Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


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


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Haggard thread #2
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 5 of 168 (362391)
11-07-2006 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Chiroptera
11-07-2006 9:25 AM


Is there something in particular you would like to see him say?
"I'm deeply sorry for being such a hypocritical douchebag and allowing my culturally-inculcated distaste for my own nature to send me off on a moralistic crusade to tear apart thousands of gay families."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Chiroptera, posted 11-07-2006 9:25 AM Chiroptera has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 10 of 168 (362430)
11-07-2006 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Taz
11-07-2006 12:37 PM


Will people blame infidelity or will people blame homosexuality?
A fair number of people are already blaming his wife for "letting herself go."
I mean, that totally makes fuckin' sense, right? Your wife packs on a little mommy weight, and it sends you right into the arms of a drug-dealing male escort. I mean, who hasn't been there?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Taz, posted 11-07-2006 12:37 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Taz, posted 11-07-2006 12:53 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 12 by Jazzns, posted 11-07-2006 1:17 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 30 by Chiroptera, posted 11-09-2006 2:42 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 48 of 168 (364784)
11-19-2006 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Hyroglyphx
11-19-2006 5:18 PM


Re: the condesending nature of christian "concern"
As you can see, homosexuality is all about sexuality which we should expect and almost about nothing else, completely different from their heterosexual counterparts. Many homosexuals identity is literally wrapped in considering themselves to be gay, and this self-identity seems to supersede anything else.
How is that different than a married man thinking of himself first and foremost as a husband? Defining himself by his participation in a heterosexual relationship?
Or defining himself first and foremost as a father?
I think you said you had kids. When you meet new people, how long does it take before you're telling them about your kids? Probably not that long, right? I'm sure you have pictures of them at your workplace.
In other words, you're as wrapped up in being a hetersexual and showing people the proof you've had sex with a woman as anybody else is. You're straight, and more importantly, you're so wrapped up in heteronormativity, that you don't see how you promote your heterosexuality just as much as you think gay people are doing.
I also don't understand gay pride parades, because if you were born a certina way, then none of that was of your own volition. Why, then, would that instill a sense of pride?
It's pride in surviving oppression, in surviving adversity.
Do you really find that so hard to understand?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-19-2006 5:18 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-20-2006 11:12 AM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 75 of 168 (364933)
11-20-2006 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Hyroglyphx
11-20-2006 11:12 AM


Re: the condesending nature of christian "concern"
Or thinking of himself first and foremost as a father. What I wouldn't expect is someone to define themselves by their sexuality.
Where do you think children come from, NJ? Parthenogenesis? The stork?
No, I'm not wrapped up in being straight. Because my husbandry has to do with my family, not with my sexuality.
Same thing. Where do you think your family came from?
Now, these are just four instances of what I'm talking about. Why is the self-identity wrapped up in something that supposedly is completely natural?
Because they're being oppressed. They feel like they have to hide a portion of who they are so as to not be disenfranchised or discriminated against out in the straight world, and so naturally, businesses pop up to cater to that need.
It's not hard to understand. It's not about constructing an identity only about being gay; it's about being part of an environment where being gay is something that is treated as normal. Homosexuals don't get that from society, mostly thanks to people like you.
If you'll also notice, it usually takes about two seconds before something sexual in nature comes up, like a sweaty, half-naked body. What purpose does it serve?
Sex sells. What, you've never looked in a magazine or turned on a TV? It's hard to imagine where you live where you can see an ad for literally anything at all that doesn't stand a half chance of having a sexy woman in it.
Even gay businesses have to advertise and compete with each other. Sex sells for gay men just like for straight men.
Yeah, I'm just not so sure about that.
What do your pictures have to do with that?
I literally don't understand your argument. What do cowboys have to do with not being under adversity?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-20-2006 11:12 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 79 of 168 (364966)
11-20-2006 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Hyroglyphx
11-20-2006 4:02 PM


Re: the condesending nature of christian "concern"
I don't have to believe that homosexuality is a-okay. I'm afforded that right. I don't have to be politically correct just in case I might hurt your delicate feelings. I think I've been more than fair in my assessment and I've been nothing but kind to you. If you want to have a normal conversation and find out why I believe as I do, then let me know.
I don't believe that a reasonable person can be a Christian. I think if you're a Christian, then there's some kind of blockage between the world as we live in it, and your reasoning faculties. For most people I think that blockage is self-imposed and I can't imagine how anybody could choose to do that or be happy living that way.
But, hey, that's just my opinion. Maybe you find it upsetting; maybe you find that it's based on a premise you'd like to argue with. I'm sure you don't question my right to hold that opinion, but maybe, just maybe, you find it an opinion that makes you mad, maybe hurts your feelings a little bit; hits you like a total stranger just called you an idiot out of the blue.
If that's true, I apologize. Doubly so, because that's my honest opinion phrased as frankly as I could muster with the explicit purpose of being upsetting to Christians. I've done this for an educational purpose, though. If you found my remarks upsetting, then you might want to cut Berb a little slack when he finds your remarks, which I'm sure you must believe are a totally reasonable position, to be insulting.
Just as I understand how you probably found my remakrs insulting just now, and I apologize for having to have made them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-20-2006 4:02 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by berberry, posted 11-20-2006 8:21 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 106 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-21-2006 1:52 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 97 of 168 (365122)
11-21-2006 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by nator
11-21-2006 6:44 AM


Re: maturity
How does that not allude to a crime?
Totally agree with you, here. Just flip on any crime show (Law and Order, CSI) and count how often they're pulling attractive young rape victims out of dumpsters. Culturally, the dumpster is the traditional final resting place of disposable women.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by nator, posted 11-21-2006 6:44 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by docpotato, posted 11-21-2006 11:21 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 123 of 168 (365370)
11-22-2006 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by Hyroglyphx
11-21-2006 1:52 PM


Re: the condesending nature of christian "concern"
My only concern is, can you truly understand where I am coming from? Are you able to see things from where I am standing? Can you see life from my vantage point?
Sure. I was a Christian once, too. I know your vantage point very well indeed.
And by and large, I still have homosexual friends. I just don't agree with their lifestyle, nor do I believe they are destined to be gay.
I don't know what that means, "agree with their lifestyle." I mean nobody expects you to have sex with other men, you're straight. Can you elaborate on what it would mean to "agree with their lifestyle"? I mean, I'm not gay. I don't want to have sex with other men. That's simply not the gender that I'm attracted to. So I don't "agree with their lifestyle" either, I guess. But what does that have to do with their human rights? Why should I demand that they be straight, just because I am?
I just don't understand what you mean when you say "agree with their lifestyle". I need you to explain, I guess.
'm actually trying to tread lightly without completely undermining my own point of view. At some point, I can't get around offending him/her in some capacity. But I am not offering that in order to be divisive and disrespectful.
Fair enough, fair enough. Look, you're under a potentially unfair burden, I get it. Right now you're not just NJ, you're a stand-in for the whole Christian right; a stand-in for every oppressive force that exists in Berb's life.
I wouldn't want to be in your shoes. I'm just interested in trying to help you understand his reaction. He's no more inclined to approach your position from a stance of dispassionate disinterest than Malcom X would be inclined to dialogue with the KKK. One of you has to have some understanding of the other. It would be better if you both did, of course. But you do represent the side that has oppressed and marginalized homosexuals for decades, and is making every effort to continue to do so - to roll back the gains homosexuals have made. Taking the side of the oppressors obligates you, in my opinion.
Aside from which, the thread is technically about Haggard and not so much homosexuality. I guess we were technically OT anyway.
Indeed. Still, though, I'd appreciate it if you could help me understand what you mean when you say "agree with their lifestyle." I don't know what it means to agree with a lifestyle.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-21-2006 1:52 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-22-2006 6:30 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 132 of 168 (365507)
11-22-2006 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by Hyroglyphx
11-22-2006 6:30 PM


Re: the condesending nature of christian "concern"
Okay, couldn't NAMbLA, NAWgLA, NAMgLA, or NAWbLA make the same argument?
Not any more than a rapist could. Having sex with a child isn't a lifestyle; it's rape. Children can't consent to intercourse.
But if adults can't consent to sex with each other, who can?
You still haven't helped me understand what you mean when you say "agree with their lifestyle." Examples of people who want to rape children don't help me because that's not analogous to the desires of two consenting individuals to do something you don't like, that they don't expect you to like. Nobody's interested in your sexual orientation, which makes me wonder why you think you're being expected to become a homosexual yourself.
And if that's not what you think you're being asked to do, why the focus on whether or not you "agree with their lifestyle"? What, exactly, would constitute "agreeing with their lifestyle"? Simply letting them be?
Well, I don't like Neo-Nazi's or Black Panthers either, but I wouldn't call them names in order to get my point across.
Would you? If you had been directly oppressed by those groups for decades? I'm sure you recognize the need to remain dispassionate, but I'm surprised that you believe you'd have no trouble doing so. I don't know you that well but I'm pretty sure you're no Ghandi.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-22-2006 6:30 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-23-2006 11:11 AM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 133 of 168 (365508)
11-22-2006 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Hyroglyphx
11-22-2006 6:49 PM


Re: the condesending nature of christian "concern"
This is all taking into consideration that she's all about it too. Just because both parties are consenting, I think we'd all agree that its wrong.
I think hurting another person is wrong, but not everybody is in a situation where they're going to hurt somebody via extramarital sex. If not I don't see what basis any of the rest of us have to conclude that something is right or wrong, if we're not a part of the marriage.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-22-2006 6:49 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 149 of 168 (365616)
11-23-2006 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by Hyroglyphx
11-23-2006 11:11 AM


Re: the condesending nature of christian "concern"
But some would argue that homosexuality is just wrong.
From what basis? If, in a free country, two adults can't consent to sexual activity with each other, what on Earth can they consent to?
You are saying, and I agree, that pedophilia is illegal, therefore, its wrong.
Apparently you didn't understand. Pedophilia is wrong because children can't and don't consent to sexual activity. Sexual activity against one's consent is rape.
But two adults can consent to sexual activity - even activities you may not wish to do. If they can't, what can they consent to?
I think that's a crock, but hey, that's really the extent of the homosexual argument if you think about it.
No, it isn't. Children can't consent to sex. Adults can. Can't they?
But why not? Children, technically can consent to having sex.
No, they cannot. Children cannot give consent. They can say the words, but they can't actually give consent. That's why it's rape to have sex with children.
You don't agree with pedophilia, right?
I don't know what that means. You still haven't explained it.
I think that the law justly prosecutes people who rape children. I think that the law unjustly persecutes two adults who have mutually consented to activities.
It's really hard to imagine how you could not see consent as the central issue here, but it seems like consent is always the last thing on a conservative's mind. Why is that?
I believe homosexuality is wrong for moral reasons in the same way you might object to pedophilia for moral reasons.
But two adults can consent. Thus, homosexuality is demonstratably not wrong in the same way pedophilia is. Consent is the key issue - not your personal preference.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-23-2006 11:11 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 150 of 168 (365617)
11-23-2006 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by Chiroptera
11-23-2006 12:16 PM


Re: People talking past each other.
So, the fact that homosexuality involves two consenting adults while child sex involves a minor who is, by assumption, unable to grant consent is, to nemesis, irrelevent. Clearly, to nemesis, if we take him at his word, finds that there is an essential similarity between homosexuality and child sex, and it is this common characteristic that makes them both wrong.
Why doesn't someone ask nemesis to give a detailed explanation why he feels that child sex is wrong?
No. I'd prefer that he substantiate his position that consent is meaningless and irrelevant. Further, I'd ask him from what basis he would prosecute marital rape, since that's a sexual combination of which he approves and he finds consent meaningless and irrelevant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Chiroptera, posted 11-23-2006 12:16 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Chiroptera, posted 11-23-2006 2:33 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 153 of 168 (365620)
11-23-2006 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by Chiroptera
11-23-2006 2:33 PM


Re: People talking past each other.
Sort of why I think consent is meaningful and relevant -- if someone were to ask me why I think that, I'mnot sure what answered I'd give.
"I don't want to be raped." Seems sufficient to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Chiroptera, posted 11-23-2006 2:33 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by Chiroptera, posted 11-23-2006 2:38 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 156 by Chiroptera, posted 11-23-2006 2:44 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 159 of 168 (365626)
11-23-2006 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by Chiroptera
11-23-2006 2:44 PM


Re: But more about this "consent" thing....
Come to think of it, I'm required to do all sorts of things I don't want. Why should sex be any different?
Sigh. Why is it impossible to have a thread even tangentally related to rape without some man popping up with a sexual-entitlement pity party?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Chiroptera, posted 11-23-2006 2:44 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Chiroptera, posted 11-23-2006 3:44 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 162 of 168 (365640)
11-23-2006 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Chiroptera
11-23-2006 3:44 PM


Re: But more about this "consent" thing....
If nemesis does feel that there are more important considerations than "consent" in determining sexual morality and he does tell us what these are, I hope that we see his challengers willing to explain why they feel consent should outweigh his considerations if and when they demand he justify his considerations.
Fair enough. I'm hoping he indeed returns to tell us all why issues of consent are something he finds completely irrelevant to sex. Without consent, how does he detect rape, for instance?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Chiroptera, posted 11-23-2006 3:44 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 164 of 168 (365642)
11-23-2006 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by Taz
11-23-2006 5:33 PM


Re: my side fumbles the ball
Whatever it is, he deliberately compared gay people with children.
You're absolutely correct, of course, which is why what NJ did was not a correctly-formed reducto ad absurdum, but rather, the fallacy of the straw man. Sex between adults and children is fundamentally different than sex between adults; by definition the first is nonconsensual while the second may or may not be (and we assume that we're referring to situations where it is.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Taz, posted 11-23-2006 5:33 PM Taz 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