He got married during that brief time period when same sex unions were legal in California.
Read up on it, its interesting, most of the cast was there.
That was hilarious. I ALMOST met him once at a sci fi convention, but I guess his flight was delayed or something along those lines. Thats sucks, meeting him would of been super cool.
George is Refined awesome. Classy guy.
He's one of those guys you wish were in your family to turn the family reunions into major parties. He's one of the few actors I'd really like to say hello to.
I was pleasantly surprised when the term "douchebag" came up. I didn't expect it at all. I don't understand hating anyone as much as the subject of Mr. Takei's video hates gays. Other than, you know, Al Qaeda and the like.
Well McCance had it coming, but is Geoge Takei using his celeb status to push a catfight too far the other way.
Does he know something we dont, or is he just guessing. Is McCance closet gay as Takei implies or is he just twisting the knife in. One thing is certain true or not the allegation will stick and McCance has no comeback.
Tough, serves him right you might think, but this is an unusual step for a celeb to take and a dangerous precedent, there is good evidence of McCances comments but what evidence is there of his sexuality. Should an angry celeb get to go further than is fair and honest just because he can.
Its a truism that many vehement homophobes are closet gay, I think I know of one, and while this is a genuinely unpleasant individual I have no proof to nod wink and out him.
Apparently standing up against homophobic jack holes who laugh about AIDS and encourage suicide, by jokingly implying that they might be "in the closet" is going WAY to far...
mattyrm wrote:I like how the Christians put the boot in on the guy who is clearly in the right.
Especially GG.
...
Nice to see you guys are making it so easy for me all the time with your wonderfully kind "Religious" morality.
I'm a Christian.
I don't fit the profile you're describing. You've already established that you're a bigoted troll, so I'm not trying to change your mind. I'm just pointing it out so that others can see how ignorant your posts are.
I'm a Christian, as well, and have never recognized my religion in any of mattyrm's criticisms. I have learned that most of what mattyrm directs at Christians is really just directed toward people he doesn't like. He just singles out the "Christian" part of their identity for whatever reason. I think it's akin to how antisemites love it when they meet Jewish accountants or, more on-topic, how homophobes suspect all gay people love Judy Garland and drag.
As both of you are probably aware,I hold you both in high regard and like and respect each of you.
I don't blame all Christians for the views of a few,however at times it can be difficult to sort where lines are drawn.
I do have to admit I was a bit put off by certain post criticising Mr. Takeis manner of response.
Thanks FITZZ. Likewise, brother!
Your post was directed specifically at one post and not at Christians in general, which is perfectly acceptable! I'm going to give GG the benefit of the doubt and say that I can't imagine that he was saying that gay people should be encouraged to kill themselves. I'll retract that statement if I'm wrong. As for where the lines are drawn, I'm noticing that when someone ends up on the news(Westboro Baptist, the Douchebag mentioned in the OP) it's because they are an aberration from the mainstream. While a lot of the mainstream might disagree with a gay lifestyle, I really can't imagine that the same number of people wish death upon homosexuals. Is it a sin? Yeah. But everyone sins on a daily basis so there's no one who sits in a position where they should be judging anyone for anything, from a spiritual standpoint. I think I'll stop there and not turn this into yet another theological debate.
I guess my main point is this: Every group has it's wingnuts.
But regarding George Takei's message: He seems to have made the "you're in denial" comment as a joke, not as a psychiatric diagnosis or law of physics. I'm not sure why Orlanth thinks it is a "dangerous step" unless maybe he means it's like saying "don't be gay" and the like in a slang, jokey way leading to people actually hating homosexuals. (To be clear, I really don't think it does.)
As both of you are probably aware,I hold you both in high regard and like and respect each of you.
I don't blame all Christians for the views of a few,however at times it can be difficult to sort where lines are drawn.
I do have to admit I was a bit put off by certain post criticising Mr. Takeis manner of response.
Your post was directed specifically at one post and not at Christians in general, which is perfectly acceptable! I'm going to give GG the benefit of the doubt and say that I can't imagine that he was saying that gay people should be encouraged to kill themselves. I'll retract that statement if I'm wrong. As for where the lines are drawn, I'm noticing that when someone ends up on the news(Westboro Baptist, the Douchebag mentioned in the OP) it's because they are an aberration from the mainstream. While a lot of the mainstream might disagree with a gay lifestyle, I really can't imagine that the same number of people wish death upon homosexuals. Is it a sin? Yeah. But everyone sins on a daily basis so there's no one who sits in a position where they should be judging anyone for anything, from a spiritual standpoint. I think I'll stop there and not turn this into yet another theological debate.
I guess my main point is this: Every group has it's wingnuts.
I could be wrong but I believe GG's "sigh" was expressing disappointment at the fact that George Takei is homosexual, I don’t think he was in anyway agreeing with McCance’s views (though again I could be wrong, but I hope not).
Manchu wrote:Thanks, FITZZ. I know where you stand.
But regarding George Takei's message: He seems to have made the "you're in denial" comment as a joke, not as a psychiatric diagnosis or law of physics. I'm not sure why Orlanth thinks it is a "dangerous step" unless maybe he means it's like saying "don't be gay" and the like in a slang, jokey way leading to people actually hating homosexuals. (To be clear, I really don't think it does.)
I thought Orlanth's main point was expressing annoyance at celebrity spokespeople, actually.
As both of you are probably aware,I hold you both in high regard and like and respect each of you.
I don't blame all Christians for the views of a few,however at times it can be difficult to sort where lines are drawn.
I do have to admit I was a bit put off by certain post criticising Mr. Takeis manner of response.
Your post was directed specifically at one post and not at Christians in general, which is perfectly acceptable! I'm going to give GG the benefit of the doubt and say that I can't imagine that he was saying that gay people should be encouraged to kill themselves. I'll retract that statement if I'm wrong. As for where the lines are drawn, I'm noticing that when someone ends up on the news(Westboro Baptist, the Douchebag mentioned in the OP) it's because they are an aberration from the mainstream. While a lot of the mainstream might disagree with a gay lifestyle, I really can't imagine that the same number of people wish death upon homosexuals. Is it a sin? Yeah. But everyone sins on a daily basis so there's no one who sits in a position where they should be judging anyone for anything, from a spiritual standpoint. I think I'll stop there and not turn this into yet another theological debate.
I guess my main point is this: Every group has it's wingnuts.
I could be wrong but I believe GG's "sigh" was expressing disappointment at the fact that George Takei is homosexual, I don’t think he was in anyway agreeing with McCance’s views (though again I could be wrong, but I hope not).
I took it the same way,wich...while I don't agree with GG's point of view comcerning Mr.Takei,I certainly don't see as GG advocating McCances views.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote:
Manchu wrote:Thanks, FITZZ. I know where you stand.
But regarding George Takei's message: He seems to have made the "you're in denial" comment as a joke, not as a psychiatric diagnosis or law of physics. I'm not sure why Orlanth thinks it is a "dangerous step" unless maybe he means it's like saying "don't be gay" and the like in a slang, jokey way leading to people actually hating homosexuals. (To be clear, I really don't think it does.)
I thought Orlanth's main point was expressing annoyance at celebrity spokespeople, actually.
Your probably correct MR,however I didn't necessarily see Takei so much as a celebrity spokesperson (which of course he is) as I did as a gay individual using his humor to address the subject.
Monster Rain wrote: Is it a sin? Yeah. But everyone sins on a daily basis so there's no one who sits in a position where they should be judging anyone for anything, from a spiritual standpoint. I think I'll stop there and not turn this into yet another theological debate.
And I'll pick it up there. In Catholic moral theology, any sexual act outside of sacramental marriage is considered disordered, "disordered" here being less a psychiatric term (although I will not deny that there are Catholics who insist this is the case) and instead a cosmological and moral term. So, for example, if we were to compare extra-marital sexual acts to telling a lie, we're not talking about a pathological liar's falsehoods here. That said, many Catholic moral theologians are not merely troubled by homosexual acts as extra-marital acts generally. At this point, you have to factor in a great deal of historically contingent (that is, non-theological) sentiment into the analysis that has yet to be sorted out. I'd say that the Catholic tradition has very little developed thought on this topic and that Catholics don't have much to go on, as far as their religion is concerned, to form a comprehensive moral analysis of homosexuality. I would say that authentic Christian theology therefore plays very little role in informing homophobic attitudes. More likely, the identification of Christianity with homophobic attitudes is the result of complicated coincidences (I'm using the word in a very strict sense), the most harmful of which in my view is the tendency to confuse one's religion with one's politics.
Manchu wrote:Thanks, FITZZ. I know where you stand.
But regarding George Takei's message: He seems to have made the "you're in denial" comment as a joke, not as a psychiatric diagnosis or law of physics. I'm not sure why Orlanth thinks it is a "dangerous step" unless maybe he means it's like saying "don't be gay" and the like in a slang, jokey way leading to people actually hating homosexuals. (To be clear, I really don't think it does.)
I thought Orlanth's main point was expressing annoyance at celebrity spokespeople, actually.
Your probably correct MR,however I didn't necessarily see Takei so much as a celebrity spokesperson (which of course he is) as I did as a gay individual using his humor to address the subject.
It's difficult, with the proliferation of Youtube, to really discern where it begins and ends anymore.
Manchu wrote:Thanks, FITZZ. I know where you stand.
But regarding George Takei's message: He seems to have made the "you're in denial" comment as a joke, not as a psychiatric diagnosis or law of physics. I'm not sure why Orlanth thinks it is a "dangerous step" unless maybe he means it's like saying "don't be gay" and the like in a slang, jokey way leading to people actually hating homosexuals. (To be clear, I really don't think it does.)
I thought Orlanth's main point was expressing annoyance at celebrity spokespeople, actually.
Your probably correct MR,however I didn't necessarily see Takei so much as a celebrity spokesperson (which of course he is) as I did as a gay individual using his humor to address the subject.
It's difficult, with the proliferation of Youtube, to really discern where it begins and ends anymore.
Once again,I can agree with your point,however I see the statements made as being made by George Takei the man and not so much by George Takei the guy who plays Sulu,now of course his position as a celebrity does grant him a much wider forum in which to voice his position,but I don't see the fact that he is a celebrity as somehow invalidating the crux of the statements he made,nor should his celebrity status somehow overshadow the vile comments made by McCance.
I think I'll stop there and not turn this into yet another theological debate.
Too late Monster. Already needlessly dragged off centre and away from the central issue of bullying gays and the possible tragic consequences that can have on young people.
Manchu In Britain homosexual acts were a crime punishable by imprisonment and not changed until 1967. Up to that point although Britain still considered itself a Christian, ie protestant nation, it was by then very secularised. The Sexual offenses Act 1967 may have overturned much older legislation, but much of the anti-homosexual sentiments were still prevelant in this society.
I have received verbal homophobic abuse myself from kids who I doubt have any associations with religion. Must be a lonely place for youngsters to be for youngsters that get that sort of treatment all the time. Well said George Takei
George Takei is a gay man who has experienced homosexual discrimination and has been a member of gay rights organisations for years. Why on earth shouldn't he speak out on this issue?
The only reason to oppose his delivery of the message is if you disagree with the content.
Kilkrazy wrote:George Takei is a gay man who has experienced homosexual discrimination and has been a member of gay rights organisations for years. Why on earth shouldn't he speak out on this issue?
The only reason to oppose his delivery of the message is if you disagree with the content.
Some people find it annoying when celebrities do this. I'm not saying I do, but it's pretty common.
Actually, I do kind of wish Stephen Baldwin would pipe down a bit sometimes. Okay, you caught me.
I think I'll stop there and not turn this into yet another theological debate.
Too late Monster.
Already needlessly dragged off centre and away from the central issue of bullying gays and the possible tragic consequences that can have on young people.
It's hard to really discuss something that is so obviously true. Cannerus used the phrase "genuine acceptance" in a millennial tone earlier in this thread. I honestly think that genuine acceptance has very much arrived in the post-Baby Boomer generations, at least among white middle-class Americans. Mr Takei's message, in other words, simply isn't controversial in its content, which explains why any unresolved discomfort with it is resolved in criticism about the delivery.
As to your comments directed at me, I think we do indeed see eye-to-eye.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote:The only reason to oppose his delivery of the message is if you disagree with the content.
As I said, I think that's one explanation. But you could also suggest that it's playing into the idea that being gay is bad so that Takei is getting back at the guy by calling him gay/i.e., insulting him. I know this is supposed to be insulting him from his poiunt of view, but the rest of the message is that his point of view is not only socially unacceptable but more deeply, morally wrong. There's a strange multi-faceted irony at work here that one could object to, but one would have to be very articulate t get the point across.
I think I'll stop there and not turn this into yet another theological debate.
Too late Monster.
Already needlessly dragged off centre and away from the central issue of bullying gays and the possible tragic consequences that can have on young people.
It's hard to really discuss something that is so obviously true.
Exactly.
Is there really a debate about that? I was just responding to an unfortunate comment that I felt needed correcting and the discussion that arose from it.
Manchu wrote:Thanks, FITZZ. I know where you stand.
But regarding George Takei's message: He seems to have made the "you're in denial" comment as a joke, not as a psychiatric diagnosis or law of physics. I'm not sure why Orlanth thinks it is a "dangerous step" unless maybe he means it's like saying "don't be gay" and the like in a slang, jokey way leading to people actually hating homosexuals. (To be clear, I really don't think it does.)
The dangerous step is the extra step George Takei made beyond what he needed to say.
Homophobia is wrong, and McCance is a 'douchebag', fair enough, the video only goes downhill when the alarm clock is brought out. You see George Takei is not just criticising homophobia, he is also putting the boot in himself with an allegation that McCance likes rent boys. This single acusation is a triple attack: This may well might not even be a compliment if he was gay, a prostitute scandal is a prostitute scandal, in common parlance a prostitute scandal is assumed to equal 'perversion' and most people wont think beyond that, even if the activities are standard sexual behaviour. Second the allusion that McCance may well be a homosexual is unfair, and third it would also make him out to be a very bad sort of hypocrite with mentasl health issues due to his denial. Again Goerge Takei might know something we dont, in which case the press is already tipped off and the McCance-with-rent-boy story will be aired soon. But we dont know that, it could just be a case of assuming the meme is followed where the most vehement homophobes are closet gays in denial, this may be the case, but often it is not.
There is plenty of ammo against McCance that it is not necessary to make any up, as he has no profile compared to Takei and is already in the dirt so if Takei winked and claimed he was also say an anti-Semite or an Al Quaeda sympathiser people would likely believe it, and the accusation could stick for life. This is what I consider dangerous. For good reason, everyone above me (except possibly GG, who is unclear as to what he thinks) and most posts following saw how 'awesome' the video was and therefore just drank in Takei's accusations. Not only is McCance a homophobe (which is in the press) is also a permenant douchbag, Fair so far. But nowe we also know he is a closet gay, buys his sex and is a Class 1 hypocrite to boot. 'Awesome'? Only if its true, but we won't need to know if its true because its already 'awesome', so it is true forever in the court of public opinion even if it happens not to be so.
Manchu wrote:So, in essence, you think that McCance used his position to bully people and that Takei is using his position to bully back?
No McCance was just trolling on Facebook, it was stupid but hardly uncommon.
Takei is using his position to bully back. Criticising homophobia is Takei's just cause, additional accusations against McCance are not just, especially because McCance has no opportunity to refute them. This is due to the timing of the accusations; nothing McCance can say at this time will save himself from having pretty much any accusation stick from a high profile critic, true or not.
mattyrm wrote:I like how the Christians put the boot in on the guy who is clearly in the right.
Especially GG.
...
Nice to see you guys are making it so easy for me all the time with your wonderfully kind "Religious" morality.
I'm a Christian.
I don't fit the profile you're describing. You've already established that you're a bigoted troll, so I'm not trying to change your mind. I'm just pointing it out so that others can see how ignorant your posts are.
Have a nice day.
Truth hurts eh?
Unlike you Religious chaps however i wont be crying about "attacks" as i enjoy a good chinwag about these things, because the more it gets discussed, the more indefensible your position will become, and about that time you will no doubt complain to a mod and the thread will get locked, but we will all see it.. and we all remember it. And people will start to understand the big picture.
So a few points, first of all, whats the point in saying things you dont mean? If your going to insult me, why end the sentence with have a nice day?
Secondly, its laughable to call me a troll and a bigot when the central issue here is bigotry against gay people and i am against such behaviour.
Thirdly, we only have your word for it that you dont fit the profile your describing. I however have cast iron proof from Christians own vocal chords.
"Sodomy is a graver sin than murder. – Unless there is life there can be no murder." David Trosch
In fact.. no.
I was going to stick a wall of text in, i could probably provide a few thousand from actual Christians, you know.. Billy Graham, J. B Stoner, Jerry Falwell ect etc etc.. but what the hell, you know exactly what im talking about.
Fact - Many Evangelical Christians have a dislike of gay people that is primarily motivated by their Religious belief.
Fact - They ARE Christians by THEIR OWN definition of the word.
The "No True Scotsman" argument holds no water here "brother"
And i dont want you to have a nice day, i am sorry that you appear to require hypocricy from people, but i cannot oblige.
mattyrm wrote:Secondly, its laughable to call me a troll and a bigot when the central issue here is bigotry against gay people and i am against such behaviour.
What's scary is I'm actually starting to think that you don't realize the irony of these things that you say. At fist I thought it was just you being silly, but the truth is starting to seem far stranger.
Did everyone on the internet just suddenly learn what a No True Scotsman fallacy is? It seems like every troll on these forums suddenly decided that whenever you say that there are fringe elements of a group that NTS is a "win-button". It's worthy of a serious if I'm being honest. They don't seem to realize that the same thing could be done for atheism(or any group of people) if I could be arsed to make the argument.
mattyrm wrote:Fact - They ARE Christians by THEIR OWN definition of the word.
Sure. Christians can be bigots, no argument. I just don't see any meaningful connection between the Christian religion and homophobia. I have known many Christians of the opinion that homosexuality is wrong. And I have known many Christians who have contrary opinions. Again, there's a lot of confusion between political or even moral/ethical opinions and religious beliefs. And someone who thinks that religious beliefs are really just another type of opinion is hardly equipped to sort the issue out. I see where you're coming from, mattyrm. In fact, I've seen it in nearly every thread you've ever posted in. For someone who likes to talk about this issue so much you never seem to learn anything new about it.
mattyrm wrote:I like how the Christians put the boot in on the guy who is clearly in the right.
Especially GG.
...
Nice to see you guys are making it so easy for me all the time with your wonderfully kind "Religious" morality.
I'm a Christian.
I don't fit the profile you're describing. You've already established that you're a bigoted troll, so I'm not trying to change your mind. I'm just pointing it out so that others can see how ignorant your posts are.
Have a nice day.
Truth hurts eh?
Unlike you Religious chaps however i wont be crying about "attacks" as i enjoy a good chinwag about these things, because the more it gets discussed, the more indefensible your position will become, and about that time you will no doubt complain to a mod and the thread will get locked, but we will all see it.. and we all remember it. And people will start to understand the big picture.
So a few points, first of all, whats the point in saying things you dont mean? If your going to insult me, why end the sentence with have a nice day?
Secondly, its laughable to call me a troll and a bigot when the central issue here is bigotry against gay people and i am against such behaviour.
Thirdly, we only have your word for it that you dont fit the profile your describing. I however have cast iron proof from Christians own vocal chords.
"Sodomy is a graver sin than murder. – Unless there is life there can be no murder." David Trosch
In fact.. no.
I was going to stick a wall of text in, i could probably provide a few thousand from actual Christians, you know.. Billy Graham, J. B Stoner, Jerry Falwell ect etc etc.. but what the hell, you know exactly what im talking about.
Fact - Many Evangelical Christians have a dislike of gay people that is primarily motivated by their Religious belief.
Fact - They ARE Christians by THEIR OWN definition of the word.
The "No True Scotsman" argument holds no water here "brother"
And i dont want you to have a nice day, i am sorry that you appear to require hypocricy from people, but i cannot oblige.
Im 1595 posts in, i have been called a "troll" by maybe two people, and that is simply because they are Religious and as usual take massive offense for no apparent reason.
I happily speak with Orlanth, i'm not Religious and this causes friction, but troll because i like to point out percieved hypocricy? Surely you jest?
Clearly i never said "GG wants all gay people to kill themselves either" and no fair minded reader would think so. As Fitz said, his response however was not the expected one from a fair minded observer. You are just being hyper sensitive because you dont want to talk about it. I genuinelly dont see the need to get so upset.
Answer me then, lets get back to the topic at hand.
Was Billy Graham a Christian?
Was Jerry Falwell a Christian?
If the answer is "yes" (it is)
I win.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Frazzled, it doesnt refute it, because i didnt say that ALL Christians are homophobic, and clearly old MT was a nice lady, i merely said that your Religious beliefs can have a negative impact on your judgment.
i.e The correct thing to say was "Yes i agree with Sulu" and GG is a nice enough fella who no doubt at all would say that, if it wasnt for the fact he has strong Religious convictions.
Thats merely my point, is there any need to get upset? And is there any way you can make a convincing argument against said point?
mattyrm wrote:
Truth hurts eh? Unlike you Religious chaps however i wont be crying about "attacks" as i enjoy a good chinwag about these things, because the more it gets discussed, the more indefensible your position will become, and about that time you will no doubt complain to a mod and the thread will get locked, but we will all see it.. and we all remember it. And people will start to understand the big picture.
By your relgious chaps comment this seems to be broad targeted at all Christians on this threat matty. Is this so?
If not true very well, I will leave this between you and what Monster Rain said to you, which qwas a bit rude. If it is true I would like to state for the record that despite giving best efforts to stay on topic on threads where the subject of Christians comes up I do get trolled quite viciously and repeatedly, and the mods do nothing. I think I can speak for most of the Christians here that by and large we receive far more crap than we dish out, and some of us try their best not to dish out any at all. It takes a lot to get me riled, but after a cascade of misquotes taken from misquotes I know that my opinions and many others here are often misrepresented totally.
I would be in a sorry moral state if half of what you misinterpret my posts to mean I actually beleived in, and compared to some you are rather reasonable opponent, and we do get on on other topics.
mattyrm wrote:
Thirdly, we only have your word for it that you dont fit the profile your describing. I however have cast iron proof from Christians own vocal chords.
"Sodomy is a graver sin than murder. – Unless there is life there can be no murder." David Trosch
In fact.. no.
Whis is David Trosch? and why do you think he speaks for us?
Edit: This was a long post to write, with several unanswered replies above what Matty wrote which I have not addressed.
For the love of Star Trek why is this an argument about religion?
BAH!
You're contributing to an argument that is not necessary Mattyrm. The fact that others can be seen to encourage that argument is no reason to carry on with it.
Kilkrazy wrote:George Takei is a gay man who has experienced homosexual discrimination and has been a member of gay rights organisations for years. Why on earth shouldn't he speak out on this issue?
The only reason to oppose his delivery of the message is if you disagree with the content.
Yep. For years. He's gone on numerous talk shows to discuss how he was discriminated against as a Japanese-American during and after WW2, as an Asian-American in Hollywood, and as a gay man. This isn't a recent turn of events.
When he's on the Howard Stern show as guest announcer, I usually listen in. He has a lot of good stories. And he HATES working with William Shatner. He doesn't hate Shatner, just working with him.
mattyrm wrote:i didnt say that ALL Christians are homophobic
I hate to do this, but what you actually posted was:
mattyrm wrote:I like how the Christians put the boot in on the guy who is clearly in the right.
Especially GG.
No no, i wont condemn the man who called for kids to commit suicide and die of aids, i will merely sigh at the gay bloke.
Nice to see you guys are making it so easy for me all the time with your wonderfully kind "Religious" morality.
So, in other words, you made a statement about Christians generally and then qualified this statement with "Especially GG." (but note, not retracting that you are talking about Christians generally). If you were only talking about Christians posting in this thread by that point then to whom were you even referring?
I guess we'll have to be a bit more clear before this becomes another "no, that's not what I said" extravaganza. So, mattyrm, do I understand your post quoted above correctly to mean "Christians purposely overlook the point about gays being bullied"? And, if so, can I ask: why do you think that Christians do this?
Wrexasaur wrote:For the love of Star Trek why is this an argument about religion?
Because no one on Dakka thinks gay people should bullied for being gay? And because a forum is not the right place to post something and then not discuss it? Because posting variations of "right on" is basically just spam and good Dakka users all know this is against the rules?
Because mattyrm decided to make a discriminatory generalization about Christians in a thread generally about why making discriminatory generalizations is wrong?
Getting down to brass tacks i was merely attempting to say that GG did not react in the manner expected from any fair minded person on this subject, Fitz and KK basically echoed that sentiment, but because i am generally an angry man i come across as far more aggressive than i intend, they put it across far more sensibly.
If you got pissed off by this and saw it as a blanket attack Orlanth then of course I apologise.
My overiding point was simply that I believe that Religious belief can make an otherwise good person do or say something that from a totally unbiased view seems to be out of character. ie. I have argued about this with GG before and he is a decent moral person YET he has a distaste for homosexuals that i feel wouldnt be there if he was not a devout Christian.
Is that better?
But yes, i agree this is hijacking the thread, i was merely taken back by his post, and i liked Wrexes point so i will shut up now.
Edit- Oh and Orlanth DT was a catholic priest who said very bigoted and horrible things about gay people.
Manchu wrote:Because no one on Dakka thinks gay people should bullied for being gay? And because a forum is not the right place to post something and then not discuss it? Because posting variations of "right on" is basically just spam and good Dakka users all know this is against the rules?
There is plenty to discuss on this subject, and a conversation about religion is a pretty obvious tangent IMO.
Is it okay if we move back into conversation about Takei as a spokesperson, and the factors involved with him expressing his opinion on this subject? That's the interesting part.
Was it necessary for Takei to (even jokingly) accuse Cllint McCance of being gay? At what point did Takei necessarily lessen the strength of his message in this PSA?
How much comedy can Takei use in his opinion, before it becomes no less than ad hominem, and further, was it an effective use of ad hominem? Does the concept that many homophobes are gay themselves need mentioning? Not to say such abstract criticism has substantive merit, but it is possible to use such memes in order to strengthen an argument.
This is a conversation about Takei's message. This topic is about Takei's message. De-railment into a conversation concerning religion can also be said to be against Dakka rules. I like you in general Manchu, and Mattie has clearly backed down, as indicated here.
mattyrm wrote:Getting down to brass tacks i was merely attempting to say that GG did not react in the manner expected from any fair minded person on this subject, Fitz and KK basically echoed that sentiment, but because i am generally an angry man i come across as far more aggressive than i intend, they put it across far more sensibly.
Neither FITZZ nor KK tied their criticisms to Christianity. And no one assumed they did. Is this what mattyrm was referring to when he said "they put it across far more sensibly"?
Wrex, you've sidestepped the issue that mattyrm seemed to be making a discriminatory generalization in a thread about that very thing being wrong and harmful. You see, no one is talking about religion itself but rather why--contrary to what mattyrm post here and elsewhere--there is no inherent connection between vicious bigotry and the Christian religion. On a really, really obvious level this is hardly derailing the thread.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And regarding:
Wresaur wrote:Is it okay if we move back into conversation about Takei as a spokesperson, and the factors involved with him expressing his opinion on this subject? That's the interesting part.
That discussion is actually going on at the same time. See:
Manchu wrote:
Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:
I think I'll stop there and not turn this into yet another theological debate.
Too late Monster.
Already needlessly dragged off centre and away from the central issue of bullying gays and the possible tragic consequences that can have on young people.
It's hard to really discuss something that is so obviously true. Cannerus used the phrase "genuine acceptance" in a millennial tone earlier in this thread. I honestly think that genuine acceptance has very much arrived in the post-Baby Boomer generations, at least among white middle-class Americans. Mr Takei's message, in other words, simply isn't controversial in its content, which explains why any unresolved discomfort with it is resolved in criticism about the delivery.
As to your comments directed at me, I think we do indeed see eye-to-eye.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote:The only reason to oppose his delivery of the message is if you disagree with the content.
As I said, I think that's one explanation. But you could also suggest that it's playing into the idea that being gay is bad so that Takei is getting back at the guy by calling him gay/i.e., insulting him. I know this is supposed to be insulting him from his poiunt of view, but the rest of the message is that his point of view is not only socially unacceptable but more deeply, morally wrong. There's a strange multi-faceted irony at work here that one could object to, but one would have to be very articulate t get the point across.
Orlanth wrote:
Manchu wrote:Thanks, FITZZ. I know where you stand.
But regarding George Takei's message: He seems to have made the "you're in denial" comment as a joke, not as a psychiatric diagnosis or law of physics. I'm not sure why Orlanth thinks it is a "dangerous step" unless maybe he means it's like saying "don't be gay" and the like in a slang, jokey way leading to people actually hating homosexuals. (To be clear, I really don't think it does.)
The dangerous step is the extra step George Takei made beyond what he needed to say.
Homophobia is wrong, and McCance is a 'douchebag', fair enough, the video only goes downhill when the alarm clock is brought out. You see George Takei is not just criticising homophobia, he is also putting the boot in himself with an allegation that McCance likes rent boys. This single acusation is a triple attack: This may well might not even be a compliment if he was gay, a prostitute scandal is a prostitute scandal, in common parlance a prostitute scandal is assumed to equal 'perversion' and most people wont think beyond that, even if the activities are standard sexual behaviour. Second the allusion that McCance may well be a homosexual is unfair, and third it would also make him out to be a very bad sort of hypocrite with mentasl health issues due to his denial. Again Goerge Takei might know something we dont, in which case the press is already tipped off and the McCance-with-rent-boy story will be aired soon. But we dont know that, it could just be a case of assuming the meme is followed where the most vehement homophobes are closet gays in denial, this may be the case, but often it is not.
There is plenty of ammo against McCance that it is not necessary to make any up, as he has no profile compared to Takei and is already in the dirt so if Takei winked and claimed he was also say an anti-Semite or an Al Quaeda sympathiser people would likely believe it, and the accusation could stick for life. This is what I consider dangerous. For good reason, everyone above me (except possibly GG, who is unclear as to what he thinks) and most posts following saw how 'awesome' the video was and therefore just drank in Takei's accusations. Not only is McCance a homophobe (which is in the press) is also a permenant douchbag, Fair so far. But nowe we also know he is a closet gay, buys his sex and is a Class 1 hypocrite to boot. 'Awesome'? Only if its true, but we won't need to know if its true because its already 'awesome', so it is true forever in the court of public opinion even if it happens not to be so.
Manchu wrote:Neither FITZZ nor KK tied their criticisms to Christianity. And no one assumed they did. Is this what mattyrm was referring to when he said "they put it across far more sensibly"?
I didn't suggest that anyone tied FITZZ's or KK's statements to Matt's. At least, no one besides Matt himself, and beyond that, my acknowledgment that he has done so.
Wrex, you've sidestepped the issue that mattyrm seemed to be making a discriminatory generalization in a thread about that very thing being wrong and harmful. You see, no one is talking about religion itself but rather why--contrary to what mattyrm post here and elsewhere--there is no inherent connection between vicious bigotry and the Christian religion. On a really, really obvious level this is hardly derailing the thread.
I didn't say that you were de-railing the thread. I merely stated that it can be considered against the rules, and in doing so I suggest that not avoiding a drawn out conversation about mattyrm's previous statements, is likely a bad idea. This is not because of one person, and hopefully I have made that clear. These conversations can carry on for pages with a MODlock needed to end the conversation. Mattyrm BACKED DOWN. Conversation done.
As mattyrm has effectively admitted his misplaced anger, I see no reason why this thread cannot move past the previous conversation.
mattyrm wrote:Im 1595 posts in, i have been called a "troll" by maybe two people, and that is simply because they are Religious and as usual take massive offense for no apparent reason.
Dude, you aren't offending me. I'm way past getting bent out of shape about clearly ignorant and bigoted statements on message boards.
mattyrm wrote:Answer me then, lets get back to the topic at hand.
Was Billy Graham a Christian?
Was Jerry Falwell a Christian?
If the answer is "yes" (it is)
I win.
Is the game we're playing "Make a Fool Out of Myself by Saying Crazily Intolerant Things and Then Pretending I Didn't Say Them and Trying to Weasel Out of What Can Easily be Quoted if I Could Be Arsed"?
Then yeah, you win.
I'm not even going to bother pointing out how ludicrous you bringing up Billy Graham and Jerry Fallwell in this context is.
Kilkrazy wrote:George Takei is a gay man who has experienced homosexual discrimination and has been a member of gay rights organisations for years. Why on earth shouldn't he speak out on this issue?
The only reason to oppose his delivery of the message is if you disagree with the content.
Yep. For years. He's gone on numerous talk shows to discuss how he was discriminated against as a Japanese-American during and after WW2, as an Asian-American in Hollywood, and as a gay man. This isn't a recent turn of events.
When he's on the Howard Stern show as guest announcer, I usually listen in. He has a lot of good stories. And he HATES working with William Shatner. He doesn't hate Shatner, just working with him.
Shatner didn't attend his wedding, epic dis right there
Kilkrazy wrote:George Takei is a gay man who has experienced homosexual discrimination and has been a member of gay rights organisations for years. Why on earth shouldn't he speak out on this issue?
The only reason to oppose his delivery of the message is if you disagree with the content.
Yep. For years. He's gone on numerous talk shows to discuss how he was discriminated against as a Japanese-American during and after WW2, as an Asian-American in Hollywood, and as a gay man. This isn't a recent turn of events.
When he's on the Howard Stern show as guest announcer, I usually listen in. He has a lot of good stories. And he HATES working with William Shatner. He doesn't hate Shatner, just working with him.
Shatner didn't attend his wedding, epic dis right there
I didn't think he was invited...
Pretty sure that's what he said on Opie and Anthony.
mattyrm wrote:Im 1595 posts in, i have been called a "troll" by maybe two people, and that is simply because they are Religious and as usual take massive offense for no apparent reason.
Dude, you aren't offending me. I'm way past getting bent out of shape about clearly ignorant and bigoted statements on message boards.
Sigh... i thought we had ended this?
See, i am an aggressive bloke, i fully concede that sometimes i say things that can be offensive, but how is it ignorant?
Ignorance is no crime of course, i am ignorant of many things, but most certainly not this subject. Ive had a bee in my bonnet about it from a young age, and i have read exhaustively about the topic, what about what i said was ignorant?
And you still didnt answer me, was Jerry Falwell a Christian?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Why is it ludicrous mentioning a devout Christian who was all over the TV in the US and vocally involved in politics?
mattyrm wrote:
Why is it ludicrous mentioning a devout Christian who was all over the TV in the US and vocally involved in politics?
Im all ears.
Because, in the context of this discussion, it has no relevance.
If Jerry Falwell had advocated gay teens to commit suicide you'd have a case. He has opinions that you disagree with. I get it. He has opinions that I disagree with.
The fact that you even think that there's just one catch-all group of "Christians" sort of proves that you haven't got the vaguest idea of what you're talking about. Unless this whole thing is a piss-take. In which case saying inflammatory things to cause strife on the internet seems to have a definition that I may have touched upon earlier.
Kilkrazy wrote:George Takei is a gay man who has experienced homosexual discrimination and has been a member of gay rights organisations for years. Why on earth shouldn't he speak out on this issue?
The only reason to oppose his delivery of the message is if you disagree with the content.
Yep. For years. He's gone on numerous talk shows to discuss how he was discriminated against as a Japanese-American during and after WW2, as an Asian-American in Hollywood, and as a gay man. This isn't a recent turn of events.
When he's on the Howard Stern show as guest announcer, I usually listen in. He has a lot of good stories. And he HATES working with William Shatner. He doesn't hate Shatner, just working with him.
Shatner didn't attend his wedding, epic dis right there
I didn't think he was invited...
Pretty sure that's what he said on Opie and Anthony.
He says he invited him, but Shatner didn't even bother responding.
Also I think that things have gotten a little off topic, I mean this is a thread about how great George Takei is... there should be no shortage of material.
I'll start
George Takei is so great that he could beat that homophobe Chuck Norris by giving him a sensuous Asian oil massage.
Kilkrazy wrote:George Takei is a gay man who has experienced homosexual discrimination and has been a member of gay rights organisations for years. Why on earth shouldn't he speak out on this issue?
The only reason to oppose his delivery of the message is if you disagree with the content.
Yep. For years. He's gone on numerous talk shows to discuss how he was discriminated against as a Japanese-American during and after WW2, as an Asian-American in Hollywood, and as a gay man. This isn't a recent turn of events.
When he's on the Howard Stern show as guest announcer, I usually listen in. He has a lot of good stories. And he HATES working with William Shatner. He doesn't hate Shatner, just working with him.
Shatner didn't attend his wedding, epic dis right there
I didn't think he was invited...
Pretty sure that's what he said on Opie and Anthony.
He says he invited him, but Shatner didn't even bother responding.
Also I think that things have gotten a little off topic, I mean this is a thread about how great George Takei is... there should be no shortage of material.
I'll start
George Takei is so great that he could beat that homophobe Chuck Norris by giving him a sensuous Asian oil massage.
Actually, Chuck Norris defies our flawed understanding of gender. He is both, and neither. He doesn't actually reproduce, but he rejuvenates himself by setting his beard on fire every 1,000 years and then rising from the ashes like a majestic phoenix.
While there are some points I agree with Mattyrm on,I attempt to not make blanket statements,not to imply that Matty does mind you.
Do I believe that they're Christians that are violently/verbally homophobic...of course.
Do I believe that idiots like Falwell encourage that sort of intolerance..yes I do.
But do I feel that those things reflect Christianity as a whole...of course not.
Manchu wrote:That discussion is actually going on at the same time. See:
Manchu wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:The only reason to oppose his delivery of the message is if you disagree with the content.
As I said, I think that's one explanation. But you could also suggest that it's playing into the idea that being gay is bad so that Takei is getting back at the guy by calling him gay/i.e., insulting him. I know this is supposed to be insulting him from his poiunt of view, but the rest of the message is that his point of view is not only socially unacceptable but more deeply, morally wrong. There's a strange multi-faceted irony at work here that one could object to, but one would have to be very articulate t get the point across.
You would need diagrams of the irony loop.
Orlanth wrote:
Manchu wrote:Thanks, FITZZ. I know where you stand.
But regarding George Takei's message: He seems to have made the "you're in denial" comment as a joke, not as a psychiatric diagnosis or law of physics. I'm not sure why Orlanth thinks it is a "dangerous step" unless maybe he means it's like saying "don't be gay" and the like in a slang, jokey way leading to people actually hating homosexuals. (To be clear, I really don't think it does.)
The dangerous step is the extra step George Takei made beyond what he needed to say.
Dangerous is a strong term, but I generally get what you're saying.
Homophobia is wrong, and McCance is a 'douchebag', fair enough, the video only goes downhill when the alarm clock is brought out. You see George Takei is not just criticising homophobia, he is also putting the boot in himself with an allegation that McCance likes rent boys. This single acusation is a triple attack: This may well might not even be a compliment if he was gay, a prostitute scandal is a prostitute scandal, in common parlance a prostitute scandal is assumed to equal 'perversion' and most people wont think beyond that, even if the activities are standard sexual behaviour. Second the allusion that McCance may well be a homosexual is unfair, and third it would also make him out to be a very bad sort of hypocrite with mentasl health issues due to his denial. Again Goerge Takei might know something we dont, in which case the press is already tipped off and the McCance-with-rent-boy story will be aired soon. But we dont know that, it could just be a case of assuming the meme is followed where the most vehement homophobes are closet gays in denial, this may be the case, but often it is not.
You are thinking past the point of this PSA in my opinion. Not that some of your argument isn't applicable, but it really comes down to a PSA hitting very hard.
George Takei is probably a smart dude, and the people he worked with are probably no dummies either. They likely recognize the conflict in their statements, and because of that they intentionally pull them into the general message. Controversy sells pretty well.
Again, there are logical contradictions within the Takei PSA.
There is plenty of ammo against McCance that it is not necessary to make any up, as he has no profile compared to Takei and is already in the dirt so if Takei winked and claimed he was also say an anti-Semite or an Al Quaeda sympathiser people would likely believe it, and the accusation could stick for life. This is what I consider dangerous.
Takei basically socked him in the nose. Right in the nose. Dangerous in the sense that Takei could have permanently broken McCance's metaphorical nose. I'm not entirely sure I care all that much what happens to McCance, and that is not to suggest that I want to see him literally harmed. Blocking him from holding any form of public office is kind of expected on Takei's part, as a spokesperson for the LGBT community.
He punched him in the nose, metaphorically.
For good reason, everyone above me (except possibly GG, who is unclear as to what he thinks) and most posts following saw how 'awesome' the video was and therefore just drank in Takei's accusations. Not only is McCance a homophobe (which is in the press) is also a permenant douchbag, Fair so far. But nowe we also know he is a closet gay, buys his sex and is a Class 1 hypocrite to boot. 'Awesome'? Only if its true, but we won't need to know if its true because its already 'awesome', so it is true forever in the court of public opinion even if it happens not to be so.
I won't remember McCance's name two weeks from now. He will disappear from the mainstream public's view very quickly.
IMO, Takei represents positive representation for the LGBT community. McCance attacked many people with his words, but Takei simply attacked McCance specifically through his statements.
Because, in the context of this discussion, it has no relevance.
If Jerry Falwell had advocated gay teens to commit suicide you'd have a case.
Nice use of the word piss-take, ive not heard that from many Americans..
You agree i have a case then yes?
Jerry Falwell said "homosexuals are brute beasts...part of a vile and satanic system that will be utterly annihilated, and there will be a celebration in heaven"
and
"AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals, it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals."
Among many others.
You are simply using the textbook "no true Scotsman" argument, and you are repeating yourself.
As i have said, any fair minded reader is aware that i am not tarring all Religious believers with the same brush, that would be outright lunacy.
I made a fair point. GG did not answer in an expected way for a community that promotes fairness and tolerance.
I have tried to make peace with you several times and conceded i might be a tad strident, but you seem very angry despite you asserting otherwise.
So pointing out the obvious fact that some Christians disagree on theological issues is a No True Scotsman fallacy?
You really need to get out more. It's also my opinion that when all you can do is make meta-arguments you really don't have anything else useful to say.
mattyrm wrote:Fitz has the right of it, he is just better at speaking intelligently than me
Manchu wrote:So, in essence, you think that McCance used his position to bully people and that Takei is using his position to bully back?
No McCance was just trolling on Facebook, it was stupid but hardly uncommon.
Takei is using his position to bully back. Criticising homophobia is Takei's just cause, additional accusations against McCance are not just, especially because McCance has no opportunity to refute them. This is due to the timing of the accusations; nothing McCance can say at this time will save himself from having pretty much any accusation stick from a high profile critic, true or not.
So?
McCance was a public official in a position of trust and moral responsibility. He is not a private citizen like the people he gloated over dying of AIDS.
George Takei is so great that he could beat that homophobe Chuck Norris by giving him a sensuous Asian oil massage.
i think bears are not takeis type, as stated in the second video he´s more into bald afroamerican basketballplayers...
because of their calves?
and one thing further George Takei has a voice that sends shiver down my spine... thats why sometimes for me viewing films not dubed is like drinking a really good wine...
i could as well mention here Ian McKellen for obvios reasons...
mattyrm wrote:Fitz has the right of it, he is just better at being nice than me.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Im trying MGS, but.. well.. dont you think the core issue is kinda...
Not really lighthearted at all? :S
Core issue is a repellent individual who said repellent things got called on it by a celeb who used light hearted humour to show said repellent and bigoted individual what a git he was, whilst further to my mind, making that celebrity more worthy of my admiration and a nod of 'well played sir!'
And that was pretty much that.
This light hearted and news-lite thread has been dragged kicking and screaming into an alleyway and transformed into yet another 'lock down in 5' religion bash/sweeping generalisation chunderfest. So this thread will go the way all threads that get tainted with the 'R' word do, locked down and it didn't deserve that, it was supposed to be fun.
/dejected and fairly pissed off orkmoticon face goes here.
mattyrm wrote:Im trying MGS, but.. well.. dont you think the core issue is kinda...
Not really lighthearted at all? :S
I agree wholeheartedly. Homophobic attitudes don't come out of nowhere. They aren't just jokes. That's quite a bit of Takei's point, or at the very least why he was being so harsh. Yeah, I know it's funny but calling someone a douchebag in a melodious voice is still calling someone a douchebag. And for good reason.
MGS wrote:Core issue is a repellent individual who said repellent things got called on it by a celeb who used light hearted humour to show said repellent and bigoted individual what a git he was, whilst further to my mind, making that celebrity more worthy of my admiration and a nod of 'well played sir!'
And that was pretty much that.
So post it on your light-hearted blog, MGS. Dakka is a forum and a forum means there will be dialog. I don't think OPs get to post rules for the threads they start (at least not mandatory ones) and there are no Dakka rules violations so far. (This probably goes back to our diagreement that discussion of religion and politics inevitably leads to thread locks.)
I work in a Catholic school that has a gay Deputy Head Teacher, a gay Business Manager and a lesbian head of ICT & Business. They are not the only gays now, and there have been others in the past.
mattyrm, although you have since qualified it to say that you did not mean all Christians, you still make dangerously sweeping statements, now and in previous threads.
I am about as committed an Atheist as you'll find. I disagree with religion/doctrine almost entirely as an organised entity. I regard religion/faith (particularly of the monotheistic supreme deity and/or surrender your own personal responsibility variety) as generally unnecessary and probably, on balance a negative thing.
I'll happily criticise the Pope (and, for that matter, Mother Teresa) on any number of issues, and I'm on record as being unhappy with how people get away with disgusting opinions, attitudes and actions by calling them "religious beliefs", and saying I am the intolerant, because I object to their intolerance.
But you can't just go making blanket statements about "them".
Yes, Jerry Falwell is a Christian, no matter how much some try to disown him. The "No True Scotsman" argument doesn't hold water. But just because Jerry Falwell says it, it doesn't mean all Christians believe it. Jerry Falwell is Christian = true, but Christians are Jerry Falwell = False. Just as Christians can't disregard Jerry Falwell just because he is an embarassment, you can't disregard moderate Christians just because they don't match your opinion of Christianity.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Wrt Takei -
McCance doesn't get to be a bigot. He is an elected public official, and his opinions are therefore relevant and open to response.
George Takei hit him back where it hurt. The rest of what Takei said won't have bothered him at all. That bit migh.
Good on Takei. Why should we accept intolerance by playing fair? Why not get back at someone?
mattyrm wrote:
As i have said, any fair minded reader is aware that i am not tarring all Religious believers with the same brush,
I disagree with that statement.
And who the cares about Oral Roberts? There are 18 gazillion priests, ministers, fathers, padres, great speghetti overlords here. We're free enterprise here, Roberts' rantings only matter to Roberts and his church. Big deal. There are literally 3 completely different churches within walking distance of my house and none of them give a about wo Roberts is or what he says. You haven't the knowledge or won't admit what a fragmented situation Christianity is.
Well my driving distance is 210 miles. I shudder to think how many churches and mosques that is (there's a mosque by our pool within 5 miles of my pistol range). Life's a many colored world.
Wow, I go away for a few hours and I see my name dragged through the mud.
Anyway, my comment was intended as a light joke with a bit of social commentary thrown in. Most of you know that I am a social conservative. My comment was based on the fact that I am a trekkie and I remember watching Kirk fight the Gorn, and Sulu fencing in the Alice in wonderland episode. Sulu was one of my favorite Star Trek characters and now that I know that the guy playing him was gay all along...my child hood view of Sulu is forever changed. He is no longer just sulu the cool asian guy, but now he is Sulu the guy played by a gay actor.
I had always admired George Takei as an actor and that won't change. I am just a bit disappointed that my child hood memory is now changed forever, that's all. The same can be said for my view of Michael Jackson or OJ Simpson. (NOTE: Do not freak out and say that I am comparing the things MJ and OJ did to George). I am just comparing celebrity disappointment.
Kind of like when I found out Gandalf and Magneto were gay.(Notice another LIGHT joke about Ian Mckellen)
GG
edit....just in case some of you don't get it...the joke is that I am calling the fictional characters gay, when in their fictional universe they aren't(In fact Gandalf was Asexual), but the fact that they are played by a gay actor makes a connection between gay reality and fictional universes. That's the joke.
would you mind telling us why that is the case?
i frankly don´t understand that, cuase the acting is still done by him, the words spoken by him weren´t changed and so on so why isn´t it the same anymore?
Indeed, I think there is a major problem in the world, and the media in general that people have to 'out' themselves. As I've said many times before, I couldn't give a monkies who you wish to share your life with. Doesn't effect me one iota as long as it's all consensual.
In directly yes, as it means there's a predator out there in need of a kicking. As you know, non-consenual being rape and everything, and that effects society as a whole.
Yes, that "affects the while of a society" line is exactly what many who oppose acceptance of homosexuality claim. I'm not trying to equate consensual homosexual acts with rape; but I don't think the the "it's between two people so it doesn't concern me" argument holds any water.
would you mind telling us why that is the case?
i frankly don´t understand that, cuase the acting is still done by him, the words spoken by him weren´t changed and so on so why isn´t it the same anymore?
sorry had to ask.
vik
Thought I made it clear..but I'll try again. I had a childhood "image" of George Takei as sulu. Now, due to my view of homsexuality as being a sin against God and thus a character flaw.. now that is what I will think of, when I watch classic trek.
Let me give an analogy. Lindsy Lohan was this "idealic" cute little child actor. Now she is turned into a drug abuser. I can't watch Herbie reloaded or the parent trap remake without saying to myself, "such a shame". You could also place Mel Gibson in that position. I had a huge admiration for the man Mel Gibson(Road Warrior,Brave heart..etc) until the alcoholism/Jew Hate started coming out. I pity him now, more than Admire him.
Also take note that I believe saying things that homosexuals should catch AIDS and die is VERY wrong, and is in my opinion quite a sick thing to say.
In directly yes, as it means there's a predator out there in need of a kicking. As you know, non-consenual being rape and everything, and that effects society as a whole.
i second that stazement to the letter...
Automatically Appended Next Post: as for ms lohan, all i can say just don´t watch her at all and all ends well...
Automatically Appended Next Post: my view of homsexuality as being a sin against God and thus a character flaw..
is that your kind of humor again or do you really think that way?
would you mind telling us why that is the case?
i frankly don´t understand that, cuase the acting is still done by him, the words spoken by him weren´t changed and so on so why isn´t it the same anymore?
sorry had to ask.
vik
Thought I made it clear..but I'll try again. I had a childhood "image" of George Takei as sulu. Now, due to my view of homsexuality as being a sin against God and thus a character flaw.. now that is what I will think of, when I watch classic trek.
Let me give an analogy. Lindsy Lohan was this "idealic" cute little child actor. Now she is turned into a drug abuser. I can't watch Herbie reloaded or the parent trap remake without saying to myself, "such a shame". You could also place Mel Gibson in that position. I had a huge admiration for the man Mel Gibson(Road Warrior,Brave heart..etc) until the alcoholism/Jew Hate started coming out. I pity him now, more than Admire him.
Also take note that I believe saying things that homosexuals should catch AIDS and die is VERY wrong, and is in my opinion quite a sick thing to say.
GG
I totally see your point there. I personally dont find homosexuality wrong or immoral, but everyone is totally allowed to have their own opinion on things. I completely agree on the rest though. Good god, Mel Gibson, such a wasted talent that guy. His movies were epic, hell he was epic, but I too watch his films and I cant help but think a few times during each, about how much an Ahole he is now. HE WAS THE PATRIOT DAMMIT!
generalgrog wrote:Thought I made it clear..but I'll try again. I had a childhood "image" of George Takei as sulu. Now, due to my view of homsexuality as being a sin against God and thus a character flaw.. now that is what I will think of, when I watch classic trek.
Manchu wrote:Yes, that "affects the while of a society" line is exactly what many who oppose acceptance of homosexuality claim. I'm not trying to equate consensual homosexual acts with rape; but I don't think the the "it's between two people so it doesn't concern me" argument holds any water.
I very much beg to differ. Sorry if it seems like I'm having a pop at him, but GG is a good example here.
Due to his own predlictions (which he is entitled to) he has allowed his view of someone to be coloured because of who they are. Yet the fact that George Takei is attracted to men has absolutely no impact on society at all. On GG perhaps, but that's something he has decided for himself, rightly or wrongly.
I really don't get the fear of homosexuals, I really don't. (addendum...not saying GG is scared of them or owt. Was a reference to the guy named in the video)
Manchu wrote:So post it on your light-hearted blog, MGS. Dakka is a forum and a forum means there will be dialog. I don't think OPs get to post rules for the threads they start (at least not mandatory ones) and there are no Dakka rules violations so far. (This probably goes back to our diagreement that discussion of religion and politics inevitably leads to thread locks.)
Yep.
Here's the equation for the new folks.
1. Non Religious Post is made in OT.
2. By page 2, religious connotation is insinuated.
3. Thread now becomes religious.
4. 'Those People' say something sarcastic, offensive, humorous, off-hand or dismissive towards religion.
5. This causes insult to someone somewhere.
6. Retaliatory strikes occur.
7. Flamefest, where certain of the usual suspects lay traps for the easily angered.
8. Traps are sprung.
9. After several derailed pages of people being unpleasant, the lock occurs.
10. Another thread goes the way of a cankerous tree.
11. A new thread appears, refer to step 1.
Yeah, I am quite happy with Takei throwing his weight around if it leads to the betterment of a group of people. I mean, fair's fair, people don't have to believe that Homosexuality is natural or whatever (though I personally frown upon such a view as somewhat bigoted, but again that's just an opinion) but even so, what this guy said was so out of order it hurt.
He reaped what he sowed, in my opinion.
would you mind telling us why that is the case?
i frankly don´t understand that, cuase the acting is still done by him, the words spoken by him weren´t changed and so on so why isn´t it the same anymore?
sorry had to ask.
vik
Thought I made it clear..but I'll try again. I had a childhood "image" of George Takei as sulu. Now, due to my view of homsexuality as being a sin against God and thus a character flaw.. now that is what I will think of, when I watch classic trek.
Let me give an analogy. Lindsy Lohan was this "idealic" cute little child actor. Now she is turned into a drug abuser. I can't watch Herbie reloaded or the parent trap remake without saying to myself, "such a shame". You could also place Mel Gibson in that position. I had a huge admiration for the man Mel Gibson(Road Warrior,Brave heart..etc) until the alcoholism/Jew Hate started coming out. I pity him now, more than Admire him.
Also take note that I believe saying things that homosexuals should catch AIDS and die is VERY wrong, and is in my opinion quite a sick thing to say.
GG
I am saddened that you think that way about homosexuality, and consider those who are homosexual (a trait that they have no control over) sinners.
Mr Mystery wrote:Sorry if it seems like I'm having a pop at him, but GG is a good example here.
Due to his own predlictions (which he is entitled to) he has allowed his view of someone to be coloured because of who they are.
Judging people based on who they are doesn't seem that bad of an idea, really. I understand the reference that you are making but I'm just suggesting that a more critical approach could be useful.
@MGS: This thread has a good example of the problem having to do with the users rather than the topics, IMO. I wholeheartedly agree with your metaphor of laying traps, by the way.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ma55ter_fett wrote:and consider those who are homosexual (a trait that they have no control over) sinners.
Framing a debatable point as a foregone conclusion, eh? In any case, the stock response is "if the type of urge is beyond your control, resisting it is not."
I'm really doing some thinking based on MGS's post, actually.
He speaks the truth.
Ma55ter_fett wrote:I am saddened that you think that way about homosexuality, and consider those who are homosexual (a trait that they have no control over) sinners.
If my understanding of Christian theology is correct: since everyone is considered a sinner it's really not as big of a condemnation as you're making it seem. The fact that some people practice demagoguery based on sexuality is kind of a separate issue in my opinion.
Mr Mystery wrote:Sorry if it seems like I'm having a pop at him, but GG is a good example here.
Due to his own predlictions (which he is entitled to) he has allowed his view of someone to be coloured because of who they are.
Judging people based on who they are doesn't seem that bad of an idea, really. I understand the reference that you are making but I'm just suggesting that a more critical approach could be useful.
@MGS: This thread has a good example of the problem having to do with the users rather than the topics, IMO. I wholeheartedly agree with your metaphor of laying traps, by the way.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ma55ter_fett wrote:and consider those who are homosexual (a trait that they have no control over) sinners.
Framing a debatable point as a foregone conclusion, eh? In any case, the stock response is "if the type of urge is beyond your control, resisting it is not."
Your stock response does nothing to repudiate my claim that homosexuality is not a choice.
You have merely stated that refraining from sleeping with a member of one’s own gender is a choice, which I can agree with.
Your statement even seems to agree with my position that lusts of the heart cannot be controlled.
Manchu wrote:There is no conclusive evidence that homosexual orientation is either the product of nature or nuture. To my mind, the whole debate is pointless. Human beings are attracted--among other ways, sexually--to other human beings: their specific features, personalities, mannerisms, etc. To the extent that people are more attracted to one gender (not sex) or the other, I'd say the matter is about aesthetic preference: that is to say, it comes down to whether you find masculine or feminine traits more appealing. And, of course, reality is not even as simple as that. The terms "homosexual" and "heterosexual" seem more the product of political rather than scientific or psychological analysis. I don't believe that either term meaningfully describes any facet of human experience other than the political.
But the phrase that I mentioned is often used to address the point that "homosexuality is not a choice." Namely, something you cannot control cannot be a sin. If you cannot control the urge to commit sexual acts with a person of your same gender then those urges cannot be sinful, right? Okay, but you can control whether or not you give into those urges. Some people consider acting on homosexual urges to be sinful. A homosexual person that never engages in homosexual acts, therefore, is not being sinful (all else being equal).
Quick, this thread is getting too serious! TAKE IT AWAY TAKEI!
Also, I am a christian. That is how I identify myself. But I helped me friend get through finding out he was gay. He hatted himself because of the few pastors out there that hate gays, and get the megaphone. He thought he was going to hell. I talked to him through the process, sent him as much help as I could, and he got through it. But dose that not make me a christian? I helped and am close friends with an openly gay person?
And if we are going on religious rants here, I bring you one of the core beliefs of Christianity. "Love thy neighbor as thy self". Dose it say "Love they neighbor, but only if they are heterosexual"? Nope. What if your neighbor was black? A woman? Asian? Would you care? No, but suddenly its a MASSIVE issue if they are gay. Who cares? I sure as feth dont.
Happygrunt: You're way off point here. No one participating in this thread has claimed to hate a person because they are gay, certainly not for religious reasons.
Manchu wrote:Happygrunt: You're way off point here. No one who participating in this thread has claimed to hate a person because they are gay.
Sorry, I thought that the martyrdom guy was saying Christians hate gays. Was just defending Christianity. But then again, am I still high off of the "I ACED A TEST" feeling, so I probably misread it. Carry on then.
Manchu wrote:Happygrunt: You're way off point here. No one who participating in this thread has claimed to hate a person because they are gay.
Sorry, I thought that the martyrdom guy was saying Christians hate gays. Was just defending Christianity. But then again, am I still high off of the "I ACED A TEST" feeling, so I probably misread it. Carry on then.
Yeah, I misread your post. Sorry about that!
Honestly, I don't think mattyrm thinks all Christians hate gays. It was more about him thinking that Christians are more offended by a nice guy like Takei being gay than a douchebag like McCance being a douchebag.
would you mind telling us why that is the case?
i frankly don´t understand that, cuase the acting is still done by him, the words spoken by him weren´t changed and so on so why isn´t it the same anymore?
sorry had to ask.
vik
Thought I made it clear..but I'll try again. I had a childhood "image" of George Takei as sulu. Now, due to my view of homsexuality as being a sin against God and thus a character flaw.. now that is what I will think of, when I watch classic trek.
Let me give an analogy. Lindsy Lohan was this "idealic" cute little child actor. Now she is turned into a drug abuser. I can't watch Herbie reloaded or the parent trap remake without saying to myself, "such a shame". You could also place Mel Gibson in that position. I had a huge admiration for the man Mel Gibson(Road Warrior,Brave heart..etc) until the alcoholism/Jew Hate started coming out. I pity him now, more than Admire him.
Also take note that I believe saying things that homosexuals should catch AIDS and die is VERY wrong, and is in my opinion quite a sick thing to say.
GG
I am saddened that you think that way about homosexuality, and consider those who are homosexual (a trait that they have no control over) sinners.
Unfortunately, holding irrational, unjustifiable positions is part of the human condition.
Manchu wrote:It's amazing how intolerant and small-minded the words of champions of tolerance and open-mindedness can be.
So in your mind these are basically the same thing:
Person A: Blacks are lazy and they need us to control them It is our duty as Christians to civilize them.
Person B: I think Person A is a loon, and what he says is a bunch of hate filled nonsense. We should reject his way of thinking.
Then you come in with:
Manchu: See, they are both intolerant! This must mean that neither argument is valid.
I guess the words context and nuance are not something you are familiar with, or that you are choosing to ignore at the moment.
Quite. I don't think anyone has anything to apologise for when being intolerant of bigotry. And racism and homophobia are bigotry.
Skimming over this thread, an argument that really does not hold water is the "it's only homosexuals who have sex that are the sinners so by only targeting those actively having sex I am not in fact homophobic".
This is homophobic and bigoted, without even knowing a person you damn them as a sinner simply for behaving in the manner most natural to them. Homosexuality is expressed across the animal kingdom, it's a very real, naturally occuring thing. You can't be turned gay, and you don't choose to be gay. According to the people who claim the argument I put above, a straight person can marry and have sex with a person of the sex they desire and there is no problem. But a gay person is told that to not be called a sinner, they must either live a life of total celibacy or have sexual relationships with a women, a gender they have no attraction towards. They are basically told to have no sex life or love with the gender they are attracted towards because to do otherwise is a 'sin'. This is such an easy thing for certain people to demand from their ivory towers while they are free to have heterosexual relations. But imagine being told that you could not have a sexual relationship with a woman for your entire life, and told that if you do, then you are a sinner and wrongdoer. Would you then accept that the person telling you that was not in fact prejudiced against you? It's a nonsense, unlike choosing to kick football or something mundane sexuality is something integral to our being and to take that away is to deny them experiencing a fundamental part of their life.
I also think it's sad that someone could have their view of Star Trek coloured by the fact that one of the cast is gay. Why be so preoccupied by this? What a sad horrible shame.
Ahtman wrote:I guess the words context and nuance are not something you are familiar with, or that you are choosing to ignore at the moment.
It is amazing how well this applies to your own post. "Blacks are lazy . . ." Really?
This picture is a little closer to reality . . .
Person A: It is my religious belief that homosexual behavior is immoral. I don't hate people who are homosexual, but I definitely see it as a flaw and a sin.
Person B: Not accepting other people's beliefs is irrational and unjustifiable. I do not accept Person A's beliefs. (Except written in a passive aggressive manner in order to avoid the personal attack.)
HowardTreesong wrote:without even knowing a person you damn them as a sinner simply for behaving in the manner most natural to them.
Wait a moment. The statement is "someone who commits a sinful act is a sinner." Knowledge of the particular person is unnecessary. As for this "manner most natural to them" business, that is really just an opinion.
In essence, no one who claims to believe in "tolerance" actually does. What they believe in is tolerance for the things they deem worthy of tolerating, and intolerance for the things they do not; exactly the same as people who don't claim to believe in "tolerance". It's just a piece of rhetoric, much too vague to be seriously believed in.
Orkeosaurus wrote:In essence, no one who claims to believe in "tolerance" actually does. What they believe in is tolerance for the things they deem worthy of tolerating, and intolerance for the things they do not; exactly the same as people who don't claim to believe in "tolerance". It's just a piece of rhetoric, much too vague to be seriously believed in.
In all fairness, my criticism of Bookwrack's post is more about his smug passive aggressive line-toeing when it comes to Rule Number One.
Bookwrack did not actually claim to be open-minded or tolerant. He could be an outspoken bigot (regarding viewpioints he judges irrational and unjustifiable) for all I know. (there you go Cheescat, )
I don't care if I'm seen to be "tolerant," or not. I believe what I believe, and will happily fight for those beliefs. Hence why I see condemnation of homosexuality as both immoral and outdated.
Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:I don't care if I'm seen to be "tolerant," or not. I believe what I believe, and will happily fight for those beliefs. Hence why I see condemnation of homosexuality as both immoral and outdated.
Hear, hear!
I would say on my own part that I am quite intolerent of opinions that conflict with my own.
Orkeosaurus wrote:In essence, no one who claims to believe in "tolerance" actually does.
Hmm... for the sake of this argument would you consider "tolerance" something of a scale?
Absolute tolerance is something that I have rarely heard suggested as a personal philosophy. It wasn't, as Manchu has also clarified, suggested in this thread.
What they believe in is tolerance for the things they deem worthy of tolerating, and intolerance for the things they do not; exactly the same as people who don't claim to believe in "tolerance". It's just a piece of rhetoric, much too vague to be seriously believed in.
Those that claim "tolerance" are "intolerant" of "intolerance".
When it comes to actually discussing specific issues on can easily have "tolerant" views in one respect and "intolerant" views in another, but none of that changes the fact that we are working with something along the lines of a scale. On a scale 1-10 how intolerant should anyone be of any given set of actions and or perspectives? What crime deserves what punishment? What ideology deserves more rebuke than others?
If all someone says is tolerance, tolerance, tolerance, they are probably not saying much of anything. But if someone says that they are more tolerant on a given issue than someone else, they can do so without being literally intolerant. The important bit is the amount of specificity involved.
Tolerating everything would not make for a particularly successful society, but we need not think ourselves "intolerant" when faced with "intolerance".
Manchu wrote:It's amazing how intolerant and small-minded the words of champions of tolerance and open-mindedness can be.
So in your mind these are basically the same thing:
Person A: Blacks are lazy and they need us to control them It is our duty as Christians to civilize them.
Person B: I think Person A is a loon, and what he says is a bunch of hate filled nonsense. We should reject his way of thinking.
Then you come in with:
Manchu: See, they are both intolerant! This must mean that neither argument is valid.
I guess the words context and nuance are not something you are familiar with, or that you are choosing to ignore at the moment.
Nah, I think it's more like:
Person A(who is Islamojudaichrististotrian): I think people who are smarmy on the internet are douchebags.
Person B: I think that since one Islamojudaichrististostrian thinks a certain way, I'm going to talk a bunch of ignorant gak about all of them because it's easier to generalize.
That's where the being a bigoted hypocrite comes into play.
I think it's a valid question to ask.."Why do people dislike Homosexual sin more than Heterosexual sin". I have often asked my self the same question and have had to correct myself upon inner reflection on the issue. The bottom line is that sin is sin and the God I worship doesn't make a distinction.
This is my opinion, and that is, that a lot of people view homosexuality as more than just a sin.(And I'm not saying that view is right or wrong). They view it as unnatural and view the act as disgusting. Also there is a view that can be taken that if they view the act of homosexuality as being disgusting, they don't want it rubbed in their faces. They are so disgusted by the behavior that they forget their manners and lash out at the homosexual. I see the same kind of disgust by women that find out their best friend has been cheated on by their best friends husband, calling the man who cheated a "dog" or "scum" or "pig". They are disgusted by "THE ACT" of infidelity. Also many people are disgusted by people that do not hide their unfaithfulness, labeling them a "scoundrel" "whoremonger" or whatever other label you may want to hang.
So what am I getting at? Does this mean people "hate" homosexuals because they dislike "THE ACT"? Are they just not able to overcome their own natural disgust for"THE ACT". Can you genuinely love someone despite hating what they do? I think the answer is yes.
For me personally I am uncomfortable around gay people. Why is this? Because of the way they flaunt it and rub it in my nose. In the same way that I am uncomfortable around someone who flaunts their drug use and that wants to smoke pot around me. Or someone that I am with, that is married and flaunts their infidelity, is out looking to cheat on their spouse, or someone that cusses like a sailor around children. Do I hate these people that flaunt their flaws? No... but I sure don't like being around them that much.
And one last note...It has never been proven that homosexuals are born that way. There are many homosexuals that have changed. (Now for the "not a true scotsman arguments)
generalgrog wrote:And one last note...It has never been proven that homosexuals are born that way. There are many homosexuals that have changed. (Now for the "not a true scotsman arguments)GG
Any time two people of similar background or heritage disagree on something it's a No True Scotsman fallacy, according to wherever some people get their talking points.
See, we're both Christians and we slightly disagree on something; yet I manage not to hate you or tell you you aren't a Christian. Maybe I'm not the real Scotsman then.
Very good comparison about infidelity, GG, especially about whether you'd want to hang around with someone who flaunts their infidelity. If someone has made an act that you find to be immoral the very center of their identity, it will be very difficult to be around them.
Obviously, not all gay people are wrapped up in "the movement" and, at least from anecdotal evidence passed along by friends, I've found that the attempts to mobilize vulnerable "newly out" people into "the movement" can be just as harmful as helpful.
Ok, this is still going Off Topic fast. Listen up guys, the current argument is derived from two or three lines of mutual misunderstanding by one or two posters with different world views on relgion, who have since ironed out those specific differences. Trolls are now stasrting to gather, lets head back on topic before we get the vomit.
Some point for Wrexasaur
Wrexasaur wrote:
Dangerous is a strong term, but I generally get what you're saying.
Yes it is a bit strong, but I am concerned with two problems, firstly may this set a precedent for this type of celeb character assassination video to become more widely used in future.
You are thinking past the point of this PSA in my opinion. Not that some of your argument isn't applicable, but it really comes down to a PSA hitting very hard.
This is true, however while it might look like George Takei is having an add on joke to some, its direct information to others. It was worded as if it was a fact. A nice prefix showing the comment is humourious would have helped, if indeed this was the case.
Takei basically socked him in the nose. Right in the nose. Dangerous in the sense that Takei could have permanently broken McCance's metaphorical nose. I'm not entirely sure I care all that much what happens to McCance, and that is not to suggest that I want to see him literally harmed. Blocking him from holding any form of public office is kind of expected on Takei's part, as a spokesperson for the LGBT community.
This is the second reason I find it dangerous. You dont like McCance and so he 'has it coming'. That only sounds fair, it would be like saying, this guy is a burglaring scumbag so lets get him on a rape charge. Get the people on the charge they are guilty for, not whatever you can pin on them just because you dont like them.
The same should apply for high profile commentaries like tihs one.
I won't remember McCance's name two weeks from now. He will disappear from the mainstream public's view very quickly.
You might not, I might not, but those living near him will. Infamy lasts longer than 15 minutes. All the accusations Takei made on that video may stick for life, those that are true and those that may well not be.
IMO, Takei represents positive representation for the LGBT community. McCance attacked many people with his words, but Takei simply attacked McCance specifically through his statements.
Again I have to disagree with this. I dont think the ends do not justify the means. Especially when you see the volume of damage done. McCance trolled on the internetz, there is a good chance he doesnt really mean what he says, though his words are taken very literally now. The responce is full frontal and IMHO disproportional. Demands of public apology are ok, calls of outrage ok, unsubstantiated secondary accusations, not ok.
I see worse comments below YouTube videos daily, let alone on Facebook.
Monster Rain wrote:See, we're both Christians and we slightly disagree on something; yet I manage not to hate you or tell you you aren't a Christian. Maybe I'm not the real Scotsman then.
This is one of the most intelligent things I've ever read on this site, certainly the most intelligent in OT.
Manchu wrote:Very good comparison about infidelity, GG, especially about whether you'd want to hang around with someone who flaunts their infidelity. If someone has made an act that you find to be immoral the very center of their identity, it will be very difficult to be around them.
Obviously, not all gay people are wrapped up in "the movement" and, at least from anecdotal evidence passed along by friends, I've found that the attempts to mobilize vulnerable "newly out" people into "the movement" can be just as harmful as helpful.
I'm friends with gay people. I also don't find this incompatible with Christianity, and they don't seem to mind it either.
Manchu wrote:Very good comparison about infidelity, GG, especially about whether you'd want to hang around with someone who flaunts their infidelity. If someone has made an act that you find to be immoral the very center of their identity, it will be very difficult to be around them.
Obviously, not all gay people are wrapped up in "the movement" and, at least from anecdotal evidence passed along by friends, I've found that the attempts to mobilize vulnerable "newly out" people into "the movement" can be just as harmful as helpful.
I'm friends with gay people. I also don't find this incompatible with Christianity, and they don't seem to mind it either.
Slightly ninja'd by an appreciated post.
Your right. Just because someone would rather be with someone of their own sex rather then someone of the opposite sex dosen't mean we should hate them.
generalgrog wrote:So what am I getting at? Does this mean people "hate" homosexuals because they dislike "THE ACT"? Are they just not able to overcome their own natural disgust for"THE ACT". Can you genuinely love someone despite hating what they do? I think the answer is yes.
Many people dislike the the act of concluding that actually being gay is immoral. This does not suggest that most of those folks hate Christians either.
For me personally I am uncomfortable around gay people. Why is this? Because of the way they flaunt it and rub it in my nose. In the same way that I am uncomfortable around someone who flaunts their drug use and that wants to smoke pot around me. Or someone that I am with, that is married and flaunts their infidelity, is out looking to cheat on their spouse, or someone that cusses like a sailor around children. Do I hate these people that flaunt their flaws? No... but I sure don't like being around them that much.
Surely you can see that someone could be offended by your statements concerning "flaws".
Beyond that, I'm not entirely sure why you think that homosexuals are naturally more expressive of their sexuality than heterosexuals. I assume that a gay couple kissing would be a sin, but would them holding hands or hugging be a sin? I'm not trying to poke holes in your argument here, but I am trying to find out what flamboyance you're referring to.
In my experience most gay folks are really quite reserved in expressing their sexuality, for fear that they will make others around them uncomfortable. I do not necessarily think that most gay people that do think that they are surrounded by homophobes, and it can be argued that they are simply trying to be polite. When a couple can't kiss or hold hands for fear that they will be demeaned for doing so, then there is a problem IMO.
When a heterosexual couple is being overtly sexual, I would think that about as many people that are uncomfortable around that are the same in respect to homosexuals.
There is a whole lot more to it than that, of course, but my main point is that the majority of gay people that I know are not particularly obvious. I mean, I've asked a chick out on a date not knowing that they were gay. Maybe I was being thick, but it really wasn't obvious to me at all.
And one last note...It has never been proven that homosexuals are born that way.
Manchu wrote:Very good comparison about infidelity, GG, especially about whether you'd want to hang around with someone who flaunts their infidelity. If someone has made an act that you find to be immoral the very center of their identity, it will be very difficult to be around them.
Obviously, not all gay people are wrapped up in "the movement" and, at least from anecdotal evidence passed along by friends, I've found that the attempts to mobilize vulnerable "newly out" people into "the movement" can be just as harmful as helpful.
I'm friends with gay people. I also don't find this incompatible with Christianity, and they don't seem to mind it either.
Slightly ninja'd by an appreciated post.
Your right. Just because someone would rather be with someone of their own sex rather then someone of the opposite sex dosen't mean we should hate them.
The thing is, I don't think that most people do hate them.
It's become a truism concocted by people who try to rationalize their bigotry. I don't want to preach a sermon or anything, but Jesus didn't hang out with people that were already righteous. He actively sought out people who were outcasts from society, which is unfortunately the way that gays are treated these days.
"My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you." he said. How could people forget something so simple and beautiful as that? I don't care what kind of meta-argument you throw out there, if you're a Christian and if this isn't near the top of your main principles of theology I'm afraid you need to read some more scripture.
Wrexasaur wrote:Surely you can see that someone could be offended by your statements concerning "flaws".
Well, so what? Beliefs and opinions and interests are divergent between individuals and groups. Free expression, given human nature, entails offense and hurt feelings. GG is not advocating that homosexuals be persecuted in any way (that I am aware of), merely that he finds homosexual acts and exaggerated gay sexuality to be morally and personally offensive. As a Christian, I'm sure that he finds liars to be morally and personally offensive as well but I don't see him calling for a law to ban all lying.
Beyond that, I'm not entirely sure why you think that homosexuals are naturally more expressive of their sexuality than heterosexuals.
For all the reasons you already know, heterosexuality is much easier to incorporate into someone's identity both privately and publicly than homosexuality. Homosexuals are often forced to make choices between expressing their sexuality and maintaining relationships with their friends and family members. Many gay people have dealt with these tensions by acting flamboyantly--i.e., refusing to be stifled by being overwhelming. For a lot of complicated reasons that I don't entirely understand, this reaction has been coopted into homosexual political contexts and has become a self-reinforcing stereotype. Surely this isn't new information?
In my experience most gay folks are really quite reserved in expressing their sexuality, for fear that they will make others around them uncomfortable.
I agree with one caveat: AS SECURE ADULTS, most gay people are reserved about their sexuality. Perhaps unfortunately, many heterosexual people only encounter openly gay people while they are still developing a sense of what being gay means in terms of their identity and place in their families and groups of friends (much less career). It's just important to keep in mind that most adult heterosexual men don't behave like fratboys, either.
Wrexasaur wrote:
Dangerous is a strong term, but I generally get what you're saying.
Yes it is a bit strong, but I am concerned with two problems, firstly may this set a precedent for this type of celeb character assassination video to become more widely used in future.
Perhaps it will, but I am not convinced that any harm was actually done. Maybe McCance will try to sue for libel or some such randomness, but I very much doubt that.
You are thinking past the point of this PSA in my opinion. Not that some of your argument isn't applicable, but it really comes down to a PSA hitting very hard.
This is true, however while it might look like George Takei is having an add on joke to some, its direct information to others. It was worded as if it was a fact. A nice prefix showing the comment is humourious would have helped, if indeed this was the case.
How would that be accomplished? Further, how would that help given that the tone of the PSA was humorous, and serious at the same time.
Takei basically socked him in the nose. Right in the nose. Dangerous in the sense that Takei could have permanently broken McCance's metaphorical nose. I'm not entirely sure I care all that much what happens to McCance, and that is not to suggest that I want to see him literally harmed. Blocking him from holding any form of public office is kind of expected on Takei's part, as a spokesperson for the LGBT community.
This is the second reason I find it dangerous. You dont like McCance and so he 'has it coming'. That only sounds fair, it would be like saying, this guy is a burglaring scumbag so lets get him on a rape charge. Get the people on the charge they are guilty for, not whatever you can pin on them just because you dont like them.
The same should apply for high profile commentaries like tihs one.
I simply don't agree. He took a well known meme and brought it into the humorous tone of the PSA. Takei and the PSA team did a pretty good job of doing exactly what you're asking of them, besides the point where they are limited by what you consider immoral and wrong. McCance wasn't charged with anything of substance, and this issue has nothing to do with rape, metaphorical or otherwise.
Are you suggesting that PSA's should be regulated intensely? What would that actually look like? It seems that you have set contextual guidelines that are specifically targeting this one instance. How would that damage the potential for a message to be clearly sent in the future?
It seems that Takei was reinforcing his opinion of McCance on McCances own terms. Why should Takei be held responsible for his suggestions if McCance is not held responsible for his statements? And as a public official no less.
I won't remember McCance's name two weeks from now. He will disappear from the mainstream public's view very quickly.
You might not, I might not, but those living near him will. Infamy lasts longer than 15 minutes. All the accusations Takei made on that video may stick for life, those that are true and those that may well not be.
So McCance can try to sue for libel. Go for it McCance! I support you in your endeavor.
IMO, Takei represents positive representation for the LGBT community. McCance attacked many people with his words, but Takei simply attacked McCance specifically through his statements.
Again I have to disagree with this. I dont think the ends do not justify the means. Especially when you see the volume of damage done. McCance trolled on the internetz, there is a good chance he doesnt really mean what he says, though his words are taken very literally now. The responce is full frontal and IMHO disproportional. Demands of public apology are ok, calls of outrage ok, unsubstantiated secondary accusations, not ok.
I see worse comments below YouTube videos daily, let alone on Facebook.
What volume of damage? How is that you are identifying such damage before anyone else has seen any occur?
Maybe McCance didn't mean exactly what he said, and on those terms Takei shouldn't be held responsible either.
Also, I do not hold public officials to the same standards as Youtube flamers. Seriously.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote:
Wrexasaur wrote:Surely you can see that someone could be offended by your statements concerning "flaws".
Well, so what? Beliefs and opinions and interests are divergent between individuals and groups. Free expression, given human nature, entails offense and hurt feelings. GG is not advocating that homosexuals be persecuted in any way (that I am aware of), merely that he finds homosexual acts and exaggerated gay sexuality to be morally and personally offensive. As a Christian, I'm sure that he finds liars to be morally and personally offensive as well but I don't see him calling for a law to ban all lying.
And I can respect that as it appears to be the case, but as GG is offended and uncomfortable around homosexuality (as stated by him), I can only say that it isn't irrational to expect something along those lines in return.
If GG wants to call homosexuals immoral, I can't stop him, but I can strongly disagree with the premise.
Beyond that, I'm not entirely sure why you think that homosexuals are naturally more expressive of their sexuality than heterosexuals.
For all the reasons you already know, heterosexuality is much easier to incorporate into someone's identity both privately and publicly than homosexuality. Homosexuals are often forced to make choices between expressing their sexuality and maintaining relationships with their friends and family members. Many gay people have dealt with these tensions by acting flamboyantly--i.e., refusing to be stifled by being overwhelming. For a lot of complicated reasons that I don't entirely understand, this reaction has been coopted into homosexual political contexts and has become a self-reinforcing stereotype. Surely this isn't new information?
How many have done so? Again, most gay people that I know are anything but flamboyant.
Also, can you show me exactly what you are talking about concerning the last bit? Does Barney Frank run around screaming about being gay now? Did I misinterpret the part where he wasn't doing so? Beyond the abstract, I'd actually like to be informed as to what you're discussing here. Barney Frank was just a random example, to be entirely clear.
Maybe I get what you're saying, but I'm really not sure.
In my experience most gay folks are really quite reserved in expressing their sexuality, for fear that they will make others around them uncomfortable.
I agree with one caveat: AS SECURE ADULTS, most gay people are reserved about their sexuality. Perhaps unfortunately, many heterosexual people only encounter openly gay people while they are still developing a sense of what being gay means in terms of their identity and place in their families and groups of friends (much less career). It's just important to keep in mind that most adult heterosexual men don't behave like fratboys, either.
Young homosexual people are inherently more flamboyant than young heterosexual people?
Anyway, I am quite sure that most secure adults are reserved about their sexuality for nothing more than the culture we live in. And for that exact reason youth is generally less reserved about their sexuality. I have not witnessed anything to suggest that heterosexual teenagers are quieter with their sexuality, and overall I would say that the opposite is usually true.
What I'm saying is that heterosexual people very rarely have to choose between their family and friends on one hand and openly expressing their sexuality on the other hand. When you do have to make that choice, when you are forced to give up all of the social connections that have informed your identity up to that point, one response is to be totally flamboyant and to make that aspect of your life central. (It's logical in a way, since the sexuality is the thing that displaced other sources of identity.) This is the archetypal story that has been held up as iconic by the gay community as a sort of model. With growing acceptance of homosexuality, it has probably lost some of its relevance--similarly to how the rebelliousness of the 1960s is pretty well meaningless today.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Some of these videos are really touching:
Manchu wrote:What I'm saying is that heterosexual people very rarely have to choose between their family and friends on one hand and openly expressing their sexuality on the other hand. When you do have to make that choice, when you are forced to give up all of the social connections that have informed your identity up to that point, one response is to be totally flamboyant and to make that aspect of your life central. (It's logical in a way, since the sexuality is the thing that displaced other sources of identity.) This is the archetypal story that has been held up as iconic by the gay community as a sort of model.
Maybe this is true? As far as I understand it the gay community hasn't really had many strong voices until quite recently. There have been several for quite a long time, I'm sure, but in terms of the gay community as a whole? I'm really not convinced about that. Much of the gay community, and in my opinion the largest part of the gay community, is not and weren't living such lifestyles and/or professing such concepts.
Most gay spokespeople, and by that I mean leaders of sorts, are very formal nowadays. Off the top of my head: Rachel Maddow, Barney Frank, Ellen Degeneres, and so on.
With growing acceptance of homosexuality, it has probably lost some of its relevance--similarly to how the rebelliousness of the 1960s is pretty well meaningless today.
You probably have a point here, but I am not sure how representative that rebelliousness ever was. In the case of the hippie movement, we are talking about something that really did sweep the country, but mainly presented itself on the coasts. In the case of the LGBT community throughout the 70's and 80's the movement appears to be much more concentrated, and that is probably a result of how small the actual demographic is. Maybe that suggests no more than the LGBT community being a clear minority as compared to youth in the 60's overall (and one can make arguments that they weren't really representative either), but there are different forces at work here, and the contexts can be considered very distinct.
Iconic and relevant aren't the same things as representative. People who care much more than me can obviously do a better job explaining these things: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_icon
GG wrote:For me personally I am uncomfortable around gay people. Why is this? Because of the way they flaunt it and rub it in my nose.
For me personally I am not uncomfortable around gay people. Why is this? Because I do not consider those that try to make me uncomfortable (people from all walks of life do that) to be representative of the community as a whole.
Wrexasaur wrote:Back to the context of this conversation.
GG wrote:For me personally I am uncomfortable around gay people. Why is this? Because of the way they flaunt it and rub it in my nose.
For me personally I am not uncomfortable around gay people. Why is this? Because I do not consider those that try to make me uncomfortable (people from all walks of life do that) to be representative of the community as a whole.
Most people are fine with me of those who have a sexual orientation different from mine (I identify as asexual for my gender orientation). It may get uncomfortable however in a social situation wherein a person may start flirting with me becuase my general demeanor is flattering, friendly, and inoffensive to those I may not know (more personal people see me as a kind hearted asshat).
@GG
Would you become uncomfortable around a person that you have known for quite a while, if they were to tell you they are gay?
More specifically, would noticing a man talking in a fashion that is considered feminine make you uncomfortable? Do homosexuals literally have to hit on you before you're uncomfortable around them?
Could you eat a meal next to a gay couple without being uncomfortable? They are just having a conversation and eating their food, but you notice that they are a gay couple.
I often have a little bit of trouble understanding what you're trying to say, but I think I get the gist of it.
It's certainly acceptable to say that a person is tolerant or intolerant of a specific action or characteristic. It's also certainly accurate to say that tolerance is essentially a matter of degree; a person can merely disapprove of something or they can start trying to blow it up, and the person may be considered intolerant of it in both cases. It seemed like you were also trying to say that to simply declare any criticism of intolerance in specific instances to be intolerant itself, and thus an invalid criticism, is irrational. I would agree with this, assuming that the criticism is something besides merely that person is guilty of "intolerance".
Or as an example this:
Person 1: Gays are disgusting. They should all be killed.
Person 2: That's intolerance! Intolerance is bad, you better shut your mouth!
Is bad argument, on the part of Person 2. He's contradicting himself, because he's intolerant of Person 1's opinion himself.
Alternatively, this:
Person 1: Gays are disgusting. They should all be killed.
Person 2: If it was legal to kill people on account of their being perceived as "disgusting" by random citizens, society would fall into chaos and endless bloodshed. Therefore you are being too intolerant, or you like to be stabbed.
Is good logic. Person 2 explains why intolerance in this instance is bad, rather than simply declaring it to be bad due to it being intolerance. Because he has condemned a specific instance of intolerance, rather than intolerance as a general concept, he's free from hypocrisy. Furthermore, if Person 1 disagrees with him, they now have a real subject to discuss, instead of endless bickering about ill-defined concepts. (I'm not intolerant! You're the one who's being intolerant! Intolerant of my freedom to have family values! Etc, etc.)
Automatically Appended Next Post: Now, one could argue that "tolerance", as a virtue, isn't supposed to mean "tolerance of everything" but is rather supposed to mean "relative tolerance" or "tolerance in general". However, I see this definition as one that falls apart fairly quickly. Using this definition naturally requires us to establish what things a person who is "tolerant" is tolerant of specifically. However, because "tolerance" is being considered a virtue, every individual would want the pool of things that a person who is "tolerant" is tolerant of to correspond to the things that they themselves are tolerant of.
What you would then get is, for instance, a liberal saying that the areas in which "tolerance" is important are homosexuality, recreational drug use, obscenity, and so forth, while a conservative says that the areas in which "tolerance" is important are gun ownership, traditional values, creationism, and so on. For every possible position a person may be tolerant towards (homosexuality) there exists a contrary position that a person cannot be tolerant of at the same time (the belief that homosexuality cannot be tolerated), so you can't merely add up the subjects a person is "tolerant" in and see who wins that way.
You could also theoretically define tolerance as "tolerance of things that are good for society", or something like that, but this inevitably simplifies to "tolerance of things which deserve to be tolerated", which is obviously begging the question.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh boy, what a long, rambley post. Feel free to ignore it, folks!
HowardTreesong wrote:without even knowing a person you damn them as a sinner simply for behaving in the manner most natural to them.
Wait a moment. The statement is "someone who commits a sinful act is a sinner." Knowledge of the particular person is unnecessary. As for this "manner most natural to them" business, that is really just an opinion.
Well if it is "just an opinion" it isn't mine, try asking some gay people what comes to them as natural behaviour. Furthermore scientific research has shown homosexuality to occur throughout the animal kingdom so it *is* natural.
generalgrog wrote:For me personally I am uncomfortable around gay people. Why is this? Because of the way they flaunt it and rub it in my nose. In the same way that I am uncomfortable around someone who flaunts their drug use and that wants to smoke pot around me. Or someone that I am with, that is married and flaunts their infidelity, is out looking to cheat on their spouse, or someone that cusses like a sailor around children. Do I hate these people that flaunt their flaws? No... but I sure don't like being around them that much.
Two issues, firstly you only notice the homosexuals who do 'flaunt' it, those that are much more secretive you wouldn't notice, so you wouldn't have the opportunity to feel "uncomfortable" around them. You could stand by them and not know.
Secondly, I bet you don't notice the heterosexuals "flaunting" it because you are so used to it. What do you call flouting? Does holding hands in public count as flaunting it? Does kissing in public count as flaunting it? How about cuddling on a park bench and kissing. Does that make you uncomfortable? Because heterosexual couples do that all the time and most people don't bat an eyelid.
But if it's 'flaunting' you want, well heterosexuals are equally capable of that. How many people have heard a bunch of 'lads' in a bar talking loudly about how they'd have so much sex and who with, whistling at girls and that sort of general crude behaviour? Or how about the number of t-shirts that have heterosexual slogans on them like "babe magnet" or pictures of semi-naked women, and they are worn normally and no one like you cares. But if a gay man were to wear a t-shirt that identified them as being gay, than you'd probably claim they were "rubbing your face in it".
generalgrog wrote:And one last note...It has never been proven that homosexuals are born that way. There are many homosexuals that have changed.
You can't really determine anyone's orientation when they are born, you could equally say that it has never been proven that heterosexuals are born that way. I have to point out that while some homosexuals change, there are heterosexuals who change too. Sexuality is not a rigid thing, it is flexible. Furthermore you can be bisexual, in which you can be attracted to both sexes, or slightly more to one sex than another. And that introduces more of a scale between total heterosexuality and total homosexuality complicating things further, especially as your preference can shift on that scale perhaps rather than a straight forward flip between homosexuality and heterosexuality.
Howard, seriously, don't even get into this subject with GG, you will find his answers to be most depressing.
And pointing out that you view them as cruel and unfair will see you labelled as a bigot.
I think any and all mistreatment or intolerance of gay people to be truly vile and disgusting, but if you happen to be Religious and happen to be intolerant of homosexuals because you think that due to a literal interpretation of some small portion of the bible then you are allowed to get away with it because people fear the criticism of the man will be taken as criticism of the masses.
Quite clearly my opening salvo was directed towards GG and Orlanth, but the (Christians in this case) take any excuse they can get to claim "offense" en masse.
Just suck it up and take heart from the fact that the vast majority of the population have no issues at all with gay people, and nothing but sympathy for their plight.
And that video Manchu posted was indeed touching.
The reason i feel so sorry for Gay people is because i am very aggressively heterosexual and i am well aware you have no control over your sexual orientation. The word "sexual preference" is a misnomer in my opinion, because you dont "prefer" something, you ust ARE something. I dont chase skirt because i PREFER them to men, my body demands i chase them because i am biologically inclined to do so. I disagree entirely with GGs (and many other Evangelical's) assertions that you can be "cured" of your "gayness", and i am certain that people who claim to be cured are merely supressing the urge and living a lie, but he and I have argued about this before so I will not bother opening that can of worms again.
As I said, as result of this knowledge I am as gay friendly as it is possible to be without wearing a yellow spandex jumpsuit and a phallic helmet and marching through a digital New York City with a bunch of well built communist men wearing vests and pointy red hats.
This idea of 'flaunting' sexuality is a weird one. Would a gay bloke flirting with a straight bloke (Cannerus I'm looking at you! ) be considered 'rubbing their nose in it'? Is this because the sexual advance is not welcomed? Because not all heterosexual advances are welcomed, either.
If a woman hits on you and you aren't interested, is she 'rubbing your nose' in her 'lifestyle'? That's just a daft way of thinking - someone's sexuality is their own, if you let it affect you or bother you, then you're an insecure arsehole. OK, maybe 'insecure arsehole' is an unfortunate turn of phrase....
It doesn't bother me if gay fellas flirt with me (I live in Manchester and I'm the classic 'bear' build, it's to be expected! ), but I WILL admit that I sometimes find the behaviour of some gay men and women to be pretty irritating. On the other hand, I often find it to be awesome.
WARNING: CONTAINS SCENES WHICH SOME BIGOTS MAY FIND UPSETTING.
I agree with Albatross, a big black fella tried to plant one on me when i was in NYC (Pride was on!) and i never had the urge to "plant one on him"
Automatically Appended Next Post: Edit- I just noticed that with my support for homosexuals and my avatar tache i may appear to be a member of the village people, but this is merely due to the "Avatars for November thread"
But this seems to be turning into a referendum on generalgrogs beliefs. All I was doing was giving my perspective to people that may never have heard that perspective before. The thread is turning into this:
Person A: I have a problem with orange.
Person B: I see..you don't like orange but what if the orange had a little less red and was more of a yellowish orange?
Person C: You don't like orange so you want to kill all orange!
Person D: You MUST like orange or you are a bigot.
I got really angry at one of your posts a couple of years ago GG, and it was on this topic.
I guess I must have grown up a little since then, because now I don't care if you think thatway, because I'm confident that your strong and inflexible moral code would prohibit you from actually doing anything bad to a gay person, even so far as to be impolite to them. At least, that's the impression I have gotten after reading many more of your posts.
I do think youmust have been aware that a reaction like this was likely when you posted what you posted, but hey, we got some good posts in this thread in with all the rubbish (Especially liked Orkeo's ones on intolerance.)
generalgrog wrote:But this seems to be turning into a referendum on generalgrogs beliefs. All I was doing was giving my perspective to people that may never have heard that perspective before. The thread is turning into this:
Person A: I have a problem with orange. Person B: I see..you don't like orange but what if the orange had a little less red and was more of a yellowish orange? Person C: You don't like orange so you want to kill all orange! Person D: You MUST like orange or you are a bigot.
I've not come across your views before, so seeing as you have given your perspective expect to be challenged on them. Boo hoo. Are you going to engage with criticism of your prejudice or are you going to play the victim? How do gay people "flaunt" their sexuality? Why should this be an issue for you? Why is it not prejudiced to deny a homosexual person a loving or sexual relationship, the sorts of relationship that would make you happy but which for them you would brand them a 'sinner'?
To compare it to disliking a choice of favourite colour is to trivialise the issue totally. These are people who live all around us. It like saying the you don't like black people, and that black people make you uncomfortable. Is that ok? To get over prejudices you have to accept having them, not fight to maintain them. I'm not comfortable with everyone in the world, sometimes certin types of people make me uneasy, be it their race, job or whatever but I acknowledge it as being my problem, not theirs. I would try to address that and better myself by overcoming it. I wouldn't play the victim and demand that people accept my right to be racist, or that others accept my prejudice was legitimate. I used to be 'uneasy' about homosexuals until I left a sheltered life behind where the topic was never discussed but was all preconceptions, I actually got to know lots more people some of whom are gay. I grew up.
Howard A Treesong wrote:I would try to address that and better myself by overcoming it. I wouldn't play the victim and demand that people accept my right to be racist, or that others accept my prejudice was legitimate.
Does he demand that you accept it though? It seems like he holds his views regardless of your thoughts on the subject...
Not that I accept your premise that being gay and being black are even remotely comparable in this context.
Howard A Treesong wrote:I would try to address that and better myself by overcoming it. I wouldn't play the victim and demand that people accept my right to be racist, or that others accept my prejudice was legitimate.
Does he demand that you accept it though? It seems like he holds his views regardless of your thoughts on the subject...
Not that I accept your premise that being gay and being black are even remotely comparable in this context.
Depends if you are with the premise surely?
You don't CHOOSE to be gay, you are born that way. I dont choose to like women, i just do.
You dont choose to be black, you are born that way.
You can't tell if someone is gay by simply looking at them. Gays have never been enslaved, subject to discrimination of the same magnitude of what black people have had to deal with from the early history of this country(and the world, really) up until the very recent past and in some places still today.
Monster Rain wrote:Not that I accept your premise that being gay and being black are even remotely comparable in this context.
Why not? People don't choose their sexuality any more than their skin colour. Do heterosexual people chose to fancy girls? No of course not so why can't some people get their head around the idea that gay people feel the same way about people of their own sex?
The only difference is that you can spot a black person just be looking at them, unlike a gay person. Unless someone wants to argue that the only things you are born with are those we can all see at a glance, they are comparable. The other reason they are comparable, is because some years ago black and white people were not allowed to marry and were discouraged from mixing, and now they can marry and most people don't make a huge fuss about interracial couples. There are parallels between people opposed to against gay marriage today as those opposed to interracial marriage in the '50s, but society has moved on and the world didn't end and it wasn't the end of morality.
Yeah, cos it passed with an overwhelming majority.
Do you really agree with anything you write or are you just being cantakerous because i hurt your feelings?
You know full well why prop 8 passed, and it was all thanks to well funded Religious organisations spreading lies about the proposition in question. I was over there in CA when it was all going off, and some of the commerials they played were flat out ridiculous to anybody with even a modicum of sense.
Yes, on the same day that America elected a black president, black Americans voted to send gays to the back of the bus.
Good job on that.
Oddly enough you seem rather happy about it as well.. Mr "boom goes the dynamite"
mattyrm wrote:Oddly enough you seem rather happy about it as well.. Mr "boom goes the dynamite"
I just enjoy destroying poorly conceived arguments with facts. I'm not going to repeat my personal beliefs on the subject.
As to "hurting my feelings", don't flatter yourself. It's much more akin to a child screaming in the airplane seat behind me.
Howard A Treesong wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:Not that I accept your premise that being gay and being black are even remotely comparable in this context.
Why not? People don't choose their sexuality any more than their skin colour. Do heterosexual people chose to fancy girls? No of course not so why can't some people get their head around the idea that gay people feel the same way about people of their own sex?
The only difference is that you can spot a black person just be looking at them, unlike a gay person. Unless someone wants to argue that the only things you are born with are those we can all see at a glance, they are comparable. The other reason they are comparable, is because some years ago black and white people were not allowed to marry and were discouraged from mixing, and now they can marry and most people don't make a huge fuss about interracial couples. There are parallels between people opposed to against gay marriage today as those opposed to interracial marriage in the '50s, but society has moved on and the world didn't end and it wasn't the end of morality.
"Remotely" may have been a poor choice of words.
I am simply of the opinion that comparing the marriage issue to the hideous things that black people have had to deal with in this country trivializes the very real oppression that took place. Argue the case on it's own merits, not based on something that completely eclipses the issue in magnitude. I hope that clears any misunderstanding of my statement.
You can't tell if someone is gay by simply looking at them. Gays have never been enslaved, subject to discrimination of the same magnitude of what black people have had to deal with from the early history of this country(and the world, really) up until the very recent past and in some places still today.
So racism is worse than homophobia today because black people were enslaved in the past and gay people were not? This is about prejudice taken on it's own merits. Prejudice should not be defended it should be overcome. People don't 'choose' to be black, they don't 'choose' to be gay. There is not more rationale for disliking black people as there is gay people, it's all based on ignorance and preconceived ideas about people they've never met. I have no desire to start a competition over which is worse, the point is to draw parallels between two fears, or prejudices based on things that people are born with and have no rational basis.
There are lots of things people have that can't identify at a glance. You can't tell if a person is mentally ill or seriously ill just by looking at them. There's still no excuse for being prejudiced against them. They may not have suffered hundreds of years of enslavement, but that doesn't mean that the prejudice against them is not as irrational as racism or homophobia.
mattyrm wrote:Oddly enough you seem rather happy about it as well.. Mr "boom goes the dynamite"
I just enjoy destroying poorly conceived arguments with facts.
As to "hurting my feelings", don't flatter yourself.
Howard A Treesong wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:Not that I accept your premise that being gay and being black are even remotely comparable in this context.
Why not? People don't choose their sexuality any more than their skin colour. Do heterosexual people chose to fancy girls? No of course not so why can't some people get their head around the idea that gay people feel the same way about people of their own sex?
The only difference is that you can spot a black person just be looking at them, unlike a gay person. Unless someone wants to argue that the only things you are born with are those we can all see at a glance, they are comparable. The other reason they are comparable, is because some years ago black and white people were not allowed to marry and were discouraged from mixing, and now they can marry and most people don't make a huge fuss about interracial couples. There are parallels between people opposed to against gay marriage today as those opposed to interracial marriage in the '50s, but society has moved on and the world didn't end and it wasn't the end of morality.
"Remotely" may have been a poor choice of words.
I am simply of the opinion that comparing the marriage issue to the hideous things that black people have had to deal with in this country trivializes the very real oppression that took place. Argue the case on it's own merits, not based on something that completely eclipses the issue in magnitude. I hope that clears any misunderstanding of my statement.
Your second quote kinda falsifies your first one there.. nice job though.
Oh and thats the second time you insisted i didnt hurt your feelings despite your constant emotional responses...
You can't tell if someone is gay by simply looking at them. Gays have never been enslaved, subject to discrimination of the same magnitude of what black people have had to deal with from the early history of this country(and the world, really) up until the very recent past and in some places still today.
So racism is worse than homophobia today because black people were enslaved in the past and gay people were not?
Nice strawman. If you're not going to actually read my posts...
I didn't say it was worse exactly, I said that it weakens the argument against homophobia by comparing it to something that is demonstrably more widespread and vicious.
Argue the case against homophobia on it's own merits. It has them.
Monster Rain wrote:
I didn't say it was worse, I said that it weakens the argument against homophobia by comparing it to something that is demonstrably more widespread and vicious.
In The USA in 2010 with a black president and a Proposition 8, i would disagree with that statement as well.
Damn internet died right after my initial response. BAH!
Orkeosaurus wrote:@Wrex:
I often have a little bit of trouble understanding what you're trying to say, but I think I get the gist of it.
I didn't realize it was a problem in general, but I understand that I was vague in the post you responded to.
It's certainly acceptable to say that a person is tolerant or intolerant of a specific action or characteristic. It's also certainly accurate to say that tolerance is essentially a matter of degree; a person can merely disapprove of something or they can start trying to blow it up, and the person may be considered intolerant of it in both cases. It seemed like you were also trying to say that to simply declare any criticism of intolerance in specific instances to be intolerant itself, and thus an invalid criticism, is irrational. I would agree with this, assuming that the criticism is something besides merely that person is guilty of "intolerance".
Or as an example this:
Person 1: Gays are disgusting. They should all be killed.
Person 2: That's intolerance! Intolerance is bad, you better shut your mouth!
Is bad argument, on the part of Person 2. He's contradicting himself, because he's intolerant of Person 1's opinion himself.
Yes, we can both agree that is not a great argument.
Alternatively, this:
Person 1: Gays are disgusting. They should all be killed.
Person 2: If it was legal to kill people on account of their being perceived as "disgusting" by random citizens, society would fall into chaos and endless bloodshed. Therefore you are being too intolerant, or you like to be stabbed.
Is good logic. Person 2 explains why intolerance in this instance is bad, rather than simply declaring it to be bad due to it being intolerance. Because he has condemned a specific instance of intolerance, rather than intolerance as a general concept, he's free from hypocrisy. Furthermore, if Person 1 disagrees with him, they now have a real subject to discuss, instead of endless bickering about ill-defined concepts. (I'm not intolerant! You're the one who's being intolerant! Intolerant of my freedom to have family values! Etc, etc.)
Sounds about right, and that is not to say that we have heard such suggestions in this thread.
Now, one could argue that "tolerance", as a virtue, isn't supposed to mean "tolerance of everything" but is rather supposed to mean "relative tolerance" or "tolerance in general". However, I see this definition as one that falls apart fairly quickly. Using this definition naturally requires us to establish what things a person who is "tolerant" is tolerant of specifically. However, because "tolerance" is being considered a virtue, every individual would want the pool of things that a person who is "tolerant" is tolerant of to correspond to the things that they themselves are tolerant of.
Relatively tolerant as compared to lifestyles and/or perspectives our culture has been used to.
You can be a generally and/or relatively tolerant person. You don't even have to compare yourself to a Nazi or some such nonsensical extreme to do so. In many cases you can simply look at the generation before you and notice the differences. I'm pretty sure we can agree on that.
What you would then get is, for instance, a liberal saying that the areas in which "tolerance" is important are homosexuality, recreational drug use, obscenity, and so forth, while a conservative says that the areas in which "tolerance" is important are gun ownership, traditional values, creationism, and so on. For every possible position a person may be tolerant towards (homosexuality) there exists a contrary position that a person cannot be tolerant of at the same time (the belief that homosexuality cannot be tolerated), so you can't merely add up the subjects a person is "tolerant" in and see who wins that way.
Wins what? Ideas shape society, and it is not, in my opinion, necessary to distinguish between the win/lose when it comes to culture.
I disagree with person A. They, in return, disagree with me. There is disagreement there. There are multiple scales involved concerning what tolerance means, and how you quantify it. Not to say that people actually measure tolerance/intolerance, but overall they do appear to do so. It may surprise some people when they really sit down and compare crimes and what they consider necessary punishments. It is pretty easy to say that you dislike something, but actually thinking through how much you dislike it can be difficult in many cases.
You could also theoretically define tolerance as "tolerance of things that are good for society", or something like that, but this inevitably simplifies to "tolerance of things which deserve to be tolerated", which is obviously begging the question.
In many cases it really seems to come down to how intolerant one should be in a given situation. Should there be a gang in SF running around exacting vigilante justice on gay bashers? Most would consider that a bad solution, but others would actually support the endeavor for various reasons. How similar are the vigilantes to the gay bashers? Many would be offended by my suggestion here, but it isn't hard to see why I would suggest that vigilante justice isn't exactly a reasoned response that will resolve a problem. It could very well cause many more problems. The story is from 1973 BTW, just to be clear.
Tolerance can clearly be an evasive concept, and I do not mean to suggest that one should do nothing but "be tolerant". You can be polite, and reasoned, and generally tolerant as well. You can measure your response before your deliver it, and in doing so you can recognize your own intolerance. Not to say that intolerance is never called for, but overall I do at least try to understand perspectives outside of my own. Clearly, I cannot accept every idea I hear, but one does not need to react in either extreme to be at least somewhat tolerant of other peoples view.
Some stuff I just flatly disagree with, though.
Oh boy, what a long, rambley post. Feel free to ignore it, folks!
I pretty much understood everything you were trying to say, but my net didn't feel like cooperating last night.
No need to ignore it, and it wasn't exactly rambling either, but it is discussing a pretty complicated issue. Often enough you actually need to draw much of this stuff out to make it clear. Oh, and I'm not a sociologist or some such either!
The important way to look at intolerance is to consider the degree to which it is private and personal, or affects other people and society as a whole.
For example, I don't like marzipan.
As an employer, should I be allowed to refuse employment to people who like marzipan?
Should people who like marzipan be allowed to refuse employment to people who dislike it?
What if marzipan is against kosher? What if it is a holy sacrament in the religion of Ba'hai?
Suppose I decide to campaign to have marzipan banned from distribution. There are plenty of people who love marzipan, but if they were the minority, they could lose their access to marzipan through the tyranny of the majority.
What if it is thought that liking marzipan pre-disposes men towards raping grandmothers (who bake a lot of cakes)?
Supposing it is discovered that marzipan makes you clever/stupid?
Did I say I didn't like homosexuals? Did I say I didn't like drug users? Did I say I didn't like wife cheaters? NO..I said I didn't like the choices they made and don't feel comfortable around them. Manchu explained it really well, not sure why you can't understand that.
You seem to feel that because someone told you that homosexuals are born that way, that everyone else should just accept that view. And if they don't accept that narrow minded view they are bigots.
generalgrog wrote:Wow tolerant people can be so intolerant.
What a joke. I'm calling you on your "discomfort" around gays that you are happy to excuse or that you even think is justified. If you wanted to change I would be more positive, but you dodge behind this "I have not got problem with homosexuality only the choices they make". But you ignore the fact that no one chooses to be gay, that's just the way they are. I suppose they could theoretically 'choose' to never have a same sex relationship, do you think that is a reasonable or viable demand to make of them? Making great and unnecessary demands upon some people and not others is the basis of discrimination.
Perhaps if you described in what way homosexuals 'flaunt' themselves we'd be a bit closer to why you feel uncomfortable.
You seem to feel that because someone told you that homosexuals are born that way, that everyone else should just accept that view. And if they don't accept that narrow minded view they are bigots.
Not at all. It's being prejudiced and discriminatory that makes one a bigot. And declaring a discomfort that you are unwilling to address and a claim that having the relationships that come most naturally should be denied to homosexuals for fear of you branding them a sinner and the like is prejudiced and discriminatory.
What makes you so sure that people are born with any sexual orientation? Either way it's not expressed in early childhood, people don't know their sexual attractions until they are more mature. I don't know who you think this "someone" was that told me stuff, I do read and there's a fair bit of scientific material to say that sexual orientation is, to at least a considerable extent, dependent on genetics. So while your sexual attraction may only become apparent in later childhood your orientation is heavily influenced by whatever you were born with as well as a combination of other environmental factors like hormone levels in the womb.
Heterosexuality is far more widely, loudly, visible and intrusively "Flaunted" then homosexuality could ever hope to be. Assuming such a thing can really be really be "Flaunted".
Media of all sorts saturates us with heterosexual imagery from all sides, subtle, explicit and everywhere in between. For example just think of beer, jewelery and perfume commercials if those aren't in-your-face-straigtness I don't know what it is.
Heterosexuality is presumed in everyday face to face interactions, and just about any conversation about the "Opposite" sex, or romance is almost certainly going to take place in that context ("Whoa, do you see that hot dude/chick"). This happens visibly in both public and private settings.
The images we hold and expectations we have about something as simple as holiday gift-giving practices scream louder and farther than even the most flamboyant and extravagant pride parade.
Making a point about being who you are when everyone and everything assumes you're something else isn't "Flaunting", it's just doing what little you can to even exist in any cultural sense.
Kilkrazy wrote:The important way to look at intolerance is to consider the degree to which it is private and personal, or affects other people and society as a whole.
generalgrog wrote:For me personally I am uncomfortable around gay people. Why is this? Because of the way they flaunt it and rub it in my nose.
What are you talking about? I have met many gay people, and not a single one has "flaunted" their sexuality like it was a flag. I'm seriously confused about how you've come to this conclusion. Hell, the surprise of finding out one of my oldest friends was gay was massive, since I thought I could generally predict his reactions and personality. Clearly you have either jumped to a conclusion somewhere or met some very strange gay people. They certainly don't flaunt their sexuality any more than straight people flaunt theirs.
Howard A Treesong wrote:I would try to address that and better myself by overcoming it. I wouldn't play the victim and demand that people accept my right to be racist, or that others accept my prejudice was legitimate.
Does he demand that you accept it though? It seems like he holds his views regardless of your thoughts on the subject...
Not that I accept your premise that being gay and being black are even remotely comparable in this context.
Depends if you are with the premise surely?
You don't CHOOSE to be gay, you are born that way. I dont choose to like women, i just do.
You dont choose to be black, you are born that way.
Why is it not remotely comparable?
Ahhh, but note how few people genuinely claim homosexuality is a choice. Now, I am quite happily bisexual myself. I prefer the ladies, but have dalliances with other guys now and again. So there, being genuinely attracted to both sexes, is where I have a choice. But those who are adamant that they themselves are straight...and homosexuals have a choice....makes me wonder just who it is they're trying to fool, and what it is that makes them so sure....
I just got in from the boozer, so excuse typos..er..or total misunderstanding.
Are you replying to me, HAT or MR?
Im confused... but im leathered so thats to be expected..
I didnt say that homosexuals have a choice! I said we have no choice in the matter at all, and i think when people say you make a "lifestyle choice" they are utterly delluding themselves.
You are gay, straight or bi, but there isnt any choice in the matter, and im certain of that, because i dont choose to like girls, i just do!
Wasn't saying owt about you good sir, just implying that those homophobes who insist it is a choice must surely be speaking from a particular frame of reference (i.e. their own sexual attraction to their gender)
I love women, and i dont find men sexually attractive in any way shape or form.
So, isnt that proof enough?
Surely that is evidence of ..er.. i know its the wrong word for humans and biological creatures but.. you know..a "preprogammed" sexual orientation, rather than just a "life style choice" which could swing in any direction?
Arctik_Firangi wrote:Okay, but if one chooses to repress their homosexual feelings, for whatever reason, are they not exercising choice with regards to their sexuality?
Well yes, but that isn't really the issue that was being addressed. You make a choice about your sexuality every time you choose not to rub your dick on your neighbors newspaper. That choice is influenced by your sexual drives (You're not attracted to the newspaper) and social repercussions (nobody likes a newspaper-dicker) and personal risk (public dicking will get you sent to prison). You could similarly choose to do so in spite of those things, though most would likely call that a poor decision. However no matter if you choose to do so or not, you are not choosing to be or not be attracted to the newspaper. Similarly a homosexual can choose to abstain from sex, but they still aren't choosing to be or not be homosexual they will remain homosexual regardless of what actions they choose to take. Just as a heterosexual doesn't choose to be so, regardless if they decided to take a vow of celibacy or whatever.
Arctik_Firangi wrote:Okay, but if one chooses to repress their homosexual feelings, for whatever reason, are they not exercising choice with regards to their sexuality?
Well yes, but that isn't really the issue that was being addressed. You make a choice about your sexuality every time you choose not to rub your dick on your neighbors newspaper. That choice is influenced by your sexual drives (You're not attracted to the newspaper) and social repercussions (nobody likes a newspaper-dicker) and personal risk (public dicking will get you sent to prison). You could similarly choose to do so in spite of those things, though most would likely call that a poor decision. However no matter if you choose to do so or not, you are not choosing to be or not be attracted to the newspaper. Similarly a homosexual can choose to abstain from sex, but they still aren't choosing to be or not be homosexual they will remain homosexual regardless of what actions they choose to take. Just as a heterosexual doesn't choose to be so, regardless if they decided to take a vow of celibacy or whatever.
Fine. There are various circumstantial differences between natural urges and actual sexuality that are defined by choice. The term 'homosexual' is being used here in a fashion broader than its meaning.
Arctik_Firangi wrote:Fine. There are various circumstantial differences between natural urges and actual sexuality that are defined by choice. The term 'homosexual' is being used here in a fashion broader than its meaning.
Homosexual: One who is sexually attracted exclusively to members of the same sex* as oneself.
A homosexual woman who chooses to marry and have sex with a man because that is the "Normal" thing to do and she wants to be a part of what she was taught was an ideal family growing up isn't any less homosexual than the homosexual woman who chooses spend her whole life dating other women casually and manages to get to age 40 before she ever sees a penis in an unfortunate incident involving her father, the shower, and a thanksgiving turkey being deep-fat fried by her uncle.
*Granted, sex and gender are slightly more complex issues than we tend to commonly think of them as. I'm well aware that strictly thinking in terms of a male/female exclusive binary isn't exactly the most accurate way to go about things. It's "Good Enough" for these purposes though.
Chongara, I'm aware of the political definitions of homosexuality, and your humourous diatribe is not unappreciated... but mere attraction is not enough to accurately determine one's sexualilty. For the sake of a common frame of perspective, all humans are 'sexual'. 'Sexuality' as a whole concerns both sex-acts and sexual attraction in equal proportion, and an 'exclusively attracted' person (same-sex or not) can still allow a sex-act to happen outside of their 'preference' by means of choice. Sex is not always a product of attraction, but it is always sexual. Reference to one's sexuality must encompass all or it is irrelevant.
I see 'Homosexuality is not a choice' as an excuse that damages the appreciation of homosexual urges for what they really are. It's a political statement. It shouldn't have to be an excuse, but it is. It is certainly a matter of choice, and the only determinable alternative is that homosexuals and heterosexuals alike are forced into their behaviours (which, in terms of society, may be the case). 'I was born this way' forces an observer to define those examples of sexuality as something other than what they really are, and fails to put the matter into any real perspective.
Sexuality is a circumstance that can always involve choice. Homosexuality is a definition.
generalgrog wrote:Wow tolerant people can be so intolerant.
What a joke. I'm calling you on your "discomfort" around gays that you are happy to excuse or that you even think is justified. If you wanted to change I would be more positive, but you dodge behind this "I have not got problem with homosexuality only the choices they make". But you ignore the fact that no one chooses to be gay, that's just the way they are. I suppose they could theoretically 'choose' to never have a same sex relationship, do you think that is a reasonable or viable demand to make of them? Making great and unnecessary demands upon some people and not others is the basis of discrimination.
How do you think a person should deal with a pedophile?
EDIT: I should clarify my post. It seems obvious that pedophiles do not "choose" to be sexually attracted to children, as it's a huge inconvenience for them. So no one chooses to be a pedophile, that's just the way they are. Now, said pedophiles could 'choose' to never have a relationship with prepubescent children, but do you think that is a reasonable or viable demand to make of them? Making great and unnecessary demands upon some people and not others is the basis of discrimination.
Well, I'm sure you would say that yes, it is reasonable to demand that pedophiles refrain from relationships with prepubescent children; such relationships are immoral. However, GG thinks that homosexual relationships are immoral (though he no doubt considers them far less immoral than pedophilliac relationships). You may instead say that what matters is harm; a pedophile in a relationship with a child is harming the child, a homosexual is probably not harming their partner. You may also draw the distinction as being one of consent; a child cannot consent to be a relationship with an adult, because their mental faculties are not so developed. A homosexual can consent to be in a relationship with another homosexual, as they are adults, after all. The problem with both of these rationales is that to a religious person, harm and consent are only of secondary importance, at least in terms of objective morality (rather than, say, state policy). What is moral and immoral is determined by God's will. God does not wish us to harm each other, and that's why harming each other is immoral. Except in certain circumstances, of course; you can shoot an escaping murderer, etc. Similarly God does not want people to have sex with other people of their gender.
Your post fails to address this issue sufficiently. You're presupposing that homosexuality is no big deal, but if God prohibits it, it is a big deal. There's no deal bigger than disobeying God's will, he's the ultimate judge of good and evil. And your methodology is otherwise insufficient at making homosexuality moral but pedophilia immoral. So you're at the same impasse you were before.
Just mix it up a bit - where does paedophilia fit in to all this sexuality discussion? I'm obviously not trying to say that it's the same as being gay, or asking if anyone is actually in FAVOUR of it!
What I mean is - is it considered to be a choice? Acting on it certainly is. An evil choice. But if people can't help having that sexual orientation and are born that way, are they still evil?
To my mind, yes. But it's an interesting thought.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Ninja'd by Orkeo!
Actually, whereas some Paedophiles are indeed victims (never thought I'd use that word in this context) of their urges, but for many, it's purely a power thing.
Indeed, it is not unknown for some with such urges to seek help and make themselves known to authorities without ever having acted upon them.
generalgrog wrote:Wow tolerant people can be so intolerant.
What a joke. I'm calling you on your "discomfort" around gays that you are happy to excuse or that you even think is justified. If you wanted to change I would be more positive, but you dodge behind this "I have not got problem with homosexuality only the choices they make". But you ignore the fact that no one chooses to be gay, that's just the way they are. I suppose they could theoretically 'choose' to never have a same sex relationship, do you think that is a reasonable or viable demand to make of them? Making great and unnecessary demands upon some people and not others is the basis of discrimination.
How do you think a person should deal with a pedophile?
I accept that paedophiles cannot 'choose' their attraction, but I'm wary of drawing parallels between homosexuality and paedophilia for the purposes of a morality debate, partly because there are quite a few people who seem to conflate the two, meaning that they think that homosexual men can't be trusted around children.
The simple difference is that children cannot consent to a sexual relationship, they haven't the maturity or understanding to do that. Whereas a homosexual adult relationship takes place between consenting adults and there is no abuse angle, so I agree with what you go on to say.
The problem with both of these rationales is that to a religious person, harm and consent are only of secondary importance, at least in terms of objective morality (rather than, say, state policy). What is moral and immoral is determined by God's will. God does not wish us to harm each other, and that's why harming each other is immoral. Except in certain circumstances, of course; you can shoot an escaping murderer, etc. Similarly God does not want people to have sex with other people of their gender.
Your post fails to address this issue sufficiently. You're presupposing that homosexuality is no big deal, but if God prohibits it, it is a big deal. There's no deal bigger than disobeying God's will, he's the ultimate judge of good and evil. And your methodology is otherwise insufficient at making homosexuality moral but pedophilia immoral. So you're at the same impasse you were before.
I can't change what he wants to believe from a holy book. There are lots of different religions, and many interpretations within them. I can only argue it from logic and basic human respect, and when you compare homosexuality with paedophilia and appreciate the issues of abuse and consent, well that is sufficient to declare homosexuality moral and paedophilia immoral. The bible doesn't offer a logical or argued position, it's merely a dogma. My methodology is fine, if you want to argue things from a more unbiased logical position over issues about 'harm' and 'abuse'. If he's happy in his mind to counter that with the literal writings of an ancient text then there's very little I can do.
Plenty of christians are capable of reading the bible and not coming to the conclusion that homosexuality is wrong. So that makes me question why some do. The bible is not all that clear on a lot of things, and I would suggest that lots of people are capable of seeing what they want to in it, and unconsciously pick out things that confirm their own prejudices. There a lot of laws laid down in the bible but I don't see people following the whole bible literally on all counts. According to the bible you can stone your children to death for disobeying you. The parts usually used to condemn homosexuality are in Leviticus, and while some people hang a lot on the anti-homosexuality parts, they try to overlook the other bits about not wearing clothes made from two fibres or eating shellfish.
Howard A Treesong wrote:I accept that paedophiles cannot 'choose' their attraction, but I'm wary of drawing parallels between homosexuality and paedophilia for the purposes of a morality debate, partly because there are quite a few people who seem to conflate the two, meaning that they think that homosexual men can't be trusted around children.
I can see the concern there; I think it still serves as a useful example because pedophilia is pretty much universally recognized as bad, and so it allows contrast with heterosexuality (which pretty much everyone accepts as okay).
I can't change what he wants to believe from a holy book. There are lots of different religions, and many interpretations within them. I can only argue it from logic and basic human respect, and when you compare homosexuality with paedophilia and appreciate the issues of abuse and consent, well that is sufficient to declare homosexuality moral and paedophilia immoral. The bible doesn't offer a logical or argued position, it's merely a dogma. My methodology is fine, if you want to argue things from a more unbiased logical position over issues about 'harm' and 'abuse'. If he's happy in his mind to counter that with the literal writings of an ancient text then there's very little I can do.
Perhaps. I'm not religious myself. On the other hand, I don't know if it's possible to have "unbiased" ethical conceptions; if God isn't the source for an objective code of morality, what is?
Plenty of christians are capable of reading the bible and not coming to the conclusion that homosexuality is wrong. So that makes me question why some do. The bible is not all that clear on a lot of things, and I would suggest that lots of people are capable of seeing what they want to in it, and unconsciously pick out things that confirm their own prejudices. There a lot of laws laid down in the bible but I don't see people following the whole bible literally on all counts. According to the bible you can stone your children to death for disobeying you. The parts usually used to condemn homosexuality are in Leviticus, and while some people hang a lot on the anti-homosexuality parts, they try to overlook the other bits about not wearing clothes made from two fibres or eating shellfish.
I agree on Leviticus being a poor basis for the belief; from what I know, the laws of Leviticus only apply to Jews living within the promised land to begin with.
I've heard that some early members of the church (Peter? Paul?) opposed homosexuality in some of their writings, and that became the basis for opposition to it later on. And of course God condemned Sodom and Gomorrah, which were cities where homosexuality was common; however, rape was common there as well, so one could argue they were on the hit list either way.
Orkeosaurus wrote: God condemned Sodom and Gomorrah, which were cities where homosexuality was common; however, rape was common there as well, so one could argue they were on the hit list either way.
It was in Sodom. I never have found out what Gomorrahy is, when I find out what it is I intend to try it out some day.
Orkeosaurus wrote:Perhaps. I'm not religious myself. On the other hand, I don't know if it's possible to have "unbiased" ethical conceptions; if God isn't the source for an objective code of morality, what is?
Well now that's a can of worms. But it is true that most societies share similar rules on killing and stealing, there are no entirely amoral societies. I imagine we had to form morals from the earliest days of modern man. Religion is a tool to enfore morals and to explain the world, and when science didn't exist it was all they had to explain everything going on. But today people who aren't religious are moral people. People following the same religions have different morals. So morality is something that comes from many sources, and your morality is shaped by education, your parents, the people you associate with and wider society. But with the bible being so vague on different things, it's hugely open to interpretation. Some people read it and take one thing, and other people take another. It's not an exact guide. So when reading something what else are they drawing upon to make their evaluations? Well that's all atheists so to build up their morality. They don't have the bible, but they have everything else that religious people use. The bible isn't the sole source of morality.
I've heard that some early members of the church (Peter? Paul?) opposed homosexuality in some of their writings, and that became the basis for opposition to it later on. And of course God condemned Sodom and Gomorrah, which were cities where homosexuality was common; however, rape was common there as well, so one could argue they were on the hit list either way.
Those stories are dreadful for any kind of guide to morality. It goes that a couple of angels come to the city and seek refuge with Lot. But the crowds gather and demand he turn them out so that they may "know them". Lot refuses, which is very good of him, but then says that the crowd can have his virgin daughters instead. Ok not so good. But the crowd refuse, lucky for the daughters then. Later when the family leave the city is destroyed, Lot's wife looks back presumably in sympathy and gets turned into a pillar of salt for her trouble. Lot and his daughters end up living in a cave. Eventually the daughters decide they need children, so get him drunk and have sex with him so as to have incestuous children. So umm...yeah it's a lovely story.
Those stories are dreadful for any kind of guide to morality. It goes that a couple of angels come to the city and seek refuge with Lot. But the crowds gather and demand he turn them out so that they may "know them". Lot refuses, which is very good of him, but then says that the crowd can have his virgin daughters instead. Ok not so good. But the crowd refuse, lucky for the daughters then. Later when the family leave the city is destroyed, Lot's wife looks back presumably in sympathy and gets turned into a pillar of salt for her trouble. Lot and his daughters end up living in a cave. Eventually the daughters decide they need children, so get him drunk and have sex with him so as to have incestuous children. So umm...yeah it's a lovely story.
Ugh. I'm curios, was there some kind of final "And the morale of this story is..." paragraph? It's been years since I've read something from the bible, so I basically forgot how things are actually written there.
I just found it interesting that the wife looking back to the city is turned into a statue for her heresy while the story ends without the incest girls and her father being unharmed? Or did I miss something?
Orkeosaurus wrote: God condemned Sodom and Gomorrah, which were cities where homosexuality was common; however, rape was common there as well, so one could argue they were on the hit list either way.
It was in Sodom. I never have found out what Gomorrahy is, when I find out what it is I intend to try it out some day.
Perhaps it's unhistorical to think of it as being a moral parable at all?
I mean, ancient Greek mythology is usually just "here's what happened; isn't that interesting?" If there's a moral to it, it's usually something along the lines of "try not to get the gods mad at you". And after all, to a group of people who draw no distinctions between "history" and "myth", why would there need to be a moral?
Orkeosaurus wrote: God condemned Sodom and Gomorrah, which were cities where homosexuality was common; however, rape was common there as well, so one could argue they were on the hit list either way.
It was in Sodom. I never have found out what Gomorrahy is, when I find out what it is I intend to try it out some day.
Meh. A bit PG-13 for my tastes. I was hopeing for something with a little more spunk.
George Spiggott wrote:Meh. A bit PG-13 for my tastes. I was hopeing for something with a little more spunk.
*Insert Dark Eldar here.* Heh.
Orkeosaurus wrote:Perhaps it's unhistorical to think of it as being a moral parable at all?
I mean, ancient Greek mythology is usually just "here's what happened; isn't that interesting?" If there's a moral to it, it's usually something along the lines of "try not to get the gods mad at you". And after all, to a group of people who draw no distinctions between "history" and "myth", why would there need to be a moral?
Howard A Treesong wrote:What a joke. I'm calling you on your "discomfort" around gays that you are happy to excuse or that you even think is justified. If you wanted to change I would be more positive, but you dodge behind this "I have not got problem with homosexuality only the choices they make".
OK this is getting ridiculous, and frankly I'm getting quite tired of you misquoting me and taking me out of context. I never said "I have no problem with homosexuality". The point I have made several times that you seem incapable of grasping is that people can love the sinner but hate the sin.
If you aren't willing to discuss the issue intelligently and genuinely, than there is really no point in my continuing discussing the issue with you.
Orkeosaurus wrote:Perhaps. I'm not religious myself. On the other hand, I don't know if it's possible to have "unbiased" ethical conceptions; if God isn't the source for an objective code of morality, what is?
I don't think it is. If you're making ethical judgments you're choosing between right and wrong, or good and bad which necessarily involve a bias towards one option or the other.
The notion of the "unbiased choice" is nonsense. You can't choose without bias.
GG wrote:OK this is getting ridiculous, and frankly I'm getting quite tired of you misquoting me and taking me out of context. I never said "I have no problem with homosexuality". The point I have made several times that you seem incapable of grasping is that people can love the sinner but hate the sin.
If you aren't willing to discuss the issue intelligently and genuinely, than there is really no point in my continuing discussing the issue with you. .
What I am having an issue with is what "love the sinner but hate the sin" appears to mean in a real life situation.
You seem to be suggesting that you are okay with homosexuals, but not homosexuality, and to be completely clear, that makes no sense to me at all.
It essentially appears to be no less than rhetoric. I hope that I have been clear, and I am really trying to be as polite as I can.
generalgrog wrote: The point I have made several times that you seem incapable of grasping is that people can love the sinner but hate the sin.
The problem, Grog, is that in this case the identity of the sinner is defined by the sin, so saying that you can separate the two is disingenuous.
You're basically arguing that you love X but don't love what X is, which is of course X. Its nonsensical.
In plain language demonstration: I love Jack the Ripper, but don't love people that kill hookers, are British, and wield knives.
Its claiming that a person is somehow not constituted by their actions, which is dangerously close to claiming that you love everyone because you assume they would really be just like you if they simply hadn't made mistakes.
But what if GG loves all human beings? Or assumes that all human beings are worthy of love until it is known that they've done something truly awful (i.e. something worse than homosexuality)? I would think that in this case he could love homosexuals, but hate homosexuality. Assuming that said homosexuals are humans, who aren't also serial killers, and so on.
Monster Rain wrote:
So you're insinuating that homosexuality is on the same level as serial murder?
No, I'm stating that if you hate a category of things (people who behave in a homosexual manner) you cannot claim to love members of that category (homosexuals).
I just picked Jack the Ripper because he is a person that people would generally consider morally reprehensible.
Orkeosaurus wrote:
But what if GG loves all human beings? Or assumes that all human beings are worthy of love until it is known that they've done something truly awful (i.e. something worse than homosexuality)? I would think that in this case he could love homosexuals, but hate homosexuality. Assuming that said homosexuals are humans, who aren't also serial killers, and so on.
I don't think so. How do you separate homosexuality from homosexuals such that you can hate one and not the other?
Actions do not exist without people to take them.
Edit: rewritten due to misreading of Orkeo's post.
Orkeo wrote:But what if GG loves all human beings? Or assumes that all human beings are worthy of love until it is known that they've done something truly awful (i.e. something worse than homosexuality)? I would think that in this case he could love homosexuals, but hate homosexuality. Assuming that said homosexuals are humans, who aren't also serial killers, and so on. The only way it makes sense to me is if I replace the concept of "homosexual" with "being human".
It leaves some pretty obvious questions, though, and one need not bring extremes into the situation to identify them.
Loving people but hating their actions is not exactly what I see him suggesting, but it is certainly possible. Still doesn't make much sense to me, to be frank. People are more or less the sum of their actions. Not purely defined as such, rather, that is the main contribution to my opinion of them... which can be taken as much more than I have said, but in this case it really isn't.
People are the sum of their actions plus a variety of other factors.
dogma wrote:I just picked Jack the Ripper because he is a person that people would generally consider morally reprehensible.
Well, he was pretty much a douche.
Orkeo wrote:But what if GG loves all human beings? Or assumes that all human beings are worthy of love until it is known that they've done something truly awful (i.e. something worse than homosexuality)? I would think that in this case he could love homosexuals, but hate homosexuality. Assuming that said homosexuals are humans, who aren't also serial killers, and so on.
I don't think so. How do you separate homosexuality from homosexuals such that you can hate one and not the other?
Actions do not exist without people to take them.
Edit: rewritten due to misreading of Orkeo's post.
Wait... let me go back and read through this again.
Yeah, I still don't entirely get how that is possible. I mean I get the concept, but the actual use of such an idea seems a very rare occurrence.
There are very few people as compassionate as that on this little rock. It is a gift, in some ways, to have such conviction.
Loving thy neighbor as oneself is a principle doctrine of Christianity. So yes if a jack the ripper were alive and I knew him and knew he was killing people I would call the cops to remove the threat form society, but that wouldn't mean I didn't love the person any less. Ministers do this all the time when they minister in the prisons. They are called to minister to murderers, rapists, thieves and pimps. Do you think they love convicts any less or more than someone that is not incarcerated?
Hmm. I think there's definitely a difference between saying that you hate people who are homosexual, and that you hate homosexuality itself, from a purely aesthetic standpoint. In other words, I can say that I find gays holding hands to be disgusting, but that I don't find gay people who aren't doing anything "gay" to be disgusting. I think this distinction may be a bit harder to make when it comes to ethics, though. Can behavior be immoral by itself? Immoral not in the sense that it makes a person immoral (or less moral), but in the sense that it would be immoral even if detached from everyone who might engage in it? This seems odd. You could perhaps say it's destructive, or bad, but saying that if the Pentagon is destroyed by a meteor then this destruction is immoral seems weird.
Then again, say we were look at lying. I think we can postulate that everyone (or all adults, at least, who aren't some sort of wolf-raised hermits) has lied at some point in time; if some people haven't they're surely the exception. Nonetheless, it doesn't seem too strange to say that you hate lying, but that you don't hate (or even "love") everyone.
I think the ultimate conclusion I'm coming to is that it is possible to hate homosexuality and love homosexuals, but that to do so requires that you love homosexuals less than you love other people, all else being equal.
Orkeo wrote:I think the ultimate conclusion I'm coming to is that it is possible to hate homosexuality and love homosexuals, but that to do so requires that you love homosexuals less than you love other people, all else being equal.
That sounds about right to me. I'm not sure I believe so much in the power of aesthetics in this case, though. It may be relevant in some way, but I have a hard time matching it up with what I consider to be the reality in general, and no, I am not specifically discussing you, GG.
Well, my reference to aesthetics was sort of to say, you may think an action is gross without really connecting it to the person who performed it, in the same way that you may think an action is destructive without connecting it to the person who performed it, but you can't really do this in ethics. You can't have unethical behavior without blame.
generalgrog wrote:Loving thy neighbor as oneself is a principle doctrine of Christianity. So yes if a jack the ripper were alive and I knew him and knew he was killing people I would call the cops to remove the threat form society, but that wouldn't mean I didn't love the person any less. Ministers do this all the time when they minister in the prisons.
I would argue that you're either not using the word 'love' correctly (because, really, no one loves everyone in the world), or you don't hate murder.
Note, I will absolutely claim that I don't hate murder. Honestly, I don't think hating actions is even possible. We might hate doing things, but hating the action as an abstract concept just seems nonsensical.
generalgrog wrote:
They are called to minister to murderers, rapists, thieves and pimps. Do you think they love convicts any less or more than someone that is not incarcerated?
As a PK, I can tell you that the answer is either yes, or no if the pastor in question does not limit compassion to those he loves.
Orkeosaurus wrote:
I think the ultimate conclusion I'm coming to is that it is possible to hate homosexuality and love homosexuals, but that to do so requires that you love homosexuals less than you love other people, all else being equal.
Yes, that is a much more eloquent way of getting at the point I was attempting to make.
Though I would also add that I think that sort of love, defined by a hierarchical ranking, seems strange to me.
Orkeosaurus wrote:Well, my reference to aesthetics was sort of to say, you may think an action is gross without really connecting it to the person who performed it, in the same way that you may think an action is destructive without connecting it to the person who performed it, but you can't really do this in ethics. You can't have unethical behavior without blame.
I was just saying that by bringing the contrast in you link aesthetics to the discussion. Maybe we have been discussing something along those lines this whole time, but I did get your main point.
I guess I'll try and explain what I mean by "love". The new testament was written in greek, and greek is a more intricate and precise language than english. For example there are multiple greek words for love.
Eros=erotic love(has to do with sex)
Phileo= Brotherly love (has to do with feelings)
Agape= Godly/unconditional love (has to do with the mind)
When I refer to loving the sinner and hating the sin I am referring to the agape form of love. it's an acknowledgment that this person is a human being and is deserving of compassion. Compassion doesn't = enabler.
That ultimately depends upon the nature of the thing you are expressing compassion for.
If homosexuality is not a chosen path, then expressing compassion for homosexuals is enabling them. Well, unless you consider oppressing them to be alleviating their suffering.
Under Christian doctrine, everyone is born into a state of sin owing to Original Sin. If I am correct, baptism absolves this.
The point of life subsequently is to avoid sinning. Being homosexual is not a sin in itself, but it is a temptation which leads to sin when indulged in.
GG is uncomfortable with homosexuals openly expressing their sexual inclination since it obviously is an sin.
At the same time, most Christians believe that all sinners can be saved if they repent. Consequently a good Christian should hate the sin, but love the sinner.
I don't think anyone failed to understand GG's point. I believe they merely disagreed with his understanding of what constitutes a 'right' mode of conduct or, as in my case, don't believe that a right mode of conduct exists.
GG wrote:OK this is getting ridiculous, and frankly I'm getting quite tired of you misquoting me and taking me out of context. I never said "I have no problem with homosexuality". The point I have made several times that you seem incapable of grasping is that people can love the sinner but hate the sin.
If you aren't willing to discuss the issue intelligently and genuinely, than there is really no point in my continuing discussing the issue with you. .
What I am having an issue with is what "love the sinner but hate the sin" appears to mean in a real life situation.
You seem to be suggesting that you are okay with homosexuals, but not homosexuality, and to be completely clear, that makes no sense to me at all.
It essentially appears to be no less than rhetoric. I hope that I have been clear, and I am really trying to be as polite as I can.
Wrexasaur hits it on the head. Sexuality is an integral part of anyone's identity, it's not like a choice of hobby but something that cannot be separated from a person easily, it is a fundamental part of who they are. To claim that you can separate the two is indeed disingenuous. A heterosexual person is free to pursue those relationships that make them happy, but a homosexual person is not. In fact the homosexual person is told to live a life of celibacy and not have any relationships. Now maybe people like GG can convince themselves that even though gay people make them "uncomfortable" to have around, they do "love" them, and merely hate the "sin". But honestly, that's like saying you like disabled people but wouldn't like the fact they use a wheelchair or something. That's how fundamental a part sexuality is to a person, you can't seriously expect a person to never have any sexual contact with the gender they are attracted to across their entire life. So while you may "love" the sinner, you are still prejudiced towards them, their presence makes you 'uncomfortable', you talk in highly negative terms like claiming they 'flaunt' themselves, and because at the root of all this you wish to deny them a fundamental part of their existence, that is to love and be loved by people of the gender to which they are attracted.
GG claims that I won't discuss the issue intelligently and genuinely, but that's just a smokescreen for the fact I've been writing detailed responses to various things said not only by him but others, while he only pops in to say the odd paragraph which try to deflect criticism or play the victim. The unanswered questions pile up, namely; how to homosexuals 'flaunt' themselves? Why refuse flat out that people are born gay when a lot of scientific research would indicate otherwise? Why conclude from the bible that homosexual sex is wrong, but conveniently ignore all the other stuff that's a bit silly? Many people do not get the anti-homosexual message from the bible. Out of interest, is it the fact that gay sex isn't used for creating children? In which case what are your feelings on contraception, masturbation, and oral/anal sex in heterosexual couples?
dogma wrote:
Orkeosaurus wrote:Perhaps. I'm not religious myself. On the other hand, I don't know if it's possible to have "unbiased" ethical conceptions; if God isn't the source for an objective code of morality, what is?
I don't think it is. If you're making ethical judgments you're choosing between right and wrong, or good and bad which necessarily involve a bias towards one option or the other.
The notion of the "unbiased choice" is nonsense. You can't choose without bias.
We could have a whole thread as big as this about the basis for morality. There is no universal morality, but as far as I can see, things like treating people as equally and fairly is a very good place to start. To place a few dogmatic rules taken from an ancient holy book as having precedence above plain old fairness and equality is just ridiculous. It also seems like a convenient way to devolve responsibility for thoughts and actions, instead of having to justify your reasoning empirically, or at least having a bash at questioning yourself, you can simply say "oh this book told me so".
GG wrote:OK this is getting ridiculous, and frankly I'm getting quite tired of you misquoting me and taking me out of context. I never said "I have no problem with homosexuality". The point I have made several times that you seem incapable of grasping is that people can love the sinner but hate the sin.
If you aren't willing to discuss the issue intelligently and genuinely, than there is really no point in my continuing discussing the issue with you. .
What I am having an issue with is what "love the sinner but hate the sin" appears to mean in a real life situation.
You seem to be suggesting that you are okay with homosexuals, but not homosexuality, and to be completely clear, that makes no sense to me at all.
It essentially appears to be no less than rhetoric. I hope that I have been clear, and I am really trying to be as polite as I can.
Wrexasaur hits it on the head. Sexuality is an integral part of anyone's identity, it's not like a choice of hobby but something that cannot be separated from a person easily, it is a fundamental part of who they are. To claim that you can separate the two is indeed disingenuous. A heterosexual person is free to pursue those relationships that make them happy, but a homosexual person is not. In fact the homosexual person is told to live a life of celibacy and not have any relationships. Now maybe people like GG can convince themselves that even though gay people make them "uncomfortable" to have around, they do "love" them, and merely hate the "sin". But honestly, that's like saying you like disabled people but wouldn't like the fact they use a wheelchair or something. That's how fundamental a part sexuality is to a person, you can't seriously expect a person to never have any sexual contact with the gender they are attracted to across their entire life. So while you may "love" the sinner, you are still prejudiced towards them, their presence makes you 'uncomfortable', you talk in highly negative terms like claiming they 'flaunt' themselves, and because at the root of all this you wish to deny them a fundamental part of their existence, that is to love and be loved by people of the gender to which they are attracted.
GG claims that I won't discuss the issue intelligently and genuinely, but that's just a smokescreen for the fact I've been writing detailed responses to various things said not only by him but others, while he only pops in to say the odd paragraph which try to deflect criticism or play the victim. The unanswered questions pile up, namely; how to homosexuals 'flaunt' themselves? Why refuse flat out that people are born gay when a lot of scientific research would indicate otherwise? Why conclude from the bible that homosexual sex is wrong, but conveniently ignore all the other stuff that's a bit silly? Many people do not get the anti-homosexual message from the bible. Out of interest, is it the fact that gay sex isn't used for creating children? In which case what are your feelings on contraception, masturbation, and oral/anal sex in heterosexual couples?
Kilkrazy wrote:These are all sins in Roman Catholic doctrine.
Maybe, but I don't see the same level of negativity directed towards heterosexual couples that practice oral sex, or people who masturbate, or anyone who uses contraception. Everyone knows know the catholic church isn't big on contraception, but do you see the degree of condemnation or the claims of discomfort made against people known to use contraception or have masturbated to the same extent that homosexuality is singled out? Quite probably not.
The truth is that if people who masturbate made a person uncomfortable in the same way that homosexuality makes some people uncomfortable you'd never be able to comfortably leave the house.
GG wrote:OK this is getting ridiculous, and frankly I'm getting quite tired of you misquoting me and taking me out of context. I never said "I have no problem with homosexuality". The point I have made several times that you seem incapable of grasping is that people can love the sinner but hate the sin.
If you aren't willing to discuss the issue intelligently and genuinely, than there is really no point in my continuing discussing the issue with you. .
What I am having an issue with is what "love the sinner but hate the sin" appears to mean in a real life situation.
You seem to be suggesting that you are okay with homosexuals, but not homosexuality, and to be completely clear, that makes no sense to me at all.
It essentially appears to be no less than rhetoric. I hope that I have been clear, and I am really trying to be as polite as I can.
Wrexasaur hits it on the head. Sexuality is an integral part of anyone's identity, it's not like a choice of hobby but something that cannot be separated from a person easily, it is a fundamental part of who they are. To claim that you can separate the two is indeed disingenuous. A heterosexual person is free to pursue those relationships that make them happy, but a homosexual person is not. In fact the homosexual person is told to live a life of celibacy and not have any relationships. Now maybe people like GG can convince themselves that even though gay people make them "uncomfortable" to have around, they do "love" them, and merely hate the "sin". But honestly, that's like saying you like disabled people but wouldn't like the fact they use a wheelchair or something. That's how fundamental a part sexuality is to a person, you can't seriously expect a person to never have any sexual contact with the gender they are attracted to across their entire life. So while you may "love" the sinner, you are still prejudiced towards them, their presence makes you 'uncomfortable', you talk in highly negative terms like claiming they 'flaunt' themselves, and because at the root of all this you wish to deny them a fundamental part of their existence, that is to love and be loved by people of the gender to which they are attracted.
GG claims that I won't discuss the issue intelligently and genuinely, but that's just a smokescreen for the fact I've been writing detailed responses to various things said not only by him but others, while he only pops in to say the odd paragraph which try to deflect criticism or play the victim. The unanswered questions pile up, namely; how to homosexuals 'flaunt' themselves? Why refuse flat out that people are born gay when a lot of scientific research would indicate otherwise? Why conclude from the bible that homosexual sex is wrong, but conveniently ignore all the other stuff that's a bit silly? Many people do not get the anti-homosexual message from the bible. Out of interest, is it the fact that gay sex isn't used for creating children? In which case what are your feelings on contraception, masturbation, and oral/anal sex in heterosexual couples?
These are all sins in Roman Catholic doctrine.
That may well be so, but not everyone is a Roman Catholic and follows that doctrine. Just saying.
Also Howard is putting forth his opinion as though it were fact and then gets upset when people don't agree with his opinion.
For example..."Sexuality is an integral part of anyone's identity, it's not like a choice of hobby but something that cannot be separated from a person easily, it is a fundamental part of who they are. To claim that you can separate the two is indeed disingenuous"
The above sentences are pure speculation rooted in Howards presupposed opinion that Homosexuals cannot choose their sexuality. He just isn't willing to accept the fact that other people have a different view than him, and that view is just as... or possibly even more valid.. He resorts to dismissing their belief system by saying:"they rely on ancient holy books".
Most people on here know my feelings on the modern scientific movement. So.. relying on modern science which is rooted in liberalism and secular humanism isn't going to score any points with me. These are the same people that said ketchup causes cancer.. than 10 years later said ketchup helps prevent cancer. These same people said we come from a primordial soup, now that that hasn't worked..are saying that we come from microbes from ancient sea floor vents. These same scientists passed eugenics as a viable field of study. These same scientists passed off social darwinism and claimed black people were less "evolved" than white people. They even went so far as to try and "breed" black people with apes. Science doesn't have all the answers and pretending that you can solve every problem by resorting to a biased scientific study is folly.
generalgrog wrote:Most people on here know my feelings on the modern scientific movement. So.. relying on modern science which is rooted in liberalism and secular humanism isn't going to score any points with me. These are the same people that said ketchup causes cancer.. than 10 years later said ketchup helps prevent cancer. These same people said we come from a primordial soup, now that that hasn't worked..are saying that we come from microbes from ancient sea floor vents. These same scientists passed eugenics as a viable field of study. These same scientists passed off social darwinism and claimed black people were less "evolved" than white people. They even went so far as to try and "breed" black people with apes. Science doesn't have all the answers and pretending that you can solve every problem by resorting to a biased scientific study is folly.
I'm reposting this because this is clearly the point that you lost the plot. You don't even know what you're fighting against do you?
generalgrog wrote:Most people on here know my feelings on the modern scientific movement. So.. relying on modern science which is rooted in liberalism and secular humanism isn't going to score any points with me. These are the same people that said ketchup causes cancer.. than 10 years later said ketchup helps prevent cancer. These same people said we come from a primordial soup, now that that hasn't worked..are saying that we come from microbes from ancient sea floor vents. These same scientists passed eugenics as a viable field of study. These same scientists passed off social darwinism and claimed black people were less "evolved" than white people. They even went so far as to try and "breed" black people with apes. Science doesn't have all the answers and pretending that you can solve every problem by resorting to a biased scientific study is folly.
I'm reposting this because this is clearly the point that you lost the plot. You don't even know what you're fighting against do you?
Also, isn't that what Christianity has been doing during that period? I mean, it's gone from "You have to grow a beard and eat fish on a saturday" and "God created the world in 6 days" to "Well, it's cool if you don't want a beard - that's old hat now" and "God creating the world in 6 days is a metaphor, you see."
Just as science has undergone these changes, doesn't mean Christianity and Religion in general hasn't either. Also, you appear to be confusing science with populist pseudo-claptrap used as a political or social tool, as well as mistaking progress in theories for plain old hypocrisy and backtracking. There is a difference, though you may well disregard my assertion of such.
generalgrog wrote:Also Howard is putting forth his opinion as though it were fact and then gets upset when people don't agree with his opinion.
For example..."Sexuality is an integral part of anyone's identity, it's not like a choice of hobby but something that cannot be separated from a person easily, it is a fundamental part of who they are. To claim that you can separate the two is indeed disingenuous"
The above sentences are pure speculation rooted in Howards presupposed opinion that Homosexuals cannot choose their sexuality. He just isn't willing to accept the fact that other people have a different view than him, and that view is just as... or possibly even more valid..
Homosexuality exists in the animal kingdom. Do animals choose to be gay, or are they operating on instinct? We're talking about scientific work that says homosexuality has roots in genetics, and all you are doing is trying to shout loudly to oppose it. Well merely expressing a different opinion does not earn you the right for it to be treated seriously or equally valid.
Most people on here know my feelings on the modern scientific movement. So.. relying on modern science which is rooted in liberalism and secular humanism isn't going to score any points with me. These are the same people that said ketchup causes cancer.. than 10 years later said ketchup helps prevent cancer. These same people said we come from a primordial soup, now that that hasn't worked..are saying that we come from microbes from ancient sea floor vents. These same scientists passed eugenics as a viable field of study. These same scientists passed off social darwinism and claimed black people were less "evolved" than white people. They even went so far as to try and "breed" black people with apes. Science doesn't have all the answers and pretending that you can solve every problem by resorting to a biased scientific study is folly.
The "modern scientific movement". I wondered how long it would take before science and liberalism and secularism took a bashing. Or seem dismissive of the science that says we evolved from microbes. You then make the ridiculous connection between those scientists saying we evolved from primitive lifeforms and those involved in promoting eugenics. You've practically godwinned yourself with that one. Scientists like Darwin who understood evolution would be horrified to see the way it was twisted for eugenics and racism, so don't even try to tar real science with the trash of those kinds of groups. Nice to show your true colours, and total rejection of knowledge and science in favour of whatever dogma makes you happy.
generalgrog wrote:Most people on here know my feelings on the modern scientific movement. So.. relying on modern science which is rooted in liberalism and secular humanism isn't going to score any points with me. These are the same people that said ketchup causes cancer.. than 10 years later said ketchup helps prevent cancer. These same people said we come from a primordial soup, now that that hasn't worked..are saying that we come from microbes from ancient sea floor vents. These same scientists passed eugenics as a viable field of study. These same scientists passed off social darwinism and claimed black people were less "evolved" than white people. They even went so far as to try and "breed" black people with apes. Science doesn't have all the answers and pretending that you can solve every problem by resorting to a biased scientific study is folly.
There are so many terrible, terrible flaws in that passage that I cannot bring myself to go on, but I probably will anyway.
Science is a process, a systematic method of approaching the world such that data can be collected, and hypotheses can be tested. Mistakes will be made in the course of this method, conclusions will be drawn that are in agreement with the data at hand, only to be refuted by the acquisition of more data; that's what is supposed to happen.
The way you're describing science here, even dipping your toe into the ridiculous argument from "its biased!", is basically nothing more than a collection of "gotcha!" news lines. You very clearly take your understanding of science from popular sources, because flaunting theories of association (the ketchup example) as though they were actually posited to establish causality is patently ridiculous.
Oh, also, who are "these scientists"? Are you referring to a specific group of people? Perhaps some immortal super-beings that posited both the theory of eugenics and ketchup as a causal force with respect to cancer? Because last time I checked, scientists were mortal, and therefore somewhat limited as to what they could accomplish in the scope of their lifetimes. Perhaps you would have an easier time understanding what science is if you didn't refer to scientists like the bogeyman.
generalgrog wrote:Most people on here know my feelings on the modern scientific movement. So.. relying on modern science which is rooted in liberalism and secular humanism isn't going to score any points with me. These are the same people that said ketchup causes cancer.. than 10 years later said ketchup helps prevent cancer. These same people said we come from a primordial soup, now that that hasn't worked..are saying that we come from microbes from ancient sea floor vents. These same scientists passed eugenics as a viable field of study. These same scientists passed off social darwinism and claimed black people were less "evolved" than white people. They even went so far as to try and "breed" black people with apes. Science doesn't have all the answers and pretending that you can solve every problem by resorting to a biased scientific study is folly.
I'm reposting this because this is clearly the point that you lost the plot. You don't even know what you're fighting against do you?
Also, isn't that what Christianity has been doing during that period? I mean, it's gone from "You have to grow a beard and eat fish on a saturday" and "God created the world in 6 days" to "Well, it's cool if you don't want a beard - that's old hat now" and "God creating the world in 6 days is a metaphor, you see."
Just as science has undergone these changes, doesn't mean Christianity and Religion in general hasn't either. Also, you appear to be confusing science with populist pseudo-claptrap used as a political or social tool, as well as mistaking progress in theories for plain old hypocrisy and backtracking. There is a difference, though you may well disregard my assertion of such.
Also it should be noted that many scientific accomplishments were caused by Christians themselves.
@ Howard..I wasn't bashing science. I was merely trying to get you to see that blowing the "I heard a scientific study said..X and X" trumpet, doesn't make what you want to become true. I used failed examples of what was considered "science" at the time. Science can be a great thing, I just happen to be skeptical about certain aspects of it due repeated examples of it's failure.
Also you clearly don't understand godwinism.
@ dogma...I don't think you realize it, but you just proved my point. Thanks.
GG
Automatically Appended Next Post: Here is an example of a failed scientific study that tried to say homosexuality was genetic...
"The American researcher Dean Hamer published research that seemed to prove that homosexual orientation could be genetically transmitted to men on the x chromosome, which they get from their mothers. However when this study was duplicated it did not produce the same results. A follow-up study which Hamer collaborated on also failed to reinforce his earlier results.8
Subsequent research published by George Rice and George Ebers of the Universty of Western Ontario has cast doubt on Hamer's theory. Rice and Ebers' research also tested the same region of the x chromosome in a larger sample of gay men, but failed to find the same 'marker' that Hamer's research had found.9 Claims that the part of the brain known as the hypothalamus is influential in determining sexual orientation, have yet to be substantiated.10 It is generally thought that biological explanations of sexuality are insufficient to explain the diversity of human sexuality.11 12"
#8 Hamer D et al (1993), 'A linkage between DNA markers on the X chromosome and male sexual orientation' Science 261(5119).8
#9 Rice G et al (1999, April), 'Male homosexuality: absence of linkage to microsatellite markers at Xq28' Science 284(5414)
#10 Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man (2006), 'homosexuality'.
#11 International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences (2009), 'Sexual orientation, determinants of'.
#12 National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (2008), 'Is sexual orientation fixed at birth?'.
I got this info here...http://www.avert.org/being-gay.htm
GG
Automatically Appended Next Post: More failed gay research.....
"Critique of Past Research
The genetic theory of homosexuality rests on a foundation of three seminal studies in the early 1990’s--
which all have serious methodological, sampling, and interpretation problems. Simon LeVay (1991)
dissected the brains of 19 gay men and supposedly 16 non-gay men and found, on average, a slighter
smaller area of the hypothalamus (INAH-3) in the gay men. He then “suggests that sexual orientation has
a biological substrate.” There were several major flaws with his research: (a) the sample was small, (b)
the control group was inappropriate, (c) there is no evidence that the INAH-3 part of the brain had
anything to do with sexual preference, (d) AIDS could have caused the brain differences, and (e) the
study has never been replicated.
Michael Bailey and Richard Pillard (1991) concluded there must be a genetic cause to homosexuality
because they found higher rates of homosexuality among identical than fraternal twins and even less
concordance (similarity) among adopted siblings. These quantitative genetic studies have similar
limitations. First, the samples may be biased because researchers usually recruit a volunteer sample from
gay publications and organizations. Second, such studies require a large sample in order to make valid
heritability estimates, and samples are usually small. Third, environmental factors are usually not studied
so its effects are unaccounted for. Forth, there are obvious interpretation problems because only about
half of identical twins reared in the same family have a gay brother. If genes determined homosexuality
then both brothers should be gay. Fifth, other twin studies have not supported their claim of a strong
genetic component to homosexuality (see Hershberger, 1997)."
generalgrog wrote:Also you clearly don't understand godwinism.
You're sailing close to the wind when trying to discredit a position by making comparisons with things like eugenics, that's all I was pointing out.
Here is an example of a failed scientific study that tried to say homosexuality was genetic...
"The American researcher Dean Hamer published research that seemed to prove that homosexual orientation could be genetically transmitted to men on the x chromosome, which they get from their mothers. However when this study was duplicated it did not produce the same results. A follow-up study which Hamer collaborated on also failed to reinforce his earlier results.8
It didn't 'fail', it's been challenged by other work. In either case I personally doubt that homosexuality is rooted in a single genetic marker, there's research on prenatal hormone levels too. The problem with genetics is that is is complex, you have large regions indicted by a genetic marker which contain a high number of genes and complexes of multiple genes, and then some genes only work in certain environmental conditions (epigenetics).
Here's a good round up of research... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/omim/306995 They might not be able to pin it down to a specific gene, there probably isn't a single gene, but there is evidence showing connections to maternal inheritance and unusual connections between family members and siblings, and quite a bit exists on the influences of prenatal hormones in the womb. Changing hormone levels in rats have been shown to affect their orientation for instance. One reason there isn't a colossal wealth of research on homosexuality is that it's morally dubious. Fundamentally we have to ask, what's the point? Because even if homosexuality was a 'choice', why should it be wrong? Like most heterosexual relationships it hurts no one and is consensual. Even if it were a matter of choice, then there's no reason why a person should not be allowed relationships with people of their own sex. The only real benefits to research are that if it were conclusively proven to be genetic then it would be easier to get legislation like with racial equality and gender. But that's only the case because some people feel that wanting to pursue relationships of a certain nature, regardless of their consensual and harmless nature, should not be given the same treatment as others.
the third is the hamer study
found here...http://www.narth.com/menus/born.html
Let me take a website that promotes the treatment of homosexuality as mental illness with a pinch of salt shall we? Because I was hoping that treating homosexuals like the mentally ill had gone out decades ago, interting choice of reading material. In their statement they say several interesting things among which they give the caveat "the data remains inconclusive for several reasons" but doesn't stop them claiming "homosexuals may be more likely to sexually abuse a same-sex minor" to strengthen their case. I find that very suspect.
Incidentally the American Psychiatric Association don't consider is a mental disorder and apparently have said they urge that "ethical practitioners to refrain from attempts to change individuals' sexual orientation" and that "...homosexuality is neither a mental illness nor a moral depravity. It is the way a portion of the population expresses human love and sexuality".
Going back a bit because I was posting late last night. Am I to take it that this is a yes? That you do consider people who masturbate as sinners and they make you equally uncomfortable as homosexuals do? If not why do some sins make you more uncomfortable that others. Any time you want to tell us how homosexuals 'flaunt' themselves you can go ahead BTW.
Monster Rain wrote:
Howard A Treesong wrote:Homosexuality exists in the animal kingdom. Do animals choose to be gay, or are they operating on instinct?
So does rape, and the habitual eating of one's own poop.
I don't see how saying animals do it helps things. Let's just focus on people, shall we?
Well rape does happen among humans and although it is condemned it's rarely claimed to be 'unnatural'. It's awful though, and the reason it is considered wrong is because by definition it does not require consent and is a violent and harmful act. Homosexual relations are consensual and non-harmful. And that's largely why homosexuality is ok and rape and paedophilia are wrong. Either way the point I was countering was that homosexuality isn't an instinctual or natural act. Do animals "choose" to be homosexual in nature? I don't think so because we generally regard a lot of animals as not having the high intelligence and sentience required to make 'lifestyle choices'.
Prior to her election, Sally was very active in her church as a Bible teacher and member of the choir, and continues to serve there. She was teaching high school government in Oklahoma City when elected, as well as coaching girl’s golf and volleyball. Sally has taught school about 20 years.
Since Sally is an educator, her priorities in the House revolve around education. Her desire is to see the quality of education improve for all children.
Yeah, you read that right, in the USA, this deranged woman is an "educator"
Here is what she was taped saying.
"Studies show that no society that has totally embraced homosexuality has lasted more than, you know, a few decades. So it's the death knell of this country. I honestly think it's the biggest threat our nation has, even more so than terrorism or Islam — which I think is a big threat, okay? Cause what's happening now is they are going after, in schools, two-year olds...And this stuff is deadly, and it's spreading, and it will destroy our young people, it will destroy this nation"
Yeah you read it right.
Psycho.
And she point blank refused to apologise.
I wonder if she is a Christian, and how old she thinks the earth is?
Howard A Treesong wrote:Scientists like Darwin who understood evolution would be horrified to see the way it was twisted for eugenics and racism
I recall him having been a supporter of both.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Howard A Treesong wrote:Let me take a website that promotes the treatment of homosexuality as mental illness with a pinch of salt shall we?
Why would you? Would you take information from a website that promotes the treatment of depression as a mental illness with a pinch of salt if I claimed that it wasn't one?
Howard A Treesong wrote:Scientists like Darwin who understood evolution would be horrified to see the way it was twisted for eugenics and racism
I recall him having been a supporter of both.
At the time the British were some of the most ethnocentric people in the world, but Darwin expressed on numerous times his revulsion for slavery and any fair minded reader of his books would not claim he was racist or a supporter of mistreatment of others. Religious fanatics in the US try to discredit the man as if discrediting his dangerous idea would somehow discredit the Science.
Darwin strikes me as being a genuinelly good, caring, decent family man. And the Christian rights attempts to discredit him are frankly somewhat disgusting. I find it akin to someone drawing a penis on the Mona Lisa with a marker pen.
More importantly, even if he WAS a nazi, a racist, a pervert and a paedophile, his idea would still be correct, and we know this thanks to a truly staggering amount of evidence.
So.. what is the point in calling the dead guy names anyway?
I'd like to add to what I wrote earlier...there are other ethical concerns with identifying a 'gay gene', assuming it's possible to narrow it down to just one or two. It's entirely possible to prove inheritance through broader effects like X chromosome inheritance and hormonal changes without needing to identify specific genes. Sexual orientation is quite a broad spectrum, you have heterosexuals and homosexuals, bisexuals, and people who are polyamorous or monogamous, and there's a load of different things that people find sexually attractive or which turn them on, and some people have higher sex drives than others. So I doubt it is a single gene or two but a whole raft of them making it a very complicated thing to pin down effectively especially if there is an epigenetic effect too. But assuming you could just pin down a tiny handful of genes.
We are not far from the point were we will be able to identify quite specific genes for genetic illnesses and virtually cure them. Things like cystic fibrosis could be prevented by knocking out a gene, and who would say that was not a reasonable action to take, to prevent a genetic illness that causes such suffering and early death? But the problem is that some people regard homosexuality as an illness or affliction to be 'cured' as proven by groups such as GG linked to which claim to treat homosexuals by treating it as a psychological disorder. Some people would treat is like cystic fibrosis, a genetic defect to be removed, even though homosexuality causes no suffering to the person or affects their lifespan, in many ways it would be akin to a cosmetic change, not a life saving one as in the case of cystic fibrosis.
This isn't to say that research isn't valid or any comment on work already referenced in the thread so far...just food for thought. While I think that proving genetic connections is good for winning legislative equality, I think there are dangers if it is exploited by the views of the very people it would hope to combat.
Very rarely do I say a thread sucks, but man, taking any thread about the refined great one that is George Takei and doing whatever the hell just occurred is inspired but not in a good way.
When you can make Frazzled say a thread is bad, you have achieved on an epic scale.
mattyrm wrote:At the time the British were some of the most ethnocentric people in the world, but Darwin expressed on numerous times his revulsion for slavery and any fair minded reader of his books would not claim he was racist or a supporter of mistreatment of others.
Err... Lincoln was also opposed to slavery and the mistreatment of blacks, but Lincoln still thought that whites were a superior race.
Orkeosaurus wrote:
Howard A Treesong wrote:Let me take a website that promotes the treatment of homosexuality as mental illness with a pinch of salt shall we?
Why would you? Would you take information from a website that promotes the treatment of depression as a mental illness with a pinch of salt if I claimed that it wasn't one?
On second thought, this would imply that GG considers homosexuality to be a mental illness. However, that doesn't seem to mesh with considering it a sin.
Then again, a person who considers homosexuality to be a sin may still have equal reason to believe people who consider homosexuality a mental illness and people who consider homosexuality a... "lifestyle choice" or whatever, so I still don't think GG has a reason to doubt the website on those merits.
Howard A Treesong wrote:Scientists like Darwin who understood evolution would be horrified to see the way it was twisted for eugenics and racism
I recall him having been a supporter of both.
The theory of evolution through natural selection is nothing to do with eugenics. The concepts are entirely different, to take eugenics and describe it as darwinism/evolution in action as darwin described is totally false. If, for instance, the nazis did think they were applying darwinism when carrying out their eugenics then they didn't understand it.
Why would you? Would you take information from a website that promotes the treatment of depression as a mental illness with a pinch of salt if I claimed that it wasn't one?
I don't quite follow. Depression is an illness that's recognised by health authorities, so taking information from a legitimate website, say the NHS, would be reasonable. But homosexuality isn't a mental disorder and I tried to point out, the authorities and general medical community clearly state that it is not so. The websites that continue to offer psychological treatment to cure homosexuality clearly have an agenda beyond what is recognised as genuine and ethical healthcare, they operate on the fringes of genuine healthcare. According to the following article therapists should be they to help people cope not attempt to change them because it doesn't work, people who do otherwise are behaving in a misguided or even unethical manner.
My point initially was that it was an interesting choice of reading material, of all the places you could go to for information of that kind and he goes to one promoting the treatment of homosexuality as a mental disorder which is quite dubious. Makes me wonder where the rest of his information comes from. Mind you, I don't think he's gone around reading the scientific literature draw his conclusions open-minded. He clearly takes his lead from the bible and has since looked for things to confirm it. By comparison I can't see what my inital bias would be, I've just kept up to date with the things published over the years, I don't have an axe to grind.
reds8n wrote: IIRC Eugenics as a theory wasn't even named and published until after Darwin's death so it's a big jump to claim he was a supporter of the ideas...
If there was a general theory published which is considered to be "Eugenics", I haven't heard of it. I was going by the dictionary definition of the word: the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, esp. by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics).
By this definition eugenics long predates the theory of evolution. It goes back at least to ancient ruling classes, who interbred to preserve the characteristics they saw as more "noble".
Eugenics as a general concept is as old as livestock breeding.* Eugenics as a particular theory was advanced by Galton, known by and discussed (not supported) by Darwin, but only named "Eugenics" after Darwin's death.
*Unless, of course, you think "eugenics" must reference a modern understaning of genetics--in which case, Galton himself did not really advocate "eugenics."
reds8n wrote: IIRC Eugenics as a theory wasn't even named and published until after Darwin's death so it's a big jump to claim he was a supporter of the ideas...
If there was a general theory published which is considered to be "Eugenics", I haven't heard of it. I was going by the dictionary definition of the word: the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, esp. by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics).
By this definition eugenics long predates the theory of evolution. It goes back at least to ancient ruling classes, who interbred to preserve the characteristics they saw as more "noble".
Well in theory that is all that has been done in agriculture with plants and animals. But that is selective breeding, not evolution via natural selection which is what Darwin proposed. What the nazis and the like did was attempt selective breeding, it wasn't darwinism, ie evolution by natural selection. Typically I see darwinism/evolution associated with the nazis simply to discredit the theory, and is about as nonsensical and wrong-headed as people who wish to make some point about Hitler being an atheist.
Howard A Treesong wrote:The theory of evolution through natural selection is nothing to do with eugenics.
They are related, but belief in one doesn't imply or require belief in the other. Darwin just happened to believe in both, or so my understanding of it is.
I don't quite follow. Depression is an illness that's recognised by health authorities,
There is no objective method of determining whether or not something is a mental illness. If the people you call "the authorities" say something is a mental illness that's just, like, their opinion man. I'm pretty sure that homosexuality has been recognized as a mental illness in the United States for longer than it has been recognized as not being one, and I'm pretty sure "the authorities" of other countries consider it to be one as well. Simply put, there's no way you can argue against it either way. Whether it's a mental illness or not is semantic, not factual.
Of course, you could say that the people who are claiming it a curable disease have an incentive to manipulate their studies for their own monetary gain. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised at all if that was the case. On the other hand, I don't doubt that there's money to be made holding the opposite position. All in all, there's little a person without a hell of a lot of funding can do to get unbiased results on the issue. (Fortunately for me, I don't see how the presence or absence of a genetic cause really matters.)
Wait, Howard, Galton believed that human social behavior regarding mating worked against natural selection. Eugenics is therefore an attempt to enforce (whatever concept of) natural selection as a social policy.
Manchu wrote:Eugenics as a general concept is as old as livestock breeding.* Eugenics as a particular theory was advanced by Galton, known by and discussed (not supported) by Darwin, but only named "Eugenics" after Darwin's death.
*Unless, of course, you think "eugenics" must reference a modern understaning of genetics--in which case, Galton himself did not really advocate "eugenics."
Howard A Treesong wrote:Well in theory that is all that has been done in agriculture with plants and animals. But that is selective breeding, not evolution via natural selection which is what Darwin proposed. What the nazis and the like did was attempt selective breeding, it wasn't darwinism, ie evolution by natural selection. Typically I see darwinism/evolution associated with the nazis simply to discredit the theory, and is about as nonsensical and wrong-headed as people who wish to make some point about Hitler being an atheist.
My understanding of eugenic theory is that there are two main lines of thought in it, which could be considered "positive" and "negative" eugenics. "Positive" eugenics is the belief that society should start taking actions which ensure that the "best" traits are passed on; this would include selective breeding. "Negative" eugenics would be the belief that society should avoid taking actions which would inhibit the passing on the "best" traits; this would include the belief that the poor should be forced to fend for themselves, with the hope that the unfit will be eliminated from the gene pool. This theory is also called Social Darwinism. One could also have a vague belief in eugenics, which is merely that the human race can and should be improved genetically, but without having a specific policy in mind which would work towards this goal. There is also nothing stopping a person from believing in the first two simultaneously, although this may be a little excessive.
My understanding is that Darwin was a eugenicist of one of these forms, but I wouldn't know which one. "Negative eugenics" is based on his theory of evolution, but that obviously doesn't mean he personally supported it. Positive eugenics is largely based on animal husbandry, as said. I'm not too familiar with Nazi beliefs on eugenics, but from what I've seen they were primarily of the first kind.
Howard A Treesong wrote:Homosexuality exists in the animal kingdom. Do animals choose to be gay, or are they operating on instinct?
So does rape, and the habitual eating of one's own poop.
I don't see how saying animals do it helps things. Let's just focus on people, shall we?
Well rape does happen among humans and although it is condemned it's rarely claimed to be 'unnatural'. It's awful though, and the reason it is considered wrong is because by definition it does not require consent and is a violent and harmful act. Homosexual relations are consensual and non-harmful. And that's largely why homosexuality is ok and rape and paedophilia are wrong. Either way the point I was countering was that homosexuality isn't an instinctual or natural act. Do animals "choose" to be homosexual in nature? I don't think so because we generally regard a lot of animals as not having the high intelligence and sentience required to make 'lifestyle choices'.
My point wasn't that homosexuality is right or wrong. It's just that saying that animals do it isn't really the best way to justify a behavior.
I'm not sure that your categories are very helpful. Darwin acknowledged that heritable traits might be either encouraged or discouraged among humans via breeding "awareness" or even by governmental policy but did not advocate such endeavors.
Orkeosaurus wrote:Of course, you could say that the people who are claiming it a curable disease have an incentive to manipulate their studies for their own monetary gain. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised at all if that was the case.
The further you get into quack science they less the publish full stop. If they do get rejected then it's because 'the man' and 'big industry' wants to stop them, as is the case when people want to 'prove' homeopathy or that man and dinosaurs really did live together.
(Fortunately for me, I don't see how the presence or absence of a genetic cause really matters.)
I am of the opinion that as homosexuality doesn't hurt anyone, then whether it is a choice or not shouldn't matter. What does it matter who anyone has sex and relationships with as long as it's safe and consensual? But seeing as some people claim that it isn't natural, that people aren't born that way, that it's just a 'choice'...I think it's worth combating these fallacies.
Manchu wrote:Wait, Howard, Galton believed that human social behavior regarding mating worked against natural selection. Eugenics is therefore an attempt to enforce (whatever concept of) natural selection as a social policy
Well Darwin also decribed sexual selection, which explains cumbersome and inefficient plumage in some birds. So it's a bit more complex than just selection of the fittest. Unlike the animals kingdom living out in the wild we all live in houses and take medicine. Evolution takes an unusual course with us now. When early man was struggling to survive in the wild he operated under what is closer to natural selection. What the nazis did was to promote characteristics like blond hair and blue eyes claiming them to be superior to others, and certain races of people were to be eradicated from society. But that's just arbitrary, they aren't really superior so it's neither true sexual selection nor is it survival of the fittest.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote:My point wasn't that homosexuality is right or wrong. It's just that saying that animals do it isn't really the best way to justify a behavior.
And well my point was that it was naturally occurring, not that what animals do dictates what is right or wrong. Are we agreeing or what?
We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man itself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.
Actually, this quote is quite interesting. It seems that he sees eugenics as necessary to prevent injury to the human race, but he thinks that to institute policies based on eugenic grounds would nonetheless be inhumane. So humanity's in a bit of a bind.
I can see why there's a lot of controversy over whether or not he "believed in eugenics".
Manchu wrote:Wait, Howard, Galton believed that human social behavior regarding mating worked against natural selection. Eugenics is therefore an attempt to enforce (whatever concept of) natural selection as a social policy
Well Darwin also decribed sexual selection, which explains cumbersome and inefficient plumage in some birds. So it's a bit more complex than just selection of the fittest. Unlike the animals kingdom living out in the wild we all live in houses and take medicine. Evolution takes an unusual course with us now. When early man was struggling to survive in the wild he operated under what is closer to natural selection. What the nazis did was to promote characteristics like blond hair and blue eyes claiming them to be superior to others, and certain races of people were to be eradicated from society. But that's just arbitrary, they aren't really superior so it's neither true sexual selection nor is it survival of the fittest.
It's getting difficult to sort out whether you're talking about what scientists today thiunk about evolution, what Darwin thought, what Nazis thought, etc.
Howard A Treesong wrote:The further you get into quack science they less the publish full stop. If they do get rejected then it's because 'the man' and 'big industry' wants to stop them, as is the case when people want to 'prove' homeopathy or that man and dinosaurs really did live together.
True, but 'the man' and 'big industry' can reject valid theories as well. Unless our institutions are uniquely infallible.
To step up for the idea of 'Christian Love' I'll put forth the def. I find to help explain "Hate the sin, not the sinner"
love - to want good things to happen
hate - to want bad things to happen
apathy - don't care what happens
So you can say you love your family, friends, job, etc : you want good things to happen to them. Likewise you can hate/want bad things to happen : I hate my job/going to school/my neighbor.
So to hate the sin you can mean for it to cease existing. I think we can agree that wishing something to cease existing is a powerful hate. To love the sinner would be to want good things to happen as this case would be eternal bliss/God's reward etc. Sinning harms the soul, hate the cause (sin) but don't harm the person.
I hope that's clear...I can get the fuzzies sometimes.
Really? Even applying romantic love you want to give and share good feelings/events/things with your significant other. Loving your children goes with raising them with thoughts of good health/well being so they become adults.
Something I've been meaing to post for a few days is a rejection of the notion that homosexuality is observed in non-human species. Sexual behaviors between animals of the same sex have been observed, but that alone is hardly what we mean by homosexuality when we're talking about people. It's like saying that lifelong mating is an observation of marriage among non-human species.
Furthermore, the idea that all behaviors are linked to genetically heritable traits is pretty controversial--by which I mean, very far from being widely accepted by scientists.
Manchu wrote:Something I've been meaing to post for a few days is a rejection of the notion that homosexuality is observed in non-human species. Sexual behaviors between animals of the same sex have been observed, but that alone is hardly what we mean by homosexuality when we're talking about people. It's like saying that lifelong mating is an observation of marriage among non-human species.
You can't argue with science, Manchu.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Howard A Treesong wrote:And well my point was that it was naturally occurring, not that what animals do dictates what is right or wrong. Are we agreeing or what?
I think what's really going on is that we're both agreeing with Jimmy Pop and the BHG.
Manchu wrote:Something I've been meaing to post for a few days is a rejection of the notion that homosexuality is observed in non-human species. Sexual behaviors between animals of the same sex have been observed, but that alone is hardly what we mean by homosexuality when we're talking about people. It's like saying that lifelong mating is an observation of marriage among non-human species.
You can't argue with science, Manchu.
THAT'S OUTRAGEOUS!!
Hazard orange and Magenta pink in the same get up?
Hmmm, isn't it a little anachronistic to claim that Darwin was a bad person because he may have believed in eugenics, seeing as a lot of people genuinely held those beliefs?
I'm not condoning this sort of belief, just saying that many white societies at the time believed it to be true.
Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:Hmmm, isn't it a little anachronistic to claim that Darwin was a bad person because he may have believed in eugenics, seeing as a lot of people genuinely held those beliefs?
I'm not condoning this sort of belief, just saying that many white societies at the time believed it to be true.
Bingo!!
Not saying Darwin believed it or not, but the FACT remains that it was held to be true and thought of as science during the late 19th and early 20th century, by many prominent people. I was surprised to see Teddy Roosevelt was one of them. G.K. Chesterson an English Christian spoke and wrote against it, and I am willing to bet there were quite a few Howard Treesongs he had to deal with... blowing the trumpet of the latest "scientific research" about eugenics.
Well, even so, it's not a good idea to take the standards and scientific knowledge of a certain time and use them as evidence for flaws in Science itself. Science, like almost everything humans have done, is always changing to reflect new discoveries and ideas, and (for the vast majority of cases) those changes are for the better.
Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:Well, even so, it's not a good idea to take the standards and scientific knowledge of a certain time and use them as evidence for flaws in Science itself. Science, like almost everything humans have done, is always changing to reflect new discoveries and ideas, and (for the vast majority of cases) those changes are for the better.
Of course but my point is that sometimes scientists are wrong, and it's healthy to be skeptical.
Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:Well, even so, it's not a good idea to take the standards and scientific knowledge of a certain time and use them as evidence for flaws in Science itself. Science, like almost everything humans have done, is always changing to reflect new discoveries and ideas, and (for the vast majority of cases) those changes are for the better.
Of course but my point is that sometimes scientists are wrong, and it's healthy to be skeptical.
GG
You aren't advocating skepticism though, what you are advocating is closer to outright denial of science.
I'll retract that statement if I'm wrong. As for where the lines are drawn, I'm noticing that when someone ends up on the news(Westboro Baptist, the Douchebag mentioned in the 
if I'm being honest. They don't seem to realize that the same thing could be done for atheism(or any group of people) if I could be arsed to make the argument. 
cares about Oral Roberts? There are 18 gazillion priests, ministers, fathers, padres, great speghetti overlords here. We're free enterprise here, Roberts' rantings only matter to Roberts and his church. Big deal. There are literally 3 completely different churches within walking distance of my house and none of them give a 
ha!
