Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Harm in Homosexuality?
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 181 of 309 (160868)
11-18-2004 3:33 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by Silent H
11-17-2004 8:37 AM


holmes responds to The Dread Dormammu:
quote:
quote:
Since outlawing homosexuality DOES cause harm the law cannot be arbitrary
No it doesn't. What it does is expect homosexuals to curb their behavior. If they stray from the mandate, then they will be harmed.
A soldier is expected to stay in uniform. He may hate his uniform or find it vastly uncomfortable, but as long as he is in the army, and especially as long as he is in battle, he must remain in uniform no matter how much it pains him or her.
Um, surely you're not suggesting that gay people made a simple choice to be gay, are you?
A soldier chose to be in the military knowing full well that he might be sent off to war, that he will have his life strictly regimented, and that quite possibly he will be asked to do something he wouldn't normally do.
Asking gay people to "curb their behaviour" that everybody else is allowed to do and is a seemingly important part of the typical person's psyche does cause them direct harm. "We're very sorry you like to breathe, but we've decided that the oxygen is only for us."
quote:
Being expected to curb one's sexual appetite may be an inconvenience
(*blink!*)
You did not just say that, did you?
You make it sound like being gay is akin to having a craving for potato chips.

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Silent H, posted 11-17-2004 8:37 AM Silent H has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 182 of 309 (160870)
11-18-2004 3:42 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by Silent H
11-17-2004 9:56 AM


holmes writes:
quote:
I am just pointing out that there are alternate routes and it appears that they would be more productive.
Excuse me? When has begging ever been productive when it comes to rights? Those in power will only bestow privilege upon those they consider to be unworthy when they think there won't be any disadvantage to them to do so.
We had to fight a war when it came to race. Women had to be locked up in prison and go on hunger strikes to get the vote. Rights have always had to be fought for and forced upon those who cannot stand the thought of giving those rights to others. If you could convince the other side that they're wrong just by talking to them, then there wouldn't be a problem in the first place.
quote:
If I were desperate to get my rights, as opposed to having them plus a specific name, I'd be finding the support among those willing to give me my rights and not do things that might get them upset.
"Separate but equal." I thought you said you were desperate to get your rights. Since separate but equal doesn't get you your rights, why are you fighting for it?

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Silent H, posted 11-17-2004 9:56 AM Silent H has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 183 of 309 (160872)
11-18-2004 3:50 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by Silent H
11-17-2004 12:17 PM


holmes writes:
quote:
But even at the time I also said I wasn't sure if they were going to be productive, and it turns out that they weren't.
You need to look at the voting results again and view them in context.
The only state in this election cycle that had any actual resistance to the anti-marriage amendment was Oregon.
And it was in Oregon that the statute passed by the slimmest of margins. When the initiative started, the polls said it would pass by 27 points. The campaign against moved those numbers 19 points.
It is because people put up a concerted resistance that people changed their minds.
quote:
That is right, they should have reached out to the people that agreed with them rather than alienating them, which allowed another extremist group to open up a space and let them in.
How do you alienate someone who agrees with you? The only way to do that is to find something that you disagree about.
If someone claims to be for equality but doesn't want to actually grant it, then he isn't for equality. He wasn't "alienated" because he was never in agreement with you to begin with.
quote:
Right, but on the flipside they don't need to be antagonized. This is what occured.
Incorrect. I don't know where you've been getting your information, but you are quite mistaken. The exact opposite occurred. When a concerted effort was made to show the bigotry of the situation, the population changed their minds.

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Silent H, posted 11-17-2004 12:17 PM Silent H has not replied

The Dread Dormammu
Inactive Member


Message 184 of 309 (160875)
11-18-2004 3:58 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by Silent H
11-17-2004 8:37 AM


Why do we do our duty?
Holmes,
I'm going to reply to your post a little out of order becase I think you make an interesting point (that I happen to totaly disagree with).
First off:
And frankly I feel your actions are not exactly civil. I'm still waiting for an acknowledgement that it was you who started the whole pedophilia thing and you weren't responding to a post of mine.
I wasn't exactly happy to have that laid out on my doorstep.
Ok, I thought I acnowledged that in my apology post, but I am perfectly willing to do so again.
I freely admit that I brought up the issue of pedophilia, I did so to show that a predisposition for a behavior is not an excuse or justification for that behavior. I was not responding to any post of yours, but I wanted to head off an argumnet similar to one you made about moral relitivisum.
I don't think I "laid it out on your doorstep" but i'm sorry if you feel that I did. I merely wanted to show that you can be pro-gay and anti-pedophile and not be hypocritical (others claim you can't and I wanted to head off that argument).
Now I know this might upset you, but I am going to let others discuss the difference between pedophilia and homosexuality and how one causes inherent harm and the other does not.
If you or I prove that pedophilia is wrong then it has no bearing on the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality, again I only used it as an example of how someone could have a genetic predisposition do do something and that would not make it right. In hindsight I should have used alcoholisum instead.
Second,
Okay take a deep breath and repeat to yourself, I might not understand what I am being told. Do it three times. No joke, do it.
Done.
Let me state that I think I do understand the conservative, fundimentalist, christian position on homosexuality. Since I was an extrememly devout, conservative, fundimenetalist, christian for the first 18 years of my life, and attended weekly bible studies throughout highschool.
If you don't agree with Xianity, just say so. If you dislike its tenets no matter what the reason, just say so. But if you want to pretend you have some logical superiority where you can prove their God is bad and has bad laws, you are departing from reason.
I don't agree with fundimentalist christianity, I dislike it's tennents becase they go aganist my beliefs about ehtics. I DON'T think I can prove that their god is a bad god or has bad laws. But I do think I can prove that he is a bad god, or at least an imperfect one, IF he has bad laws.
That is what you want. You want people with an opposing (deontological) system to validate their system to you, using your teleological system's criteria. You are the one being unreasonable.
Much of your post seemed based around this point so lets explore it a little.
Should one do their sworn duty even if in doing so they cause harm? I think there are situations where they should. For example a defence attorney should defend a guilty man becase it is his sworn duty to do so, even if he/she belives that the man is guilty. Why? Becase he/she believes in the greater good of upholding the law and in equal representation.
I can imagine someone with a firm belief in duty following laws that they believe are harmful. But shouldn't they also try to change that praticular law even as they follow it? If the law can be shown to be unjust or harmful why not petition law makers to change the law?
God HAS changed his mind in the past (read the book of jonah) he has even abolished laws, for example he lifted the ban on unclean foods. There is a specific passage where he tells John (I think it's John) to kill and eat, and lowers all the unclean animals down to earth on a sheet I'm sure someone can root out this passage if anyone cares.
Now, some might argue that God has already lifted the ban on homosexuality, or that such a ban never exsisted. However we won't discuss that here as there is a seprate thread for that. What we WILL discuss here is wheather the ban on homosexuality is a harmful or unjust law.
If christians can be convinced that it is harmful they should pray nightly that God lift the ban, or reasses wheather he has already done so (again on a seprate thread).
This is also a bit disengenuous. You can't say that because he has a taste or even becomes weaker in a certain environment that he is less omnipotent or that he is homophobic.
If God becomes weaker due to homosexulaity then by definition he is loosing power and hence IS becomeing less omnipotent! In fact if he could loose power AT ALL that would also mean that he is NOT omnipotent, again by definition. If he is disgusted by homosexuality then he is BY DEFINITION homophobic.
For example we could promote Lam to the status of God. He can know and change anything. That does not stop the fact that he could inherently be lactose intolerant.
How could he be all powerful and still be harmed? I can imagine he might still be disgusted by milk, but not harmed. Again this could mean that he is still "intolirant" but in a different way.
Remember you can't just assume you are right and then ask them to prove things according to your standards.
My standards are pretty frickin broad, I want them to try and show how homosexuality is wrong, using ANY arguement OTHER than an appeal to athority.
We will then discuss wheather or not such an arguement is consistant or reasonable. I realy don't think I'm asking that much, other people are making arguments based on the doctrine of natural law and on the wisdom of repugnance. Let's see if those are reasonable.
You might even argue that I am moving the goalposts by saying this, but if I am but I'm moving them in FAVOR of my opponents.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Silent H, posted 11-17-2004 8:37 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by Silent H, posted 11-18-2004 6:30 AM The Dread Dormammu has replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 185 of 309 (160876)
11-18-2004 4:03 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by Itachi Uchiha
11-17-2004 5:15 PM


jazzlover_PR responds to pink sasquatch:
quote:
quote:
Homosexuality and anal sex are not the same thing.
You are absolutely right. But still, its a big part of it.
Since when? When was it determined that gay people have more anal sex than straight people?
First, you seem to be fixated on male homosexuals.
Second, you seem to think that just because a person is gay, that somehow makes him more likely to enjoy anal sex than someone who is straight.
quote:
That they get pleasure from it doesn't make it right either.
But it doesn't make it wrong, either. You need to show that it is wrong. Since the participants who are directly involved don't seem to have a problem with it, why are you throwing a fit?
quote:
Go ahead and give oral sex to a sick (many times they are sick without appearing it) person and wait and see what will happen to your mouth.
What does this have to do with homosexuality? Surely you're not saying that gay people carry sexually transmitted diseases that straight people don't, are you?
Remember: HIV is a heterosexual disease.
quote:
quote:
You can't equate an infectious disease with sexual orientation, especially one like HIV where the vast, vast majority of infected people are heterosexual.
On what stats do you base this.
They've been posted here over and over and over again.
Go to the World Health Organization (you remember them...they're the ones that wiped out smallpox throughout the world.) Look it up.
quote:
Remember that there are other ways of getting infected outside of sex.
Yep. After heterosexual sex comes IV drug use. The two of them together account for over 90% of all cases of HIV infection. And that doesn't even take into account mother-to-child transmission or blood transfusions.
It turns out that male-male sexual activity is actually not that big of a vector when it comes to HIV.
And, of course, lesbians have the least risk of contracting HIV sexually. So if we're going to give god's blessing based upon whether or not you can catch HIV, then lesbians are the chosen people.
As I said before, you seem to be fixated on gay males.

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Itachi Uchiha, posted 11-17-2004 5:15 PM Itachi Uchiha has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 186 of 309 (160883)
11-18-2004 4:17 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by Itachi Uchiha
11-17-2004 5:40 PM


jazzlover_PR writes:
quote:
The vast mayority of males I know that have HIV were infected through homosexual sex or drug addiction.
There are at least three logical errors here:
First, you are assuming that your personal experience generalizes to the world at large.
Second, you are assuming that because the HIV-positive people you know are often gay, then gay people are often HIV-positive.
Third, you are confusing IV drug use with sexual activity.
quote:
Both of them (homosexual sex and drug addiction) are unnatural and therefore wrong because your body is being harmed as a result of such actions.
Excuse me? Are you seriously saying that the act of having sex with someone of the same sex creates HIV?
Again, you seem to be fixated on gay males. Lesbians have the lowest incidence of sexually transmitted HIV and yet, they are constantly engaging in homosexual sex. If you're claiming that the definition of "unnatural" is connected to HIV transmission, then heterosexual sex is "unnatural" since it is the most common form of HIV transmission and female-female sex is even less likely to transmit the virus than male-female sex.
But in the end, HIV infection cannot occur if the people involved do not have the virus. If two men don't have it, it doesn't matter how many body fluids they swap or how they go about swapping them. There is no HIV to transmit so their activity cannot cause transmission.
quote:
No- glasses are not wrong because they dont hurt your body. On the contrary it helps you.
Then by your definition, homosexuality isn't wrong, either, because it helps those who are gay. Sexual expression is an important part of the human psyche and to force people to repress it does them terrible harm. Therefore, since letting gay people express their sexuality helps them, why are you trying to harm them by stopping them?
You wouldn't do that with a straight couple, so why are you going into apoplexy simply because the couple is two women?
quote:
I guess I am a bit homophobic cause i would have a problem if a homo touched me or said something fresh to me or look at me the wrong way.
You're not just a homophobe, you're a cretin. Are you incapable of saying, "No, thank you"?
Dude, I'm sorry about your penis. Perhaps you should consider some therapy to deal with your issues regarding people finding you sexually attractive. Do you often have trouble with people paying you compliments? Do you often find yourself overreacting and resorting to violence?
quote:
This has happened to me before and this is why they give me the creeps sometimes.
You know, those who are most homophobic are quite often gay, themselves. Their irrational behaviour is the result of self-loathing. Are you trying to tell us something?
Question: What do you think a woman who finds you sexually revolting should do when you "touch her or say something fresh to her or look at her the wrong way"?
Are you incapable of simply saying, "Thanks, but I'm not interested"? Why do you feel as if somehow your masculinity has been threatened simply because someone you don't find sexually appealing finds you to be so?
I'm really sorry about your penis, but you need to get some help.

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Itachi Uchiha, posted 11-17-2004 5:40 PM Itachi Uchiha has not replied

The Dread Dormammu
Inactive Member


Message 187 of 309 (160886)
11-18-2004 4:28 AM


By the way.
As an aside to all the christians out there who are flabbergasted when homosexuals accuse them of being bigoted, and say things like "I'm not anti-gay I just don't think that gays should have the right to marry etc." That IS anti-gay. If you have a "moral problem" with homosexuality then you are saying that you think homosexuality, or parts of it, are moraly wrong. That IS anti-gay.
It's like saying "I'm not sexest I just don't think women should be in postions of power". Although since I have heard my chrisitan frends (fundimentalists mind you, not more mainstream christians) say things like this this might not be a compelling analogy.

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 188 of 309 (160906)
11-18-2004 5:27 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by Jon_the_Second
11-17-2004 5:29 PM


laughing all the way to the bank...
First I want to save the contents of your link for posterity...
Look here. Men who have consensual sex under 16 have an increased incidence of psychological problems.
Those who are raped had an even higher incidence.
There's your harm.
BMJ Non-consensual sex in men study
Normally when a person posts a link I end up going ahead and shredding it (when it needs shredding). But this thread is different. The point is for others to prove that a sexual act is harmful.
My only point, once other sexual minorities were condemned by the same people demanding evidence, was to throw their own lack of criteria back at them. They are just as bigoted and also do not require proof of harm. I asked for their evidence.
This singular link is what I get, with a few assertions of what it says.
Instead of my ripping it to shreds straight away, I'm going to ask you first to explain what this study is and how its methods and results proves your argument that sex in childhood is inherently harmful. That is in keeping with this thread. The burden is on you and since you already claim you have evidence (and this is it) this shouldn't be too hard.
Now I can rip it to shreds and I will rip it to shreds, but I am wondering how you even came to believe it said what you assert it said, and how it helps your position or for that matter any gay defending themselves in this thread.
Yes instead of ripping it to shreds, I'm going to pretend for a second that it really is a valid study that can prove inherent harm from sexual acts.
With this we can now announce that Jon has provided the clearcut evidence that there is an inherent harm in homosexuality!!!
Most men who reported non-consensual sexual experiences with other men defined themselves as primarily heterosexual. However, men who reported having sex with other men were six times more likely to have non-consensual sex as an adult. Gay and bisexual men have more sexual partners than do heterosexual men. Increasing numbers and anonymity of sexual partners may increase the risk of non-consensual sex. These factors may explain why previous studies of gay men have found high rates of non-consensual sex.
I'm sure the antihomosexual crowd will be thanking you shortly. I'm not so sure about the rest.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Jon_the_Second, posted 11-17-2004 5:29 PM Jon_the_Second has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by Jon_the_Second, posted 11-18-2004 12:00 PM Silent H has replied

contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 189 of 309 (160907)
11-18-2004 5:29 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by Silent H
11-17-2004 12:17 PM


quote:
Hey I thought they were cool demonstrations, I tend to like civil disobedience. But even at the time I also said I wasn't sure if they were going to be productive, and it turns out that they weren't.
Thats what a lot of "liberals" said about anti-apartheid demsontrations. But they were wrong then and you are now. The purpose of a demonstration is to DEMONSTRATE your position to others, not to tug your forelock and beg their consent.
quote:
elling and spitting into peoples faces is pretty extreme, does that mean you would recommend that activity to someone who wants to get people on their side?
Yes - as long as you yell and spit at their enemies. In doing so you demonstrate solidarity and corporate responsibility. Don't you sympathise with people who are willing to fight alongside you?
quote:
In that environment, maybe it wasn't such a good time to say "no way am I going to accept anything less than full use of the word marriage", break the law, and throw it in the faces of everyone. Like I said, cool, but smart? Productive?
Much better than the alternative, which is to be ghettoised, and worse, to endorse that gghettoisation actively or passively. The fact that the bigots came out fighting should not be allowed to intimidate anyone into backing off; it is craven to say "I have principles, unless and until they are opposed".
quote:
It gave the conservatives the ammo they needed to create a rainbow scare, and make it seem like gays were about to turn the nation upside down.
"I'm not homophobic, but many other people are." Homophobia by proxy, just like racism by proxy.
Holmes, why don't you self-identify as a conservative? Every one of your arguments appears to be conservative, containing a reflexive hostility to anyone who wants to change anything or who takes steops top actually do so. It seems to me that your vision of the good society is everyone knowing their place.
quote:
Radicalism is also a recipe for failure. It all depends on how careful the cook is.
Achievements by radicals: the french and american revolutions, the rise of democracy, protestantism, the fall of slavery, female emancipation, the magna carta, the enlightenment, many others.
Triumphs of moderates: erm, got any? Kyoto springs to mind - it is the archetypal failure of the moderate strategy.
"Cautious, careful people, always casting about to preserve their reputation and social standing, can never bring about a reform." Susan B Anthony
"As long as the world shall last there will be wrongs, and if no man objected and no man rebelled, those wrongs would last forever." Clarence Darrow
"Disobedience, in the eyes of anyone who has read history, is man's original virtue. It is through disobedience and rebellion that progress has been made." Oscar Wilde
"The unreasonable man is the one who expects the world to adapt to his needs, the reasonable man is the one who adapts himself to suit the world. Therefore, all progress depends upon the unreasonable man."
George Bernard Shaw

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Silent H, posted 11-17-2004 12:17 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by Silent H, posted 11-18-2004 7:45 AM contracycle has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 190 of 309 (160910)
11-18-2004 5:33 AM
Reply to: Message 178 by coffee_addict
11-18-2004 3:11 AM


If you disagree with him then you are ignorant.
And that differs from your stated position, how?
No matter how many times I tried to tell him that seperate does not mean equal, he continued to rant on and on on how cvil union is the solution and all that crap.
I said I was for gay marriage. I also said I realize there is a group using this in order to oppress gays. My crime appears to be the wholly rational position of trying to understand what other people are saying, and then explaining to you how a compromise can be reached.
Yes you prefer ignorance.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by coffee_addict, posted 11-18-2004 3:11 AM coffee_addict has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by coffee_addict, posted 11-18-2004 1:42 PM Silent H has replied

Tusko
Member (Idle past 101 days)
Posts: 615
From: London, UK
Joined: 10-01-2004


Message 191 of 309 (160915)
11-18-2004 6:03 AM
Reply to: Message 175 by Rrhain
11-18-2004 2:45 AM


Re: No I am making a seprate argument.
Ok. There are people who find sexual fulfilment with adults of their own sex, adults of a different sex, juveniles of the same or a different sex, dead people of the same or a different sex, animals of the same or different sex, geriatrics of the same or different sex, pieces of wood of indeterminate sex, or photographs of any of the above. For some people, the sex of the person/thing they are having sex with isn't the issue, but their smell is. There are people who only get sexual gratification from exposing themselves to people of the same or a different sex, and there are people who only get sexual gratification by raping people of the same or the opposite sex. There are some people whose sex is biologically indeterminable, who probably have a very confusing time of it all, but you can bet the farm that there are other people who find them sexually attractive.
Furthermore, people can belong to multiple groups, and their sexual preferences aren't necessarily fixed through their lifetime (sentence added by edit). In other words, there are a hell of a lot of different things that flip peoples' berets.
I personally think that its okay to talk about a broad range of sexualities when sexuality is being debated. I hope I'm not specifically conflating homosexuality with paedophilia any more than I'm conflating heterosexuality with foot-fetishism.
That having been said, if you have found what I have been saying offensive, then I sincerely apologise. It hasn't been my intention to somehow conflate a non-destructive, loving kind of relationship that happens to be between two geezers with any kind of violent or exploitative one. To me they are horses of an entirely different colour.
One possible solution, which I tentatively raised earlier, would be to begin a different topic on the wider remit of varied sexuality, so we don't keep blathering on about paedophiles in a thread about homosexuality. However, I think there is some place for this discussion here in this thread, especially after Holmes clarified why he was persuing this whole paedophile thing with Dread D: he seems to be trying to draw attention to a double standard he percieves in Dread D's argument, which seems relevant enough to the discussion.
Tusko x
This message has been edited by Tusko, 11-18-2004 06:45 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Rrhain, posted 11-18-2004 2:45 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by Rrhain, posted 11-22-2004 10:38 PM Tusko has replied

Tusko
Member (Idle past 101 days)
Posts: 615
From: London, UK
Joined: 10-01-2004


Message 192 of 309 (160917)
11-18-2004 6:08 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by Silent H
11-17-2004 3:15 PM


Having read this reply, I really don't think I'm in dissagreement with you on this sex and juveniles issue. I think you've helped to clarify my thinking on it a little. I'm not so sure about this different but equal stuff though... I'm going to have a think.
This message has been edited by Tusko, 11-18-2004 06:36 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Silent H, posted 11-17-2004 3:15 PM Silent H has not replied

Tusko
Member (Idle past 101 days)
Posts: 615
From: London, UK
Joined: 10-01-2004


Message 193 of 309 (160921)
11-18-2004 6:27 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by Jon_the_Second
11-17-2004 5:29 PM


Jon said:
Men who have consensual sex under 16 have an increased incidence of psychological problems.
I could be wrong, but I don't think that this is prove that underage sex is inherently damaging. I think it just shows that in a culture such as ours it is damaging. It is possible to imagine a culture where sex isn't such a baroque labarynth of weirdness, isn't it?
Those who are raped had an even higher incidence.
No-one's been condoning rape here. (Nor indeed has anyone been condoning sex with juveniles.) For my part, I'm just asking you if you can envisage a human culture where children can engage in social sexual behaviours and it not being damaging. I think that there probably have been cultures in the past where this has been possible. I don't know; all I think is that nothing's set in stone. This doesn't mean that I think that its okay for us here to start waiting outside primary school gates, with the intention of sweet-talking nine-year-olds into our cars. That's not going to be a recipe for anyone's happiness. Our society's attitudes to sex aren't going to chance overnight, but its inevitable that they will change over a hundred years. I don't know how, but it seems possible, even likely that people in a hundred years will engage in "normal" sexual activities that would make us decidedly uncomfortable.
But I want to return to one of your earlier points, in a post yesterday. It was about sex being "special". I can't remember when you said this, but I think it was in response to one of my wilder flights of fancy. I think this attitude is quite illuminating. I think our idea that sex is "special" is directly tied up with so many terrible problems and hypocrisies in our society. I wish it wasn't special, personally. I wish it was as boring as eating. As I'm sure you agree, though its a totally everyday activity, and surrounded by less taboos than sex, it can be a joyous, very pleasurable activity. That's not to say that I think that this is in any way a realisitic possibility in our lifetimes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Jon_the_Second, posted 11-17-2004 5:29 PM Jon_the_Second has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by Jon_the_Second, posted 11-18-2004 11:53 AM Tusko has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 194 of 309 (160923)
11-18-2004 6:30 AM
Reply to: Message 184 by The Dread Dormammu
11-18-2004 3:58 AM


I was not responding to any post of yours, but I wanted to head off an argumnet similar to one you made about moral relitivisum.
But I hadn't made one... that's the point.
I merely wanted to show that you can be pro-gay and anti-pedophile and not be hypocritical... Now I know this might upset you, but I am going to let others discuss the difference between pedophilia and homosexuality and how one causes inherent harm and the other does not.
And this is part of what is really pissing me off and why I think you are being quite uncivil. You start a thread saying group X must use a specific criteria to determine that something is wrong. You also announce that you use that criteria, in a way that is essentially lording your group Y morally over group X.
Then in an example to show that shows you use that criteria, you explicitly show that you do not use claimed criteria. When this is pointed out that avenue is shut off and even now (right above) you claim you don't have to prove that you use your criteria.
So in this thread X must prove that it uses your criteria or they are wrong, but you guys in Y in no way have to prove that you actually use that criteria and indeed can keep repeating that you do, despite the outstanding counterexample.
Thus this thread is punk on people with a different moral value thread. Unless that is you are willing to defend your own claim?
In hindsight I should have used alcoholisum instead.
You are right as that would not have opened up your position to criticism of inconsistency and hypocrisy.
I may completely despise the values that Xians hold, and even believe that they are hypocrites in how they are enforcing them. But I hate hypocrisy in all its forms and that means from everyone. When I am told I cannot discuss what I see behind the curtain and then the facade is allowed to be reasserted, I get pissed.
That's another huge reason I'm a bit cranky.
I don't agree with fundimentalist christianity, I dislike it's tennents becase they go aganist my beliefs about ehtics. I DON'T think I can prove that their god is a bad god or has bad laws. But I do think I can prove that he is a bad god, or at least an imperfect one, IF he has bad laws.
I also do not agree with fundamentalist Xianity, and with Xianity in just about any stripe. Saying who grew up closest to them does not really matter. I've posted my street creds on this before, and I'm getting tired of doing so.
The problem is you logically cannot prove their God is bad, by judging his laws based on your criteria. The most you can do is show that to you, or according to your moral position, their God seems to have some bad laws and in any case you really don't like them as they don't fit in with your vision of reality.
I can imagine someone with a firm belief in duty following laws that they believe are harmful. But shouldn't they also try to change that praticular law even as they follow it? If the law can be shown to be unjust or harmful why not petition law makers to change the law?
But I have already refuted these positions.
First of all a person who believes in a God can certainly believe something that seems to be bad may actually be for the good. That would be similar to a soldier having faith in the oddly negative seeming orders coming from up top... only in this case the person up top is omniscient so these people have a more valid reason to trust the orders are good and helpful.
Second, the can certainly ask God to change the law, but he can always say no, or not say anything at all and let the law stand. A mortal's viewpoint cannot be that our petition was righteous and so he must change. If he says no or nothing then our petition was wrong. That's the logic which stems from having a God.
In the end you are asking them to change their mind, not God to change his. Maybe that is something gays who love the Xian God should get to work on. Certainly if God showed up and said "I take it back, gays are great" that would do wonders.
What we WILL discuss here is wheather the ban on homosexuality is a harmful or unjust law.
But then the answer is clear. If one believes in God, and believes that God is just, and God says (again we are assuming the intention of the text) that homosexuality is wrong, then that is just. If you still find it wrong, then you are missing the piece of the puzzle, not him.
I don't see how you do not see that that is totally logical, and completely moral, given the presumption of an existing God, and a statement from him.
Of course you can always claim that you worship another God which says something different. In that case you can then logically argue that the Xian God is actually a false God, or in any case an evil one that is encouraging people to harm each other.
You simply cannot logically say that I alone as a person, believe that this one God exists, and yet say that I can prove his laws unjust because his laws do not match my laws, set by my criteria.
If God becomes weaker due to homosexulaity then by definition he is loosing power and hence IS becomeing less omnipotent!
Not really as long as he has the power to change at any time what can weaken him. This should make some sense. And in any case it doesn't even have to weaken him, but simply revolt him. Something that tastes bad does not weaken you but it makes you upset.
If he is disgusted by homosexuality then he is BY DEFINITION homophobic.
It depends on why he is disgusted. Again this could have something to do with astral plane garbage we have no knowledge of. For example Cain and Abel. He was offended by one offering and liked the other.
Does his repugnance at an offering of vegetation make him vegephobic? Does he hate vegetation? No, but it does not agree with him.
He is the God of life and created our organs for reproduction. He is pretty clear that that is what he wants. Maybe vaginal coitus creates some cool vibe, and all other coitus (which homosexuals must engage in) is like nails on a chalkboard.
My standards are pretty frickin broad, I want them to try and show how homosexuality is wrong, using ANY arguement OTHER than an appeal to athority.
That statement says it all. You are asking a people who derive their morality explicitly from authority, to prove homosexuality wrong using your own criteria.
They have a deontological moral system, whose directives come from a single authoritative source. There simply is no way to get around this reality.
Don't you see then how your request is just mindlessly bating someone?
You might even argue that I am moving the goalposts by saying this, but if I am but I'm moving them in FAVOR of my opponents.
No, you haven't helped anyone.
But I will now note that someone trying to prove the consistency of your harm=wrong criteria against pedophiles, has just submitted the evidence you requested from those against homosexuality
More so than underage sex acts, homosexuality (in the listed study) is majorly tied to coercive sexual practices. Whoops! Looks like you shouldn't let others try and defend your lofty moral towers, as they just undermined them.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by The Dread Dormammu, posted 11-18-2004 3:58 AM The Dread Dormammu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by The Dread Dormammu, posted 11-19-2004 5:41 AM Silent H has replied

Itachi Uchiha
Member (Idle past 5615 days)
Posts: 272
From: mayaguez, Puerto RIco
Joined: 06-21-2003


Message 195 of 309 (160936)
11-18-2004 7:42 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by coffee_addict
11-17-2004 5:52 PM


Re: And another thing.
Lam writes:
hey jazzlover, a word of advice. Think before you talk to people on here. You are embarrassing yourself.
In my little island country the apropiate answer for a comment like that one is
A palabras necias oidos sordos.
Try and figure out what it means. its easy.
Besides if you dont have anything valuable that would make a good contribution to the debate for or against my posture, just stay out of it.

Ponlo todo en las manos de Dios y que se joda el mundo. El principio de la sabiduria es el temor a Jehova

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by coffee_addict, posted 11-17-2004 5:52 PM coffee_addict has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024