Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Haggard thread #2
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 89 of 168 (365082)
11-21-2006 5:19 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by RickJB
11-21-2006 3:45 AM


Re: the condesending nature of christian "concern"
Not that I agree with NJ's opinion on homosexuality or homosexual marriage, but when we get to the issue of definitions of marriage...
Not in Websters dictionary.
What are you talking about? The very first definition listed at your link is...
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law
If you are addressing the second entry then you are missing that his point is made there too...
(2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage
The use of marriage to cover same-sex unions is NEW. It is RECENT. It is NONTRADITIONAL. And furthermore it isn't even accepted across the globe or the US.
It certainly isn't defined that way in the law which is even more important than what Websters has to say.
They are entirely equivalent in legal terms. The denial of legal status to gay couples is the crux of the argument.
Ahem. If they are entirely equivalent in legal terms then how can using them be a denial of legal status to gay couples?
For those that allow for legal unions, this is an issue of preserving a concept as it is, not necessarily a denial of others the same right. Unless you consider use of a legal term to describe onesself a "right".
That latter point is more significant than it seems. If we decide to set precedent that people should be able to avail themselves to whatever term, or classification, they want, that it is their RIGHT then we open a pandora's box.
Yes I have not actually served in the official US military, but I do belong to my local militia, and I have the right to be considered a "U.S. veteran" and "U.S. military personnel". Yes I have a penis but I have the right to be legally defined as a woman with all rights/restrictions that come with that identity (for example not having to serve in the armed forces, or getting grants).
Now we might be willing to create new boxes for these people to check, and give them the legal coverage they are seeking, but it seems strange to broaden longstanding legal definitions every time someone comes up with something new.
This is not to argue homosexuals should not be able to use that term legally. My own personal opinion is who cares, and if marriage is a religious institution then perhaps it shouldn't exist in law at all (everyone gets civil unions). But that does not mean what they are arguing has no merit at all.
Up until the last few decades marriage has pretty much been universally defined as a union between opposite sexes. While numbers and ages of partners in such unions have varied across the globe, the opposite sex part has not varied. This is especially true for western civilization where our legal and social traditions largely derive.
It feels disingenuous to me everytime people play dumb with this. And I don't understand why it is necessary. The founding fathers were proud that they were trying to institute something new. That's part of what made it exciting. Why can't we admit that the concept of homosexual marriage is new? It is a radical change based on a slowly changing concept of love, relationships, and families.
I'd rather lose trying to institute something new, honestly, than win by creating some revisionist history.
Sorry, didn't mean to blow my cork but this is a particular pet peeve of mine.
Edited by holmes, : their there

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 88 by RickJB, posted 11-21-2006 3:45 AM RickJB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by RickJB, posted 11-21-2006 8:28 AM Silent H has replied

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


Message 94 of 168 (365110)
11-21-2006 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by nator
11-21-2006 6:44 AM


Re: maturity
A male figure is literally throwing away a female figure, head first, into a garbage can. How does that not allude to a crime?
??? I said I could see how someone could see that. Its just not inherent. I'd turn your question right back at you...
Why does the image of a male figure throwing a female figure into a garbage can (head first or otherwise), inherently allude to a crime? That is especially with the giant words Hump&Dump above it.
Is it not possible to view the image in an entirely metaphorical context? I honestly did not see any "crime" being hinted at. I saw a statement that whoever this is is joking about using girls for sex in a rather callous manner. Love 'em & Leave 'em = Hump 'em & Dump 'em = Hump&Dump.
To me that was obvious, and I don't see why that would be errant.
I don't find it drastic at all to get to an interpretation of "crude, rude, and derogatory" from pretending that you are urinating into someone's mouth.
You aren't pissing into someone's mouth. The toilet has a mouth. You are pissing into IT's mouth. That's part of the humorous quality.
In any case, assuming it is supposed to be someone's mouth, how is that a statement of people wanting to treat others badly? The thing is smiling and happy. It apparently always likes it.
That is different than the tshirt which does not suggest treating the other person well, or that the other person likes it.

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 92 by nator, posted 11-21-2006 6:44 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by nator, posted 11-21-2006 6:47 PM Silent H has not replied

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


Message 95 of 168 (365114)
11-21-2006 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by RickJB
11-21-2006 8:28 AM


Re: the condesending nature of christian "concern"
So what? The term "gay" used to mean "joyous" after all. Meanings, like culture, change with the times.
Uhhh... I thought my post agreed and addressed this very issue. But I guess I'll disagree with one aspect. Marriage as a legal institution has a much different history than the use of "gay" to mean joyous or homosexual.
I didn't say civil unions were a denial of rights, I said the the denial of legal rights is the most pressing issue for homosexual couples.
Okay, I wasn't quite clear, because NJ had already stated he was for civil unions, just not the use of the name marriage.
However, if one accepts gay civil unions then one, in legal and practical terms, also accepts gay marriage. As I asked NJ, what's the difference?
Yes, then I did get you right in that aspect. I simply turned the question around. If they are equal, there is no difference, then why can't gays accept civil unions instead of marriages?
To argue that those who want to preserve the current and longstanding legal definition of marriage must be biased, because there is no practical difference, begs the question. Why aren't gays to be viewed as the ones being biased in trying to enforce their religious/philosophical viewpoint on others?
I might add that one does not have to be a Xian to view marriage as between opposite sexes. That is a longstanding traditional concept across all nations and cultures and religions. Even nonreligious gov'ts (such as communist ones) used that definition and have denied gays the ability to use it.
However I see the point that it is largely being argued by religious people in the US and many appeal to religious tradition. If that IS the case, that's when I argue we shouldn't be engaged in granting marriages in the first place.
BUT... there certainly IS precedent for the gov't validating wholly religious labels. Should anyone be free to label their goods as "kosher", demanding that Jewish concepts should not be enforced on anyone wanting to use that term on foods being sold?

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 93 by RickJB, posted 11-21-2006 8:28 AM RickJB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by RickJB, posted 11-21-2006 10:32 AM Silent H has replied

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


Message 103 of 168 (365154)
11-21-2006 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by RickJB
11-21-2006 10:32 AM


Re: the condesending nature of christian "concern"
They were non-religious heterosexual civil ceremonies with many of the visual elements derived from traditonal weddings (white gown for the bride, etc). Ask either participant and they will certainly tell you that they consider themselves "married".
Not sure if you saw any of my posts on dutch laws. They actually have three separate kinds of unions. Two are identical for all legal rights etc, the third has a few less rights involved.
They are all secular/legal entities. One is officially labelled "marriage". The others can be called that by the people that use them, but that is not their legal title. Essentially one is for those that want all the rights of marriage but have no interest in being called "married". Sort of a protest union.
Here in London the term "kosher" also means "genuine". Indeed this slang meaning is probably more widely understood! Legislating for the sake of a word seems fruitless at best....
This is a fantastic example. Kosher has certainly broadened in general meaning.
Now imagine someone stating that state regulations pertaining to authenticating food as kosher should be expanded. That is hey, my beef sausage is kosher (genuine/all right) so its unfair that these guys get to use that term but I don't.
The reaction from Jewish orgs will be to point out that the regulations on authentication were created based on the traditional definition, and suddenly having a ton of products using the same term but the more broad definition will create confusion for Jews, or anyone else wanting food manufactured using tradionally kosher methods.
The whole point of kosher was to identify a certain kind of food based on its methods of production. Marriage was to identify a specific kind of union.

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 96 by RickJB, posted 11-21-2006 10:32 AM RickJB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by nwr, posted 11-21-2006 1:58 PM Silent H has not replied
 Message 110 by RickJB, posted 11-21-2006 2:47 PM Silent H has not replied

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


Message 104 of 168 (365161)
11-21-2006 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by nator
11-21-2006 6:44 AM


eye of the beholder
The meaning is not inherent?... How does that not allude to a crime?
I talked this issue over with my gf and I realized something about this claim. To say that it is inherent and an allusion to crime, that seems to suggest that the makers had to have understood and perhaps intended such a meaning.
Do you actually believe that the makers of that shirt meant to sell a shirt implying a men kill women and dump their bodies in dumpsters? Or that such a thing is humorous?
And the urinal "implication" contains the same issue. The idea behind it was to make something interesting out of urinal design, beyond mere function. She found it kitschy and funny. Are we to take that as the implicit meaning, or that of how some groups may view it?
You say that pissing in a humorous (lets say female) mouth is to be derogatory. Say she had made them in the shape of a flower. Would that mean people should view it as people pissing on nature? Or say she decided to line them with images from famous paintings. Would that then be interpreted as pissing on art, or specific artists?
If these latter cases should not be viewed that way, why should the mouth be viewed that way?
As a thought experiment. Maybe you should find some of these urinals and draw moustaches on them (or maybe add a groucho marx glasses and moustache thingy). If guys start complaining in droves about having to pee into a guy's mouth, and that that is degrading, that could be interesting.

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 92 by nator, posted 11-21-2006 6:44 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by nator, posted 11-21-2006 7:31 PM Silent H has replied

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


Message 112 of 168 (365193)
11-21-2006 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Hyroglyphx
11-21-2006 12:50 PM


Re: the condesending nature of christian "concern"
I'm going to leave the subject of gays in the military alone to cut down on topics. I think your position on it is incredibly errant, but we can save it for another thread.
After awhile the whole institution of marriage will be turned into a mockery
I get that one might want to preserve the meaning of a term that has a long tradition. But I don't see how broadening the meaning to allow others to use the term makes it a mockery. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery and all that.
Diluted and less defined, yeah. Mockery, which would mean a joke, no.
The sanctity of the institution of marriage is already being regarded flippantly by many people.
Sanctity implies sacredness, religious reverence. If that is the case perhaps the gov't shouldn't be involved at all. What about the solution of just having civil unions, and allow people themselves to have separate sacred ceremonies according to their own style and definition?
they are the ones who segregate themselves by making a big deal about their sexual preference. If one's sexual preference really is no big deal and you don't want to be treated differently, then why would you make it a big deal? Isn't that counter intuitive?
I am actually American, just living overseas. Thus I am in tune with gay imagery in media (even if not the most recent). I think you make a valid point that some gays do embrace the stereotype and that image does seem to be celebrated in the media.
You are also right that there are cases of self-segregation. I have personally been offended when I have not been allowed to bring my gf into some gay bars/clubs, yet there is a demand that gays can go anywhere straights are allowed.
But that is a criticism of some, not all, and I don't think it has anything to do more obvious or open sexual refs in things gays do (which is simply a matter of taste), or what pride parades are about. Most importantly, I don't see how this suggests what they find as most significant issues in their lives.
Do you readily here of a heterosexual man referring to his sexuality as being a determinant in who he is as a person? No. He will likely mention his job or his fatherhood, or his marital status, or his interests as defining who he is. Its different for homosexuals. You aren't a sportsman-- you're a 'gay' sportsman. You aren't a lawyer-- you're a 'gay' lawyer.
I see exactly what you are saying, but I think you are missing why this is happening. I think most gays would be quite happy just being a sportsman, lawyer, etc.
The problem is that they are NOT allowed to be viewed as those things once it is discovered they are gay. Society (in general) suddenly views them as just that. Their sexuality. Most are fighting that by showing they can be gay AND the other thing.
If you want things to return to normal, why not treat homosexuality as insignificant a factor as anything else?
I might add that perhaps you are seeing those that make the most noise, and not what most gays are actually like.
Maybe you can name one set of parents or even prospective gay parents who actually 'want' their child to be gay.
I think many would say they don't care, rather than prefering their child to be gay or straight. It is true many might hope their kids are straight just so they don't have to go through so much heart ache and oppression. Likewise, name the parents that want their children to be interested in pursuing interracial relationships, or a different religion, or a different political persuasion.
an exorbitant amount of suicide by homosexuals is prevalent. Per capita it is extremely disproportionate. I think that speaks highly about the issue.
Uh... they aren't living freely yet, thus the statistic is meaningless to the question.
Gay pride parades seem to an excuse to meet other gay people while prancing around your underwear. Afterall, what purpose does it serve to pat yourself on the back for something that you had no control over?
??? They generate revenue, and they serve as an excuse to drink... like St P and the 4th... as well as prance around naked in underwear (or whatever). As far as being sexual, been to Mardi Gras much?
As far as the rest, are you claiming people have a control over whether they were born Irish, or American?
And people that are not gay can join in the celebrations just as in any other celebration. In Amsterdam I saw many families who brought their kids to enjoy the festivities.
If you are born with something, what sense does it make to exalt that? There is something in Miami called the "Columbus-day regatta." .... Instead, the participants moor their boats together and get naked. Its an excuse to get naked and have sex.
They certainly can have that facet as well, but if you think that is all they are about then my guess is you haven't actually seen a gay pride parade. They usually involve issues such as politics and health, along with the gyrating hardbodies. Heheheh... or is it that you have seen the parades but couldn't get your eyes off the hardbodies?
Yeah, Andrew Cunanan probably wasn't gay. Or John Wayne Gacy, or Jeffrey Dahmer.
Are you claiming that these serial killers were acting out stereotypes of being gay? My statement was that at least those who wrap themselves up in the issue of being gay, as opposed to say a religious zealot, don't end up going on murderous rampages.
Two of those guys were certainly not at one with their being gay and targeted gays. Stereotypical religious zealots feel the call of their religion to kill others. About the only call there is in stereotypical homosexuality is to make passes at any cute guy that moves.

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 102 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-21-2006 12:50 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-22-2006 5:06 PM Silent H has replied

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


Message 120 of 168 (365307)
11-22-2006 5:10 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by nator
11-21-2006 7:31 PM


Re: eye of the beholder
Answering last two replies in this one...
Well, to me it alludes very strongly to a serial rapist/murderer of women.
Not alludes... that it can be interpreted as meaning. I think there is an important distinction there. One is about what it is trying to say, the other is how people might respond to it.
For example Marley's 'No Woman, No Cry' is about a man comforting his gf. Many may interpret it as meaning if you don't have any gf you won't have any problems.
I wholly agree the tshirt has symbolry which can be (mis)interpreted from the intended message. But it seems extremely odd to believe it was suggesting killing and dumping women's bodies in dumpsters.
People make all sorts of stuff like that and sell it and think it's humorous.
Yep, but the question is is that really the message these makers were going for with THIS shirt? Your position seems more than a bit strained. It doesn't even mention killing in the phrase which directly mirrors love em n leave em. You've invented that context.
You haven't answered whether the other interpretation I have put forward is valid and perhaps more obvious, given the slogan on it.
What's more this appears to be part of the series of shirts (they are all over the markets here) using common "sign" images remixed into comical contexts. This being the mix of male and female restroom symbols and the trashcan symbol.
I'm sorry to say that the images in your links didn't show up. I couldn't access that site at all.
If there was a smiling mouth on the face of Jesus on each toilet, do you think it would be reasonable for Christians to get offended? I mean, Jesus is smiling and happy while people piss into his mouth; apparently he likes it.
That's a valid point, and I had been thinking of discussing something similar (a line of toilets with various religious symbols) just to point up a difference. The difference in that case is that those are specific identities, which people have lots of invested emotion in.
Personally I think it would be very funny to have such a urinal, especially if it then gave quotes on the flush ("Do unto others...", "Blessed are the pissmakers", etc). But yeah I could see how that would piss some people off.
I mean, come on, holmes. "To piss on" somebody or something is a put-down; an insult.
Again, only if you must view everything in a political context. You have to piss somewhere. It is just as valid to make the receptacle interesting to look at while you are pissing, as purely functional.
A human mouth is different than a flower or a bunch of paintings.
It is not a human mouth. It is comically exaggerated. As I said it is as much the toilet having a mouth, than that the toilet becomes a person.
In any case I don't on what basis you can make the above assertion. What about to the nature freak, or the art freak? Some people might have no problems with pissing on humans, since they are fucking up the world, but be offended having to piss on nature.
Is there a real context, or is it all in the eye of the beholder?
It's the same reason people I used to work with had no problem slicing up corned beef but freaked out when they had to slice beef tongue.
??? I wouldn't. Apparently many people do not, since it is for sale publicly (in whole form). That people can identify with it does not give that an inherent meaning. Or even a likely meaning.
pretending to piss on a flower is not anywhere close to pretending to piss in a human mouth.
But again that is just it. Who says you are pissing into a human mouth? You. That is the context you put on it. It wasn't the intention of the designer, nor apparently was it the view of the people who bought, installed, and used it. Otherwise why would they?
You are pissing into a toilet shaped like a mouth (comical). You are supposed to laugh at the toilet as a work of kitsch art that you piss into.
If I am supposed to inherently believe I am pissing into a human mouth, and that such a thing holds a derogatory context, then that opens the door to all other claims for any other identifiable shape toilet.
To my mind that is just mandating humorless prigishness.
And I might add that not all people find peeing on a person or into a mouth derogatory. Piss sex is a bit more popular here. What if the artist was into that and designed the toilet in the shape of her mouth, for the thought that people were all pissing into her mouth?
Frankly I never met a girl with a mouth that looked like that toilet.

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 117 by nator, posted 11-21-2006 7:31 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by nator, posted 11-22-2006 7:53 AM Silent H has replied

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


Message 122 of 168 (365336)
11-22-2006 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by nator
11-22-2006 7:53 AM


Re: eye of the beholder
What species does it represent if it isn't a representative of a human mouth?
A quote mine? On this issue? I can't believe it.
I was pretty clear that it was REPRESENTATIVE of a human mouth, as in that is what it is derived from. That is NOT the same thing as being a human mouth or trying to suggest actual human mouths. Here is what followed the single sentence you addressed...
It is comically exaggerated. As I said it is as much the toilet having a mouth, than that the toilet becomes a person.
Deal with that portion. The fish in SharkTales have human mouths... that does not mean the fish ARE human. Rather it gives the fish a human persona. In this case the toilet has been given a humorous persona with a smiling mouth.
To clarify, the shirts I linked to were:
Actually I notice they are showing up now. I had used the peek mode and tried the actual site and it didn't work at the time either. Must have been down at the time.
I agree with your interpretation of two of the shirts. The sex offender one I think is just supposed to be joking like one is bragging that they have been branded that, not because they specifically rape women. But I'm willing to agree for sake of argument. I didn't say people don't make rude and derogatory tshirts.
What they say or mean cannot reflect on what another tshirt actually means.
You seemed to be rather surprised or incredulous that a company would actually create or sell a shirt like that.
No, that would be you reading into what I said. Thanks for making my point. I said one thing, you misread it.
In this case I was plainly asking you if you thought your interpretation was the intended message of the makers. It does not seem clear that it would be at all. If it was they could have had much different imagery and verbiage.
My actual answer is that I don't know exactly what they intended, and neither do you,
To be sure I cannot be certain, but your interpretation takes a few more steps, and does not explain why they used less clear verbiage if that is what they meant. Clearly these other tshirt makers were explicit in what they meant.
But I also think that it's not unlikely that they were also going for the double entendre of literally discarding disposable women, dead, in the garbage.
And I think that's a bit of a stretch to make. I also think its a bit unfair to criticize people or works based on such assumptions.
Lets say we went to the tshirt maker and they said they had absolutely no intention of having your proposed meaning, and think that interpretation is ridiculous? Does that change anything, or is it up to them to take into account all possible ways someone could take it? As it is with the lips-urinal you totally misjudged its source and intent, and that's exactly what the artist said of people that had your read.

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 121 by nator, posted 11-22-2006 7:53 AM nator has not replied

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


Message 131 of 168 (365497)
11-22-2006 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Taz
11-22-2006 6:52 PM


Re: the condesending nature of christian "concern"
You know there is enough to disagree with, and have a constructive dialogue on, that one does not need to simply make things up...
NJ equates gays with dogs and children, neither of which can legally give consent.
This issue was put to rest. First of all he didn't equate them. Second consent is a bs smokescreen to the topic. But I guess people can keep repeating whatever they want, huh?
In his latest post, he even went as far as bringing in the Nambla argument.
He appropriately brought in NAMBLA against a position that another poster took. He was challenging that poster's argument showing that NAMBLA uses it. The distinction that that poster will have to make, will likely help NJ's position in the long run.
That's called a good debate technique.
Please pick up your game.
Edited by holmes, : better first sentence

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 130 by Taz, posted 11-22-2006 6:52 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Taz, posted 11-22-2006 9:15 PM Silent H has not replied

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


Message 140 of 168 (365545)
11-23-2006 5:23 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by Taz
11-22-2006 9:28 PM


my side fumbles the ball
I think I'm going to cut NJ a break from here on out. While I wholly disagree with his position, and I would normally continue arguing with him, the number of people ganging up on him with fallacious arguments has gotten my goat.
I will address your last post to me as well as this post supporting coragyps's argument.
Are you saying that there is no difference between 2 adults of legal age having sex and an adult and an underage having sex?
I didn't say anything of the kind. Neither did NJ. There are a myriad of differences one can look at to define anybody haing sex in some way from someone else... and from there to create a legal definition based on those definitions.
Appealing to current legal definitions is NOT appropriate for making an argument, particularly when the whole point is that laws need to be changed for the specific group in question (gays).
Less than 5 years ago homosexual sex was ILLEGAL. Thus at that time NJ could easily have argued "there is no difference between 2 adults of legal age and orientation having sex and an adult having sex with the inappropriate gender?"
Currently homosexual marriage is still NOT legal. We are wanting to change it. If we buy into the argument you just proposed then it comes back to hit us in the ass now. That is unless your entire argument consists of the arbitrary insistence we are always right and so get to decide when laws are to be taken as evidence for what should be the case.
No, he didn't. The "other" poster was talking about 2 consenting adults giving each other consent to have sex. There was no reason for him to bring in nambla other than to argue against people's right to give consent.
It really doesn't matter WHAT the other poster was talking about. It was the argument that he used which was in question. I could go further to point out how your (and his) position on the concept of "consent" is completely (and conveniently) arbitrary and could just as well be used by NJ AGAINST gays, but I don't need to in order to make my point on this...
It's not a good debate technique. It's poisoning the well by introducing a subtopic that has nothing to do with the conversation.
Its called a reductio ad absurdum. Its a valid technique and NJ employs it to good effect. It is not "poisoning the well" unless one assumes that one must be absolutely right and so in no need to answer his point regarding the argument.
I give NJ this credit, at the very least he allows some of his points to be questioned and he deals with them using some measure of logic. You and another poster appear to have no interest but to taunt and assume your own version of reality and morality can be used to judge all others in some objective fashion, such that logic is unnecessary.
Normally I wouldn't care, but you guys happen to be on my side of this argument and are really looking ignorant.
I've read enough of your posts to know your position on the underage and sex.
You may have read them, but at this point I doubt you have understood them. I mean what would this even mean regarding this current debate?
Let's assume you are ignorant enough of my position to believe I want no laws in place regarding sex with minors. I was pointing out the merit of NJ's argument against the other poster's. NJ clearly would want such laws in place, and on top of that does not like homosexual marriage (or sex), so my backing him wouldn't help my position (your strawman of it anyway) at all.
Further I did not in any way claim there were no ways around NJ's argument. The only thing which is NOT valid, is to simply appeal to current law. That is not argument it is merely a non sequitor.
I think this short little post by Coragyps is too important to be ignored. One of my cousins married an asian girl. It amazed me to find out that some in her family as well as mine frowned on their relationship simply because they came from two different cultures, and we're in the 21st century.
While I happen to agree with the Supreme Court decision which struck down anti-miscegenation laws, and would prefer more tolerance toward such relationships, Coragyps was errant in his statement about those laws.
The Supreme Court, as an agent of our government, broadened the definition of marriage to include unions between persons of differing skin colors only 39 years ago.
The Supreme Court did NOT broaden the definition of marriage. What had happened is that laws were brought into place to narrow the definition from what it was. The very makers and defenders of that legislation admitted in court that their definition was NOT the traditional social or legal definition of marriage. Their argument was that the traditional definition of marriage NEEDED to be changed for social reasons.
The SC rejected their changing of the traditional definition of marriage, especially as such marriages had already been enacted and so precedent. While surficially that decision appears to support gay marriage arguments, in reality it does not.
Gay marriage is a new concept and it is equally a change in the traditional definition. It raises the question (for some) of if a traditional social/legal definition can or should be changed, if other methods allow for equal legal protection?
Edited by holmes, : minor clean up

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 137 by Taz, posted 11-22-2006 9:28 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Taz, posted 11-23-2006 5:33 PM Silent H has replied

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


Message 141 of 168 (365546)
11-23-2006 6:28 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by Hyroglyphx
11-22-2006 5:06 PM


Re: the condesending nature of christian "concern"
This may be my last post to you in this thread. You are in the position of getting nailed in many different threads, and so could probably use a break. Also, I find my "team" on this subject is resorting to some pretty piss poor argument skills, so my attention may be better placed elsewhere.
I am not interested in changing your mind about liking homosexuality, nor thinking that it won't make them (and I assume bi's like me) happy in the long run. While I think you are wrong regarding that latter portion, I can't argue about taste and that most likely will lead to your conclusions on happiness.
Here are remaining issues, perhaps to think about, rather than respond to...
If you were to include a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, then why not extend it to something else while were at it?
Well we very well could. That's been going on with language since the beginning of language. But leave that aside. You did not address my point. My focus was on your word "mockery". Broadening a definition could be accused of diluting it, but I don't see how one claims that it makes it a mockery.
I guess one could make that argument that since marriage is inherently a religious institution, that the government is infringing upon the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment. At the same time, marriage has synthesized into sort of a catch-all. I think the government stepped in for reasons of legal indemnity and identity.
Well I would disagree that marriage is inherently a religious institution, but if that is advanced as the case then it does violate the establishment clause (I see no way around it). Appealing to to the fact that marriage has been synthesized into a catch-all only helps gay marriage activists. It is in fact why I see no problem with it myself.
I think for a group that wants so badly to achieve parity with everyone else and wants to not be treated differently should probably take their own advice and stop segregating themselves or highlighting their sexuality.
I'm sorry but religious people do the exact same thing with their lives. Not all but many. Same for many gays, but not all. Its the ones that are vocal that stand out, and form an incorrect image about the many others who are not that way.
When I was living within religious communities I saw a wide variety of religious people. Now that I am outside such communities pretty much all I see are the sterotypical fundie crackpots that can't shut up about their being Xian. Xian coming before everything else.
When I was firmly outside the gay community I only saw the stereotypical flaming crackpots that can't shut up about their being gay. Gay coming before everything else. Now that I am living (relatively) within the gay community I see a wide variety of gay people.
My thought is that you simply view it from a distance and so are getting the wrong idea.
Then how do explain homosexuals inventing their own websites? Gay Realty? What the hell does sexual preference have to do with realty? Nobody made it that way. They did that all on their own.
To be brutally honest I loathe businesses which are focused on a single facet of life which has nothing to do with the business at hand. Websites I don't care about, but there certainly are a lot of different businesses like that.
I'm not sure why you would slam only gays with this. Many minorities have such entities, and Xians do as well. Heck, religious biz's are being given the right to discriminate in hiring practices (something gay and other minority orgs CANNOT do), and that with federal contracting money. If you can figure out why Xians do it, then you will understand why gays do it.
That's a rather massive redwood you'll have to pluck from your eye first.
In fact, I've done nothing that might be considered as proactive other than having conversations like I am now.
Look, from the way you talk I don't think you are overtly doing anything to anyone. You simply seem not to like it, and think its unhealthy/unhappy/unnatural, whatever. But that is not what the much of the world is like.
I pointed out that you did not show pictures of adversity. Schraf gave some very real pix and as I mentioned (not sure if you saw my post to her) one of those people were beaten a short distance from where I live, and have also been threatened, and a TS was murdered. I happen to live in an extremely gay friendly city, and this is what happens.
You need to get more proactive in fighting discrimination around you when you see it. The tone exists that sexual minorities must be viewed as ONLY their sexuality and punished for it. Until that changes, things will not be "normal".
I don't think there are too many people that can slip underneath the 'gaydar' as far as I'm concerned. Its usually pretty obvious.
Heheheh... then you simply have no idea what gay people are like, or who enjoys it from time to time. I can't stand the flaming gay variety. Self-stereotyping of all kinds annoys me anyway, but they are pretty grating in particular. But there are many straight looking, acting, you name it, gays out there. They don't make a big production out of it... they just do it.
And how would you know, unless they did make a big production of who they are, and then that would fall right back into your criticism.
Intriguingly you don't want to be seen as the stereotypical Xian homophobe, yet seem to be arguing you can judge what gays are like on their stereotype.
Doesn't it strike you as odd that countless cultures over the span of thousands of years don't accept it for legitimate reasons?
This is where you are factually errant. While one can make the case that homosexual marriage was unknown in the manner you suggest, homosexuality (or homosexual sexual activity) has been acceptable.
It is true that many cultures have not accepted it, but then that's true of a lot of other activities as well. It seems to me that more have accepted it when viewed over time and global scales. The rise of Abrahamic sexual codes and their greater enforcement does not suggest anything about human kind in general. And nations using such codes have spread their beliefs by military force such that many cultures now follow sexual proscriptions which weren't their "natural" proclivity.
I would turn it back on you to ask why it has been acceptable to many cultures over time? And since it has, why can't it be now in our own? Truly what business is it of anyone else's?
No, but homosexuals do. That's my point. Even many homosexuals have conceded that they do
Then this is a contradictory position for you. If you DO believe that homosexuality is a choice then you should support their pride marches (according to your argument).
As for me I do not believe that people have full control over their sexual orientation at all. That said, I think people can adjust them to some degree. People can certainly choose to start having sex with members of their own gender. It can't be a sudden dive at the deep end of the pool, but given the right environment I think it can happen.
I also think people can train themselves away from their basic orientation, thus narrowing or switching their sexuality rather than broadening it.
However in any case I believe there will be limits. Despite being a practicing bi, I usually caveat that term. No matter what I might want and how often I am exposed to such encounters I have absolutely no control over facial types and bodies (and cocks) that I will or will not like. In my case I am so particular about faces (men's or women's) that I know I could not be fully happy in a gay relationship. Men's faces simply do not attract me in the same sexual way that women's do... or if so, only in extremely rare instances.
I do not see why it is impossible for a man to feel the same thing toward female faces or bodies and so never feel quite fulfilled in a relationship with a woman.
That's another thing I find disturbing about the whole thing. Its a political platform
This is another contradiction. First you said they are only meat fests, and now you admit they are political platforms.
If your position is that gay parades are political left demonstrations with a heavy dose of sexual openness/celebration, and people will use that as an excuse to party, then I don't think you'll find anyone disagreeing with you.
The problem is when you pigeonhole them as merely meatfests where the only thing they are showing interest in is sex.
Uhhhhhh.... What? I've read this over three times and I'm still not understanding what you are saying clearly...
I suggested that gays embracing the stereotype of absolute gayness do not go around killing other people. That would be in contrast to a religious zealot who in embracing that stereotype, would indeed end up killing people.
Your response was to list some serial killers that were gay. That seems errant as their killing had nothing to do with their gayness, or trying to play up the stereotype of being gay. In fact they tended to hate themselves for being gay and targeted gays.
When zealots play the stereotype, they embrace being a martyr who takes down enemies of God. I didn't make the world so don't blame me that one stereotype involves killing and one does not.

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 127 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-22-2006 5:06 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-23-2006 1:44 PM Silent H has replied

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


Message 148 of 168 (365611)
11-23-2006 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by Chiroptera
11-23-2006 12:16 PM


Re: People talking past each other.
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.
Actually that's not necessarily so, though that is certainly one valid possibility. He could very well have two totally separate reasons for why each is wrong. Of course people can ask what are the criteria he uses but that does not get at his argument.
An argument was advanced for why something should be allowed. NJ used a reductio by showing that someone the poster might not want to allow freedom to do what they want appeals to the same argument.
The poster is then in the position to explain why that argument is supposed to hold for NJ, but not for the poster. It is really irrelevant why either hold the wrong to be that way, as it is about the nature of the appeal.
By simply appealing to the law to create a distinction, is to de facto create an argument that no laws can be questioned. As I pointed out above, less than 5 years ago... and currently in many nations... homosexuality was illegal. Would NJ have the ability to appeal to the criteria of that law? If not, then neither can posters against his position.
To get gay rights the argument was that the criteria of the law was not worthwhile and so they should be allowed their rights. NABMLA is most certainly making the same claim.
NJ has every right to question why those who like to shift criteria feel their criteria are above question, or definitive. If their's can be, so can his. A taste-test or popularity contest of criteria is insufficient to determine whose criteria is the proper legal definition.
As long as people argue that criteria are sufficiently established by their existence or popularity in a culture, NJ's position is supported regardless if his criteria. This is twice now that NJ is beating people using a reductio, and no one seems clear that's what's going on.

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 145 by Chiroptera, posted 11-23-2006 12:16 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Chiroptera, posted 11-23-2006 2:31 PM Silent H has replied

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


Message 157 of 168 (365624)
11-23-2006 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by Hyroglyphx
11-23-2006 1:44 PM


Re: the condesending nature of christian "concern"
I viewed as individual expression of their thoughts and feelings, not a team sport.
Heheheh... I was criticized heavily by at least one of the posters for not treating this all as team sport (a while back).
I don't see that many homosexuals view marriage as important to their personal affectation. I see them viewing as an important beachhead to win in the overall war against traditionalism.
Again, I'd have to ask how many gays you actually know to make such a claim. I can see how that might appear to you, but its not realistic. I would agree that some view it as an important beachhead... but that's beside the point.
But from what we know of tradition, dating as far back as the fertile mesopotamian region, man and wife were given a ceremony by a holy man.
Not always, not even in the US. In Holland it has to be done by someone who is NOT religious (that would have to be done afterward). In the US I've known more than one that has simply had civil ceremonies. All you need is a judge. This is to ignore one of the longest traditions of the sea which is marriage by captain's of ships.
But homosexuals claim they were born that way from the get-go. If that's true, why is that placed on a pedestal as if it were some sort of achievement?
We are going in circles. People like Americans and Irish celebrate that thing they were born with. Heck even twins, red heads, and left handed people can be found celebrate their inborn characteristics.
But "Gay Realty" makes as much sense, from their own point of view, as "Asian Realty." It doesn't make any sense.
It means they won't get hassled or questioned about their life by members of that business, and that the money will go to grow the community. It makes sense, even if I am not very happy with that attitude.
You and I both know that most homosexuals have never been so much as looked upon with contempt, rather than beaten.
That is a bizarre assertion which does not exactly make me happy. I've told you I've known and have myself been threatened. I do not know one straight person who has been targeted for violence because they are straight. I cannot tell you direct statistics, but it has to beat the numbers of straights beaten and killed. It is a pretty common experience.
As far as your examples of people raped by homosexuals, that is different. Rape is a different issue altogether. I myself was raped/sexually assaulted by a guy. That is something totally different than a person targeting you for a beating for who you are (or they perceive you to be). It is also much different than societal norms which are accepting of such beatings and deaths.
I am not claiming that gays do not rape and kill. I'm stating that gays get targeted because they are gay. People generally do not get targeted for a beating because they are straight.
It was acceptable in Greece, Rome, and is acceptable in a few Middle Eastern countries. I know of no other civilization that has accepted homosexuality, especially way back then.
Are you kidding? It was generally not considered as anything worthy of notice all over the place. In Japan it was allowed within samurai ranks just the same, so it wasn't even just a low class thing. If you want to know why it is re-emerging now, maybe just trace to why it began to disappear, where its roots were and what has happened more recently to change those facts.
My argument would be that with the advent of secular democracy, civil rights have become more important and religious tenets have shifted more into the background. Civil rights tend to encourage individualism and reduce parentalism. That has led to questioning of all sorts of repressed behaviors.
Intriguingly this has not been completely successful. Progressives have tried to hold onto parentalism especially regarding sexuality. Initially homosexuality was still repressed but that has given way somewhat while other sexual outlets have been demonized instead.
If you turn back time, you can make the connection between homosexuality and the fall of empires.
Heheheh. I don't think so. That is a thread all in itself. As a good quick example Rome fell only after embracing Xianity and rejecting homosexuality.
I could just turn the argument around on you that if pederasty was so prevalent and widely accepted, why can't it be again?
It could with the exception that it runs into parental and individual rights. Child slavery would be outlawed on the principle of individual rights alone. Open pederasty could theoretically exist, but the rights of parents would have to be maintained and my guess is most would NOT want their kids doing it. Thus laws would end up covering that to some extent as well. But there is no inherent reason why it couldn't happen again. My guess is the world wouldn't end.
I'd say best to stay off the sex with minors issue. Most here can't seem to handle a discussion on it without freaking out.
Religious zealots embrace the stereotype of killing people? First of all, religion is so broad that you can't indict all of them. I would dare say that there are many Buddhist zealots who kill no one, while there are many Islamic zealots that kill lots of people.
This is true. I should have specified militant religious zealots.

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 147 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-23-2006 1:44 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

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


Message 158 of 168 (365625)
11-23-2006 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Chiroptera
11-23-2006 2:31 PM


Re: People talking past each other.
My fault, really. I shouldn't chime in unless I've been reading carefully.
Heheh... I can't say anything. I just totally did the same thing in another thread with schraf. At the very least you were still accurate and your recommendation would be useful. My comment was way off base.

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 151 by Chiroptera, posted 11-23-2006 2:31 PM Chiroptera has not replied

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


Message 163 of 168 (365641)
11-23-2006 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by Taz
11-23-2006 5:33 PM


Re: my side fumbles the ball
Holmes, I'm not a philosopher so I can't think in terms of philosophical la-la land like you.
I wish you wouldn't refer to it as lala land and I kind of wish you wouldn't put yourself down like that. This is simple logic and it is useful in daily life. It is probably just a matter of experience analyzing arguments.
But if you go back and read the responses leading up to NJ's comparason between homosexual relationship and pedophilia
I've read it and I have understood it. He is not comparing gays to pedophiles. If anything he is saying that pedophiles are comparing themselves to gays using an argument the other poster was providing. He is asking for a response, and is due one.
If you cannot understand that this is what he was doing, then there isn't much more I can say. It is pretty simple.
I don't care if you have the bulk of the philosophy community behind you, there is no connection between 2 consenting adults having sex and an adult raping a child.
Well I am unsure anyone has ever argued that, not even NAMBLA. But I'm also not sure how one can argue there simply is no connection between anything no matter what anyone says. Its possible you might be wrong, right?
would you say that comparing homosexual acts between 2 consenting adults and pedophilia valid?
This is wayyyyy too vague of a question for me to answer properly. It is also, in its own way, a loaded question, for which I am wayyyyyy too smart to answer.
Given that pedophilia was treated as equal in legality and social standing to any other sexuality until the recent past, and is still equal in some parts of the world (and in the US depending on the state), clearly it is validly COMPARABLE to other sexualities by other people.
I would never EQUATE homosexuality with any other sexuality because it is what it is. Just as any other sexuality is what it is. No sexuality is inherently tied to another.
This ignorant but tolerant liberal is reminded of segregation and how the concept of "seperate but equal" was used to provide so-called "legal protection" to the negros. It failed miserably and only resulted in much intolerance.
Actually I understand how that position is advanced, unfortunately it doesn't have that much weight. In the earlier case they actually had to physically use something separate (facilities, services, etc). That meant that they could be shortchanged in a practical way.
Using a different checkbox on a form, granting all similar legal rights, would not result in the same potential deficits.
What I offer is my sincere tolerance and love for my fellow men and women, which is more than comparing 2 consenting adults to children and dogs.
I'm not seeing much tolerance from your end. I am seeing someone who has their own view of life with those they like and those they hate, and simply labelling the fact they like the people they like as "tolerance".
Tolerance is living alongside people that you do not like and treating them with civility.
I still don't understand why you think that's a smoke screen
The concept of "consent" with regard to sex is a smokescreen in that it confuses what actually underlies a person's moral or legal position on sexuality. I mean its just a term. Who is going to argue against "consent"? Not me. No one. What does it actually mean? Uh oh. I'm going to be as brief as possible on this...
Clearly everyone understands the idea of simple consent, which is agreeing to do something. If someone does something against another's will, that would be against their consent, they disagree and so it becomes rape, kidnapping, theft, whatever.
The Age of Consent (aoc) laws were not originally constructed with the idea of measuring if/when children were capable of giving consent. That is an ad hoc rationalization as these laws came into question/review. In reality aoc laws were propagated for reasons such as preventing child prostitution, as well as protecting parents from having their daughters knocked up. The laws were to strip the children from having the ability to LEGALLY give consent... not that they were unable or unlikely to give simple consent.
And that is where it all starts getting tricky. Kids can give simple consent. Its pretty obvious. So that's when the rationalization changes to "informed consent". The idea that kids don't know enough about sex and so must be protected by law.
Unfortunately there is no consistency to that argument. If this is true then there should be no sex allowed under that age at all. Most liberal adherents are unlikely to start charging kids for having sex with themselves or other kids. Informed consent would also effect the mentally handicapped of any age. Yet we would certainly allow that.
Further if informed consent is the concern then why is it arbitrarily placed on sex and not everything else in life where a child's ignorance might get them hurt? The idea that sex has greater inherent risk, is itself just an anti-sex bias.
If anything, if we believed that ignorance was a potential for harm, it would be more upsetting for kids to be having sex with other kids RATHER than someone that would know the risks.
Thus the concept of "informed consent" is the fig leaf justification one wears for the naked hatred towards adults having sex with kids. That is all it is there for. No one would apply it to any other situation.
The charge associated with aoc violations essentially admit we are not discussing violations of simple consent, since it is statutory rape or less, and not informed consent as we are unconcerned with any measure of what someone might know. There are marriage laws which essentially nullify aoc requirements, meaning the state recognizes a person can have sex at a younger age as long as they are married.
And it gets better, you may not be aware of this but aoc laws may also have different age levels based on sex as well as sexual orientation. If consent is the foundation then apparently states must view homosexuals or different genders as having different cognitive abilities to give consent.
NJ could easily appeal to whatever reason there is for that difference in cognitive ability and argue it should even be higher for homosexuals. Why not? You claim consent is found in those laws and those laws do state there is a difference.
If you begin to argue that those kinds of laws are unjust then we are right back where we started, with you having to explain why they are not unjust to people like NAMBLA.
As it is NJ could appeal to how homosexual sex was viewed not 40 years ago... a psychological disorder. He could argue that homosexuals do not have the capacity to give informed consent, just like we protect children (according to your argument). What are you going to appeal to on that? That psych orgs no longer have it on the lists of disorders? That would be an argument of convenience to be sure.
What does that mean for if that argument had been made in the past? What if it is readded to the DSM? What if the mass public simply makes that the legal position (we need to protect them regardless, like any other ADULT person we might deem incompetent)?
I really shortened my argument, but it looks complete enough (for about 1am my time). Maybe you can explain what YOU mean by consent and what that has to do with laws regarding sex. You could start with why it is applied to just sex rather than other activities in life... and what evidence you have for "ability to consent" having anything to do with the creation of these laws.
Some very ignorant people generally take my attack on the concept of consent, and the nature of the laws we have regarding sex, to suggest that I am for no laws on the matter and must be some card-carrying member of NAMBLA. Please don't be that ignorant.
I happen to support laws, just not the kind we have in the US today (strict age based). Yes under that scheme there is the very real possibility some adult-minor sex would happen. My guess would be very very little, and it would certainly NOT allow NAMBLA members free access to your kids.

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 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