not in the other.
As I say, that's not merely a political principle, nor merely a moral principle. It's a logical principle. Your above statement that one has to reason before you invoke a principle of equality is a fundamental rejection of rational thought.
--------------------
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
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
In the United States, there's a folk opinion that the kids who shoot up schools are boys with Asperger's syndrome gone wrong, not just idiots in a society that allows guns everywhere.
So, surely Steve you would agree that those people have the rights to their views and to try to protect the other children by making it unpleasant for kids with Asperger's syndrome to be at school It doesn't require any government regulation, just the persistent telling such children that they are defective and need to stay away.
I'm sure you would never be as intolerant as to say such people need to be prevented from expressing their views and acting on them.
As for me I would.. but then I think "holding views" is trumped by not allowing persecuting people.
The 'folk opinion' is very likely right; or partly, anyway. Of course when a person with AS has been bullied/teased beyond endurance it doesn't exactly help if he can easily get a gun
because of an idiotic lack of proper gun control. The proper answer is to do something to stop Aspies being bullied, not to make it worse.
I don't allow 'persecuting people'; but disagreeing with you and saying you're wrong is NOT persecution and had better not be regarded as such.
Steve, what's going on is that people are expressing their opinion that the Asperger kids are wrong and dangerous. The adults are rarely committing violence, although that can follows from their peers when they are social outcasts. How do you stop the bullying by the bullies by not allowing them to express their views? Don't you think preventing the abuse is an intolerable restriction of their rights in a plural society to express their opinion?
And once you've figured that out, tell me why it doesn't apply to gay people as well? "Because my church wants me to, so it's ok" is not an argument I expect to hear from you.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Historically Marriage means a relationship between one man and as many women as he can afford. That's at least 4000 years of the last 6000. You wouldn't want to change that traditional meaning would you?
Don't think that's quite accurate. I'd guess that in most cultures where a man is allowed more than one wife, then the man has multiple marriages - one with each wife - rather than a single marriage that involves all of them.
In some cultures, a man can have only one wife, and the rest would be concubines... If you want to say that marriage customs vary, I don't think anyone will argue.
But I suggest that in every culture, marriage has always been about congress between man and woman. The more variation you point to, the more that common characteristic can be seen to be the essence of what the word means.
Marriage customs vary; meaning to cite one form as the traditional one, when several other tradiational ones are illegal, is nonsensical.
As for there being one thing traditional marriage has in common, there are lots; One is only a tiny minority of historical marriages involve people born after the 19th century. So we should take the ludicrous stand and prohibit everyone who is alive today from marrying because they don't fall in that obvious pattern.
Guess what Russ. There are now marriages that involve same sex couples. So your pattern is no longer a valid characterization of modern marriage. These people exist. They aren't going to go away. The species isn't going to go away. In fact it may prosper because orphans will be adopted by such couples instead of leaving them to the tender mercies of church care.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Marriage customs vary; meaning to cite one form as the traditional one, when several other tradiational ones are illegal, is nonsensical.
Russ, like a great many people, falls into the trap of believing that whatever social circumstance they grew up in is how things have always been, for everybody.
Except of course for people who were doing the "wrong" thing, but see, they all knew it was the "wrong" thing. Everybody shares exactly the same understanding of the "right" thing, which by some amazing coincidence matches perfectly the way things work in the arguer's own time and place and culture.
[ 29. November 2015, 00:10: 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
My favorite version of that is from Shaw's Caesar and Cleopatra about Cleopatra's British nurse;
"Forgive her Caesar for she is a barbarian and thinks the customs of her tribe are the laws of nature"
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erik:
I think part of the problem here is that very few (if any) other people on this thread agree with your statement that sex between gay people is morally less-good than between heterosexual people
I think part of the problem here is that for some reason it seems to be hard to distinguish homosexual acts, homosexual desires, homosexual orientation, those who have homosexual orientation or desires, and those who commit homosexual acts.
I've argued that morality is about choices. People who are "born gay" do not have the choice of heterosexual fulfilment, and are therefore not guilty of choosing the morally less-good. A caring and faithful homosexual relationship may be the best choice that they can make.
But that for those who do have the choice of honouring their father and mother by forming a father-mother pair-bond, choosing a gay lifestyle instead is a morally-bad choice. (Whereas giving up that good for something higher such as a religious vocation or humanity-serving career may conceivably be a morally-good choice).
So that for the born-gay to try to promote their acts as an equally-good way of life is an incitement to morally bad choices if they neglect to add the rider "as long as you're sure you're a born-gay".
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Russ, after pages and pages discussing this, the issue is that many of us don't agree with you that homosexual acts between fully consenting adults are a less moral choice. And you haven't been able to give us a reason why it is a less moral choice.
If you're thinking about sexual experimentation without commitment you might have a point based on sex without commitment, although not everyone will agree with that, but that's not what you are arguing.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
