| How to Join | Member's Area | Private Library | Search | Sanctuary | Login | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Main Forums | Discussion | Tech Talk | Mature Content | Archives |
A home without a wall, |
|
|
||||||
| How to Join | Member's Area | Private Library | Search | Sanctuary | Login | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Main Forums | Discussion | Tech Talk | Mature Content | Archives |
A home without a wall, |
|
|
|
||||||
| The Alley |
|
It's that time again |
|
|
Edward Grim Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154Greenville, South Carolina 
|
I know all you happy people love my topics. Usually because I incite so much discussion. Not to mention the nuisances, aggravations and frequent cases of anger that are thrown into the air. You all love it though  . I just felt like saying that. I will probably go down in the books as the guy who spewed alphabet soup on this website. I don't hold back and I won't apologize for how my "discussing" affects people. Call this a waiver. I'm not a lightweight in arguing. Even if I'm so wrong it's a sin, if I think I'm right, I'll go all the way. So enough of that, here's the poop (as they used to say)._______________________________________ Topic: "The Whole Gay/Liberal Thing" I've got some beef with the "whole gay thing." After all my religion doesn't permit it but that's not why I'm not too down with it. Here's the reason: I'm just not too down with it. Is that a good enough reason? Not for society, noooo. See I almost just don't care one way or the other. I'm not really for it or avidly against it; I just don't give a horse's heart. The only reason I got beef is because these "gay rights leaders/groups" are rubbing me the wrong way. They are going around making people afraid to not be "ok" with gay dudes and ladies. You have to approve of gay rights or they don't approve of you and they'll make your life hell. There's so many examples but I'll only list a few (that's all my interest will permit before it dwindles) Look at this Grey's Anatomy incident with that Washington dude and the gay fella, T.R. somthin I'm bad with names. Yes, Washington said the new "F word" which was bad form but the consequences from this was astonishing. These "gay rights leaders" (and the only reason I put that in parentheses is because it's more like 'gay rights nazis') went to town on this guy. They crucified him publicly, made the guy go to therapy then... THEN (my favorite part) they tried to get ABC to turn his character on Grey's Anatomy into a gay guy. Am I the only one a little angered by this? It's RIDICULOUS!!! Last example: Jennifer Hudson, I didn't know who she was before this but apparently she was on American Idol. I was reading in the news a few weeks ago that she had made a comment saying that she wasn't too comfortable with gay people and what not. They crucified her as well. They did such a number on her that she apologized. Hey and calm down... I know you're asking "what about liberalism" I'm getting to it... be patient. I think they just want total control. I also heard about a new group of gay actors. They all get together and support one another or something. Why don't straight actors have that? Then I heard that a lesbian tennis player, forgot her name, said that she was starting a credit card and donations would go to gays and lesbians.... WHAT!!! Why no donations for heterosexuals?!?! Huh? I like money too. Hell, I need more camera equipment if I'm ever gonna finish my film. Are you saying I have to make out with some guy named Dan to get any free dough? Bull. Now to the liberalism. The way the liberals have it today is that everyone has to be ok with everything. I shall repeat: EVERYONE has to be OK with EVERYTHING. The only thing you can't be ok with are people who aren't ok with everything. That makes sense right? It's not the easiest to word. Basically they support everyone and everything except people who don't support everything. It's wrong. They're trying to run the whole thing. I don't think they care as much about people supporting them as much as we think. I think ultimately they just want people to acknowledge them and pay attention to them. That last statement might be reaching but you get the gist of it. Now whoever replies to this with the words: "Homophobe or Prejudiced" is gonna get an earful from me.  Yes I'll put the smiley face to tone down that comment but seriously, I will. Head Cheese & Chicken Feet |
||
| © Copyright 2007 Edward Grant - All Rights Reserved | |||
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
... wince ... |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: I don't put a lot of stock in labels, especially when applied to people, and frankly, I've yet to hear a good definition of what liberal is supposed to mean in this context. What do you say, instead of trying to describe what's right or wrong about a nebulous group of people, we limit ourselves to discussing the concept with which you seem to be taking issue? Everyone has to be okay with everything. So, you're claiming that "they" insist that everyone has to be okay with murder? And with rape? Not to mention child abuse, suicide bombings, and shooting at stray cats just because they're more fun than stationary coke bottles? All of those things, of course, and so so many more, fall under the umbrella of "everything." And, yea, frankly if you actually mean what you actually said, then I'm going to have to agree with you completely. Any concept that insists we should be okay with "everything" certainly isn't something I could ever get behind. What did you say, Ed? Speak up, please. That's not what you meant? Ah, therein, I think, lies the problem. It might even be the same problem you've faced in other threads when you've said things without really giving them a whole lot of thought first. I think it's called shooting from the hip? Critical thinking depends on the ability and willingness to clearly articulate your premises. When you don't do that you leave the door open to misunderstandings with others, but of even greater importance, you leave yourself floundering in a wasteland of dense fog. Thinking depends on language. You cannot think without words, and you cannot think clearly without just the right words. Sloppy language inevitably leads to sloppy thinking. So, let's try again. I think what you probably meant to decry was the concept that people should be okay with everything that is pretty much none of their damn business. That clearly won't include anything that would hurt others, because hurting people makes it their business. You're disagreeing with this concept because, presumably, you think you have the right to express your opinion about the music a man likes, the color he paints his garage, whether he parts his hair on the left or right, right up to and including who he should fall in love with. Never mind that none of these things are your business, never mind that none of these things in any way harms you or others, never mind that the man never asked for your opinion. You don't want to have to be okay with his choices? You dislike being forced to ignore the way other people live their lives? Does that pretty much cover it, Edward? And, no, I wouldn't necessarily call you a homophobe. I don't think you've given it enough thought yet to honestly be prejudiced. Indeed, I suspect it's very telling that you made this thread, from the title you chose to the way you presented your arguments, about YOU and not really about sexual preferences or liberalism. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Yep. Ron's "down with this" because thus far, I have stayed away from your threads because you never seem to have a clear enough stance on a topic that would constitute a true argument. What you offer is, as Ron said above, is a premise. And even that is difficult for me to untangle, as your statement is too inept for me to say with any surety that it is a premise. At best, you offer rants--and that's allowed. I just don't generally feel compelled to answer them. Sorry to disappoint ya, Ed. I know you were hoping for more.  |
||
|
Edward Grim Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154Greenville, South Carolina |
First off Ronnie, let me just say: Get over yourself. You think you can treat people however you want because you're the Mod but guess what it doesn't fly with me. You should look to step over your ego and try to understand that you are not always right. Ok? That's a major problem with certain people on this site; they think they know everything. And what labels? "I've yet to hear a good definition of what liberal is supposed to mean" Then shall I define it for you? Here's how liberalism started out: [Liberalism is a philosophy that rejects moral absolutes and authority, especially religious authority. It emphasizes that men should be free to do whatever they want in moral matters.] And it’s still pretty much like that. Why do you have to be so ridiculous? Yes the statement everyone has to be fine with everything is a broad, unspecific and inaccurate. I was making a point. Must you be so condescending and patronizing? "What did you say, Ed? Speak up, please. That's not what you meant?" Please, your ego is blank round fired from a gun. It's makes the sound but doesn't hit the target. You merely intend to make me look bad and allow yourself to look high and mighty. For once, can't you just stick to topic other than resorting to character assassination? "When you don't do that you leave the door open to misunderstandings with others" Perhaps you're right. Here's the deal Ronald: I was talking to this guy (not a friend but a friend's friend). We were just shootin the breeze and gay rights came up because Will and Grace was on the telly. He asked me my views on the matter and I merely said, "I'm not really into it." He asked me to elaborate which I did by saying "I wasn't raised with that thought and I just find the concept uncomfortable and I don't think it's right on a moral basis. I just don’t really care one way or the other" Well, he said that I shouldn't think that way because they have rights too and who are we to tell them what to do and bla bla bla. Then another liberal got into the conversation saying "Well, what about abortion?" I told her that I was against that as well. She said that I was wrong because it's a woman's right to KILL her baby. (So yeah I guess liberals are groovy with murder Ron, don't about the rape though. I know a liberal president had a secretary under his desk doing God knows what. But I'm pretty sure it was consensual.) Anyway, I've spoken to other liberals and they share the same ideas. And none of my damn business? Wow, then why are these forums even up here buddy? What about iliana's post on Nancy Pelosi? What about Huan Yi's post on Jessica Lunsford? Or Brad's post on the FBI? Or what about JCP's post on Michael Richard's racist rant? Be clear Ron, you mean to say that I have no damn business to say anything. All your friends do though, funny how that works. Please be clear and remember that sloppy language inevitably leads to sloppy thinking so you should think about what you say. "from the title you chose to the way you presented your arguments, about YOU and not really about sexual preferences or liberalism." Look man, I was making a statement and added a little humorous side note because I'm a humorous guy. YOU on the other hand pretty much only talked about me. You didn't spend too much time on my actual points. I will not be surprised if you go back and delete some of my comments to "save face" or ban me or whatever you have to do to prevent yourself from being embarrassed. I was only making a statement about a topic that was aggravating me. I didn't know I wasn't allowed to do that in the Alley. And guess what? Respect is a two way street so when you start respecting me I'll give you the same courtesy. Oh and try to be nicer. Head Cheese & Chicken Feet |
||
|
Edward Grim Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154Greenville, South Carolina |
Karen, "you never seem to have a clear enough stance on a topic that would constitute a true argument." I may have faltered a pinch with this one but not the others so much. "your statement is too inept for me to say with any surety that it is a premise" Well aren't you sweet. I sort of expected everyone to agree with Ron anyway, that's how it works right? And you didn't disappoint me, I'm used to this by now. Head Cheese & Chicken Feet |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Sheesh Ed. You had to dig really deep to find something to fight about, didn't ya? Y'got me confused! I'm sorry, was I supposed to insult you and call you mean names? Go to aboutu.com--look up "what is an arguemnt" and "what isn't argument", inbetween you'll find some basic terminology of debate, one of which is a definition for the word premise. *laughig and shaking my head* Ron didn't make this up, and I ain't exactly known for kissing his behind anyway. I'm more like...the thorn in his behind. Unbelievable. At least you made me laugh, so I thank you much for that. |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
Ed, I can see your point of view. Actually, it was clear to me. We all communicate in different ways with our words and I thought you got your point across. Though, I suppose, it could have been more precise....but I didn't realize that was such a big thing in this forum. The point I saw was that when a minority begins to not only progress with their rights, but then, is so pro-whatever-it-is that that infringes on the rights of others. To carry this one step further...people are so afraid to be politically incorrect, that the pendulum swings the other way. I actually think this type of thinking could eventually deprive us with freedom of speech to some degree. Anytime in our history, however, when minority movements have occurred, there has been a bit of radicalism, don't you think? Someone I know made a comment the other day about "a Jersey girl...you know what I mean." Well, immediately I knew what she meant. Then the following day, she was talking about her poor landlord who had "Irish twins" (actually, three babies born within a year of each other). Neither of the statements this person made were meant derrogatorily, but I am sure that they could be deemed that way. When a person uses "liberal" like you did, it comes across that that is a bad thing. I don't believe all liberals fall within the the category to which you allude. Fox news has given the word "liberal" new definition and dimension (and no, I am not a liberal....but I do believe in liberty, so maybe I am....lol). In todays USA, we have to be ever watchful about how we use our words, and that can be frustrating at times...and also ridiculous at times. As for actors who call co-workers names....I think that is a personnel problem to be handled internally, but public figures always go under public scrutiny. Your writing is witty and I find your sense of humor refreshing. When you get down on someone though, it's not funny anymore. Ron has called me down a time or two -- probably everyone here has gotten it a time or two -- don't take it personally. If anything, he challenges us to be better writers. And, FYI, he isn't just a moderator, this is his website and we are lucky to have it. Curious about why you referenced my post on Nancy Pelosi? That was a little bit of interest to many of us taxpaying citizens as it is us who foot the bill for extra expenditures and travel expenses of our Congress. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Well Jo? I was a little surprised at Ed's attitude toward me. I didn't think what I said to him was a personal attack--on the other hand, his response to me and Ron certainly was. I'm disappointed I guess. I was just referring to the general rules and merits of debate. I did, however, err by not addressing the subject. (Um, I do that a lot and I'm working on it.) I certainly have nothing against Ed and I too enjoyed his sense of humor once upon a time. I'm just seeing very little evidence of it lately. And he may not realize it, but I have been here awhile, so the other topics he posted I have discussed before and thus I saw no reason to go over the same issue again. I do suspect he came here, as evidenced by his subject line and demeanor, looking for a fight, and when he didn't find one, he created one by choice. If he doesn't "like" me--that's fine. It's not written in the guidelines. I've got other crap to deal with, as you well know. I do apologize to Ed for not taking his feelings on the topic into consideration though--I should have done what I have been doing--remained silent. In the broader scheme of things, a lot of this stuff just doesn't matter to me right now, and I suppose the most polite thing for me to do is stay out of conversations druther than trivialize someone else's, um, pain? Ed? I miss your sense of humor. I'm very sorry that your prejudicial attitude toward a private practice and preference isn't taken seriously. I honestly wondered, considering some of your phrasing, if this wasn't a sarcastic editorial of the entire tone of the alley of late. For example: quote: I mean, read that again, and if you read it through my eyes, as the "queen of innuendo", perhaps you can see the quirky irony of that statement. And nod, it's that very quirky irony that made a fan of yours early on. I guess I gave you credit for a clever phrase that was intended as a serious statemnt. Too bad. It's actually funny if you read it as sarcastic innuendo. But along with those words I told you about that were listed in that online course I am enrolled in regarding critical thinking were also "connotation", "denotation", "context" and "subtext". I think, (and I am just assuming mind you, because I do not presume to judge Ron's intent since I already misjudged yours) but? I think that is what Ron meant when he said: quote: Just a guess here, but I don't think he was criticizing you personally, just your presentation. And as for butt-kissing? Shrug. Ron's a nice guy, but more than that-- he is a GREAT teacher. Note the lack of "cooing" in my statement. That's not butt-kissing, Ed, just an observation, and from one who has butted heads with Ron on many occasion, and I like to think with no loss of personal respect on either side. (At least I like to think so.) So anyhow, Ed, no harm intended, and I thought there was no harm done. And btw? I consider the discussion forums a bit like Vegas--what happens in here, stays in here. If you write a poem I enjoy, I don't have qualms about replying and saying so--because as at least one other member has learned--I may never agree with someone philosophically, but I reserve the right to applaud well written poetry, regardless of personality conflicts elsewhere. Now. *peace*  |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
Ser, I was surprised by the sudden shift of tone, as well, toward both of you, and that is why I was moved to make the comments I did. Yano, this is one of the reasons (not the main one though) I have not been around here lately....it just seems to get ugly and too personal. I will be the first to admit, there's at least one time I made it personal myself, but I regretted that and apologized for it. I don't think that should stop us from posting though if we feel moved to write. I have to tell you that within the past month, I have written several posts to other threads in this forum and then erased them. Just didn't have the "fight" in me, nor the time....and I sure understand where you are coming from, my friend.....no I am not sucking up....you know I love ya.  [This message has been edited by iliana (02-23-2007 03:01 AM).] |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Aw...we have gone from butt kissing to sucking up--dangerously close to total naughty! *laughing* Why not? Where's kit? I wanna butt kissin' smilie! grin |
||
|
Edward Grim Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154Greenville, South Carolina |
Karen, I'm a little surprised myself. I didn't call you any names. I actually I didn't say anything mean to you. I was a little sarcastic with you about the "aren't you sweet" thing but you called my argument inept and said that I never seem to have a clear enough stance on a topic. I think those are insults. My beef is with Ron, not you. I didn't say anything to you that you should be upset about. "You had to dig really deep to find something to fight about, didn't ya?" And yet another insult Karen. All I wanted to do was share my thoughts and Ron had to be the way he was. I'm not looking for a fight. I seem to be the only one that's not allowed to share my views, it's a little sad. I'm sorry you got upset, it wasn't my intention and there really wasn't anything there for you to be upset about. So there's really nothing more I can say... |
||
|
Edward Grim Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154Greenville, South Carolina |
Thank you Iliana, I'm glad that someone wants to discuss the actual topic. I appreciate your kindness. Contrary to popular opinion, I'm not some flaming Irish dude looking for a fight. I try not to start them but by God I'll sure as hell finish 'em. I've taken enough junk from people in my life and I don't take it anymore. The only reason I mentioned your post (sorry to bring you into it) was to give an example about people's business. Ron said I had no business talking about this so I just gave some quick examples of other people's posts asking why they have the right and not me. I honestly didn't even read your post, I was just making a point. Thanks again Karen, "Ed? I miss your sense of humor." I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean. That sounds a little passive-aggressive. I still have my sense of humor. The very beginning of my first post was humor. "I'm very sorry that your prejudicial attitude toward a private practice and preference isn't taken seriously." Prejudice? See Karen, this is my point. Just because I don't agree with something on a moral level, that makes me prejudiced? I have a gay friend; I just don't want to hear about her conquests, if you catch my drift. I just want her friendship and she just wants mine. My beef is with the gay rights “groups” who are making a big deal when someone doesn't agree with them. I gave the examples, look what they did with this Grey's Anatomy thing. I think that's a legitimate thing to discuss. "I honestly wondered, considering some of your phrasing, if this wasn't a sarcastic editorial of the entire tone of the alley of late." Yes the rubbing me the wrong way was a play on words. Don’t take me so seriously. I’m only serious when I’m defending someone or defending myself. Karen I really meant no disrespect at all like I already said. I can honestly say that I don't know why we have this problem but at any rate I want our problem to over. So this is an apology for whatever I did to offend you and I want peace. Sincerely, Ed |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
Why is Ed's ability to express himself being attacked? I feel as if he's been "weighed, measured, and found wanting" and I'm not even sure what the reasons may be. Form? Presentation? Mount and Dismount of a topic? From my perspective, Ed is expressing his thoughts and feelings toward certain groups who are currently in the headlines. He has questioned their methodology and seems bothered by their headway in their attempts to establish change. All is addressable whether he's formally addressing particular groups or casually addressing them. I don't feel he approached his issues in the argumentative sense, so I'm not sure why his skills for debate were even intimated as necessary elements for his post. I didn't know the posts in the Alley required anything but following the protocol for appropriate content and topic. I think Ed was just trying to share and state opinions on a topic that's hard to approach, casually, let alone argumentatively, because of how taboo it has become to feel that homosexuality is taboo. Change is hard...and slow...and very slow in society, but I see society evolving from moral and religious conjecture/conviction into something that requires one to be politically correct, open-minded, tolerant and completely respectful of another's privacy in their personal choices, and their pursuit of equality. That seems easy enough, practical, and wise, but we're just getting used to that notion, say since Freedom of Religion? I don't know, my historical sense is sketchy, but let's just say anytime in the recent past, because the King (dare I say Pope) was saying about the same thing to us peasants and protestants as you said in this quote, Ed: "The only reason I got beef is because these "gay rights leaders/groups" are rubbing me the wrong way." I also used religion as an example of how freedoms can be used to tax, label, oppress, cast out or exclude others from groups, which is slightly effective in causing some to want to change or alter to become part of the group or forget it altogether and just move on/be on their own. I think knowledge can be used this way too, by way of condescension. The only thing I know is that I don't know everything. Ron, I felt your tone toward Ed's method of writing and expression was condescending and so was Karen's. I admire you both for your forthright talent and ability to express yourselves, but in this instance, your knowledge seems to have been used as a tool to slap down someone you both pegged as inferior in ability. I disagree. Ed shows courage. It takes confidence and backbone to open up on controversial topics, and I'm glad he's sharing his feelings instead of hunting down homosexuals and killing them as a "Messenger for God." I feel his tone changed in his next post, not because of the subject but because of the negative manner he and his writing skills were addressed. That's how I see it. I don't understand why you felt Ed must present this post in critical or argumentative form, when that takes a fair amount of study and practice just to have a grasp on language. Why must he express himself on that level to be regarded as a worthy thinker? Sometimes people have to feel through things or expose random thoughts to get to the root of issues. This method may be simplistic but no less important to me in human interaction and expression. I read these forums daily because these pages are an interaction of all kinds of thoughts from people around the world and I learn something from everyone. I thank you for that, however, I regret to say how I can't blame Ed for feeling more on the defense and less on the edge of learning something positive, which is what I hope he is able to do through life and living with others who are different than he is. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Ed said: quote: I think it all comes down to this statement. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
A Short One In lieu of Criticism There is A war on And young ones Are dying Perhaps then again You didn’t know . |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
I for one will be the first to admit that Ed's presentation can be well ... untactful at times (luv ya Ed). And I have my own problems with some of his points, perhaps I'll explain these later. But I do agree with him that terms like "homophobe" (or the thoughts behind them) amount to little more than belittlement of someone else who doesn't agree. Stephen. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: quote: quote: Hey, guys, it's a writing site, remember? I greatly appreciate good writing, I empathize deeply with bad writing, but I have very little patience with lazy writing. Especially when it's used to verbally assault others. When you attack a group of people by attributing a statement to them, it behooves your argument to make sure the statement is accurate. "EVERYONE has to be OK with EVERYTHING," is not an accurate representation of anything and, indeed, doesn't even make sense. I've never heard any group make any such claim, not even anarchists (who presumably would not be okay with their own murders). It's a lie, albeit a careless one rather than an intentional one. And at the end of the day, you can't really argue with lies. You can only denounce them. Edward wants the freedom to "got some beef" in these forums, but apparently wants to relegate me and everyone else to mere chicken. We don't get to disagree with him, or his methods, lest he feel slighted. Sorry, but if Edward or anyone else wants to simply express an opinion, they should write it on a piece of paper and stick it in a desk drawer. Better yet, fictionalize your opinion and post it as a poem or short story. This forum, however, is for discussion, and not everyone is going to agree with your opinions. Especially when you use the podium here to attack other people. Coincidentally, Andrew Anthos, better known to his friends as Buddy, died about a hundred miles down the road from me this past Friday from injuries sustained in a February 13 beating. Buddy was riding the bus from the public library to his apartment in Detroit when another male passenger approached him and asked if he was gay. When Buddy left the bus (to help a wheelchair-bound fellow passenger through the snow no less) the man followed. He hit Buddy in the back of the head with a metal pipe and fled on foot. The police have no suspects. Oh, yea, I almost forgot. Andrew Anthos was 72 years old. You know, in retrospect, it's probably not all that coincidental after all. These kind of hate crimes happen often enough that one was bound to coincide with Edward's little rant. This one just happened to hit close to home for me. I'm certainly not going to suggest this is the kind of thing Edward wants to be able to publicly support. I think he's careless, not criminal. However, what Edward doesn't understand, in his carelessness, is that this is exactly the kind of thing that happens when no one stands up to condemn it. Instead of condemning the violence and hate, Edward wants to rail against those who do condemn it? No one ever said you have to be okay with everything, Edward. That was just reckless rhetoric, a sin for any man, I think, but gross negligence for a writer. What they have said, I believe, is that you can't be okay with just anything. You can't, for example, be okay with hitting an old man in the back of the head with a metal pipe. And if you say you are, if you actively promote hate, they're going come down hard on you. They're going to condemn your words and actions. Much as you've tried to do to them in this thread. The difference, of course, is that their condemnation is going to carry some serious weight with other people. And THAT, I think, is what really pisses you off. quote: It only comes down to that statement, Brad, if you accept the statement at face value. There might be some truth to the statement if you're a high profile celebrity or politician. For most of us, though, we don't have to approve of gay rights to escape disapproval because, frankly, our opinions aren't really all that important. What we can't do with impunity is actively promote hate and prejudice. It all strikes me as eminently fair. If you disapprove of gay rights then gay rights is going to disapprove of you. Tit for tat. It seems a bit childish to get mad just because they do it so much more effectively. quote: And I'm sure, Stephen, that the leaders of the KKK say pretty much the same thing about terms like "racist." No one, I guess, likes to have their opinions belittled. Sometimes, though, I think it's necessary. (For the record, homophobe technically indicates a fear of homosexuality. It is only through common usage that it has also come to mean a hatred of homosexuals, thus making it a parallel for racism. Sadly, I suspect such common usage tells its own story.) |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Ron: quote: That's what I mean. That kind of comparison is always on the lips. Usually before the ideas are even dialogued. As I'm quite certain that those who oppose Gay Marriage are automatically viewed as bigots, by some. Actually, it's funny that "bigot" is often said today with such a sneer that it airs much the same tone with which a hateful person might say "f*ggot". A distinction needs to be made between Gay-haters, and those who disagree with the lifestyle as sinful, and view the radical changing of the present institution of Marriage as unwise. quote: You're right. quote: The problem is, when the opposition of something, is automatically ascribed to fear. It's not really a psychological diagnosis as much as it is a way to end discussion. The abolitionists could have been called "slavophobes". Philanthropists could be called "pauperphobes". See my point? But even if fear were involved, I find the use of the word "fear" in a universally derogatory way interesting. After all, virtually everyone recognizes (and practices) fears that are healthy and proper. Stephen. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Everything is a sin, Stephen. To someone. Morality is something to be individually lived, not forced onto others against their will. You have every right to live your life as you wish, following your own moral convictions, so long as doing so harms no one else. So do they. Sorry, but I see no useful distinction. Whether a man kills out of hate or because his god told him to, the result is much the same. |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Okay, here's my take on it. First of all, nobody would be cool with it if I wasn't down with the "whole black thing." And T.R. Knight would probably be in as much, if not more, trouble if he called Isaiah Washington a n*****. I think it's kind of funny that he had to go to "therapy" for it- but that's just me. I ahve to ask- and this isn't out of sarcasm, I'm genuinely curious- to Ed, and Stephen... what would you guys say or do if one of your kids was gay? How would you feel if your kid was being called f*****, or if people ridiculed him/her just for riding a bus, or finding love? Would you defend your kid? Would you be angry at the people who were "disagreeing with their lifestyle?" Would you defend your kid's right to live (and let live)? |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
All: I've been criticized by some activists as promoting the segregation of disabled people by not supporting proposals to fully include all children with disabilities in regular education classrooms (known commonly as "inclusion"). I counter such accusations by asserting that some children need more specialized and intensive attention in order to overcome the debilitating effects of their condition and, therefore, acquire the skills they need to benefit meaningfully from a fully inclusive education. They counter by telling me I support segregation of the disabled and that this is tantamount to bigotry. Then I ignore them and keep doing what I believe is right. I see some parallels in the homosexual rights debate. You have some arguing that homosexuals relationships should be recognized as being legally equivalent to heterosexual relationships. You have others who argue just as vehemently that such a proposal is a threat to the very institution of marriage and, therefore, all efforts to promote such policies should be struck down. I'm a little offended by both views because I rarely hear compelling reasons put forth by either side to support their respective views. What's missing, either in fact or in the headlines, is a dialogue between interested parties that weighs the pros and cons of both proposals and seeks a mutually agreeable compromise. I can't believe I'm the only person out there who considers homosexual behavior to be potentially harmful and sinful, but also recognizes that, under the standards of legal equity, there seems to be some wiggle room. To try to answer Hush, I think I would handle my own child's hypothetical homosexuality in the same way I would handle any of his behaviors that ring inconsistent with my sense of moral standards. He would certainly know I disapprove of his behavior and, to the extent my authority allows, I would attempt to discourage any behavior I see as potentially harmful to him. But I would also make it frequently and abundantly clear that I will always be his father, and would continue to love him unconditionally. Granted, this is tricky territory, but the key to navigating it is good communication, free from both patronizing, unconditional acceptance of all behavior AND heavy-handed ostracising of the person. How is either of these extreme reactions "Christian" or moral by any standard? Jim |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Ron: quote: There are many people who do not agree with homosexuality, who are not trying to "force morality on others against their will". Though to completely divorce morality from the arena of legislation, seems quite arbitrary on your part. We are moral beings in all arenas of thought, to some degree. Just a casual reading of the writings of certain leaders of the past (who were involved in changing and establishing certain laws) reveals that morality wasn't divorced from the conversation. quote: Why doesn't relativism (which you are so quick to apply to morality) extend into the question of what constitutes "harm"? Why doesn't the same subjectiveness apply? You always talk of one as hoplessly obscure, and the other as perfectly obvious. quote: No doubt that's true. But it's interesting that derisive terms like "homophobe" are being applied to many who fall quite short of hatred and especially the extremes you've been bringing up. Half the irritation is that these extreme comparisons always happen. Figures like KKK Grand Wizards, and Islamic Terrorists keep popping up with all seriousness. In this thread alone, they've already been mentioned (not failing to generate a little sadness and amusement on my part). It's kind of like if we were talking and I constantly called you "Hitler" because you believe in Gun control. Probably wouldn't be a very productive discussion eh? Hush: quote: There are significant difference between variances of race, and variances of behavior. This is another version of the KKK comparison, although milder in tone. Of course, I do think it's valid to ask the question of how it's so different, if you don't yet see how. quote: I really doubt that I could answer that any better than Jim did. ditto. quote: Ridicule and disapproval are not the same thing either. Did your parents (or anyone for that matter) ever disapprove of something that was proper to disapprove of, without ridiculing you? Mine did. Is it possible to defend someone without defending their wrong behaviors or views? I think it is. I would defend my child at school, from false accusations, or over strict punishment, but I would never "side" with my child unconditionally (I didn't say 'love unconditionally') just because he was my child. Jim: quote: I actually agree with you here Jim, more than you might think. But total agreement might depend upon how much "legal equity" might alter the present institution of Marriage. Stephen. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: I don't understand this. 'Harm' is the point of discussion, not relativist obscurantism. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Brad, My point is, what constitutes "harm" is just as subjective as morality, if we follow Ron's obscurantism about moral questions. It's not immediately obvious what "harm" even is. Many believe that allowing homosexual marriage, will harm us as a society. Many believe that it will harm their children to be taught that a homosexual relationship is "normal" in the same what that a heterosexual relationship is normal. Ron would argue that that's not harm at all, but rather "fear" of nothing. I'm simply letting him know that the relativism he applies to morals, makes his views about harm equally dubious, if we are to accept his subjectivism as a valid method of reasoning these things out. Stephen. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: That's true, Stephen, only insofar as morality and logic inevitably overlap. I can abstain from killing my neighbor's kids (despite great provocation!) because God will punish me if I take a life, or I can abstain because I want my neighbor to abstain from killing me. The result is the same. And yes, in the past many leaders have appealed to morality in trying to codify logic and, sadly, many leaders have even managed to legislate morality when it never should have been. The problem with an appeal to morality is that it's a moving target. We don't all share the same moral imperatives. We do, however, all share the same reason and, ultimately, the same desires for safety and security. Those should be the province of human law. You don't have to eat meat on Friday, you don't have to worship a cow, you don't have to be circumcised, and you don't have to fall in love with someone of your same gender. Be glad you have those freedoms, Stephen, that someone hasn't previously legislated their morals into laws, and allow everyone else to enjoy the same freedoms. That's not relativism, Stephen, and it's not morality. That's simple, tit-for-tat logic. quote: Compromise is good, Jim. What say we give all the heterosexuals the benefits of legally binding contracts and give the homosexuals the benefits of existing marriage laws? That seems only fair since the heterosexuals have already had their turn at the marriage route and seemingly not done too well by it. Look at spousal abuse. At teenage marriages. At divorce rates. At single-parent families. It's honestly hard to see how homosexual marriage could have a greater negative impact on society than heterosexual marriage has had in the past few hundred years. I think two men who love each other and want to care for each other the rest of their lives without artificial legal impediments is a lot more healthy for society than celebrities like Liz Taylor, married eight times, or Anna Nicole Smith, the 26-year-old who married a man 89 years old. Maybe the homosexual will, indeed, make a mess of it. They'll sure be in good company if they do. quote: quote: That's the whole problem in a nutshell. You and others see homosexuality as a behavior and it's not. While homosexuality and heterosexuality can both lead to behaviors (and not dissimilar behaviors, at that) neither of them, nor race, can be described as behaviors. They are a state of being, states that were thrust upon man by God and never chosen. Jesse Jackson didn't choose to be born black, just as neither of you suddenly hit puberty and made a free will decision to be heterosexual. It's biology, not morality. It's being, not behaving. (And, no, there's no scientific proof yet. Just as there's no scientific proof that heterosexuality is "normal." But, there's also no valid argument to treat the two states of being differently. Either both are learned responses or both are innate and natural. Logically, you can't have it both ways. The scientific proof will eventually surface. One would hope we don't have to wait for it to do the right thing.) |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
quote: I appreciate the fact that you're willing to discuss homosexuality, civilly and respectfully, and I agree. When trying to discuss the topic people do get on edge, both ways, and it's not right. Nothing of any good comes when there's hateful contention and accusations that are misapplied. quote: Again, I think proper dialogue is most important, but people don't want to listen, let alone talk very much at all about the topic of homosexuality. They either have an opinion already formed and they're stickin' to it, or they avoid the issues altogether, on both sides. Ron had a lot of great things to say, especially about marriage. We really don't have a right to say heterosexual couples are more appropriately paired for marriage or more deserving of a holy sanctification because marriage is a holy mess in America. And I believe Ron is also right about homosexuality being a state of being, not a behavior. Perhaps that's not all encompassing for every single person, but I've never considered my personal choice of mate a behavior. If so, I need to be severely punished for choosing wrongly and I need to be deprogrammed from ever desiring to have another male mate again. Perhaps a cattle-prod shock for every time I think of a male as interesting, smart, or too much fun to be around might do the trick. Nah. I'd still find myself appreciating them for something that I probably shouldn't. God forbid I find them important to me!When studying how we all got here, it's amazing the way that the presence of the SRY gene turns the embryo into a male. Timing is everything. Precision is a must. What if something goes wrong? There could be something missing/added with the other 330 genes on the Y chromosome, or the 2,062 genes of the X, and things just aren't what we think they should be, at birth? Things happen, hence hermaphrodites. Wouldn't it be awful if science proves that a homosexuals are biologically human, created just like the rest of us? Will we feel guilty for how we've treated them? Or will we abort them because of our religious beliefs, uh oh. I choose to treat ALL others the way I want to be treated. It's a good policy. It helps to ensure me that I won't feel like a complete idiot when smart people do their homework and produce something I never considered because I was too closed minded or too busy with my happy little life. |
||
|
Edward Grim Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154Greenville, South Carolina |
"Sorry, but if Edward or anyone else wants to simply express an opinion, they should write it on a piece of paper and stick it in a desk drawer." That's an odd thing to say in a discussion forum based entirely on people's opinions. "This forum, however, is for discussion, and not everyone is going to agree with your opinions." Well obviously I posted it to discuss it without hostility. Your first reply was very belittling and condescending and I found your tone contemptible. Ron, I speak the way I do, not out of laziness as you so freely classify it as, but rather because that is how I speak. I am very laid back in how I talk, that's just how it is. You need to stop thinking of yourself as so high and mighty and degrade anybody that doesn't speak with a golden tongue. And Ron I don't want to relegate you, not in any way, shape or form. But when you treat me like that, I won't lay down like your little bi... dog and just take it. Understand? Do you understand? Probably not. Learn how to treat people man, then they might listen to what you have to say. That is advice, take it or leave it. "Especially when you use the podium here to attack other people." Who did I attack Ron? Actually, it is you who attacked me. "These kind of hate crimes happen often enough that one was bound to coincide with Edward's little rant" You have completely distorted my entire post into something hateful and ridiculous. First off, it wasn't a rant. (And even if it was a rant, this forum says to rant if desired) Second of all, where the hell did you get hate? You're twisting my words to better suit your own rant Ron, your rant. I said I don't really care one way or the other about gay people's lives, this has nothing to do with them; it is the gay rights groups that I found to be questionable. (Example, I love Germans but didn't like the Nazis) Their tactics to make people agree with them and their hostile attitudes towards anyone that doesn't "go along" with them isn’t something I agree with. Sound familiar? I'm sure it does. You have chastised me and affronted me for having an opinion different from your own and I lashed back because that's what I do. I don't take crap from anybody anymore. "our opinions aren't really all that important" There is where you're wrong; I mean you're wrong in a hundred other places but here especially. How can a human being say that? Guess what? My opinion does matter. My opinion is important, so is yours, so is the opinion of homeless person on the damn street! Everyone's thoughts mean something, maybe not to cynics like you but they do to me. So when you start clawing at me for my opinions then I have a problem with you. It is sad to think that someone believes "our opinions aren't really all that important.” Maybe you should rephrase that; your opinion, in your mind is golden and correct. Everyone else can screw themselves because if they don’t match up to what you think then their opinions aren't really all that important. "the leaders of the KKK say pretty much the same thing" You've proved my point. Simply because I don't agree with someone's ideology you find it appropriate to compare me to the KKK. That doesn't seem right to me. In fact, that’s pretty warped in my mind. And for the last time, you all are posting about what if my kid was gay or this person was gay and gay marriage ect. This post wasn't about gay people. It's about how the rights group conduct themselves and how they treat someone who doesn't agree with them. It's interesting how I was received when I posted this, because it’s about how one is treated for having a difference of opinion and look at how it turned out. Very interesting. The fact is; I’m tired of this. It was fun while it lasted (well, not this post, arigato Ronnie) but this type of posting isn’t meaningful anymore. It’s petty and demeaning. I suppose it reflects the world we live in today, a world that isn’t tolerant towards individuals. Perhaps Ron, you’re right about how our opinions aren't important. I’ll just say that I’ll spend my entire life proving to myself that my opinion is as important as any “celebrity” and that every human’s opinion is important. Maybe if more people stood up for their beliefs, our country wouldn’t be in the state it is now. I do find it sad that gay people are treated poorly; I find it sad that any person is treated badly for how they think and live. It’s a sad day when freedom of thought is diluted and weakened, when just being a person isn’t enough to respect someone else. Respect is earned Ron, and you had my respect but not so much anymore. You guys say that my speech is “a wasteland of fog”, “inept, “dense” and “lazy”… well I find myself ok with that. Obviously, my mind is too cluttered to be understood on this forum; it’s all right by me, I’m fine going out as an oddity. Danke for the sparring match, but I’ll just let the bell go off and step out of the ring. I’ll let you guys continue to punch yourselves while I’m gone. Sayonara, peace out and all that jazz… Head Cheese & Chicken Feet |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Ron: quote: Again, some feel that sanctioning homosexual marriage would be detrimental to safety and security. Which brings me back to the point you never addressed, which is the fact that the subjectivity you ascribe to morals can be just as easily applied to ideas of "security and safety". And even underlying "security and safety" is a moral concept. You've pretty much told me that it is a wrong thing to impose on the "rights" of others, and to deprive them of safety and security. I just wish you would stop pretending your own ideas about law are not eaten-up with moral concern, and eulogizing them by describing them as "pure reason". It makes you appear the detached and cooly objective logician, and others crippled by moral prejudices. It's still a question of whose moral stance will be legally expressed ... not which will win out, morals or reason. quote: I'm also glad that someone's moral ideas have been legislated into law, since the idea that people ought to have certain freedoms is a morally charged idea. Sure it's a practical one too, but you're the one divorcing morality and pragmatism, not me. The fact that homosexual marriage has not been recognized thus far IS a moral expression in the form of law. That doesn't mean that there are no good reasons alongside the moral aspect. They are no trifles which have led society to recognize that heterosexual marriage is sacred and uniquely beneficial to society. The simple fact that homosexuals cannot procreate (by design) ought to give us sufficient pause, in rashly changing the laws. The fact that many scientists and medical professionals (up until recently, though political correctness) have viewed homosexuality as aberrant and harmful, ought to give us pause. quote: I grant you it's tit for tat. I'm not so sure about the logic part. quote: You should re-read Jim's quote. He stated what you are proposing as one of the extreme polar positions which typically don't provide compelling reasons. Compromise means "meet in the middle", not "accept my side". quote: The primary causes for the failure of marriages is because of greed, selfishness, or irresponsibility in one or more of the partners. But pointing out bad examples of something, doesn't provide a sufficient reason to change it entirely. The call should be for more education and pre-marital counselling, ... furher measures and resolve to repair what is broken. An overall turning from Christian morality is what has caused scores of marriages disintigrate in the first place. Adding a futher deviance and parody of marriage alongside the real thing (however ailing) will not help the situation. quote: You'd better re-consult your nutshell on this one Ron. I mentioned that it was a behavior, but never denied that it was much more than an action. There are many other behavioral problems that are not simply chosen; Yet that doesn't obligate us to view them as okay. Child molesters do not "decide" to become child molesters either ... at least not in the instantaneous fashion that we think of when we think of choices. Murderers? Same thing. Rapists? Same thing. I'm not even bringing these up as comparisons. I'm bringing them up to show you that your point is without validity if there is even ONE behavioral problem that is not chosen (in the popular usage of the word), and also not accepted as okay.quote: I guess that could be used for any condition of being ... literally any. And if you want to misuse the divine name to justify whatever, on the basis that he has allowed it to exist, I suppose you can, from cleptomania to overeating. The only thing is, the theological data you tend to view as inspired, states that homosexuality is sin and a form of moral deviance. (Before you get upset ... You brought God into this one). quote: Not only didn't he choose, but his will was completely out of the picture. Not so with homosexuality, and a host of other behavioral issues in society. quote: To what degree (or whether) this is true has not been proven with science. quote: Seems more like an article of faith. quote: Ah ... it's a morality thing after all. Your concession is refreshing. rwood: quote: But this is conjecture. Science has not proven it. quote: This has nothing to do with personal treatment of homosexuals, but whether or not legislation will change concerning the issue of marriage. And when it comes to legislation, I doubt that you would want everyone treated the same on every issue. Shouldn't young people be able to draw social security now? Shouldn't adult men be able to become girl scouts? See my point? Stephen. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Stephen, Have you been reading Derrida? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
I guess I just try to hold feet to their own "fire". |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
quote: Laugh. Gosh Stephen, great visuals. I get your point. Regardless of ruling, I've never felt like legislature should adhere to my ideals. That's crazy. The first thing I'd enact would be mandatory Marital Boot Camp for ANYONE interested in obtaining a marriage certificate. Drop and give me 20 dollars to get my hair done! Pre-Spouse School? Joking here, but hey? Stranger things have been enacted. Everyone deserves to be heard. Everyone deserves fair treatment, while posing whatever it is before troop leaders, Law, and God. Whether it's what's in their hearts, or what's in their futures of pursing and living the same "dream" each of us tend to value on a level that legislature can't legislate. They can only provide a basis that is fair, but not always just, and democratic but not always equal. God isn't scientifically proven to exist either, but I FEEL there's a God and I'm trying to apply something that makes sense to me in this world. "Matthew 7:12 (NIV) So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." There are so many levels of issues it's hard to address anything for fear of seeming trivial and stupid. But there are some issues that I think deal with comfort zones and have nothing really to do with prejudice, discrimination, or bigotry. But because everyone is so on edge, these issues get tossed aside as unimportant. Some things are landing on the table for discussion by way of exposure, for instance in high school. Teens are practicing what they feel are their freedoms, and some are upset, uncomfortable, “weirded out” when they go to the girl’s restroom and find two girls making-out. When asked if it would bother them if they accidentally found a boy/girl, they had a point. “Yes! Boys aren’t allowed in the girl’s bathroom.” They just wanted to go to the bathroom and not be exposed to ANY sexuality. But if they told? They’d be labeled as gay-bashers by the now growing population of openly gay students. One teen went to a department store, found some jeans, wanted to try them on. The sales clerk who helped her was male. When she went to try them on, he made her feel uncomfortable by being too friendly in a female fashion. He pulled the back of the jeans away from her back and said she needed a smaller size, fetched it for her, knocked on the door to hand them to her, and she found she was embarrassed and afraid to open the door because he was there. She said, “I’m sorry, could you please get the other clerk?” --who was female. The male says to her, “It’s just us “girls” here, and I’m not giving my sale to another clerk.” She dressed and left in complete shame. She was 14 years old and had no idea how to handle herself or the situation. An elderly woman worked in lingerie as a sales clerk in a large dept. store. A man in a dress approaches her to be sized for a bra. She handled it the best way she knew how, by sizing the man the same way she would any woman. She treated him with complete respect, but she kept trying to address him with “Yes, Ma’am, or Yes, Sir.” but wasn’t sure what to do or say and became stressed about it, wanting to get it right. He mistook her stress as being negative towards him and he threw the bra down in the floor and called her a “crotchety old woman with no sense.” She cried when he left and told me “You know he was right. Nothing makes sense anymore so I guess I’m just too old to even try.” How does anyone feel about these examples or some of your own? We can all say what we'd do in those situations, but that doesn't erase anything for those people who are trying and struggling. |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Ron: quote: Nice try, Ron, but I think I have the upper hand on this one. Homosexual desire and acting on that desire are both "behaviors". But I suppose there are still a few cognitive theorists out there who, against the evidence, throw "internal states" at behaviorists as if it is a victory cry. The simple truth is that, while internal states exist, they are not observable. Science is about the observable, right? Any response to a stimulus that is occasioned by reinforcement(either positive or negative) is operant behavior. Thus, both homosexual desire and acting on that desire are behavior by definition. And even desire is measurable these days. Desire can be changed and acting on impulses can be changed (albeit, the former tends to be more challenging than the latter). This would seem to challenge your point that homosexuality is a "state of being." If the desire and resulting acting on that desire are extinguished, does that mean the homosexual ceases to be? Race, in contrast, is not something that can be behaviorally modified. I honestly don't know how you can logically connect the two. As to your proposed compromise, I might be inclined to propose that the jurisdiction to declare a couple married be returned to religious institutions where it was until the late 1800s. If couples want their partnership to be legally recognized, enable couples of either persuasion to seek state-recognized covenantal or contractual unions that enable them to file joint tax returns (and thus pay the "contractual union tax") and qualify for Section 125 Cafeteria Plan benefits plans for their dependents. As for "normal," how can science give us any qualitative standards? If science identifies genetic markers for alcohol dependency, does this make it "normal"? These answers you are anticipating will not silence the debate about homosexuality. They will spark new debates. Jim |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
rwood: Sorry that I missed this one. quote: I suppose it takes people who are willing to prompt people outside of their comfort zones in a way that doesn't cause them to slam the storm shutters down on you. I believe it is possible to get most people to talk about difficult issues if it is done in the right way. Besides that, I'm one of the most stubborn and hard-headed people I know, and my "etched in stone" views on any number of subjects has evolved over the years (yes, I am aware of the apparent tautology of "stubborn" and "hard-headed," but if you knew me better, you'd know that the repetition is far from "needless"). Jim |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
To me, it still comes down to this: quote: Replace 'I' with appropriate variations on 'as a gay person,I', hypothetical or otherwise, and what happens? For better or worse, Ed has taken Ron's specific criticisms personally and the PC police have run to defend Ed, not Ron. Why? We can talk all we want about what 'behavior' or 'harm' mean, we can discuss all we want what is better for society, but gayness and 'lazy' writing are tied up with a person's identity. That means, however you put it, that they are going to be hurt, that they are going to feel 'dissed' when someone criticizes, aren't they? In retrospect, it seems clear that this was going to happen. Ed's first post should have been a clear sign that this post was never really about 'being gay' or even his feelings about being gay, but only about his feelings: quote: I didn't see it, but I should have. Oh, and one final point: quote: Whether or not this is what he initially meant is beside the point (I think, again in retrospect, that this would be a fall- back position, a safety net, though I'm not sure that that was ever consciously decided upon), it's still the position that Ron consciously stated: You can do and think what you want unless it harms someone else. This is our fallback position, all of us. Anything else is an extremist position: "the leaders of the KKK say pretty much the same thing" "...it is the gay rights groups that I found to be questionable. (Example, I love Germans but didn't like the Nazis)" Stephen and Jim, You gotta problem with that? |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Perhaps everything really is somewhat subjective, Stephen, but the idea is to at least limit subjectivity even where we can't eliminate it. Go to any country, any culture, any religion, and most people are going to have very similar ideas about what constitutes security and safety. As I said in another thread, pain is pervasive. Morality, especially when it deviates from pain, is considerably less so. Here's, perhaps, a different way of looking at it. If it's done TO me then I have a say, either nay or aye. If it's done to yourself or another willing adult, it ain't none of my business. (And, yes, that's going to include some few things that are currently illegal in this country. As you are quick to point out, we haven't escaped morality as much as I'd like. )quote: I'd say, we've been paused quite long enough, Stephen. If you want to make procreation a stipulation of marriage then, by all means, argue that. If you want to make lack of harm a stipulation of marriage, go for it. Neither, however, are unique to a person's sexual preference and neither should be gratuitously tied to homosexuality. quote: No, Stephen, it doesn't. Nor was that ever my intent. I think it does, however, bring into question the oft claimed sanctity of civil marriage. quote: Three quick points: First, I would seriously question whether child molesters, murderers, or rapists are born or nurtured. Second, I would question whether any of us aren't child molesters, murders, and rapists. (And, yes, I recognize the contradiction.) Mostly, though, I'll simply point out that we're not talking about behaviors, we're talking about innocent behaviors that in and of themselves harm no one. Eating is a behavior, too, Stephen, and one that's darn hard to eliminate. Except in rare instances (like Jeffrey Dahmer), we don't try to legislate it. Molestation, murder and rape hurt people. Loving someone, even someone of the same gender, hurts no one. quote: Not the way I interpret it, Stephen. (And, of course, I'm not upset. We've had that discussion, be we can always have it again.) quote: But that's exactly my contention, Stephen. Jackson didn't choose to be black, but he did choose to acknowledge his race and act accordingly. We just don't call that a behavioral issue today, though it wasn't too many years ago that many still did. In my opinion, it's exactly the same today with homosexuality. The homosexual has no choice in his or her being, any more than you or I do as heterosexuals. We are what we are, regardless of how we choose to act. You could take a vow of chastity or even take to dating other men, but those choices aren't going to change your innate heterosexuality. You are what you are. It is only what you choose to do with it that determines behavior. quote: LOL. Actually, Stephen, children DO draw Social Security. Your other analogy is a better one, though, because the correct answer shouldn't come from either you or I. That's a decision for the Girl Scouts, not one that should be legislated by society. More importantly, and to answer your greater question, YES, I absolutely would want everyone treated the same on every issue -- so long as it doesn't result in harm to anyone. That's the key that keeps getting dropped. quote: You make strong arguments, Jim. Strong, but not necessarily convincing. quote: Two points: First, Jim, I think you put much more faith in behavior modification than is probably warranted. Extinguished? I think there's a very good reason why you may meet a recovering alcoholic, but never a former alcoholic. You might convince a person to believe they have changed sexual preference, but in the absence of continued reinforcement that belief is going to be transitory. They -- and their behaviors -- are going to revert right back to their "state of being." Second, all of your arguments apply just as much to heterosexuals as to homosexuals. You're essentially arguing that sexuality itself is not a state of being, but rather a learned behavior. To some extant, I think that's probably true -- which is exactly why there are so many shadows obscuring any real truth -- but it's also impossible to ignore the physical manifestations of puberty and sexuality. Personally, I think you can turn either a heterosexual or homosexual into a bisexual but the base sexuality is hard-wired into the body long before birth. I don't believe any amount of behavior modification, or castration, or hormone injections could ever make me into something other than what I am. At best, those attempts would only change my behavior and -- not incidentally -- my well being. quote: Personally, I think that's a good compromise, Jim. Unfortunately, I don't think it's tenable because you're essentially saying that non-religious people can no longer get married. Language still holds power, I think, and denying people the use of words like married, wife, husband, and ball-and-chain (oops, just kidding) is never going to fly. And if you don't take away those words, you have exactly the same situation we have today -- complete confusion over what is and isn't marriage. I think, much as you do I suspect, that a line has to be drawn between religious marriage and secular marriage. They are not and never have been the same thing, but unfortunately they often overlap, and that overlap is killing us. There are many, many different religions (including the lack of one), but there has to be only a single State. The latter cannot be made to adhere to the former. That's impossible in anything short of a theocracy, which I trust none of us are advocating. Even within the same faith, we often don't agree. The same Bible that seemingly refuses to let two men marry also seemingly refuses to let a man and woman marry more than once in their lives. Why do we legislate one and not the other? In part, it's simple numbers. Majority rules. But also in part, I think, it's a matter of pragmatism. Some things simply can't be stopped, so must be accepted and at least partially controlled. Love, whether between homosexual or heterosexual, seems to be one of those things. quote: I don't think so, Brad. At least not necessarily. Whether it's part of a person's identity or not, whether it's inherent or chosen, I suspect most people feel dissed when someone criticizes . . . anything about them. It's human nature. I'd like to think, however, that what I said to Ed in this thread is pretty much what you and others might have said had he posted a poem of similar carelessness in Critical Analysis. I attacked what he said and how he said it, not who he is. I was probably harsher than is my wont, and almost certainly harsher than necessary, but that's in small part because Edward has made a habit of snidely attacking other Members and in large part because this post was a direct attack on a two different groups of people, the gay and the people what stand up for the gay. Carelessness while learning should be corrected and tolerated. Carelessness as a weapon must be denounced and never tolerated. Initially, I almost pulled Edward's post as an infringement of our Guidelines. The connection was at best nebulous, however, and I thought he deserved a chance to instead learn where he has continuously gone wrong in our Discussion forums. Based on his earlier conversations with LR, Essorant and others, I'm not surprised he chose a different course. Interestingly, and not coincidentally, Edward reminds me a little of one of our Moderators circa 1999. And my posted reactions then were much the same as now. I'll let others speculate who that might be, except to quickly add that I'm very proud and happy with all of our Moderators. There's hope for everyone. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Such a ruckus. I'm always amazed too. Every single time. I'm pretty much convinced that I could um, "go" either way--but I was married yesterday, and I am still married today and more than likely, as lazy as I am, I will be married tomorrow. OH. To a man. It just turned out that way--I didn't plan it. But I must confess--I am quite infatuated with another at the moment. It matters not to me if she is a he or she is a she-- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKZFxW4pvIo I mean, one really never knows--either way, and I don't believe I have ever envied a shark before. and "the line forms on the right, babe" *laughing* I hope you all find peace, truly I do. It's a wonderful world. |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Ron: quote:. Hmmm. Maybe I need a catchy slogan like, "Behaviorists rule, cognitivists drool!" quote: Maybe I do. But then again, I think I probably practice applied behavioral science more than just about anyone "here" at this forum. I've seen strategies based on this paradigm dramatically change behavior, encourage the acquisition of critical skills, and promote learning at a faster rate than any other psychological method I've seen. I've also seen the newly acquired, contextually appropriate and desirable behaviors maintained over a long period of time. quote: For some, I think this is popular semantics. My grandmother used to abuse alcohol. My grandmother no longer abuses alcohol. Is she recovering or recovered? Do we define alcoholism by an immeasurable "internal state" or by one's behavior? quote: In the absence of continued reinforcement, all behavior is transitory. As far as your comment regarding their "state of being" is concerned, are you assuming that the behavior is not significantly influenced by pared reinforcement at some point in the person's life? And of course what I've been writing applies as much to heterosexuals as it does homosexuals. As far as changing one way or another having benefits (or not) to one's well being, I guess that depends on the person. Heterosexuals can engage in self-destructive sexual behavior just as easily as homosexuals (and probably do more often, if based on head count). But I'm not sure I put as much stake in biological determinism as you do. As far as my "compromise proposal" goes, at least it's a start. Brad: quote: No, Brad. I have no problem with your artful dodge of much of the discussion. But I suppose that behavior is "tied up in you identity" ... so it must be okay. Jim |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: As coincidence would have it, Jim, my grandmother used to pass out from time to time. She started a regimen of insulin injections and stopped passing out. Was she recovering or recovered? Do we define diabetes by a NOW-but-not-always-in-the-past measurable "internal state" or by one's behavior? It's a shame that the gene (or genes) for sexual preference isn't on the same DNA strand as, say, eye color. If all homosexuals were born with orange eyes we probably wouldn't even be having this conversation. [edit] Had to come back to this post this afternoon, some five hours after posting it, to add that I really wish I hadn't said anything at all about alcoholism, either before or especially now. My earlier comments were an observation on behaviorism, not on homosexuality, and I should have kept it that way, not mixing the two. To go from alcoholism to diabetes to homosexuality is a oblique route I would rather have not traveled. My bad. My comment on orange eyes, however, still stands. [/edit] |
||
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration |
quote:I have thought the very same thing several times as I've followed this thread the past few days... Thank you Ron. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Ron: quote: As far as the world being unified on what constitutes security and safety, I think that would only be true of the very basics. If you go far beyond that, I think you'll have to admit that various cultures have very different views about what is safe and secure, much of which you would adamantly disagree with. And the current definition of marriage is not an issue affecting anyone's immediate security and safety. The issues (from your perspective and mine) are more long term. quote: Then some can only be thankful that your philosophy of law (which is neither truly amoral, nor particularly insightful about what constitutes "harm") isn't applied across the board. I'll be the first to admit we should consider laws case by case, and that there are probably some mere moralisms on the books that ought not to be there. Changing the very definition of Marriage isn't one of them. quote: I want to argue neither of those things. I'll continue to argue however that the relation of gender (male/female) is central to the definition of marriage, particular examples of infertility notwithstanding. And procreation’s tie to the institution of marriage is anything but gratuitous, seeing that it is foundational to survival of the race. quote: Proper Marriage wasn't given by God to only the religious, but to all. Its sanctity (as an institution) is not called into question by particular failures or bad examples. I don't see how a squandered gift need reflect poorly on the nature of the gift. But, regardless of the "sanctity" issue, you conceded my main point, which was that ill examples of marriage provide no compelling reason for such radical change. quote: I disagree about that, other than the power and presence of original sin (rather than poor genes). But if you suspect this, then the cry of "inborn" or "like-race" can't be used as an argument for the propriety of homosexuality. quote: good. I'm glad you see it. quote: You're begging the question. The very question we are debating is whether or not it is “innocent” or "harmful". quote: We're not debating love Ron. We're debating homosexuality. I never denied that good things may accompany wrong things. In fact they always do. quote: Since when did simple denial become a valid method of interpretation? Some things are shadowy in the Bible (and I've no doubt you're ready with those on your tongue). But homosexuality isn't. quote: One of the differences between race and sexual preference is that with race, the will is completely out of the picture. And whether or not you want to call it a “choice”, the will is not absent with homosexuality (along with other behavioral issues). And I want to know how you’re so sure that people cannot alter their sexual preferences by experimenting and dabbling in homosex? Sure some say that it didn’t change them, others say that it did. I don’t know if participating in a particular form of wrong doing would generate a habit for me, but that doesn’t mean that it can’t / doesn’t happen. Think about it Ron, if sexual preference were as hardwired as you say it is, you shouldn't be able to add another preference, any more than you can change it. And I need to remind you of that fact, that in some measure you still view it as a "preference" or you wouldn't call it that. quote: Actually, Ron, your example proves my point much more than yours. Not all children get to draw social security, just a few. Discriminatory isn't it? quote: It's not that the key keeps getting dropped, it's just that we disagree upon which key is which. Your definitions of "harm" and "equal treatment" are just as arbitrary as you imagine mine to be. quote: I have to agree with Jim on this one... I know a former alcoholic, who does not presently struggle with alcohol at all. If someone may be "recovering" then by definition there may be a point of having been "recovered". quote: That's kind of like saying "It's a shame that reality doesn't present the way I say it is, then I wouldn't have to argue this way." The most obvious thing in all of this to me is that homosexuality has not been shown to be genetic. And don't respond with the pan-genetic theory of all human adjectives. Then I would have to say that even your wrong opinions are hereditary, and I couldn't heckle you so much for them. And Jim, As much as I respect your earnestness, and your desire to please all parties, I agree with Ron that such a compromise would never really work. And yes, I'm still way short of a man-enforced Theocracy, but the present definition of Marriage ought to be retained. And Brad, "The Artful Dodger", I like that. But who is Jim, old man Fagin? Stephen. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: You got to watch those antecedents, Stephen. Your pronoun doesn't make it clear whether you mean marriage or procreation is foundational to survival of the race? You know, since you already admitted they aren't the same? Again, if you want to argue procreation, please do so. When you're prepared to disallow marriage for anyone not of child bearing age, we can talk. At what age do you think your marriage should be dissolved as no longer serving any procreative purpose? quote: You're still confusing sexual orientation with the behaviors derived from that orientation. Following that logic, the Pope and any other religious leader sworn to celibacy can no longer be called heterosexuals. Choice can be a reflection of being, but it doesn't define being. quote: Okay, point taken, and it was a poor choice of words then. Sexual orientation is no different than sexual gender. You can act like a woman if you like (and some do, proving that preferences can be added), but that certainly isn't going to change your physical makeup. Both orientation and gender are hardwired; one is just more visible than the other. quote: Cool. That makes it easy. We can set aside all other issues then and you can tell everyone how the marriage of two people you don't even know is going to bring you personal harm. Not religious harm. Not moral harm. Not some vague and ill defined social harm too many years down the road to verify. Personal harm. Today. |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Ron: I have two problems with your position at this point. First, I think you are confusing genetic causation of physical disorders with genetic proclivities to engage in certain types of behavior (e.g., homosexual behavior, impulsivity, etc.). Second, I think this is related to the first, I don't quite understand how you reconcile your apparent genetic essentialism with the notions of free will you champion in other threads. Either genetically-linked behavior can be helped or it can't. If it can't be helped, then behavior is genetically determined and, therefore, the will cannot be considered "free." If the will cannot be free, then other problems arise regarding moral responsibility. I think you're clever in trying to compare alcoholism and diabetes (why am I experiencing deja vu right now?), but I think you're either leading me with your inconstancy to prove a later point or you've failed to think your position through to it's end point. Stephen: Hmmm ... old man Fagin, huh? Maybe a middle aged Fagin. Maybe your comparison is not as far off as you might think. Jim |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: I don't think heterosexuality is simply a proclivity, Jim. It's certainly never felt that way for me. quote: I don't think free will has a great deal to do with who and what we are, Jim. It has to do, rather, with choice, and of course the latter has always been shaped by the former. While I've always been free to leap buildings with a single bound, it sadly hasn't happened yet. quote: Sorry, Jim, but I think that's prejudice speaking. Breast feeding is a genetically linked behavior similarly governed by choice, but the average woman doesn't need to be "helped" because she was never broken. There is no moral responsibly because it's a personal choice. Lactating hurts no one. quote: As I said in my edit, Jim, I wish I had avoided my earlier comments on alcoholism as it relates to the limits of behaviorism. That is, perhaps, fodder for a different thread, but it only muddies the waters in this one. Comparing alcoholism and diabetes in that different thread would further muddy THAT water; I'm not even sure what it does in this one. Nonetheless, even though it has nothing to do with this conversation, I do think alcoholism is a non-reversible state, albeit one dictated first by personal choices. In that sense it is probably more akin to virginity than to diabetes. There's a point beyond which the decision to abstain can't change the past. |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
quote: Since religion and politics are non-static practices and unions, with which we base marital terms, then how can the definition of marriage be static? The term "gender" grammatically encompasses all (he, she, and it) but the term itself has undergone a bit of variation. Couples have been redefining marriage for eons. The Bible gives many examples of unions that are now outlawed and our government had miscegenation laws in effect up until 1967. Granted: Documentation suggests most cases are male/female. Based upon what many perceive to be documentation, same sex relationships have never been favored in any written light, aside from creative pieces? Documentations make it easy to be against same sex marriage. What's hard for me to understand is how what's written is supposed to go for everyone. We're not the same. We don't even believe we got here the same way. There are no exacts, though we're being taught that there are, and we sit there in class, subjected to culled theories that nearly everyone disagrees on and probably will until the end of time. On a side note: I've procreated twice and I would have more if my marriage had survived. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Ron: quote: I'm not arguing that procreation must be present in every individual case of marriage. That would be foolish and beyond oppressive. But I am arguing that procreation in marriage is a clue to the propriety of marriage as it stands. For whether or not you like it, or whether or not you think it should be, this is one of the reasons sanctioned homosexual unions have hardly been encouraged or recognized. We ought to ask whether or not that has been due to bigotry, or if there are sociological, antropological, teleological reasons behind this "discrimination". And as far as infertility goes, why should particular exceptions have any bearing on such a general consideration as the definition of marriage? That doesn't mean that the procreative aspect shouldn't be recognized in the decision. quote: But why should homosexuality be assumed to be "like" homosexuality in that regard? The will is usually more prominent with behavioral issues and perversions of sexual preference, helped along by ill social or environmental conditions. quote: So you compare sexual "preference" with acting like a woman ... but sexual "orientation" with physical being? I would rather say that heterosexuality and gender are both bound together and basic, but some, for whatever reason, are inclined to deny both. Yes, homosexuality is an abnormality like transvestism. Whether wearing women's clothes, or sleeping with a man, you are not acting according to your gender. You are only assuming the basic normalcy of homosexuality, in order to prove it ... and all the while ignoring the obvious signs that it is a distortion of gender like the other examples you bring up. One glaring clue is that more than a few homosexuals DO participate in transvestism, making it much more likely that homosexuality is form of confusion of gender identity, rather than a basic and proper sexual orientation. quote: Nor should it ever have. Homosexuality is not the same as heterosexuality. quote: I see no reason why we should have to be that nearsighted, or to only think of today. I'm sure much of the world's woes have come by that approach. Stephen. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Yea, actually Stephen, I think that's exactly what it means. The procreative aspect can't be unimportant for heterosexuals if you want to make it important for homosexuals. That's pretty much classic discrimination. Either marriage is defined by procreation or it isn't. You can't have it both ways. quote: Oh. Okay. Want to explain to us how someone you don't know putting on a dress (or a cowboy hat, which is just as abnormal if you're not a cowboy) is going to bring you or anyone else personal harm? quote: Nor are the different sides of a coin the same, Stephen. They are, however, different sides of the same coin. There is absolutely no reason, beyond prejudice, to believe that homosexuality is going to "feel" vastly different than heterosexuality. Love and desire, much like pain, are pervasive. Even, perhaps, universal. quote: Fine. Tell me how the union of two people you don't know is going to personally hurt you tomorrow, then. Define the perceived cost any way you like. Just be specific. |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
quote: I believe Traits are determined, but certain behaviors arise out of need to exist with those traits. Certain traits can cause one to exhaust all efforts of survival, or they can cause one to blend in, or they may just kill themselves if they can't, or a number of other things that don't define free will as as much it does fate, but quantum physics solved that mystery didn't it? More importantly to me, is how traits are born to people that don't fit into any textbook, and again, if they did, would we extinguish them? quote: Sorry Ron. I've heard many people say that they were offended by a woman breast feeding her baby. The morality police even want to govern when, where, how, and for how long. |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Ron: quote: Ironically, your position that is based largely on assumptions that have no solid grounding in science is a text book example of prejudice if I've ever seen one. But the issue of "can or cannot be helped" is not my idea, but builds off of some of Ed's initial observations. You and the people Ed colorfully decries would seem to have us believe that a homosexual person's genetic predisposition to "gayness" makes it too hard to expect the gay person to not act on their genetically-determined urges. If what you are saying is that no sort of environmental influence, such as training in impulse control, can modify the homosexual tendency or its behavioral manifestation, then, in order to avoid inconstancy, you would have to say the same about any genetically-influenced personality or behavioral trait (e.g., shyness, aggression, or depression). There are people who don't want to be shy, aggressive, depressed, or gay who succeed, albeit after extraordinary effort, in modifying both the respective tendency and resultant behavior. By positing that such "proclivities" are part of a person's essense or nature, and thus are immutable without devaluing the person, sounds almost like a form of philosophical fatalism to me. Again, if one's attention is directed at what is observable and away from poorly grounded "we-will-eventually-find-the-missing-evidence-we-are-now-relying-on-to-support-our-position" assumptions, I think what we will find is strong evidence that your genetic deterministic views are seriously flawed. So, what's the big deal with all of this anyway? If you link behavior - any behavior - to our pre-determined biological nature, then you remove individual moral character from a person. And it is precisely this moral character that has always been the source of holding a person responsible for his or her actions. Rwood: quote: My problem with this statement is the word "exist." Rather than tying the traits to existence, I think it more properly belongs with our ability to act effortlessly with the tendencies that arise from such traits. And I think choices to extinguish certain traits should rest with the person living with those traits (unless, of course, the traits risk serious bodily harm to the person or others). As I mentioned to Ron, we should resist the fatalistic notion that genetic predisposition removes the ability of a person to, by force of will, extinguish a trait they don't desire to have and replace it with one they do. In some ways, the fatalist is as much a tyrant as the person who forces change or modification against the will of the individual who happens to present with a certain, socially stigmatized trait. What is the message we want to be sending here? Is it, "You can never change, even if you really want to, so don't even bother trying" or "If you really want to change, it will take much effort and you might fail, but it just might work." I'm a bit surprised I'm taking the "free will" side of the argument against Ron. I'm also surprised that he doesn't see the conflict between his support of genetic determinism and his views on free will. AND I'm very surprised that he liken's changing one's seemingly natural tendencies as tantamount to leaping tall buildings with a single bound. Jim |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Ron: quote: But Ron, it IS important for heterosexuals... That much is obvious ... seeing that that's how children are born. Definitions based upon such generalizations are anything but "classic discrimination". Gender reciprocity has always been central to the definition of marriage, and the procreative element is evidence of its propriety, regardless of particular examples of infertility. quote: If you'll kindly refer back to the context of our discussion, you'll notice that you were arguing that homosexulity is akin to one's physical gender, and thus very unlike behavioral issues such as transvestism. My counter argument was that, like transvestism, homosexuality is a form of gender confusion. For whether it is dressing like a woman, or sleeping with a man, it amounts to an "acting out" of a different gender than one actually possesses. And I was simply showing that homosexuality is very similar to the behavioral problem of transvestism. The "harm of others" issue is irrelevant to the comparison. Just like you used the negative example of alcoholism, to illustrate something about homosexuality, which you deem to be a healthy and positive lifestyle. But, since you brought it up, I have to remind you that public vulgarity IS a type of harm. And MANY forms of transvestism would fall under that category. But that's incidental to the point I was trying to make. quote: Coins may also be defaced or tarnished. Homosexuality is a distortion of human sexuality. quote: You still lump too much in one basket. Love and desire are universal, but neither are unconditionally good or right. They may be expressed in unhealthy or immoral ways. And the term "love" certainly can't be used to justify homosexuality, any more than it can be used to justify adultery. What such terms do is create the illusion that those who disagree with homosexuality and/or homosexual marriage, are anti-love. Nice tactic. quote: Well first of all, if homosexuality is a pathological expression of sexuality with resultant psychological and sociological problems (and most textbook descriptions still call it that, in spite of the dogged pressure of political correctness) then the public sanctioning of it in matrimony will only help others to go that way rather than resist it. So homosexuality will increase with the public acceptance of it. (I know at this point you will be tempted to throw in your "hunch" that it is an inborn trait). Others will also be forced (through changes in curriculum) to view homosexual marriage as a normal and healthy alternative. For many people, this amounts to indoctrination. The preaching of scripures such as Paul's denunciation of homosexuality, and the necessity of repentance in the homosexual population will be more easily interpreted as discriminatory hate crimes, slander and libel, on equal footing with slanderous racist remarks (even though the two are quite different). As a lay preacher of the gospel myself, I would call that a form of "harm". quote: I'm not so surprised. It's the nature of the pressure that political correctness sometimes exerts over honest intelligent people. Who wants to be called a homophobe and compared to a KKK Grand Dragon? I know how to deal with it ... we'll start calling them homophobiaphobes to offset the imbalance of public censure. Boy Ed sure likes to start fires and run doesn't he? Stephen. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
I guess I'll just keep playing dodge ball. quote: And yet, it's all about free will. I honestly don't think the nature/nurture debate is relevant. Is he gay because he decided to be gay, is he gay because he or she decided to be gay based on genetic proclivities? As long as we see it as a choice, then that's no longer an issue, the issue becomes is it harmful to society. We talk about straight on gay violence, we talk about straights feeling uncomfortable when conventions are being tested. Which behaviour is the easier to modify? Which bahaviour creates more harm? I think the choice is obvious. But why is it not just obvious, why is it actually better for all parties involved? Because if you asked someone,"Is it okay to beat someone up because of their sexual orientation?" most people would say no. If you offered a way out of that uncomfortable moment at the mall or at a party, most people would take it and wouldn't care one way or the other about sexual orientation (What's in the bedroom, stays in the bedroom). How many homosexuals would take a pill to 'cure' them? Let those that take the pill, take the pill. Let those that don't, don't. Of course, seeing it as a choice that does no discernible harm opens up other issues. But those are the issues that we should be talking about. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Sorry, Regina, but that's not morality either, and I think those people have every right to be offended if they wish. Lactating is not the same as breast feeding, any more than a full bladder is the same as urinating. One is a state of being, the other is a behavior. I don't find a public display of breast offensive, but I respect the rights of those who do. Feed your kid and take your whizzes privately, please, without thrusting your own sensibilities onto others. If nothing else, ask first. quote: Okay, Jim, I think I better understand the source of our miscommunication. So, I'm going to dig for yet another analogy, albeit perhaps another flimsy one. Man is born and exists as an omnivore. He can, if he wishes, become a vegetarian. He cannot, however, ever choose to be a herbivore. I'm making a distinction between being and behaviors, but clearly not making it very well. With that in mind, let me try to answer your implied question. If a man (or all men) is born a murderer that is a state of being for which he holds no responsibility. There is no free will. The actions that result from that state of being, however, what you want to call behavior, are a function of free will and do entail personal responsibility. I'll even go one better and advance the possibility that everything that happens to us is a result of our own actions, that we choose every event we ever have to face. And, still, I draw a distinct line between what happens to us and what or who we are, which is the same line I draw between what we do and who we are. Back to the quote. No, I don't claim that a homosexual's state of being makes it "too hard" to not act on their urges. My claim is that there's no reason, beyond society's prejudice, for them to try. Well, at least not in any sense that isn't equally true for heterosexuals. Put another way, Jim, you can't cure homosexuality and there's no legitimate justification for suppressing it. It's not like murder. It's also not like shyness, aggression, or depression, all of which can be painful and even debilitating. Yea, I'm sure there are homosexuals who want to "be helped," but only in the same sense there are women who want to get down to seven percent body fat and fit into a size three dress. I think you're trying to fix something that isn't broken, and the "help" does far more harm to the individual than good. quote: I completely agree, Jim. Completely. At the same time, however, I think we should work to discourage anorexia and bulimia as inappropriate "choices to extinguish certain traits." Being skinny and heterosexual, I think, are goals imposed from without, not from within. quote: LOL. Is this going to turn into a treatise on the birds and bees, Stephen? Sorry, my friend, but marriage is NOT how children are born. You might just as well link procreation to having a job as to being married. After all, most people who have kids have jobs. But not all people with jobs have kids. And you don't have to have a job before having a kid. The exceptions are equally rampant and the correlations just as tenuous. I'll go even further, Stephen, and suggest that people who get married to have children usually end up not doing either one very well. quote: You mean like a woman wearing pants, Stephen? Sorry, I don't mean to be flip, but I'm not quite willing to define gender by behavior choices. And in any event, who does it hurt? quote: What a person chooses to wear -- or who a person chooses to love -- is only a "problem" for the other person, Stephen, the one unwilling to accept differences. It's not a problem for the person making the choices unless they let themselves be drawn into it. Mind you, I'm not suggesting that gender confusion (a state of being) can't be a problem, in the same sense that any identity confusion can be painful. It shouldn't, however, be confused with cross dressing. quote: Nope. Homosexuality is a reflection of human sexuality, Stephen, not a distortion. It's simply a different reflection than what you personally see. quote: Adultery, Stephen, is a behavior that harms others, very unlike homosexuality and heterosexuality, both states of being that by themselves harm no one. No, love can't be used to justify adultery, but neither homosexuality nor heterosexuality require justification. *** Okay, now we get to the meat. Let's see how homosexuality harms Stephen. quote: I don't believe it is pathological, Stephen, and all of the psychological and sociological problems are the result of society's reactions not the state of being. In any event, however, this brings no direct harm to you. quote: Good! Of course, what you really mean is that more people will be willing to "come out of the closet." And, of course, that brings no harm to you, either. quote: Forced? You mean like with a gun or similar threats? I think you mean "encouraged." And that's a good thing, since marriage IS normal and healthy, not indoctrination, and in any event certainly brings no harm to Stephen. quote: I'm not sure disagreeing with your morality qualifies, under our agreement, as personal harm, Stephen. Still, from a personal perspective, I'd like to add that I wouldn't characterize scripture as discriminatory. But neither do I confuse scripture with interpretation, and I do think that many people's interpretation of scripture should indeed be viewed as discriminatory. From where I sit, if you're right that a greater acceptance of homosexuality will shine light on that discrimination, I think it's a good thing, not a harmful one. And it appears, Stephen, that you still haven't told us how two people you don't know getting married is going to personally harm you? quote: Brad, I think harm (not to society, which is a cop-out, but rather to individuals) is the greater concern, but I don't think it's necessarily the only concern. What if there is no choice? What if he's gay for the same reason he has blue eyes and brown hair? I didn't "choose" to be heterosexual, it's simply what I am. Even in the absence of harm, it's okay to disagree with a person's choices. But there is never a justification for disagreeing with a person's gender, color, or other happenstance of birth. Where there is no choice, there is no responsibility. Geesh, guys, I think I could have written half a novel today instead ... |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I think it is shame to hang upon gender and sex when talking about almost anything. But it is especially a shame when talking about something that goes so far beyond those as having a spiritual, loving, marital relationship with someone. Gender and sex are bubbles compared to the fathoms and influences of love. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: I agree that one can disagree with another person's choices even if no harm is involved, but do we, should we, therefore enforce our disagreement onto others? What is our responsibility to others? I see your point, but what bothers me is that an emphasis on nature rather than choice still puts the burden on homosexuals as long as that argument is still on the table. If a homosexual decides not to take the pill, is vilification therefore okay? Obviously not. I guess what I'm trying to get at is that we, the straight community, is also responsible for making choices and we shouldn't be left off the hook anymore than gay men and women. You can be uncomfortable around homosexuals as much as you want (and I've had plenty of moments like that), but I can't justify to myself how that leads to discrimination or stigmatization any more than I can justify anti-Catholic bigotry. How do we live in a society where people make different lifestyle choices? I think the simplest way is the best way. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: Do you read each of my quotes unaware of what you said before it? You really must stop misquoting me. We were talking about heterosexuality. And heterosexuality is how children are born. I've never made the direct connection between marriage and children. But now that you've mentioned it, it is pretty obvious to most people that the heterosexual orientation of marriage is vitally connected with having and raising children, even if procreation is not realized in every particular case. And I don't see how any pedantic insistence on 100% childbearing in marriage changes the fact that reproduction is tied to directly to heterosexuality, and secondarily to marriage. It ain't rocket science. quote: Last time I checked wearing pants was a cross gender phenomenon. The simple fact that pants come in ladies styles and men's styles indicates that this is quite different than what goes on with transvestism. But I was not asking you to define gender by behavior choices. We both already agree that gender is a constant. Behavioral choices may be either consistent or inconsistent with that gender (though there is much room for overlapping). Extremes such as dressing drag, and sleeping with the same sex, however, cut to the very heart of what gender is. Homosexuality is acting inconsistent with one's gender, and therefore a behavioral issue, not a normative constant, like one's gender itself. quote: How is "cross dressing", unless we're talking Shakespearian plays or mere attention getting, not at least indicative of some kind of gender confusion? Honestly I think you're so smart, you're trampling the obvious. quote: Then why use love to justify it, as you have been? My only point was to say that it was crafty of you to make people who disagree with homosexuality and gay marriage, appear unloving or in opposition to love, by equating homosexuality with it. quote: That seems like propaganda ... "Yes, we know that homosexuals appear to have real issues, but they are unrelated to the homosexuality itself, only society's backward and intolerant bigotry." Physician heal thyself. I suppose you interpret data like you do biblical texts? quote: I don't necessarily agree with you here. But even if I did, it isn't all about me. quote: No, I didn't mean that. Someone wavering in their sexual orientation is not "coming out of the closet", they are struggling with temptation, and a serious confusion of identity. Homosexuality has not been shown to be inborn. Public sanctioning will result in unchecked propagation, as it would with many other issues that we disagree on. quote: Whoa, don't get ahead of yourself, we're still defining marriage here Ron ... or at least you are. Mandatory education, and rigid determination of curriculums is not "encouragement". It does bring harm to anyone I happen to have in schools, since it amounts to false information. Again, it's not all about me.quote: You are discriminating against those who do not want to change the definition of marriage, and who believe homosexuality (in accordance with scripture) is sinful. What's the difference? When someone tells me I can't teach my children, or my congregation, or can't share my views publically, then they are violating my freedom. At least you can see how that might be felt as harm. We're just in complete disagreement about whether or not disagreeing with homosexuality and gay marriage amounts to discrimination in the same sense of racial discrimination. And as long as we do, we'll never be able to agree upon what constitutes harm. quote: Why do you keep speaking of homosexuality as if it surely inborn. Why are you so sure? Forget the harm issue ... How do you know homosexuality is so very different from other things we view as sexually pathological like pedophila? No one just "decides" to be sexually attracted to children either. Give me something besides opinion. We're talking about changing something that would radically affect society. Therefore I think we'd like to hear more than a hunch. Stephen. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Ron you mentioned interpretation, and brought God into the discussion first. If I were reading "Ron's commentary on the Book of Romans" what would be under this verse? I'm curious what you do with this? "Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done." (Romans 1:24-28, NIV) Stephen [This message has been edited by Stephanos (03-02-2007 08:22 AM).] |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Just to throw a little levity into this thread, Ron's comments remind me of an old North Carolina joke.. Hiram, the farmer, decides that with more education, he can get a better job so he goes to the college in the next town to speak to a councelor. "Alright, Hiram, I'm gping to enroll you in classes of science, biology and logic", said the councelor. "What in blazes is logic?", replied Hiram. "Well, let me explain", said the councelor. "You have a weedeater?" ....yep... "Then logic tells me you have a yard". ....Gotta big yard.... "Good. The logic tells me you have a house." ....Real nice house. Built it myself.... "Ok, the logic tells me that, with a nice house, there's a good chance you are married." ....Been married 35 years!... "Then logic tells me that, being married that long, odds are you have children." ....Three boys, all grown up.... Well, then, logic tells me that, having children, you are probably not homosexual." ....Heck no, I ain't!!!!... That, Hiram, is the way logic works." So Hiram goes back to his little town and meets Harley at the feed store. "Hey, Harley, I'm a-headed back to college and get me some more education, gonna take classes in science, biology and logic." "What the heck's logic?", asks Harley. Hiram smiles. "Let me explain it to you. You got a weedeater?" Harley says "no". Hiram screams out, "You danged queer!!!" Funny how we all have our own interpretations of logic sometimes...  |
||
|
Not A Poet Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885Oklahoma, USA |
Oops, you muffed it up there Mike. "Well, let me explain", said the councelor. "You have a weedeater?" ....Nope..." I think that should have been ....Yep... |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
quote: It seems you linked morality/personal choice/lactating, but I misunderstood. quote: I know the difference between lactating and nursing, as well as discretion and flopping rudeness. I think there's a huge difference between breast milk and waste material. I know these differences, but some people don't care how discrete you are or that's it's none of their business, they will force feed their thoughts on the issue as if you are trying to breast feed them or their kids. This sounds very similar to how homosexuality is viewed. No matter how private they are, some still condemn them and try to control what they can and cannot do beyond sense and sensibility. Aside from the natural act of breastfeeding, the female body is splayed out for sexual value, profit, and kinks without permission. Nobody asked me if I wanted a Victoria's Secret catalog in my mailbox. Though I was interested in their buy one get one free. I think every heterosexual male would have a problem getting a similar catalog in their malebox (haha) if it were males on display. Women don't ask to wear skirts so short you can see their liver, NOR do they care if they sit on public stools and benches in those skirts with no panties on! Good gracious, they need to get some home training! My point is that morality and behaviors tend to model trends in what's accepted and what's not. Currently, studies show a huge gap in male acceptance between male homosexuality and female homosexuality. Why? |
||
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration |
lol |
||
|
Edward Grim Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154Greenville, South Carolina |
I came back here to see if you people were still fighting about this, only to my surprise... You've all gone off the deep end. Do you know what my original post was about? I'll give you a hint. Not about homosexuality being right or wrong, not about gay people's rights, or the morality of being gay; not even whether or not I'm for or against it (I said I didn't care about that matter). Do you know what it was about? Obviously not. It was about how the rights group conducts itself and how it treats people. Essentially, it was about people forcing one's ways onto another. You've all just missed it. I'm not even going to attempt to read all of this because frankly I don't want to. But I'm seeing things like "You and the people Ed colorfully decries" and other things in that order. That shows me that you've all missed my point in such an overwhelming way I can't even really say anything. Wow... Oh and Ron, for a topic that's "nobody's damn business", you sure do have a lot to say about it. Too bad you can't focus on the real topic. "Boy Ed sure likes to start fires and run doesn't he?" LOL, I don't think so Steph. I pulled a box of matches out of my pocket for show-and-tell. Ya'll started the flame throwing. Besides, this isn't my topic anymore, it got off the point a longgg time ago. PeaceHead Cheese & Chicken Feet |
||
Mysteria
since 2001-03-07
Posts 18328British Columbia, Canada |
lol  |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
'Actually, Ron, your example proves my point much more than yours. Not all children get to draw social security, just a few. Discriminatory isn't it? ' Well, Stephen, if you consider providing money to children of dead or disabled parents who cannot provide for them discriminatory... I guess so. But I would have preferred the healthy parents, thanks very much. Just to interject here- I haven't read the entire thread thoroughly... as I don't really see the point... I agree with Karen... such a ruckus, big brew-ha-ha every time... I pretty much echo Ron's thought's, except that I'm not entirely convinced sexuality is a completely biological determination. I also don't think it should matter... is my preference for, say, tall dark and handsome biological? Does it matter? Apparently only if it's a preference for tall dark and handsome women. Say what you want, but to me, all this commotion has fear on the backburner, the same kind of fear that kept blacks out of white institutions and women out of the boys' clubs is now keeping gays away from the rights straight people enjoy. But that's okay, I have faith that with time, that too will change, regardless of how much arguing goes on on an internet message board. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Thanks, Pete... I hate when that happens! |
||
|
Not A Poet Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885Oklahoma, USA |
I recall another story that may be a wee bit graphic but sure seems to fit in here. It was a Saturday Night Live skit several years ago with Kathleen Turner when she was at her hottest and one of the SNL men although I don't remember which one. I also don't remember the exact setting but Kathleen was making a move on the man who showed no interest in her. Finally he explained "I'm just not interested because I'm gay." With that, she pushed him back and down onto a table top then climbed on top of him. After a few seconds, she climbed off, smiled and, as she straightened her clothes, said "Well, you're not all queer, are you? I like that in a man." I guess you had to actually see it to get the whole feel.  |
||
|
Sphinxen Junior Member
since 2007-03-03
Posts 38U.S. |
((This is a reply to the original post)) I agree about the whole "Nazi liberal" thing, but I feel I should interject that not all homosexuals are like that. I have a brother who is gay and he would agree that the in your face "im a homosexual, or im a whatever" is ridiculous. Like any group you find a wide variety of types, and the crass in your face types are the ones on the news. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Good ones, guys! Maybe you'd like to tell some jokes about niggers or Jews next? In the meantime, here's one you might like. How do you get a little boy out of a tree? Give an American a gun. How do you get a hundred little boys out of a hundred different trees? Give the American a bigger gun. Not funny? Strange how humor works, don't you think? I suspect the queers all laughed like hell. Stephen, Jim, I still think you're wrong, but I nonetheless respect your honestly about how you feel. Clearly, it's rare. Unfortunately, I suddenly find I've lost interest in this thread. It started badly and ended worse. |
||
|
Edward Grim Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154Greenville, South Carolina |
lol, Ron lost "interest." Boy he sure does like to mangle a post's meaning then run. lol Head Cheese & Chicken Feet |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: --Andrew Sullivan |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
An interesting, but not unexpected reaction to my levity which did not include one derrogatory remark against gays, unless you are referring to the word "queer", in which case we should petition Hollywood to remove Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, which must also be derrogatory even though it has become immensely popular among gays and straights alike. Add me to the "interest lost" list.... |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Change the punch line to, "You delightfully sexy homosexual," Mike, and see how often you still tell the joke. Jim and Stephen say homosexuality is bad, and that can be countered with contentions that it's not. Your implication is just as clear but far more insidious. It's a lot harder to counter, "Ah, it's just a joke" with reasoned arguments. Unfortunately, that leaves the PC Police with no counter except denouncement. Everyone gets mad, everyone loses, and the negative sentiments continue to spread. Pete's replay of an SNL sketch is even more offensive, I think, which is pretty evident if you simply reverse the gender roles. The implication is that if a person -- man OR woman -- shows any signs of arousal, which is often an involuntary body response for both genders, that should automatically qualify as acquiescence. "You know you really wanted it, Babe," is an all too common excuse for rape. Having the woman make the excuse as a perpetrator instead of a victim shouldn't really be all that funny. One has to wonder, I think, how many would still laugh if the victim in the skit was a respected clergy or a too-young teen instead of an unrespected homosexual? This is good, though. It more directly explores Ed's original rant, I think, against people (like me, it seems) who believe words have power and shouldn't be used to denigrate whole groups of people. Not directly and especially not indirectly. |
||
|
Edward Grim Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154Greenville, South Carolina |
You're ignoring the fact that I was "ranting" against how the GLAAD organization treats people. NOT AN ANTI-GAY POST OR A PRO-GAY POST! This really had nothing to do with gay people, just the organization. God... what is wrong with you? Ok, so I wasn't 1000% precise in my wording about the "everyone and everything" matter but you completely trashed it. You say I shoot from the hip, which is true. Well Ronny, you constantly have your gun at my head ready to fire the moment I speak. "Ed's original rant, I think, against people (like me, it seems)" Look man, I'm not targeting gay people, get that through your head. And if I knew you were gay I still would've posted it because it has nothing to do with homosexuality, just an organization that treats non-members poorly. Loosen up and get the hell off my back. Head Cheese & Chicken Feet |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
LOL. Someone else here want to explain this to Ed, please? He clearly doesn't like it much when I point out his mistakes to him. |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
Though I should have learned by now to keep my fingers off the keyboard when it comes to these posts, I just can't stew on this any longer. Along with Ron's challenge to all of us to write more clearly and to appreciate the power of the word in our writing, I think we need to spend a little time working on our reading comprehension. I truly am a little baffled that I did not see what almost everyone else does here, namely that this was a post to bash gays or to discuss the rights and wrongs of being gay. I just didn't see it. Going back and reading the original post several times, I am still completely mystified how I could have possibly seen this as a post addressing an aggressive attitude of a minority activist group. (Sarcasm added for emphasis.) In my book, it could have been any activist group; e.g., PETA, MAAD, Green Peace, KKK, Black Panthers, etc. Oh yes, I remember the Black Panters....they used to come into my college and set off smoke bombs, disrupt our classes, and threaten us. I also went to school with some boys who were KKK and, well, quite frankly, I deplored their behavior, too. Gosh, what was I thinking? Why on earth would I have ever thought negative things about these agressive minority groups' behaviors? This is the interpretation I had of Ed's post and I just want to apologize to everyone if I didn't get it. I guess I was really off and his post was really about gay bashing -- is that it? Sorry, I just don't see it. He has repeatedly tried to point that out to people and yet almost everyone is still on a completely different kind of topic. And then there's this communication problem where Ed doesn't see what Ron's been saying. In fact, now Ed thinks Ron is of a particular type of persuasion because of his interpretation of Ron's last post. In fact, Ed, (if I understand correctly) Ron was addressing people who use words in a powerful manner and how that can be abusive if extreme care is not exercised -- he was not outting himself....lol....just one more example of the power of words and the misinterpretation thereof. With a topic this provocative, I would have to agree, we must be extremely careful in the way we word things. But, I also think we need to read carefully, too. And, someone, please explain to me exactly how I misinterpreted Ed's intent. *smile* [This message has been edited by iliana (03-04-2007 03:46 AM).] |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Ed Don't take it personally. Almost every discussion thread deviates from the original intention. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
people (like me, it seems) who believe words have power and shouldn't be used to denigrate whole groups of people. Not directly and especially not indirectly. That's true, Ron, that words have power but giving them too much power can be as bad a giving them too little. Thanks to people who agree with your comment strongly, Mister McGoo is gone, Speedy Gonzales is gone, no reruns of Amos 'n Andy are allowed, Little Black Sambo is out of schools, All in the Family would have never been aired, Porky Pig would have been a no-no, and the list can go on and on. Is that a good thing? Who can say? Maybe if I were a Mexican with an inferiority complex, I would have wanted Speedy gone, too. Interestingly enough, though, when he WAS pulled, the Latin community was infuriated by the decision. Words only have the power we give them and should never replace actions in importance. When dad says "This hurts me more than you" while beating your butt with a hairbrush, do you symphathize with the pain he must be feeling? I doubt it. What was the phrase we learned in grade school? "Sticks and stones....etc"? So where did that go? Now it seems people are ready to pounce on anything they want to label discrimination or denigration of a group...you call that healthy? You want to call a joke like mine (which I have told to gay customers of mine with laughs received) insidious? Be my guest. Words are not the issue as much as how people take them, interpret them and use them to promote whatever point they want to make. THAT'S what causes Danish cartoons to be rallying points for demonstrations, murders and declarations of war. I say lighten up a little. Call me anything you want. I'm Irish. Hit me with the Micks. If you do it in an offensive way, I'll ignore you. If it's funny, I'll return the favor with some attribute or heritage of yours and we'll both have a chuckle. Speeches about words having power and insidious behavior are not necessary. People are the final censors and artibrators. So either do that or else we can continue down the path to a humorless, vanilla world where absolutely nothing can be said or written that could be deemed offensive or insulting to any one person or group and pure political correctness will be the law of the land. Fortunately I'm old enough that I won't be around to see it.... |
||
|
Edward Grim Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154Greenville, South Carolina |
"He clearly doesn't like it much when I point out his mistakes to him." Ditto. We're two sides of the same coin brother. Iliana, No this is not about gay bashing nor was it ever, I don't know who came up with that ridiculous thought. "namely that this was a post to bash gays or to discuss the rights and wrongs of being gay." No. "I guess I was really off and his post was really about gay bashing" Please point out where I bashed gay people. "almost everyone is still on a completely different kind of topic." True. "Ron was addressing people who use words in a powerful manner" [sighs] I know what his previous post meant, I'm not an idiot. I was being sarcastic. Ess, I realize that but they are saying I'm "bashing" homosexuals which is absolute BS. I don't know where everyone is getting that... It's startin to set me off. Head Cheese & Chicken Feet |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
Ed, with your sense of humor, I thought you would catch my sarcasm....I even noted "(sarcasm added)" in one spot. Sorry if you misinterpreted me. I was taking your side on this and I do know what you meant in your original post. My last remark was cynicism mostly. (Read it again, Ed, with sarcasm this time.  ) |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Ed, Um, I keep going through the early part of the thread and can't find anybody saying that you were gay bashing (People have taken you to task for what you said, not what you didn't say.). The latter parts are just the natural evolution of any thread so I don't know what you're complaining about. People did complain about your writing and you said your writing's not going to change. Others then went on to complain about the complaining. That, to me, is pretty much what you guys are complaining about. The question, however, still revolves around gay civil rights. A gay advocacy group is committed to this agenda and uses what power they have to advance that agenda. Why is that wrong? Because it makes you feel uncomfortable? Because you don't want to hear it? Because it makes you feel left out? If any of the above strike a chord, it's because I can back all of it up from your original post. You are whining and moaning about whining and moaning. You then went on to attack liberalism in general, but you don't seem to understand the historical roots of liberalism (This happens a lot.). Without liberalism, you do not have the right to say what you want. You do not have the right to be a 'lazy' writer, and you're identity is subject to modification by those in power. The problem with liberalism is that while it allows all of those freedoms to exist, it still allows people to disagree with you. And this, at times, gets too extreme. Yes, people can be too sensitive, but it's not just on the 'liberal' side of things, it's anybody who seems to think that 'freedom to' and 'freedom from' are the same thing. Freedom fries, anyone? PS On the sensitive issue, I was watching Tom and Jerry with my daughter yesterday and Tom used ash to put Jerry in blackface and then forced him to dance. I wonder if this particular show would even be allowed in the US. |
||
|
Edward Grim Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154Greenville, South Carolina |
lol, I'm sorry Iliana, I'm edgy with this thread. When you have angry monkeys clawing at your back it's hard to determine which ones want to give you a massage. This is bad that I, the monarch of sarcasm, can't even recognize wit anymore. I need to quit posting things on here. Thanks & Peace Brad, "You are whining and moaning about whining and moaning." [The Alley This forum is for flaming, complainin', and screaming your head off.] You're right, I shouldn't be complaining on this forum. And "whining and moaning" isn't the best description of what I was doing. "A gay advocacy group is committed to this agenda and uses what power they have to advance that agenda." They can still act like tyrants, can they not? I don't agree with extremists. And GLAAD can make their point without all the radical tactics; they just don't want to. And yeah I know they weren't implying that I was "gay bashing" in the beginning. They completely ignored my post and decided to attack me and my language. I've been reviewing the posts as well and it's Ron that began distorting my post. Honestly, I don't know what the hell is wrong with him. In my opinion, he has a superiority complex and an ego the size of Michigan. I speak with a laid-back tone and style. I'm not a lawyer and I don't intend to speak like one. I've had enough of that BS. If Ron and Karen have a problem with the way I talk then that's fine by me. They can be judgmental if they desire. Like I said earlier, this forum has become petty. Not many people seem to stick to the topic without resulting to character assassination and others just veer off into something totally different. I've been so bloody uptight here. I mean damn, I took Iliana's sarcasm seriously! What the hell?! I need to loosen up and start having fun again. Komapsumnida Head Cheese & Chicken Feet |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Actually, Ed, I find a discrepancy in your description of what happened with this thread and Ron's part in sabotaging it. God knows that Ron and I have tangled enough times - even in this thread - and there's no butt-kissing involved here but Ron had little to do with the tone of this thread. You set the tone from the beginning, even with the title. It's that time again Then you prefaced with conversation with comments like these... I know all you happy people love my topics I will probably go down in the books as the guy who spewed alphabet soup on this website. I don't hold back and I won't apologize for how my "discussing" affects people. All of that in the first paragraph! This thread was created to be nothing more than a chip on your shoulder with a dare to knock it off. The topic of the thread? Not gays or gay bashing, of course. You give your opinion on that clearly.. See I almost just don't care one way or the other. I'm not really for it or avidly against it; I just don't give a horse's heart. Then, after declaring your disinterest in the subject, you go on about how groups referring to it bother you, how groups trying to sway opinions frost your cookies. Well, why use only gays? There are many topics where that same tactic is used. If you are a smoker you are evil. If you drive an SUV, you don't give a darn about the environment. If you are against illegal immigration, you hate foreigners. If you are pro-choice, you condone murder. Man, pro and anti gay advocates don't even scratch the surface....but, gay, well, there's a subject that can push buttons and get you the kind of reactions you wanted from the beginning. If you had simply wanted a rant about groups using shoddy techniques to instill guilt in those with opposite opinions, there was no need to throw down those gauntlets in the first paragraph. You would have gotten a ton of replies agreeing completely with you, as mine was. Don't blame Ron or anyone else. The thread progressed exactly the way you had originally planned for it to, with controversy and sarcasm. Congrats......... |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: One of my earlier points is that anyone that somebody disagrees with automatically becomes an extremist. What have they done that you so characterize them as tyrants? Bombed Disneyland? Believe me, if they were committing violent acts, everybody would be on your side. But that's not what you said. You said that they've responded to anti-homosexual or perceived anti-homosexual remarks. Every advocacy group, on the Right, on the Left, in the Center, does that. You've made much of your religion and that's fine. There are groups that fight for Catholic civil rights in much the same way, there are scholarships for Catholics. If you don't believe me, look. Why single out homosexuals if that is your real beef? Of course, anti-homosexual bigotry is in the papers right now, anti-Catholic bigotry is not. It's all over the wing nut blogosphere (Yeah, I look.) so it makes sense that you would key on that, but precisely because of that, you must have known, you should have known, that this thread would eventually gravitate in that direction. It seems fairly obvious that you knew this stuff was coming -- so what's the big deal? I'm not going to defend Ron here except perhaps to recycle an argument that I've made many times. When someone spends as much time as he has on this thread and on your concerns specifically, that is a form of respect even if it doesn't quite feel like that at the time. Hankookmal hal-su-issoyo? |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Ron: quote: I agree with you that I find some of the other posts offensive and without reasonable, redeeming value. I just had a conversation with my wife about this the other day and we both agree that homosexuals have been unfairly targeted by many conservative groups and there have been efforts to exclude them from the civic community. Like you, I've written much in this thread and it is possible that I am contradicting myself right now, but I believe the thrust of my posts was to hash out a common ground ... a foundation for later discourse that Hush and Brad recognize as being the weightier issues. I've been an active civil rights advocate for several years now, and one thing I've learned is that you need to bring opposing forces together and find common ground in order for dialogue (usually the most important dialogue) to be fruitful. If it is alway "us" and "them," there will be no progress ... only pyric victories that leave one side or the other alienated. Under such circumstances, the result lacks stability and great gains won one season can be reversed in another. You've characterized my position as "Jim ... say[s] homosexuality is bad." This might seem difficult for some to understand, but it does require some clarification. I believe homosexuality is "bad" primarily insomuch as its practice is deemed sin in Scripture. With that said, I've heard the passage in Romans improperly quoted very often as singling out certain practices as being particularly vile, when the whole point of the passage at large is to demonstrate how NOT ONE PERSON ... ANY PERSON ... is without blame and deserving of judgement when the divine, moral standard is a perfect standard. By quoting this passage from Romans without considering the rest, Evangelical Christians often fall into the trap of believing and pronouncing their moral superiority over homosexual people and they use this moral self-importance to excuse unspeakable behavior toward homosexuals. In a nutshell, Paul's message in Romans is that we are ALL sinners, we have ALL offended God, we ALL deserve the most severe judgement, and ALL of us have access to redemption through Christ's vicarious assumption of our guilt and punishment. In short, setting aside homosexual behavior prior to receiving God's gift of grace is not a prerequisite to receiving that gift, any more than any other action or activity that runs contrary to God's moral law is a prerequisite to grace. Grace isn't grace if you have to do anything to earn it, and for an Evangelical to say otherwise is an obvious indication that the Evangelical doesn't understand what the Gospel is and what it is not. That, in and of itself, is a sin more egregious than homosexuality, in my opinion (but I realize that Christians are not generally as particular about sound doctrine as they are about moral pet pieves). Will a Christian who is a homosexual change his or her behavior after becoming a Christian? Maybe or maybe not. It might be immediate, it might not occur for many years, it might not even occur during that person's lifetime. I simply believe it is a struggle within a person that ought to happen, but a failure on the part of the person to lay aside homosexual practices is in no way (in my opinion) a damning offense. I think the legal issues are much more clear cut, and, like you Ron, I don't believe that homosexuality is, in and of itself, harmful in the civic sense. I also believe those who violate existing laws prohibiting harassment and battery should be punished accordingly for targeting homosexuals. No winks and nods ... lock up people who harm other people without justification. Sexual orientation of the victim is not and should never be considered a mitigating circumstance. Jim |
||
|
Edward Grim Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154Greenville, South Carolina |
Balladeer, Actually, Ron did start distorting my post with statements like: "If you disapprove of gay rights" "when you use the podium here to attack other people" "And I'm sure, Stephen, that the leaders of the KKK say pretty much the same thing about terms like "racist." And he brought up the gay man that was killed because of hate and intolerance. See, he turned it into a topic about hating gay people and not approving of them. Then hush and Jim added gasoline to the fire. So there ya go. "You set the tone from the beginning, even with the title." I see where you would think that. And as I've already said, my first paragraph was meant as humor and sarcasm and no I'm not just saying that to "get" myself out of the heat. Another reason I posted that first bit is because I had just finished a tough thread where the crap was really flyin', so I felt like warning people. Warning them that my topics tend to get heated (this one did) and whoever didn't want that shouldn't participate. That's all. "Well, why use only gays? There are many topics where that same tactic is used." Ok, I see what you're saying. "If you are a smoker you are evil. If you drive an SUV, you don't give a darn about the environment. If you are against illegal immigration, you hate foreigners. If you are pro-choice, you condone murder." I'm not so sure about the evil smoker one, lol but I've already had heated discussions about gas guzzlers and the oil company on another site (didn't feel like going through it again.) I already jumped into the abortion topic and that didn't move well (I ended up dealing with a little girl who doesn't listen to people). See the reason I chose GLAAD and only GLAAD is because I've been hearing unsettling things in the news about actors being harassed and "abused" by the organization. I gave my examples; I thought that was a reasonable topic to put in the Alley. "gay, well, there's a subject that can push buttons and get you the kind of reactions you wanted from the beginning." I wasn't looking for people to agree or disagree with me. Originally there was nothing in my topic to really agree or disagree with. I just wanted to discuss it. And if you think these are the reactions I wanted then you need your head examined, lol . You can't possibly believe I wanted my character and style attacked. Why can't I ever simply discuss things here? It's nuts."If you had simply wanted a rant about groups using shoddy techniques to instill guilt in those with opposite opinions." I agree with you. My sarcasm and humor backfired on this one and this is the price. "Don't blame Ron or anyone else." Ron thinks of himself as an elitist and felt that I would be a good punching bag to boost his ego. There is a right way and a wrong way for doing things and I went about this post in the wrong way; I can admit it. Ron replied in the wrong way as well. Head Cheese & Chicken Feet |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Brad- "Yes, people can be too sensitive, but it's not just on the 'liberal' side of things, it's anybody who seems to think that 'freedom to' and 'freedom from' are the same thing." Yes! Exactly. I personally don't see a problem with the jokes posted... if you take them with the tongue-in-cheek humor I think was intended. The problem is people don't see that side of it... anyone seen Borat? Extremely offensive... yes. But... that was the point. |
||
|
Edward Grim Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154Greenville, South Carolina |
Brad "One of my earlier points is that anyone that somebody disagrees with automatically becomes an extremist. What have they done that you so characterize them as tyrants?" Mmm, I don't believe so Brad. That is not why I called GLAAD extremists. Like I originally said, I am not against what they're trying to do. I just believe the way they're dealing with people is wrong. I gave my examples, you can research them. And I meant tyrant in reference to what they do to someone who doesn't agree with them. It's interesting that you said "anyone that somebody disagrees with automatically becomes an extremist" because in my opinion they think that anybody who disagrees with them is "wrong" and homophobic. I know they haven't taken any violent acts but abuse is not just physical, my childhood is a shining example of that. The fact is that anyone who doesn't agree with their views is supposedly homophobic and needs rehab. Here's a clip. This clip is of Anne Coulter. Now I'm not posting this because of what she's saying about Edwards nor do I agree with the term she uses. It's just an example: http://youtube.com/watch?v=Sx9Bi3C4rs8 And take a look at this: http://www.petitiononline.com/at343sh7/ They started a petition to ruin this dude's life! It's amazing. "anti-homosexual bigotry is in the papers right now, anti-Catholic bigotry is not" Catholics have already had their fair share of persecution. Ever hear of martyrs? What about people killing Catholics for their faith? So don't try to use that. "When someone spends as much time as he has on this thread and on your concerns specifically, that is a form of respect even if it doesn't quite feel like that at the time." So if you just shoot someone killing them instantly, that's disresptful. But if you take the time to torture him, you're showing respect? Lol, I don't know about that. Hankookmal hal-su-issoyo? No, I only know "thanks". lol, I know how to say "thank you" in many languages. It's just something I like to know. Hush, "the tongue-in-cheek humor I think was intended" We're not allowed to be humorous here hush. Head Cheese & Chicken Feet |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Perhaps the discussion about (homo/hetero) sexuality would be better to be continued in this thread |
||
|
Edward Grim Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154Greenville, South Carolina |
This has nothing to do with "(homo/hetero) sexuality." |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Thank you, Ed, for taking the time to respond to my comments. I can understand sarcasm backfiring, believe me!!!  |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
Alright, I want to be real here. And no I’m not saying that people’s opinions up to this point aren’t heartfelt and genuine. I’m saying I want to directly address Ed in the way (I) probably should have addressed him and failed to do so. I’ve NO experience with Gay Rights Activists: Only some of the gay people they represent. NOT ALL, because some homosexuals have expressed their own displeasure with their methodology. I’m aware of the GLAAD existence, but I still have yet to run into one that I know of and I’ve not had the opportunity to converse with a member. Therefore, I cannot support your “beef”, but I can empathize with you on the account that I have run into other types of activists and have had plenty of conversations with them. They were all human, though many were driven in a way that made them forget they didn’t have to scream out who they were. That just made me feel they weren’t convinced themselves and therefore turned me off to their plights. Okay? There’s where I stand. They can still be gun control, feminist, MADD, SADD, Pro-Life, Green Peace and Gay or all the above, but I don’t have to buy into them at all. I just have to respect their rights to engage in activism. Perhaps their misgivings will be the very thing that will hurt their cause. Live and Learn. I did not take offense to your post, Ed, because you can dislike whoever you want. You can dislike me, but I’m here, and I’m appealing to you as a person with no labels. Call me generic if you like. I also did not take offense to your post because there are plenty of people I don’t like! Mostly liars, thieves and cheats. So it would be hypocritical of me to scold you for disliking someone (or their ways) for your own reasons. There’s where I stand on the issues of offense with regards to most people. I’m not a member of TCOA (the chronically offended association) because I’ve known for years that I’m not the center of the universe and neither is anyone else. I’ve acted out a few times that got me in trouble. People might have listened to me if I’d handled myself a little better. Again, live and learn. People say you have to earn respect. It’s not a given. Well, I disagree. I’ve not received it even when I’ve deserved it, so by that example I tend to freely give it to those I come into contact with who prove no harm to me or others. I didn’t come by that reasoning, easily. I’ve been tossed out of school. I’ve been thrown into a holding tank. I’ve been tossed out of church! The details aren’t pretty, and I was defending myself, but the way I did it, well it wasn’t all that “conventional.” Now, I’m very selective with whom I surround myself with, spend my time with, invest my interest in, involve myself with around my children, etc. I make distinctions, with regard to who people are on the inside, and I’m very careful. Social magic-marker-labels mean nothing to me. Slurs demean the persons who use them. I think we’re all guilty of saying things we shouldn’t say. My advice to you is to practice your own rights. Converge with others who feel as you do and form your own group. Meet with GLAAD and hash it out with them, converse, debate, whatever groups do. Pose your questions to them. Expect an answer. Worst case scenario? Things could get ugly and you’ll end up in a holding tank, together. Who knows, underneath all the hoopla may be someone you can really respect or befriend. Otherwise, you might want to turn off your TV. Stop reading and buying into it all. Find some place quiet like the mountains for a hike. Film some nature, read some real literature, listen to some great music, or do what a young man might do with your health and ability, you know? Again, I'm happy to see you are communicating and not lashing out with hate. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Hush: quote: Amy, Again, I only want to point out that no one deems fear as unhealthy or inappropriate in itself. Depending upon whether there is anything to be feared, it is sometimes called "prudence". Secondly, for it to be the same kind of "fear" that is involved with racism, you should demonstrate with more detail why we should view a phenomenon like homosexuality as something like "race". The connection has not been established, to me, except that it is almost always presumed in these kinds of debates (usually to make those who disagree with you appear to be cruel). Lastly, I don't have the right to marry another man. We're talking about preserving a foundational aspect of marriage, (it must be defined, or it will die from a lack of borders- from literally becoming everything to everyone) not denying rights. Jim: quote: I agree with you here Jim. It just so happens that now, to disagree with allowing homosexual marriage is considered by many as "unspeakable behavior". quote: Jim, if you want to question how sharp "evangelicals" are on their doctrine, I think you might ought to reconsider that last phrase. I agree with you, until you make repentance sound seperable from grace (and no, I don't mean that works are prerequisite). And by "repentance" I don't mean an ethereal post-mortem perfection, but something that imperfectly happens on this side of the grave. Of course, I'm open to scriptural examples of exceptions. And by the way, this is not central to the subject at hand, as far as I'm concerned, seeing that it applies to much more than homosexuality. I'm in agreement with you about the monomania in the church about homosexuality. Though I don't fault firm preaching against it, I think neglecting to address other (pet) sins is telling. To me, it demonstrates more of a sin of omission than anything else. quote: But some are not so "clear cut". Though I agree that homosexuality in and of itself, may not be harmful in a civic sense ... that is a separate issue from the marriage question entirely. And by the way, I know that not everyone is wanting to talk about the same exact issues here (though they are somewhat intertwined). But if you all will put up with hearing my concerns, I'll put up with your endless arguments with Ed. (Who, by the way, if you haven't figured out, quite ENJOYS it). Stephen |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
'Secondly, for it to be the same kind of "fear" that is involved with racism, you should demonstrate with more detail why we should view a phenomenon like homosexuality as something like "race". ' Because, Stephen... it's an aspect of that person's identity that has nothing to do with others' lives... a black person never hurt anyone just by being black, and a gay person never hurt another person just by being gay... or by loving another of the same gender. That is not harmful... yopu might argue that it is harmful to your soul, and against the rules of God... but that presumes a faith in God which I don't think should have any bearing on the laws of our country. What's wrong with marriage being "everything to everyone?" in other parts of the world, polygamy is accepted, arranged marriages are common, etc. What impact does two gay people being legally married ahve on your marriage? Does it corrupt yoour marriage? Does it insidiously make you cheat on your wife, or disregard her, or your vows? Or course not, the same way your neighbor's divorce doesn't cause you to get a divorce, and the same way a recent patient of mine's marriage to her first cousin (it was also a polygamist situation) doesn't make me dump my boyfriend and get hitch with my family members. But it is a fear of these things, or simply a fear of acceptance, that keeps people on non judeo-Christian sanctioned unions from enjoying that right, and it's wrong. |
||
|
Edward Grim Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154Greenville, South Carolina |
"but that presumes a faith in God which I don't think should have any bearing on the laws of our country." Seen the back of a dollar bill lately? Head Cheese & Chicken Feet |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Hush, I'm interested. What do you feel about two gays or lesbians adopting babies and raising them? Do you feel that the child would be no different than one raised by the traditional mother-father scenario? However you feel about it is fine with me....just curious. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Can you define a traditional mother-father scenario for me, Mike? I'm not sure I've seen one in a while. Are we talking Ozzie and Harriet or Ozzie and Sharon? Mmm. Would I rather be raised by Ozzie and Sharon or by TWO Ozzie Nelsons? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I don't think that there is anything that any of us can do that doesn't impact upon society and consequently on all of us individually. It's all intertwined, I believe. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
You haven't seen a traditional mother/father relationship in a while, Ron? Where do you live - Michigan!?!?! No need wasting one of your incomparable comparisons this time, Ron. I say mother/father and you bring up the Nelsons and Ozzie Osbourne. Believe it or not, neither one represents the hundreds of thousands of male/female couples that marry and raise children. Next time I'll mention the pleasure of having pets and you can bring up gila monsters and tarantulas. At any rate, my question was not meant to be argumentative. Perhaps two gay partners can raise a child as well as a male/female couple. I have no idea. The only reason why I posed the question was that Hush mentioned situations that involved no one else and I wondered if a child being raised by gays WOULD be afected in some way by not having the mother/father figures as parents and, if there were some effect, would that have an effect on how they lived their lives and treated others.....simply a philosophical point. I don't really think that we are immune or unaffected by actions of others, even when we are far removed from it. You may feel that marijuana use should not be illegal and a car driven by someone high on grass runs into you and paralyzes you for life. (yes, they could do the same high on booze...no need to bring up that comparison )You may feel that a parent spanking his child as punishment is his own business but little Billy, upset at the spanking, throws a rock through the general store's window across town. The store owner, outraged, drives to the hardware store to get boards to patch it up and cuts off another driver in traffic and gives her the finger. The female driver, burning with rage, gets home and screams at her husband to get the frustration out of her system and a big fight ensues. The husband leaves for work, mad as hell at the unfairness of it all, gets to the office where he puts on his dental gown, hands still shaking with anger....and you are the waiting patient. Sure, silly examples, but I believe none of us are immune to the actions of others....for the want of a nail, etc. Would a child raised by gays or lesbians grow up on a different level that would affect his/her life in such a way it would affect their actions toward others or society? Beats me...I just think it makes for an interesting question, since Hush mentioned that it's nobody's business....and she may be right in saying that. |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
“traditional mother-father scenario?” It's sad, you know. I just shake my head sometimes at society. Mom and dad can beat the living daylights out of a child and still be considered a better parenting nucleus than one or two people that love, guide, and encourage the child without the use of any kind of abusive tactics. What's that say about our priorities? This I know. Children can tell you who they love and who takes care of them. Adults can twist their love into anything they want, so yes, parenthood isn't corruption-immune, but if we look into every single household with a child, we'll find mistakes. There is no perfect parent, and children unfortunately have to endure and overcome, just like we did. "I don't think that there is anything that any of us can do that doesn't impact upon society and consequently on all of us individually. It's all intertwined, I believe." "I don't really think that we are immune or unaffected by actions of others, even when we are far removed from it." True. Without the actions of others, nothing changes. We wouldn't be a free country. We are a direct reflection of how issues can and do stimulate change. The thing is: most people want change that only benefits themselves. That's regression, not progression. I feel the examples you gave, Mike, are examples of how people let their attitudes control them, instead of them controlling their attitudes. This thread is an example of how attitude can turn anything into a hairy issue. But, I'd like for y'all to tell me how what I do in private affects you. I'll stop doing it. I promise. Cross my heart and hope to die a free woman. and with that I must ask everyone to submit a detailed statement of what they've been doing in private because I've been feeling a little under the weather and I think one of you might be the cause. Own up to it, now. I won't be mad. I'm cheeky and a little deranged, but I'm forgiving. Hey! I just had an epiphany. Let's all plead the 5th on this one, or stop believing we're the center of the universe Besides, the average human only gets about 5 minutes worth of fame. What would you do with your 5? Put it in another thread. I don't care. |
||
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration |
I'm curious as to a trend I'm seeing in this thread as well as others: Why is tradition important? Why is maintaining a tradition important? If maintaining traditions were so important, then we'd probably still have slaves, women wouldn't be allowed to vote, children could still work at young ages in unsafe conditions. Farther back, we could eliminate freedom, having maintained the "tradition" of a monarchy. |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
ed- 'Seen the back of a dollar bill lately?' Yup. I don't think 'In God we trust' belongs on our money- it makes a liar out of me on the few and far between occasions I have to pay cash for anything. Mike... c'mon now, you even have to ask me? Of course parents' relationships affect children... whether they were never married and separated (like my parents), remarried several times to different men (a friend's mom), with one or both parents dead (my boyfriend, and the aforementioned frined, both have a dead father), or are happily married... swingers (like another friends' parents). The 'traditional' male-female relationship is just fine... but it's not always ideal (seriously, my parents would have killed each other and I'm very thankful they didn't even try a failed marriage). What about step-families, and kids living with grandparents or aunts and uncles? Also, a high school firend of mine was raised by her lesbian mother and her lover, who were in a stable relationship throughout my friend's childhood. Last I heard, my friend, and her husband and daughter, are doing fine.Should military personnel not be allowed to adopt because it's cruel to uproot children all the time? Should workaholic parents not be allowed children because their kids are neglected? Should Angelina not have been allowed to adopt a kid because she was single at the time? If I were to try and adopt, should I be denied because my liberal views might affect my child? Come on, now... It is entirely possible (and in fact, very common considering the high divorce rate) for "non-traditional" parents to be very good parents, and to raise very good kids. Do you disagree? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Mom and dad can beat the living daylights out of a child and still be considered a better parenting nucleus than one or two people that love, guide, and encourage the child without the use of any kind of abusive tactics. Another interesting comparison...traditional now meaning those who beat their kids? No, Rwood, to follow in the extremes Ron introduced, mothers and fathers who beat their children would certainly not be better than gays who don't. If you feel that a large portion of mother/father parenting beat their children, then I'm glad we live in different worlds. I'm afraid you misunderstood my query . As I tried to explain, it was out of curiosity, not meant in a confrontational way. I have no idea which would be better, or even if it is a question. As you point out, I suppose it would depend on each individual case, since there is good and bad in all types. Our growing up environment can affect our adulthood. One can see it in the difference between growing up in a small town or big city, or growing up in the north as opposed to the south, or attending private schools instead of public ones. Could gay parents instead of mother/father be such a case? Only my curiosity caused me to ask for Hush's opinion. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Should military personnel not be allowed to adopt because it's cruel to uproot children all the time? Should workaholic parents not be allowed children because their kids are neglected? Should Angelina not have been allowed to adopt a kid because she was single at the time? If I were to try and adopt, should I be denied because my liberal views might affect my child? Come on, now... It is entirely possible (and in fact, very common considering the high divorce rate) for "non-traditional" parents to be very good parents, and to raise very good kids. Do you disagree? No, Hush, I do not disagree at all Unfortunately, I believe that the rise in divorces and in both parents working has a direct relationship with a rising teenage crime rate and gang participation. Environment DOES play a part... |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
"mothers and fathers who beat their children would certainly not be better than gays who don't." Thank you, but Judges don't think so. My comment refers to all the children who were removed for abuse by DHHS, and then got sent back into the home by the courts. If the traditional nucleus is intact, mother-father, they assume that's the best place for them. Many of those children do not survive another beating. Hey, this is our world, and the court system is backed up with such cases. And yet, the courts have a very hard time placing a child in non-traditional environment. That was my point. Those who make legal decisions with a child's life. |
||
|
Edward Grim Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154Greenville, South Carolina |
"Yup. I don't think 'In God we trust' belongs on our money" Well, whether anybody likes it or not, this country was "founded" by men of God. *And when I say "founded" I mean stolen from the Natives Americans. Head Cheese & Chicken Feet |
||
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration |
what does our foundation have anything with trust? much less belief? |
||
|
Edward Grim Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154Greenville, South Carolina |
I'm not talking about trust. He said he doesn't think "In God we trust" should be on the dollar bill and the above statement is how I responded to that. Head Cheese & Chicken Feet |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Hush: quote: But Homosexuality is different than race, in that it has not been shown to be inborn. Not to mention that there are reasons to think that heterosexuality is normal standard, from which homosexuality is a deviance from. And yes, I am of the old-fashioned intuitive sorts who takes notice of such teleological trifles as complimentary functional reproductive organs. Also it is interesting that the text books have listed homosexuality as a sexual disorder, until the growing pressure of political correctness has made it villainous to say so, attributing all the negative baggage to society's backward views rather than to homosexuality. Physician heal thyself. It's a great tactic. But whether or not you agree with that, it stands that a disapproval of homosexuality need not be tacitly compared to racism, since it differs from the race question in significant ways. Also, I certainly don't think homosexuality in and of itself needs to be illegal. Nor do I think practicers of homosex need to be divested of civil rights. I merely think the nature of marriage, justifies the preservation of it's foundational heterosexuality. And as to faith in God being totally divorced from law, I don't think you really want that. Our early documents state that the basic rights we all have are based upon a very particular Judeo-Christian conception of God (albeit deistically expressed), not merely the state as state, or the people as people. If the state were the ultimate arbiter of rights, then law would be king, with no recourse but power struggle. My whole point (WAY short of man-enforced Theocracy) is that your insistence upon a divorce of religious ideas from public policy is unrealistic, and ultimately undesirable. For whether you "trust in God" as our coins say, or not, I doubt that you are willing to hand your rights over to either the state, or the tyranny of the 51% vote. But it is interesting that if it were as simple as that, changing marriage would already be out of the question by popular vote, and current law. quote: Because then it would cease to be marriage altogether, and become an insipid legal contract, based on literally no criteria but personal desire for financial perks. And that's truly what will ensue, step by step. Can brothers and sisters marry, mothers and sons? Some day they will, because they are currently being "discriminated" against. Mark my words, when the individual becomes so central as to extinguish any idea of a "right way" either in nature or beyond it, then chaos will follow, however long it may take to get there. Polygamy is next, but more will follow. quote: Of course not. You are the one saying it has to do with my marriage personally. Again, it's not all about me. quote: But Amy there's already a host of people who don't have a "right" to marry according to their own definitions of marriage. The question has nothing to do with rights (questionably extraneous) of an individual, but rather with whether or not we should change the fundamental definition of marriage. Ron: quote: It is interesting that you had to go quite outside of the character of Ozzie Nelson to make that point, in which case it wouldn't be an Ozzie Nelson. Christopher: quote: I don't think anyone is arguing for keeping a tradition for tradition's sake. The foundational heterosexuality of marriage is rooted in more than just tradition. It is rooted in religion, sociology, and anthropology. The question is, should a time-honoured tradition be rashly tossed aside, merely because some traditions have proven to be based upon little substance. quote: I'm curious Christopher, do you have real fundamental rights? And if so, do attribute them to something transcendent, the state as state, or a show of hands? Stephen. |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Uh... Ed? Try "she." Thanks. This country was also founded by men who owned slaves... but thankfully, their shortcomings aside, they were smart enough to create a clause about separating church and state. Stephen 'But Homosexuality is different than race, in that it has not been shown to be inborn.' So? I was born a woman, (well, a girl, actually), but I chose certain beliefs. Who cares if people choose to be gay? 'Not to mention that there are reasons to think that heterosexuality is normal standard, from which homosexuality is a deviance from.' So what if people choose to be different? 'Also it is interesting that the text books have listed homosexuality as a sexual disorder," Um... progress or censorship? You're a nurse... do you routinely get physican order to drill holes in the skull to realease demons or practice bloodletting? Does your assessment include the pattern of bumps on your patients head? You had to know I wasn't going to fall for that one. 'it stands that a disapproval of homosexuality need not be tacitly compared to racism, since it differs from the race question in significant ways.' True enough (If I accept your arguments, which, for conversation's sake, I will), but the behavior of people predjudiced against gays happens to look pretty similar to that of people prejudiced against blacks and other races, so I happen to think it's a valid comparison. 'Our early documents state that the basic rights we all have are based upon a very particular Judeo-Christian conception of God (albeit deistically expressed)' Until I see proof otherwise, I'll consider my parents my 'creator,' and if they are the ones who endowed me with rights... I'll consider those birth rights, mine on the basis that I am alive. And I'll consider that to be the basis on which all people have rights... or did the Judeo-Christian creator only endow those rights upon his believers? 'I doubt that you are willing to hand your rights over' Thankfully, our nation has a bill of rights and, as I mentioned above, I interpret those rights to belong to everyone on Earth... it just so happens that the U.S. Constitution actively protects those rights. Rights are not given, they are inherently ours (back to Brad's freedom to vs. freedom from point...) unfortunately, some people think being strong means they can take rights away. So those birth rights are not given by our country... simply protected (we hope). Sometimes, we have to fight for the recognition of those rights. 'Because then it would cease to be marriage altogether, and become an insipid legal contract, based on literally no criteria but personal desire for financial perks.' But men and women can do that now... I could marry a male friend for insurance purposes if I wanted... what's the difference if people of the same sex are allowed to? 'Can brothers and sisters marry, mothers and sons? Some day they will, because they are currently being "discriminated" against.' If they are both consenting adults, I don't see why not. I may find it kind of icky... but it's not going to harm me if they do. ' The question has nothing to do with rights (questionably extraneous) of an individual, but rather with whether or not we should change the fundamental definition of marriage.' But definitions have everything to do with rights. When Ohio's definition for legally drunk was decreased from 0.10 to 0.08, your right to drive after,say, three beers became your right to drive with two beers. And the definition of 'registered votor' ahs evolved many times... is that wrong? I mean jeez, next they'll be letting the family dog vote! |
||
|
Edward Grim Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154Greenville, South Carolina |
Oh damn, sorry about that, lol, my bad. "This country was also founded by men who owned slaves..." I know and they also pretty much swiped the land from the natives but this isn't my point (I'll save this topic for another thread )"but thankfully, their shortcomings aside, they were smart enough to create a clause about separating church and state." Well they did a pretty lousy job then, because "In God we trust" is on the money and biblical passages are in engraved on courthouse walls and in court we swear on the bible (or at least we used to). Yes, church and state are separate (as it should be) but I don't think they're completely separate. That's just how I see it. Head Cheese & Chicken Feet |
||
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration |
Stephen, you claim no one's trying to maintain tradition for its own sake in the same paragraph you say the opposition is trying to "rashly" dissolve it. I understand the desire to count the other side as unreasoning or "rash," but I believe you know better. I haven't seen rash statements saying, "what the heck, we should get rid of these traditions just 'cause." I see reasoned arguments pointing out why the speakers feel the traditions should either be re-examined or nullified. You may not agree with the reasoning, but that doesn't make it rash, eh? As far as the roots of heterosexuality, I think there's some question on that subject. - Homosexuality is not a new thing. It spans back through the ages. - Anthropologically speaking, it's easy to say that relationships should be heterosexually formed for the propagation of our species, but basing a determination on that would be defining existence as purely biologically driven, which I also doubt you believe. - Religion can certainly point us in the direction you're leading us... but I imagine there's several in here who've yet to be convinced to even get on that side of the fence, much less use it as a basis of determination. As to the second part, rights: do you think our nation was based on trust? Me, I kind of favor the distrust theory. If there were some sort of inherent trust in our nation's leaders, there would be no need for all the checks and balances in place - bureaucracy is in place specifically because we DON'T trust. As to rights, I'm a fan of the raise your hand method, which is exactly what we have and I hope we maintain. Much as myself or others might disagree at times, majority rules and when the majority votes, it very well may be that I'm wrong and they're right. Or it could just be that there is no better system in play. Do we have fundamental rights? No. Should we? You bet. Will we ever have them? I say unlikely, and speak true. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: LOL. First, Stephen, I think you are perhaps making assumptions you are ill prepared to prove. Second, and far more importantly, I think you are revealing more about yourself than you might realize. To define who a man is by their sexual orientation, their gender, their race or color, is a prime example of exactly what is wrong with your whole stance. It's what make you so horribly wrong. It's precisely what hurts people. Ozzie Nelson could be gay, transvestic, black, and Muslim . . . and he'd STILL be Ozzie Nelson and ostensibly a great parent and highly respected man. quote: You should start a new thread on that, Chris. I think you'd find more than a little disagreement on that stance. |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/godless_dollars The Secular Movement's wishes have been granted. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"It's what make you so horribly wrong." Surely you see the wrong in aiming a negative judgement at the person instead of the argument at hand? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Sorry guys, it's taken me a long time to get back to this one... quote: Well the only problem with your comparison is that such medical practice as you describe has advanced based upon gains of scientific knowledge. The assertion that homosexuality is natural and proper and inborn (like race) has no such scientific certainty, as is typically assumed. quote: Well if you are referring to maltreatment, disrespect, name calling, etc ... then you are right. I am referring only to the view that homosexuality is not an inborn natural condition, but a behavioral problem with a combination of sociological and physical roots, and with moral implications. That much only "looks" like racism to someone who assumes that it is a natural healthy inborn trait. Ron: quote: Again Ron, you're making the somewhat crafty move of equating a behavioral (and identity) issue with something natural and inborn such as race, or eye color. You keep making that category mistake, and I will keep pointing it out. But getting to the character issue ... While I agree with you about the need to respect people, you are vainly trying to divorce the idea of character from issues such as sexual preference, or cross-dressing, with no compelling reason why. I'm not denying that people may have virtues along with vices (I do). But people do evaluate something of character based on such behaviors, and I'm not sure that that is all wrong. It is wrong however to treat someone badly. But it's not always wrong to draw a line with public policy. I'll bet that most places you've worked would NEVER let you show up in a dress and high heels, and that's perfectly reasonable. (I'm imagining you in a dress right now, Ron, and it is really scary ) My assertion is that there is an anthropological, teleological, sociological, and spiritual basis for why most people haven't viewed these practices as normal, moral, or proper. You are simply placing your moral view over and against that, based sometimes upon what you perceive as rights (when you are talking of public policy), and sometimes upon what you perceive as right attitudes toward others. But either way, it is a deeply moral issue for you, belied by your "horribly wrong" comment. Though I know you want to maintain that cool, detached, neutral, amoralistic appearance, in realilty you have chosen a moral view on this subject that varies from what God says about things like homosexuality and transvestism, in an autonomous vein. And it's okay that we disagree. I just don't want anyone to think that your view is less of a morally charged one, based upon a more certain and sublime ethic, or based upon scientific certainty (all three of which you seem to suggest at varying times). And I don't want you get away with conversation openly alleging that people who disagree with homosexuality morally, and oppose homosexual "marriage" publically, are maltreaters of others and therefore don't render "respect". Having said that, let's respectfully disagree for now? Stephen. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: And that, Stephen, pretty much summarizes your entire argument. For me, those are descriptive of the past, not authoritative in the present. quote: Stephen, I believe that two plus two equals five is "horribly wrong." I don't think I would consider it a deeply moral issue, though. Yes, we can certainly agree to disagree . . . with the reminder that any time you tell people that someone else is "bad" I'm probably going to jump in and remind you that those bad people don't hurt you or anyone else. I'll argue for their rights and protections in this society because I expect them -- and you -- to argue for my rights and protections. I know that when I stop caring about their rights my own will be in imminent danger. Like gravity and thermodynamics, that's simply the way this Universe works. |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Stephen- what scientific proof do you have the homosexuality is a mental health disorder? You can argue that it isn't "the norm," and I can buy that statistically, it isn't. And you can argue that it's not "inborn," which, to me, is a moot point. Everytime someone chooses to behave differently, are they deserving of a psychiatric diagnosis? |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
