|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: I call all homophobes to Hell - especially Russ
|
Dogwalker
Shipmate
# 14135
|
Posted
It truly fascinates me that there are no nuns, priests, or other celibates who have "true human satisfaction".
--------------------
If God had meant for us to fly, he wouldn't have given us the railways. - Unknown
Posts: 155 | From: Milford, MA, USA | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Intentionally denying oneself temporal pleasure, one enhances spiritual awareness. Unless one is gay, then one is just being a decent human being by not spreading gay cooties. Or something.
Fuck. Though Russturbator is a lost cause*, I should play nice for those who might be of similar mind, but not so closed. But why are we providing lubrication for this idiot's pleasure?
Reason, science and compassion fail to convince, what is left?
*If he were sincere, I am still convinced he is trolling.
--------------------
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
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Reason, science and compassion fail to convince, what is left?
Irrationality, ignorance and bigotry.
--------------------
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 Dogwalker:
It truly fascinates me that there are no nuns, priests, or other celibates who have "true human satisfaction".
What makes you think that?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
You need to explain why the people who feel that their purpose is best achieved by acting on that specific desire are mistaken about what true human satisfaction consists of.
I'vs suggested that "true human satisfaction" involves forming a mother-father pair and having children to carry on the family. So that anyone for whom this is an option is mistaken in acting on any temporary homosexual urges they may experience.
OK. You could construct a natural law argument like that. Your problem is consistency - you don't in fact think that heterosexual breeding is a mandatory natural law duty. You've said as much. It is possible to have good reasons for not having children.
A thought experiment. Suppose I'm a straight male, in my forties, who happens never to have married or had children. My desire to have children, let's assume, is on the low side of normal - I don't "not want" children, but I don't think that my life will be incomplete without them, either. I have every reason to suppose that I am moderately, but not irresistibly, sexually attractive.
Now suppose I have a female friend with whom I get on, and we start to realise that we might both like to be more than friends. We have, as yet, made no commitment to each other, but that's the way things are going - this could be true love.
Lastly suppose that I know I can't have children with this woman - for whatever reason: choice/incapacity/age. It's possible, but by no means certain, that if I decline this opportunity to wed, I might later meet a willing/fertile/younger woman to have children with. But there's no guarantee.
Are you saying that it's my duty to break off my fledgling romance and hold out for a breeding partner? Not just that it would be understandable or permissible, but that this is something I absolutely ought to do? Or do you think (as I believe most people would) that it is reasonable to give up the chance of breeding with someone in general because one prefers to be with the specific person whom one loves?
Now - and here it starts sounding silly - are you also going to suggest that not only should I give up the woman with whom I'd be happy, but that this is so urgent a duty that all of my friends who happen to find themselves paired up with partners who don't want/can't have/or are past the age for, children have a duty to act as if they were ashamed or them - to pretend that they aren't married/in love/happy - so as to avoid encouraging me in the disastrous course of marrying someone I love? Do you think it vital that as a child I should have been kept from the dreadful knowledge that some married couples don't have children, lest I think so dire a state of affairs were normal or acceptable? Do you want to deny couples who don't have children the legal recognition of marriage, lest their relationships be considered equally good with those of breeding couples?
Of course you don't. Yet the example I give is morally identical to the 'could-possibly-be-persuaded-to-be-straight' gay person you are obsessing about. If natural law mandates that such a person on the cusp of falling for a member of the same sex must withdraw their affections in the (uncertain) hope of a future heterosexual union, and the reason is the childlessness of gay couples, then the same natural law would demand the same of an opposite sex pairing known to be infertile. For the same reason. And we all agree that it doesn't.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
The public nose-picker is missing out on the sensitivity to other people's comfort that would allow him access to a fuller human experience.
And the gay people who kiss each other in public are missing out on the sensitivity to other people's discomfort that would...
Again, consistency.
No one thinks that sensitivity to others' feelings, whatever they happen to be, is the highest moral duty. If I were to feel disgust on seeing people kiss because they are old/of different races/physically disabled/overweight/not very attractive, I would be well aware of the almost universal moral judgment that this would be my problem, and that it would be morally and socially unacceptable for me to even to hint at my inner feelings. And I think you understand that, too.
I think that you, like everyone else I've ever communicated with, is aware that different people have different levels of comfort with public demonstration of sexual love, but that society has, pretty much, settled on generally agreed standards of what is OK in public (and that those who don't care for it are expected to tolerate) and what isn't (acts which should be kept private and no one should have to look at if they don't want to). And I think you probably apply those same standards more or less consistently. Except to gays. Yet you'd no more think it acceptable to voice the opinion that "Fat people shouldn't hold hands in public because it disgusts me to think of them having sex" than I do. Anyone who seriously argued that would immediately advertise themselves to be a most stupid and offensive individual - and I don't believe that I need to explain to you why that is.
Yet that is, essentially, what you are arguing. 'This sort of people' shouldn't act as if they were in love because you personally find the idea of them having sex disgusting. You'd recognise that as an odious view if it referred to any conceivable "sort of people" ... except gays. Anyone else, the problem is with the offended viewer - and they are expected to manage and conceal their distaste. But with the gays, it's the other way around - if you find gay people repellent, that's their problem, not yours, and they have a duty to deny their most loving relationships in order to spare you any discomfort.
You may not be ready - or able - to see that you are a homophobe. I hope you can at least see that you are thinking of gay people in a way that is not consistent with the rules that you apply to everyone else.
[ 21. December 2015, 17:24: Message edited by: Eliab ]
--------------------
"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
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Dogwalker:
It truly fascinates me that there are no nuns, priests, or other celibates who have "true human satisfaction".
What makes you think that?
Because Russ said it.
I suspect you need your irony meter recalibrated.
--------------------
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 Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Dogwalker:
It truly fascinates me that there are no nuns, priests, or other celibates who have "true human satisfaction".
What makes you think that?
Because Russ said it.
I suspect you need your irony meter recalibrated.
Ah, sorry. I dropped a stitch in the conversation, clearly. It's hard to discern irony when there are people like Russ who would actually say such a thing flat-out. Just as the US Republican Party makes political satire nearly obsolete every time it opens its mouth.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Reason, science and compassion fail to convince, what is left?
Irrationality, ignorance and bigotry.
He's firing on all cylinders with those.
--------------------
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:
I'vs suggested that "true human satisfaction" involves forming a mother-father pair and having children to carry on the family. So that anyone for whom this is an option is mistaken in acting on any temporary homosexual urges they may experience. ...
Yes, we all know you think that. You've repeated this shit over and over and over. And there's a million things wrong with it, some of which other Shipmates have pointed out. Another thing wrong with it is that you are implying that adopted children and step-children are by definition less satisfying than biological children. And that by definition, same-sex couples will never be as satisfied with their children as opposite-sex couples are. Do you not see how absurd that is?
And what you have still NOT done, despite repeated questioning, is explain why you think the state should mess up the lives of families who aren't a mother-father pair, including, but not limited to, those people you think are "mistaken". Why do you believe the state should correct their error, and how? And how do you think the state would determine whether someone is really, really, really, truly gay or just "mistaken"?
So, Russ: are you ever going to answer any of these questions? Or are you just going to keep reiterating that civil marriage should be restricted to couples who can fuck to make kids, and present no rational argument whatsoever except your squeamishness and your perverted imagination?
--------------------
"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:
I'vs suggested that "true human satisfaction" involves forming a mother-father pair and having children to carry on the family.
Let me suggest that you are Exhibit A as to why some people should be prevented from breeding, for the true satisfaction of humanity.
--------------------
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I'vs suggested that "true human satisfaction" involves forming a mother-father pair and having children to carry on the family.
In which case I would suggest that "true human satisfaction" is overrated. Or, perhaps, it is something that God sees fit to deny to many hundreds of millions of people. But when did he promise us true human satisfaction? What he promises is abundant and eternal life. Things of this world, such as fucking unto family forging, are meant to take a back seat (if not done in the back seat, but that's another question). Hence your "true human satisfaction" is small beer in the grand scheme of things.
--------------------
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
In the words of the Westminster Confession, "true human satisfaction" comes from loving God and enjoying Him forever.
I would add "serving." Take a man who has fucked unto family but has a bitter relationship with his wife, and compare that man to a single person who has spent his entire life joyfully serving the poor. Which has found true human satisfaction? You would be forced by your logic to say the former, but most unjaded observers would, I submit, say the latter.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Firenze
Ordinary decent pagan
# 619
|
Posted
"Globally, the number of deaths [in childbirth] dropped from more than 500,000 a year in 1980 to 343,000 a year in 2008."
Well that's alright then. I'm sure every one of those hundreds of thousands of women felt truly humanly satisfied.
Posts: 17302 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
A thought experiment. Suppose I'm a straight male, in my forties, who happens never to have married or had children. My desire to have children, let's assume, is on the low side of normal - I don't "not want" children, but I don't think that my life will be incomplete without them, either. I have every reason to suppose that I am moderately, but not irresistibly, sexually attractive.
Now suppose I have a female friend with whom I get on, and we start to realise that we might both like to be more than friends. We have, as yet, made no commitment to each other, but that's the way things are going - this could be true love.
Lastly suppose that I know I can't have children with this woman - for whatever reason: choice/incapacity/age.
For the purposes of the thought experiment, let's go with incapacity.
I'd agree that you don't have any moral duty to dump her in favour of the possibility of finding someone better (someone who has all the attractions that she has but with the added bonus that you can have children). But I'd ask you to notice a few things.
First, your situation in this experiment seems to me not an enviable one. Less than ideal. If you choose to let the relationship continue to build then you will probably have a happy-enough marriage but without children and grandchildren; your family will not continue into the future after your death. If you call it off because you want a family, you may end up alone having turned down the only love that life offered.
It could be much worse. But this situation isn't one that you'd wish on your friends. Do you agree ?
Second, your age is significant. If at this point you're 70, then loving and caring for the woman who's there now seems obviously the best course. Conversely, if you're now 20, then you're going to meet many more women in your life and it would probably be an act of wisdom and maturity to end this relationship now.
By specifying that you're in your 40s, you make the two options more equally matched; there's a real choice to be made. But that particular aspect of the experiment doesn't seem to relate to homosexuality in particular. Or have I missed something ?
Thirdly, if you sought counsel from a friend, that friend should try to advise you in the interest of your longer-term fulfilment and happiness, in the light of their knowledge of the sort of person you are.
It seems to me a little more debatable whether you have a moral duty to seek your own longer-term fulfilment and happiness. You could say it would be wise to. And you should indeed seek to act wisely. Though I'd hesitate about calling self-interest a moral duty.
But I'd have no hesitation in saying that the friend would be morally wrong if he encouraged you to marry this woman purely in order to feel better about his own childlessness.
Fourthly, note that you're not mentioning sex.
I've stated my belief that a sexual desire for someone of one's own sex is a disordered or perverted desire (in the same way but not necessarily to the same degree as a sexual desire for children or animals is a disordered or perverted sexual desire).
I have said and will say nothing against an asexual love. It's not usual, but if it happens, it happens. Regardless of the gender of those involved.
You seem to want to sanctify the one by confusing it with the other.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
If I were to feel disgust on seeing people kiss because they are old/of different races/physically disabled/overweight/not very attractive, I would be well aware of the almost universal moral judgment that this would be my problem, and that it would be morally and socially unacceptable for me to even to hint at my inner feelings. And I think you understand that, too.
So if person A is doing something that person B finds distasteful or disgusting, what moral principle do you use to decide whether that disgust is justified (as with picking one's nose in public, where you find person A to be doing something at least slightly morally wrong in disregarding the feelings of others) or not (as with old people kissing, where you find person B to be morally wrong if they express that feeling in any way) ?
Your answer seems to be an appeal to an almost-universal consensus. In other words, that there are no first principles, no moral law that can be reasoned to, it's just a matter of social convention. Am I reading you aright ?
In which case I put it to you that on the particular issue of homosexual behaviour, there was in the past a near-universal social consensus against such behaviour, a consensus that is currently in the process of breaking down...
And that you are not on firm ground if you treat what you perceive as an emerging pro-homosexual social consensus as being morally binding on people in different parts of the world whose attitudes were formed at different times in the last hundred years.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
If person A is doing something that person B finds distasteful or disgusting, what moral principle do you use to decide whether that disgust is justified (as with picking one's nose in public, where you find person A to be doing something at least slightly morally wrong in disregarding the feelings of others)
Everyone has a different 'ick' factor. My husband can't stand to see open wounds, I hate snot. The answer? - you look the other way/change channels. It's your problem, not the person with the open wound/snot/too much public snogging. Of course, there is a limit to plenty of behaviours covered by decency laws etc. Everything else is permissable and the one who doesn't want to see shouldn't look - simples.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
Hostly paper hat wrestled from the confines of the cracker and jammed crookedly on head
Bzzt. Time's up.
So, given a stellar example of what happens when the Dead Horse escapes the paddock, we here in Hell have decided to put this particular incarnation of the old nag out of its misery.
Consider it a late Christmas present. Thread closed.
DT
HH
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
