|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: I call all homophobes to Hell - especially Russ
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I am becoming more tolerant of Russ, as his replies are so confused, that it can't be deliberate, I think. For example, his reference to 'Frozen' with S/M references is cognitively a total stramash. Compassion beckons.
Thank you for the lovely new word! I am going to look for places to overuse it immediately!
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Sado-masochism - consenting adults again. Both adults have to consent
Basically, you're telling me that it's about consent, all the way down the line. Pretty much no other consideration gets a look-in.
Go, learn the difference between "necessary" and "sufficient." Consent is necessary. It is not always sufficient.
quote:
And you're extending that need for consent beyond the immediate participants, To the spouse, in the case of adultery. And to those confronted by a man in a dirty raincoat engaging in what is physically speaking a solitary sexual activity.
If flashing were a solitary sexual activity it wouldn't require an audience. The audience (victim) is a necessary part of flashing. Nobody flashes alone. The whole point of the exercise is to expose oneself to somebody else. So you are incorrect that it is a solitary activity.
As far as adultery goes, that's a slightly different form of consent; you're mashing things together that are subtly different. Consent for sex has to do with not violating a person's personhood, not using a person as a thing. It is analogous to, but on a different level from, getting consent before posting someone's picture on the internet. It has to do with someone owning the integrity of their own body and personality.
Consent from a spouse for adultery is analogous to getting permission from your business partner before making a large purchase. It has to do with breaking a covenant or legal agreement.
quote:
But that doesn't mean that I want my daughter growing up thinking that maybe she'll turn out to have an orientation to incest so that she can marry her brother.
Are you saying incest is a sexual orientation? Really? REALLY? Can you post two posts without being blatantly offensive to gays?
quote:
Or have her watching some politically-correct sequel to Frozen where the main characters express their attraction to each other through sado-masochistic foreplay.
Others have dealt with this particular bit of absurdity.
quote:
I suggested earlier that there should be a tolerance gap between what we advocate and what we condemn.
Sounds excellent. I doubt anybody on this thread disagrees with this. I don't see that anyone here is advocating for incest or adultery or indeed anything other than a cessation of hostility against homosexuality.
quote:
Treating other adults as people whose consent is to be sought rather than using or manipulating them is necessary for the good life. But I'm suggesting that it is not sufficient.
Neither is anybody else. Thanks for playing.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
You're male, right? How would you know?
Could it be that the same patriarchy has mysteriously overlooked women's desires?
I am male and have undoubtedly had my internal thinking influenced by patriarchy.
That patriarchy doesn't make me crazy enough to make any claim as to special knowledge re a woman's desires, esp. post 50-shades. Hence the word 'presumably'
I just wondered why both male and female get so heavily involved with exhaustive debates focusing primarily on male homosexuality, while female homosexuality is largely overlooked. Maybe it's because Queen Vic wouldn't have it that such a thing even happened.
[ 20. August 2015, 18:28: Message edited by: rolyn ]
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Maybe we'll get invaded and not have this problem any more?
NSFW
Gayn*****s from Outer Space
Somehow I didn't feel compelled to censor the word "gay". Why is that?
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Siegfried
Ship's ferret
# 29
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Maybe we'll get invaded and not have this problem any more?
NSFW
Gayn*****s from Outer Space
Somehow I didn't feel compelled to censor the word "gay". Why is that?
Because it's not an epithet. "faggot" on the other hand...
--------------------
Siegfried
Life is just a bowl of cherries!
Posts: 5592 | From: Tallahassee, FL USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
I once read a science fiction book where the aliens' plan to take over the world was to convince all Earth women to become lesbians
--------------------
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
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I once read a science fiction book where the aliens' plan to take over the world was to convince all Earth women to become lesbians
Would that be the ultimate pacifist invasion?
All the women pleasuring each other, all the men stood around watching. Then just wait 100 yrs or so, all humans have died out and Earth belongs to the aliens. Job done ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cottontail
Shipmate
# 12234
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
You're male, right? How would you know?
Could it be that the same patriarchy has mysteriously overlooked women's desires?
I am male and have undoubtedly had my internal thinking influenced by patriarchy.
That patriarchy doesn't make me crazy enough to make any claim as to special knowledge re a woman's desires, esp. post 50-shades. Hence the word 'presumably'
I just wondered why both male and female get so heavily involved with exhaustive debates focusing primarily on male homosexuality, while female homosexuality is largely overlooked. Maybe it's because Queen Vic wouldn't have it that such a thing even happened.
You are right about female sexuality being overlooked, and I appreciate you noting this. However, on a point of order, what you wrote was this:
quote:
Men think they want to see women 'at it' because patriarchy is at work. Women don't seem to be much bothered about seeing two men 'at it' presumably for the same reason.
The 'presumably' here refers to the reasons why women 'don't seem to be much bothered' - according to you, they are not much interested in man-on-man action because patriarchy. My objection is to your initial assumption that they are not much interested. So you did claim special knowledge of women's desires when you assumed this, qualifying it only slightly by the word 'seem'.
But it's okay: you are trying, so I forgive you.
--------------------
"I don't think you ought to read so much theology," said Lord Peter. "It has a brutalizing influence."
Posts: 2377 | From: Scotland | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
... But that doesn't mean that I want my daughter growing up thinking that maybe she'll turn out to have an orientation to incest so that she can marry her brother. Or have her watching some politically-correct sequel to Frozen where the main characters express their attraction to each other through sado-masochistic foreplay....
Fuck, you're dumb.
Incest isn't an orientation; it's two heterosexuals (mostly) having sex who are related.
BDSM isn't an orientation, it's a category of activities. BDSM is enjoyed by people who are gay, straight, bi, whatever.
A person who has committed incest could still have perfectly good sex with a partner who wasn't a family member; a BDSM aficionado can still enjoy vanilla sex.
But thank you for demonstrating that you have no fucking clue what "sexual orientation" means. And your daughter is going to grow up and have a really shitty sex life if you're her only source of information.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Basically, you're telling me that it's about consent, all the way down the line. Pretty much no other consideration gets a look-in.
No, within this moral code I also said not harming others was a factor. People can be consenting adults in private so long as no harm is done to them or others. The principle for sado-masochistic activities is "safe, sane and consensual" (or Risk Aware Consensual Kink).
quote:
And you're extending that need for consent beyond the immediate participants, To the spouse, in the case of adultery. And to those confronted by a man in a dirty raincoat engaging in what is physically speaking a solitary sexual activity.
As others have pointed out, this isn't a solitary activity. Flashers want the reaction from others, and they don't ask those others for consent.
quote:
As the basis for deciding what is and is not morally condemned, in an essentially pluralist society which is post- shared religious conviction, that seems entirely reasonable.
I don't want to see anybody locked up for the consensual activities that they undertake in private. In private implying that they're not forcing this activity to the attention of unwilling third parties.
That's pretty much what everyone is saying here - consensual, not affecting others.
quote:
But that doesn't mean that I want my daughter growing up thinking that maybe she'll turn out to have an orientation to incest so that she can marry her brother.
Incest is not an orientation. It remains taboo within families brought up together; usually something called the Westermarck effect prevents siblings or others in the same household from feeling sexual attraction. There will be no pressure for your daughter to fall in love with her brother, particularly, as for children brought up together, there are always power imbalances that make consent difficult to obtain.
However, the reason there is a debate about incest is that there are a number of cases where related people not brought up together have met and fallen in love in ignorance. It's a known effect - Genetic Sexual Attraction. There are cases of fathers falling in love with their daughters, half brothers falling in love with half sisters. How punitive should we be to a brother-sister couple where they were brought up apart? This couple separated when they realised they were brother and sister.
quote:
Or have her watching some politically-correct sequel to Frozen where the main characters express their attraction to each other through sado-masochistic foreplay.
Children's films do not include sado-masochism. Fifty Shades of Grey is an 18. The film censors try to ensure that children are not exposed to inappropriate material by suggesting appropriate ages to view the material.
quote:
I suggested earlier that there should be a tolerance gap between what we advocate and what we condemn.
Human sexuality is such a continuum that I don't think you can put clear water between advocacy and condemnation in every case. We can continue to advocate safe, sane and consensual sex with the aim of not harming others. We can advocate safe sex, but many will find teaching about consent and safe sex offensive. Particularly as keeping safe has general principles, but specifics do vary. I am thinking age appropriate here. I am not advocating primary age children get full information about safe sex, but consent is a concept that can be taught early, in the form of having the right to choose what you do with your body and the right to refuse to do what you don't want to.
quote:
Tolerating incest doesn't mean advocating it.
Where have I advocated incest? I have said there are specific hard cases that are being debated, but there are usually power imbalances that invalidate consent in incest and that there are risks of congenital birth defects.
quote:
People want to read 50 shades as a guilty pleasure ? Fine by me. But if they want it studied in school and held up to children as an ideal, a model for their character formation ?
There is no way that anyone is likely to recommend Fifty Shades of Grey as a reading text for school. The content is unsuitable and it's too badly written.
quote:
Treating other adults as people whose consent is to be sought rather than using or manipulating them is necessary for the good life. But I'm suggesting that it is not sufficient.
I was simplifying to clarify the argument. And I did also talk about harm to others, so it was not just about consent.
Other than protection of children, which we agree, what do you think should also be included?
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Incest... ...remains taboo within families brought up together; usually something called the Westermarck effect prevents siblings or others in the same household from feeling sexual attraction...
...How punitive should we be to a brother-sister couple where they were brought up apart?
I'm not recommending being punitive. Rather I think I'm arguing for an intermediate category between what we punish and what we celebrate, and suggesting that this category is where some sexually-deviant behaviour belongs.
Would you be more punitive in a hypothetical case where the Westermarck effect doesn't operate in a pair of consenting individuals for reasons relating to psychology or mental health or genetic defect rather than because of upbringing apart ?
quote:
Children's films do not include sado-masochism. Fifty Shades of Grey is an 18. The film censors try to ensure that children are not exposed to inappropriate material by suggesting appropriate ages to view the material.
Traditionally, children's films don't include homosexuality either. How long do you suppose such protection can continue in a world where the prevailing political philosophy is that homosexuals have a right to full cultural equality?
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Traditionally, children's films don't include homosexuality either. How long do you suppose such protection can continue in a world where the prevailing political philosophy is that homosexuals have a right to full cultural equality?
I think you will find there are examples of males liking males and females liking females in G-rated material. Children don't have the slightest problem with this.
Your problem is the typical one of equating "homosexuality" with homosexual sex. I would have thought Rook's remark about Frozen would have clued you in on this even if all the OTHER remarks about Frozen hadn't clued you in, but let's just spell it out for you.
A child seeing a boy like a boy isn't going imagine anal sex any more than a child seeing a boy like a girl is going to imagine them going at it furiously in the missionary position. Elsa being a heterosexual didn't involve graphic material... so why the hell would Elsa being a lesbian involve graphic material?
You are, in short a complete fool for equating a sexual activity with a sexuality. Sado-masochism is a sexual practice. Homosexuality and heterosexuality aren't.
And you've now made the same completely false comparison twice, apparently while totally blind to the multiple posts pointing out just how it was erroneous.
[ 21. August 2015, 13:35: 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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
This is of course the same woolly thinking that leads to talk of "gay wedding cakes", when the cake is exactly the same, it's the people that are different.
Equating descriptions of sexual activities with descriptions of people is just a great big hulking category error.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
But come on, we must be forgiving. Russ is just agin gay sex, and gay sex spreads like a massive fungus all over human culture, films, cartoons, kids' comics, westerns, pop tunes. Any time soon, there will be frothing penises on the cover of 'Teen Now', writhing in splendid orgasms, without a fanny in sight, (UK version).
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
As the basis for deciding what is and is not morally condemned, in an essentially pluralist society which is post- shared religious conviction, that seems entirely reasonable.
I don't want to see anybody locked up for the consensual activities that they undertake in private. In private implying that they're not forcing this activity to the attention of unwilling third parties.
That's pretty much what everyone is saying here - consensual, not affecting others.
Oh no, Ck, that is not what others here are saying. Re-read that last sentence of his. What he is saying is keep your gayness in the closet. He won't police the interior of that closet, but stay in there and keep the door closed.
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But come on, we must be forgiving. Russ is just agin gay sex, and gay sex spreads like a massive fungus all over human culture, films, cartoons, kids' comics, westerns, pop tunes. Any time soon, there will be frothing penises on the cover of 'Teen Now', writhing in splendid orgasms, without a fanny in sight, (UK version).
So the American and Canadian versions will have fannys in sight? ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I'm not recommending being punitive. Rather I think I'm arguing for an intermediate category between what we punish and what we celebrate, and suggesting that this category is where some sexually-deviant behaviour belongs.
What are you describing as sexually-deviant behaviour here, Russ? Because I suspect that the things you describe as sexually-deviant behaviour are mostly things I would censure for lack of consent or adversely affecting others.
quote:
Would you be more punitive in a hypothetical case where the Westermarck effect doesn't operate in a pair of consenting individuals for reasons relating to psychology or mental health or genetic defect rather than because of upbringing apart ?
But I have repeatedly said that incest within families brought up together is a taboo because of the power imbalances.
quote:
quote:
Children's films do not include sado-masochism. Fifty Shades of Grey is an 18. The film censors try to ensure that children are not exposed to inappropriate material by suggesting appropriate ages to view the material.
Traditionally, children's films don't include homosexuality either. How long do you suppose such protection can continue in a world where the prevailing political philosophy is that homosexuals have a right to full cultural equality?
You mean like the scenes in Billy Elliot? Where the school friend turns out to be gay? I'm not sure all children will have realised that is what is happening there, and maybe those who did would have been reassured that they weren't freaks.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
lilBuddha:
But come on, we must be forgiving. Russ is just agin gay sex, and gay sex spreads like a massive fungus all over human culture, films, cartoons, kids' comics, westerns, pop tunes. Any time soon, there will be frothing penises on the cover of 'Teen Now', writhing in splendid orgasms, without a fanny in sight, (UK version).
So the American and Canadian versions will have fannys in sight?
Well, on my sojourns to these blessed lands, there were plenty of fannies in sight (US version), and i'faith, a few fannies (UK version). Indeed, I was taught as a child that one thing often leads to another.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Elsa being a heterosexual didn't involve graphic material... so why the hell would Elsa being a lesbian involve graphic material?
Having spent several weeks with Frozen on in the background, I can tell you there is no evidence that Elsa is heterosexual.
It's true that the sentiments of Let It Go is not conclusive evidence that she's a lesbian as straight people can identify with them too even when above the age of ten.
--------------------
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
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Look, I see lesbian subtext when it is there. And it isn't in Frozen. What is there is a generic song about conformity, pressure and rebellion.
Intentionally generic so that it is as broadly relatable as possible. Disney knows marketing and every person, especially teens, has felt isolated and pressured.
The damn thing is a Rorschach test. Such tests aren't about failing, but a lot of people are managing to anyway.
--------------------
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
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Basically, you're telling me that it's about consent, all the way down the line. Pretty much no other consideration gets a look-in.
[...]
As the basis for deciding what is and is not morally condemned, in an essentially pluralist society which is post- shared religious conviction, that seems entirely reasonable.
If you recognise that there is a secular ethic (whether or not you actually agree with it) whereby it is possible to have a rational basis for approving of homosexuality while objecting to the sorts of sexual activities that we all regard as wrong, what on earth was the point of all your "what about incest?" and "what about paedophilia?" comments?
If the one thing we are agreed on is that a consensual same-sex relationship is damn all like raping a child or fucking a corpse, dragging these things into a discussion on homosexuality looks a lot like shit-stirring to me.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I suspect that the things you describe as sexually-deviant behaviour are mostly things I would censure for lack of consent or adversely affecting others...
I have repeatedly said that incest within families brought up together is a taboo because of the power imbalances.
Accepting that there are activities that we punish and seek to prevent, because they involve harm to others that the others have not freely consented to. And that free consent can be impossible in some situations (including what you describe as power imbalance).
Does your philisophy allow for a category of activities that you disapprove but do not seek to punish or prevent ?
You gave safety and sanity as two examples of your values. Not sure if "sane" means anything (other than "normal"). But thinking of safety reminds me of something I heard on the radio about a failed expedition to climb K2. Something like 1 in 3 of those who try this die in the attempt. But still people choose to do it.
Is there perhaps some level of safety at which you would say that people can climb mountains at that risk-level if they want, but you don't support it, and please don't encourage others to think it's a good idea ?
Just trying to establish that an attitude of disapproving tolerance to something is not innately contradictory or entirely stupid.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Just trying to establish that an attitude of disapproving tolerance to something is not innately contradictory or entirely stupid.
Look no further than the fact that I continue to allow you to post in Hell.
--------------------
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
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
... Does your philisophy allow for a category of activities that you disapprove but do not seek to punish or prevent ? ... Just trying to establish that an attitude of disapproving tolerance to something is not innately contradictory or entirely stupid.
We've all done things that other people disapproved of, and lived to tell the tale. So fucking what? The problem isn't your disapproval. The problem is religious douchebags like you DO want to punish and prevent gay people from having full, happy lives just like anybody else. Why doesn't your philosophy allow you to just leave people the fuck alone when their lives are none of your fucking business?
--------------------
"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
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Accepting that there are activities that we punish and seek to prevent, because they involve harm to others that the others have not freely consented to. And that free consent can be impossible in some situations (including what you describe as power imbalance).
Does your philisophy allow for a category of activities that you disapprove but do not seek to punish or prevent ?
Well, there are a lot of things I personally wouldn't do, the thought of which giving me the heebie jeebies; like Welease Woderick's recent example in All Saints of the dominatrix who wanted to know how to safely nail her partner's private parts to a plank. (That's the hellions needing brain bleach too.) However, if both partners are freely consenting, even if they are doing this in public as part of some adult comedy act, I am not going to suggest they are prosecuted. (There is a lot of live nudity around on stage in London, so someone, somewhere is going to try something like this to shock.)
quote:
You gave safety and sanity as two examples of your values. Not sure if "sane" means anything (other than "normal").
Safe, sane and consensual is not my phrase, it's a recognised, albeit disputed, principle to govern the BDSM community. The BDSM community is a real thing.
quote:
But thinking of safety reminds me of something I heard on the radio about a failed expedition to climb K2. Something like 1 in 3 of those who try this die in the attempt. But still people choose to do it.
Is there perhaps some level of safety at which you would say that people can climb mountains at that risk-level if they want, but you don't support it, and please don't encourage others to think it's a good idea ?
Mountain rescue would definitely query the levels of safety some people consider reasonable to climb mountains. My daughter and I walk a lot and have encountered mountain rescue several times, mostly going up into situations as we come down as conditions worsen.
Waiting for the bus one day we chatted to someone who had spent the night up on Snowdon on an exercise the day after we'd chosen not to climb it as my daughter's asthma was being triggered badly by the steam trains. We weren't sure we could get ourselves down safely and went to Dinorwig instead. That apparently is not the norm.
But I like adrenal rushes like most people. It's how to find ways to excite without endangering others.
quote:
Just trying to establish that an attitude of disapproving tolerance to something is not innately contradictory or entirely stupid.
I am not sure I would want to give free rein to an attitude described as disapproving tolerance as that tends to suggest a fairly judgemental attitude underlying the disapproval. It's the sort of attitude I have to teenage boys dodging on the limits of the law. It's a phase they seem to have to go through and it's a challenge to balance acceptance of them with a gentle disapproval of their more risky behaviours.
Particularly when we started this debate discussing limits of human sexuality.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Elsa being a heterosexual didn't involve graphic material... so why the hell would Elsa being a lesbian involve graphic material?
Having spent several weeks with Frozen on in the background, I can tell you there is no evidence that Elsa is heterosexual.
Turns out I didn't mean Elsa, I was actually thinking of Anna.
That's what I get for having only seen the movie once, split in two parts while amusing my best friend's children.
It was good, though.
--------------------
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
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
what on earth was the point of all your "what about incest?" and "what about paedophilia?" comments?
If the one thing we are agreed on is that a consensual same-sex relationship is damn all like raping a child
What we are all agreed on is that raping a child is a huge moral crime, and that therefore the desire to do so is a really Bad Thing to have.
Boogie's position, as I understand it, is that the difference between hetero and homo is of no moral significance whatsoever.
I am saying that what male homosexuality is is a disorder involving the transfer of sexual desire from its functional object - a female of child-bearing age - to another object, in negation of its evolutionary purpose.
This of itself is not a conclusive argument against Boogie's view. To read across from evolutionary purpose to moral purpose is problematic.
So a reasonable way of developing an argument against Boogie's position is to inquire whether she recognises any moral principles beyond the secular ethic.
Is she being inconsistent in applying additional principles , criteria of judgment that do reflect a morality involving a positive vision of the good life rather than just an absence of coercion, in the case of other disorders-of-sexual-desire ?
As a strategy, so far it doesn't seem to be working too well. But it is a serious argument, not just winding people up for the fun of it.
--------------------
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
When people are talking about consensual acts then introducing acts where one party is unable to consent (eg: they are a child) is irrelevant.
When in the process of doing that you are implying that homosexuality is comparable in some way to paedophilia then, not unreasonably, people read that as a personal attack. And, a very offensive one at that.
Of course, this is Hell and you are free to continue to post things you've been told are deeply offensive here. I know it's normal for someone called to Hell to try and show that the call is not justified. There's no reason why you shouldn't try your hardest to demonstrate that Boogie was right to call you a homophobe. You're continuing insistence that there is value in using paedophilia as something comparable to homosexuality is doing an excellent job of showing us you're a homophobe.
--------------------
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:
I am saying that what male homosexuality is is a disorder involving the transfer of sexual desire from its functional object - a female of child-bearing age - to another object, in negation of its evolutionary purpose.
Yeah, we get that. "Disorder" (like "defect") is an unhelpful word to use, because it could just mean something going wrong in the biological sense, which in itself has no moral significance, but it could also imply moral disapproval.
quote:
This of itself is not a conclusive argument against Boogie's view. To read across from evolutionary purpose to moral purpose is problematic.
So a reasonable way of developing an argument against Boogie's position is to inquire whether she recognises any moral principles beyond the secular ethic.
Yes, but you've just demonstrated that a secular consent/harm ethic is up to the task of distinguishing paedophilia and incest from homosexuality, and that you knew this when you made the daft comparisons.
quote:
Is she being inconsistent in applying additional principles , criteria of judgment that do reflect a morality involving a positive vision of the good life rather than just an absence of coercion, in the case of other disorders-of-sexual-desire ?
What do you mean by "positive vision of the good life"? If you mean, use of sexuality in the cause of human love, happiness and fulfilment, I can only suppose you've never read any of Boogie's posts on the subject of sex if you can entertain the idea that she might lack this. But that vision does not exclude homosexuality, so there is no inconsistency.
If you mean the use of sexuality according to some natural evolutionary purpose, the fact is that she doesn't need that sort of argument to object to the "obviously wrong" uses of sex. So again, no inconsistency arises.
But the whole thing is bollocks anyway. Will you regard it as "a transfer of sexual desire from its functional object - a female of child-bearing age - to another object, in negation of its evolutionary purpose" if I continue to find my wife attractive in ten to twenty years time? Will that be a "disorder" that I should correct by seeking out a younger bit on the side? Or is it in fact perfectly ethical to prefer love, commitment and contentment with one's chosen partner to the furtherance of evolutionary interest?
--------------------
"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
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Citing evolutionary purpose is a bit of a Pandora's box, I think. Evolution actually shows great versatility - just think that wings (used in flight) are used for swimming in penguins; tails are used variously for flight, swimming, balance, for signalling, and so on. Our ear-bones are descended from the jaws of fish - anyway, everybody knows these amazing journeys which have gone on.
Hence, it seems a bit tricky to cite 'evolutionary purpose' in aid of a particular moral evaluation. After all, sex itself presumably evolved, so I suppose Russ is saying that at a certain point in history, it acquires moral gravitas?
Addendum - thinking of exploding genitals in some animals now, wow, way to go.
[ 22. August 2015, 09:07: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Addendum - thinking of exploding genitals in some animals now, wow, way to go.
You make me laugh quetz.
A rare gift and one that may assist in evolution of this line.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I am saying that what male homosexuality is is a disorder involving the transfer of sexual desire from its functional object - a female of child-bearing age - to another object, in negation of its evolutionary purpose.
... But the whole thing is bollocks anyway. Will you regard it as "a transfer of sexual desire from its functional object - a female of child-bearing age - to another object, in negation of its evolutionary purpose" if I continue to find my wife attractive in ten to twenty years time? Will that be a "disorder" that I should correct by seeking out a younger bit on the side? ...
FTW! ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.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
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Addendum - thinking of exploding genitals in some animals now, wow, way to go.
You make me laugh quetz.
A rare gift and one that may assist in evolution of this line.
Well, it shows the curious by-ways of evolution. I forgot about wings which become non-functional, at any rate, for flight, e.g. ostriches.
Adding moral values to certain evolutionary paths is inevitable I suppose, for humans, but at the same time, it's quite curious. If our genitals did explode, would it be immoral to invent an anti-explosion device, e.g. a wet blanket?
Another sci-fi story lurking here.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariston
Insane Unicorn
# 10894
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Citing evolutionary purpose is a bit of a Pandora's box, I think. Evolution actually shows great versatility - just think that wings (used in flight) are used for swimming in penguins; tails are used variously for flight, swimming, balance, for signalling, and so on. Our ear-bones are descended from the jaws of fish - anyway, everybody knows these amazing journeys which have gone on.
Hence, it seems a bit tricky to cite 'evolutionary purpose' in aid of a particular moral evaluation. After all, sex itself presumably evolved, so I suppose Russ is saying that at a certain point in history, it acquires moral gravitas?
This, I think, is one of the key weaknesses of trying to base "natural moral law" arguments on a contemporary understanding of nature. Modern natural science, and appeals to evolution, neuroscience, etc., just can't provide the very strong sort of teleology normative theories of natural law (e.g., that of Thomas Aquinas) require.
Evolution is full of what look like dead ends and false starts at first glance—but only if you view it as a goal-driven process, something leading to the final sort of thing the organism, system, or thing is or was. Perhaps it's a vestige of our need for some sort of teleology in the natural world, one that leads to Man as the most evolved of all natural creatures, but that's just not how nature works. Random traits, just through fate, somehow never get selected against, while some traits that might be liabilities in one situation turn out to be crucial in another.
In a twist of irony, a defense mechanism that kept mammals, but not birds, from eating chile peppers (birds transfer ingested chile seeds, mammals destroy them) made chiles insanely attractive to a certain species of mammal; rather than this being of detriment to Capsacium, that genus is now established in every corner of the globe. If you view the purpose of chiles being hot as clearly and exclusively ordered towards keeping mammals from eating chile fruit, then I think that chiles have failed to achieve their natural end. If you view the purpose of a chile's heat as a generic "survival of the species," then yes, I guess you could say it's achieved that—but so too have the many ornamental and sweet chiles that have no heat at all. Ditto the closely related tomatoes and eggplants.
Appealing to one single evolutionary purpose to explain a certain trait in a taxon, then extrapolating to some sort of teleological end, just doesn't work. You're not just making the invalid inductive step of concluding that you know the one single cause or set of causes that explains a certain effect; in the case of making moral claims based off observed phenomena, you're extrapolating still further to saying that, based on what you know the cause to be, you know what sort of action you morally ought to take.
In other words, you're coupling a fallacy of induction with a naturalistic fallacy. David Hume is rolling over in his tomb.
This is not to say that natural law theories are impossible or inadequate; indeed, as they teach you on day 1 of Natural Law, Natural Right, immediately after handing out the syllabus, what is natural in our modern (inductive, empirical, hypothetico-deductive) conception of nature is different than what is "by nature" in the classical (transcendental) conception. Thus, you rarely see appeals to "nature has equipped all the animals in ways appropriate to their positions" arguments in Aquinas (although they do exist, albeit not in the context of moral arguments IIRC); however, you do see appeals to humanity's natural capacity for reason, to understand and work out the eternal law of God in some limited way appropriate to our station—which is the essence of the natural law in Thomas—and to deduce and legislate practical axioms and precepts—the human law—that conform to the natural law.
More recent theorists, like John Finnis, start with an attempt to deduce a sort of list of basic human goods (subject to further development) based in the nature of what reasonably constitutes a human good—but not, it should be noted, in any sort of biological determinism.
...and that may just be the shortest and least comprehensive overview of classical and contemporary natural law theory written in a very long time. Yes there's more (oh is there more), yes it gets more interesting, yes I think most of y'alls have better things to do than slog through it.
(Lord have mercy, I should really take the journalist, rather than historically-informed philosopher, approach to paragraph breaks. It never looks as bad as it does when published)
[ 22. August 2015, 15:06: Message edited by: Ariston ]
--------------------
“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
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
"Disorder" (like "defect") is an unhelpful word to use, because it could just mean something going wrong in the biological sense, which in itself has no moral significance, but it could also imply moral disapproval.
You get the point. How would you put it ?
quote:
you've just demonstrated that a secular consent/harm ethic is up to the task of distinguishing paedophilia and incest from homosexuality, and that you knew this when you made the daft comparisons.
Up to the task of distinguishing the non-consensual - rape, inter-generational incest etc - from the consensual - brother/sister incest, S&M etc.
The question remains - do you think the consensual disorders (or whatever term you'd prefer) fall short of your ideal of human life, and if so in what way ? Do you hold these up to your children as something they may well choose to do with their lives, part of the diversity of human culture that should to be celebrated ? and if not what moral principle do you invoke for denying these acts the status of your full approval ? Given that they meet the harm test for what should be tolerated...
Paedophiles, like Nazis, are there only as counter-examples to refute fallacious arguments. It is not my intention to morally equate these with anything or anyone.
quote:
What do you mean by "positive vision of the good life"? If you mean, use of sexuality in the cause of human love, happiness and fulfilment, I can only suppose you've never read any of Boogie's posts on the subject of sex if you can entertain the idea that she might lack this. But that vision does not exclude homosexuality, so there is no inconsistency.
I've said that I cannot understand how Boogie can think that having her sons turn out to be gay would increase their chances of having a full and happy life, of fulfilling their potential. From what she's said, I didn't get the impression that they were such a trial to herself and Mr Boogie that she views childlessness as a positive thing...
Wouldn't having her sons turn out to be hetero at least give them the choice when they're old enough to make it ?
It's been pointed out several times that which way they turn out is not a matter of choice. At our present level of technology... Which gets back to the whole business of the wisdom to make such choices if biological science should deliver them to us. And choosing not to choose is also a choice...
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
The question remains - do you think the consensual disorders (or whatever term you'd prefer)
Differences
quote:
fall short of your ideal of human life, and if so in what way ?
Is it my job to have an ideal of human life at all, let alone apply it to other people, whose consensual behavior is none of my fucking business? Why? I believe the word for people like that is "busybodies."
quote:
Do you hold these up to your children as something they may well choose to do with their lives, part of the diversity of human culture that should to be celebrated ?
Yes. In fact in our family we have a (true) story that illustrates this fact. When DD was in middle school, she had a bunch of friends over for an overnight. She appeared in the kitchen doorway Saturday morning and leaned in and said, "Mom, I'm gay."
Mom said, "Okay. Do you want to talk about this, maybe when your friends go home?"
DD: "No, that's okay." Then, turning to her friends who were hiding in the hallway listening, "SEE?!"
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
"Disorder" (like "defect") is an unhelpful word to use, because it could just mean something going wrong in the biological sense, which in itself has no moral significance, but it could also imply moral disapproval.
You get the point. How would you put it ?
The phrase that would be the most accurate is "that which I am irrationally afraid of". Because you are a homophobe - a fact that is confirmed with each post.
You're also an asshole. Simply by typing the word "paedophile" on this thread, for any reason whatsoever, illuminates you as such.
Amusingly, the primary thing impairing homosexuals from having fully and happy lives are people like you. Sadly, the people with most choices in the matter are the homophobic assholes.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Paedophiles, like Nazis, are there only as counter-examples to refute fallacious arguments.
So, you added them to your arguments so that we would know they were fallacious? Bit of overkill there.
quote:
It is not my intention to morally equate these with anything or anyone.
Just to equate them, how then? Because they do not equate biologically.
Russ, with your persistent use of incorrect, inflammatory rhetoric, there can only be two conclusions:
You are either trolling or you need a few more monkeys and a bit more time.
--------------------
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 mousethief:
... Is it my job to have an ideal of human life at all, let alone apply it to other people, whose consensual behavior is none of my fucking business? Why? I believe the word for people like that is "busybodies."
quote:
Do you hold these up to your children as something they may well choose to do with their lives, part of the diversity of human culture that should to be celebrated ?
Yes. ...
When I asked at the dinner table what a homosexual was, I remember exactly what my mother said, "You know how sometimes men and women are attracted to each other? Well, some men are attracted in the same way to men, and some women are attracted to women. Oscar Wilde was a homosexual and he sad, 'I have no objection to anyone’s sex life as long as they don’t practice it in the street and frighten the horses'." And that was that. And if she were alive today in our heteronormatively hypersexualized culture, she would probably say that the heterosexuals are the ones who need to tone it down.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
Soror Magna, your Mom sounds just like mine, except mine didn't mention Oscar Wilde.
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
When I asked at the dinner table what a homosexual was, I remember exactly what my mother said, "You know how sometimes men and women are attracted to each other? Well, some men are attracted in the same way to men, and some women are attracted to women. <snip>
Similar here. When my mom and I lived with her parents (1960-1970, roughly), Grandma gave a Christmas party every year (drink of choice: blended grasshoppers -- yum!). People turned up in pairs, of course. After everybody went home, I asked one of my parental units why everybody else came with a person of the opposite sex, but Aunt Theda came with another woman.
Parental unit: "Most men like women, and most women like men, but some women like women, and some men like men. Theda is one of the women who likes other women."
Me: "Oh."
And that was that. No moral aspersions were cast; it was simply a matter of fact, and I accepted it as such. I was probably 6 or 7. I was not shocked or horrified, nor did it ruin me for life. It was presented as a fact about the human race in general, and about Aunt Theda in particular, and I accepted it as such. That she was my favorite aunt probably didn't hurt.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
I woudn't have dared ask either of my parents the question, but when I asked my Grandma ( of blessed memory) what gay was, she said pretty much what MT's mom did. Except she actually used the phrase " fall in love."
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Ariston wrote:
Appealing to one single evolutionary purpose to explain a certain trait in a taxon, then extrapolating to some sort of teleological end, just doesn't work. You're not just making the invalid inductive step of concluding that you know the one single cause or set of causes that explains a certain effect; in the case of making moral claims based off observed phenomena, you're extrapolating still further to saying that, based on what you know the cause to be, you know what sort of action you morally ought to take.
In other words, you're coupling a fallacy of induction with a naturalistic fallacy. David Hume is rolling over in his tomb.
Just picking a paragraph from your terrific post, Ariston.
I was thinking about Simon Conway Morris, the Christian paleontologist, who has the interesting idea of 'engineering space', within which evolution acts as a search engine.
This ties in with his ideas about convergent evolution, where different groups of animals develop similar structures and attributes. His famous example is music, which has been developed by different groups, e.g. birds, humans, cetaceans.
I suppose he is trying to reconcile teleology with the 'blindness' of evolution, or he is constraining evolution in some way, so that it is not totally blind. Very interesting, but beyond my pay-grade really.
--------------------
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
I want to challenge the idea that virulent homophobia comes from "traditional values". mousethief and kelly alves and I are all probably close in age, so our parents were likely born in the 20s-30s, our grandparents in the Gay Nineties or Noughties <snicker>. My dad was to the right of the John Birchers, my grandmother was a communist, and yet they were all totally calm about homosexuality. Homophobia was never a traditional value in our families.
ETA: we drank a lot of grasshoppers too!
[ 22. August 2015, 19:52: Message edited by: Soror Magna ]
--------------------
"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
My grandmother was a communist too! That's cool! Although she was born in 1915 and my mother in 1941 (they both got started young reproducing; Mom was Grandma's third child, and I was born in 1961).
[ 22. August 2015, 19:56: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
Grandma was a Union Maid-- her dad and grandad worked in the copper mines in Park City, Utah.
She wasn't perfect, though-- years after the conversation I was talking about, she snarked about some closeted guy in our church, and I basically went off on her, reminding her of where I learned my inclusive values.
According to her (I reminded her), the tipping point for acceptance was when she was on jury duty with a woman who had just finished sitting shiva for her very much alive son, who had just come out to her. Regardless of her generation and her upbringing, there were just certain things that were part of Grandma's spiritual make up, and I still remember how angry she was when she talked about that woman. You just didn't do that to your child, she said, no matter what.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
its evolutionary purpose.
Other people have said more elaborate versions of what I'm going to say.
This phrase is just flat out wrong. Whether you read it as suggesting that evolution is goal-oriented, or whether you read it as suggesting that things evolve for one reason and one reason only, either way it is wrong.
The first thing that both you and Ingo could do to correct your most basic errors is switch the definite article for the indefinite article. Every time use you want to use the word "the" or a related form, try inserting "a" or a related form instead and see if the sentence still works.
In other words, even changing "its evolutionary purpose" to "an evolutionary purpose" would make you realise that not fulfilling one "evolutionary purpose" is not the end of the world. If, as has been pointed out with considerable skill earlier in this thread, sex has multiple evolutionary purposes (and as I pointed out in Dead Horses, I can find a thoroughly conservative Christian website that lists four Biblical purposes as well), it becomes far harder to argue that there's something wrong with fulfilling some of those purposes.
[ 23. August 2015, 00:16: 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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I've said that I cannot understand how Boogie can think that having her sons turn out to be gay would increase their chances of having a full and happy life, of fulfilling their potential.
Who said anything about increasing it? The onus is on you to explain why it would decrease it.
Let's put aside all the problems that only occur because of people like you shouting "problems will occur!".
The only thing you have left is a suggestion that childlessness is some horrible impairment. Which (1) is damn insensitive to any straight person who can't have children, (2) is damn insulting to any straight person who chooses not to have children, and (3) completely ignores all the different ways in which homosexual people end up having children anyway.
--------------------
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
Exactly orfeo.
One is now married and the other has a long term partner. They may or may not have children, it's by no means a 'given' that a heterosexual couple will have children. I won't feel less of them if they don't!
I spent last week with them both (now 25 and 29) and the subject of homophobia came up - both have gay friends. One of them said "Mum, do you remember when you thought we were gay and said it was fine by you?"
Hmmmm - my 'talk' clearly didn't come over as well as I thought
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Boogie:
[QB] One is now married and the other has a long term partner. They may or may not have children, it's by no means a 'given' that a heterosexual couple will have children. I won't feel less of them if they don't!
Confused as it may sound, I both wish that you live long enough to enjoy your grandchildren and support your attitude that it's their choice...
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fineline:
There is a similar (very heated) debate going on at the moment about whether autism should be cured - autistic people are stating that they don't want to be cured, that a cure would be eliminating who they are, and that the main suffering they experience is from how society treats them.
Are those who take the traditional view that autism is a disorder that society should seek to cure (in children - of course adults shouldn't be cured against their will) deemed to fear and hate autism ? Derided as "autophobes" ?
Seems to me that this is about pride.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Oscar Wilde was a homosexual and he sad, 'I have no objection to anyone’s sex life as long as they don’t practice it in the street and frighten the horses'."
He also said "all of us are in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars".
The world is a better place for having in it the wit of Oscar Wilde.
Admiring his talents doesn't preclude disapproving of his personal life. The tendency to polarise, to see only two possible views of homosexuality - unconditional approval or hatred/fear - would be foreign to him.
quote:
Oscar Wilde comes out of prison and checks into a hotel, where he is seen going to his room with one of the hotel's page boys. He is stopped by the hotel manager, who says: "Oh, Mr Wilde - I thought you were going to turn over a new leaf!" "So I am," says Wilde, "but I think I'll just get to the bottom of this page first ..."
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
