User Tag List

First 56789 Last

Results 61 to 70 of 91

  1. #61
    Boring old fossil Night's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5/8
    Socionics
    ENTp None
    Posts
    4,754

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    I suspect that's just how you're interpreting my remarks, which basically was a commentary on what Scruton wrote and how it relates to the wider conservative argument. I just remarked that overall I don't care that much about homosexuality and that discussions about it are distractions from larger issues. It's only out of a sense of duty that I even engage in these discussions.
    You'll have to pardon my presumption that the remarks originated from you. As you can see with my edit, I noted that the remarks were instead from your author.

    Of course, it does seems unusual to think that, in the creation and defense of opinion, one would insert a contrasting perspective to his own as a final remark on what he's sofar offered. Possible, certainly - but less than likely, given what you've authored in-thread and others.

    So, while the editing mistake is mine, I think the point remains.

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    I do find it odd(if not irritating) when I have people attribute to me an argument I did not make, namely that homosexuality is somehow the major factor leading to the destruction of society. Homosexuals are not even that numerous to do that even if they wanted to. As I continously keep pointing out, this is all but a small piece of a much larger puzzle.
    Perhaps I offered poorly my take on your opinion. My wording was such that Scruton's ideas were examined; not yours. I think I made that quite clear.

    It was only in the context of your final statement did I offer a critique on your offered (third party) language.

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    Concerning the origins of social views, that's an entire discussion in of itself. Which I guess brings me to another point about why I often hate engaging in discussions on this matter is because I often have to address several major issues at once, whether it be origins of social views, historical developments in Western(or more specifically American) law, theology and Biblical criticism, the nature of the Classical heritage, anthropological studies on tribal life, etc. etc. all just to prove a few points on a particular issue, when each of these themes are entire discussions in themselves. That's a major reason why I suffer from mental collaspes from these talks. Sorry if it seems I'm evading your arguments, it's just I can't take anymore of this.
    I can sympathize with your frustration.

    Like you, I've done a lot of research on the topic of homosexuality as it applies to legal and sociological integration into contemporary political theory - what's more, I've tried to be honest in how I've looked at it from a Judeo-Christian theological mindset. So, I've done my homework on the issue as well, Peguy. Don't presume to have a superior theoretical mindset on the basis of quibbling disagreement. That's certainly not objective, nor is it ultimately helpful.

    So, it's your call. If you wish to end your participation here, then so be it.

    To re-state my earlier point, the 'normalization' of homosexuality is no more a threat to cultural institution of marriage than, say, suffrage for women was to the political process.

    We can pick and choose ideals that are subjectively unsavory to our personal belief system without offering a slippery slope conjecture on their ultimate social contribution to the gradual destruction of American tradition.

    That's just silly.

  2. #62
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    I edited my post to acknowledge your second thought, so obviously you didn't see that. No big deal. Moving on.

    Quote Originally Posted by Night View Post
    I can sympathize with your frustration.

    Like you, I've done a lot of research on the topic of homosexuality as it applies to legal and sociological integration into contemporary political theory - what's more, I've tried to be honest in how I've looked at it from a Judeo-Christian theological mindset. So, I've done my homework on the issue as well, Peguy. Don't presume to have a superior theoretical mindset on the basis of quibbling disagreement. That's certainly not objective, nor is it ultimately helpful.
    I've never denied your erudition, and it's fair to say we're evenly matched on that score. However, I do notice we have a habit of talking past each other, or even misunderstanding or misinterpreting each others' intentions here. I've not presumed anything on my supposed superior intellectual skills.

    In fact it was in acknowledgement to the articulate response you gave me that I gave an explaination as to why a thorough response on my part would not come. As I later edited in, I wasn't intentionally trying to be evasive or trying to say your post wasn't worth responding to.

    And with that, I quietly withdraw from the thread.

  3. #63
    Boring old fossil Night's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5/8
    Socionics
    ENTp None
    Posts
    4,754

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    I've never denied your erudition, and it's fair to say we're evenly matched on that score. However, I do notice we have a habit of talking past each other, or even misunderstanding or misinterpreting each others' intentions here.
    I agree with this. It would be useful to modify approach around this conclusion.

    To your response - No harm, no foul. Misunderstanding is a common barrier in human understanding. I take no offense.

  4. #64
    Senior Member htb's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9
    Posts
    1,506

    Default

    Keep in mind that inner-city church congregations overwhelmingly oppose same-sex marriage, which complicates those conveniently sweeping generalizations.

    My objective concerns, as the years pass, number two. First, that activists -- not mere proponents -- have a) confused legal recognition with airy and fatuous concepts of constitutional rights, then b) tried to sidestep very accessible legislative means, turning to municipal or judicial fiat. They've come off as a lawless bunch, galvanizing opponents and leading unlikely majorities to support heavy-handed constitutional barricades such as Proposition 8. Second, that an assault on First Amendment rights of religious organizations to eschew homosexuality is intended with the passage of new marriage laws. The face of the movement defines "not commiserable."

  5. #65
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by htb View Post
    My objective concerns, as the years pass, number two. First, that activists -- not mere proponents -- have a) confused legal recognition with airy and fatuous concepts of constitutional rights, then b) tried to sidestep very accessible legislative means, turning to municipal or judicial fiat. They've come off as a lawless bunch, galvanizing opponents and leading unlikely majorities to support heavy-handed constitutional barricades such as Proposition 8. Second, that an assault on First Amendment rights of religious organizations to eschew homosexuality is intended with the passage of new marriage laws. The face of the movement defines "not commiserable."
    I think part of the reason this issue exists is because pastors are allowed to legally marry people.

    If we separated religion from law, then it would be far easier to let churches control their fiefdoms and let the government control who it considers married in terms of what legal rights are granted.

    Right now religion (CHRISTIAN religion) actually is intertwined with legal/secular marriage. Why should they be?
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  6. #66
    Vaguely Precise Seymour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/so
    Posts
    1,565

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    I know I'm probably going to regret this, but a good summary of such an argument can be found in M. Ali Lakhani's article "Towards a Traditional Understanding of Sexuality":

    Here's the part that deals with "gay marriage" specifically:

    Applying this criterion of morality to homosexuality, we see that homosexuality is, by its very nature, opposed to the principle of sexual complementarity, which is vital to the traditional worldview. It constitutes the profanation of form by disassociating it from its eternal archetype. Further, it constitutes the isolation of one aspect of the archetypal polarities by its ignoring of, or, worse, opposition of the other. In the words of Whitall N. Perry,

    The homosexual error is, among other things, that of isolating one pole of a binary cognate and treating it as an absolute, which does violence to the imperatives of the cosmic order.
    So basically here's an addressing of the issue from a more metaphysical perspective, but still lays the foundations for much of a conservative or traditional view on the issue.
    I find such arguments fairly uncompelling, despite their origins from Aristotle by way of Thomas Aquinas. I think such arguments break down into two basic parts. 1) The nature of sex is procreative, so non-procreative sex is wrong (against Nature) and 2) the union of male and female is fundamental to nature (and therefore to God).

    I think for most non-Catholics (and many Catholics) declaring all non-procreative sex as wrong is kind of a non-starter. To say that a post-menopausal married woman shouldn't be able to have sex with her husband, for example, strikes most modern people as ridiculous.

    I also think our understanding of nature and sexuality has advanced a bit since the time of Thomas Aquinas. We now know that sex between unchanging male and unchanging female is not the only way that reproduction works in the natural world. Even among species that propagate sexually, there are species that change sex as needed, and others that remain hermaphrodites through their whole lifespan. We also know that a not insignificant number of humans are born intersex. Is their sexuality inherently profane because it doesn't fully adhere to an "unchanging archetype?"

    Nature shows amazing diversity both between and within species, so to say that only the union of male and female can represent the nature of Nature (or the mind of God) seems a bit short-sighted to me.

    I do understand that homosexuality makes people uncomfortable and elicits strong reactions. People are absolutely entitled to their opinions and to express those opinions. Disagreeing doesn't make one a bigot. I can't claim to always have been perfectly civil, but I do make an effort to try to be.

  7. #67
    Senior Member htb's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9
    Posts
    1,506

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    Right now religion (CHRISTIAN religion) actually is intertwined with legal/secular marriage.
    What's a greater -- and really, intractable -- issue is marriage's integration with property, custody, and tax laws. Marriage won't (can't) be disassociated from the state anytime soon.

    I think part of the reason this issue exists is because pastors are allowed to legally marry people.
    I don't see how that's pivotal in the extension of marital recognition by a state. Add two clauses to state code: one defining marriage alternately as one man and one man; another defining marriage alternately as one woman and one woman. Clergy whose churches do not recognize non-traditional marriages naturally ignore the new law -- a typical list of officiants shows far more civil servants than clergy, anyway.

  8. #68
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Seymour View Post
    I think for most non-Catholics (and many Catholics) declaring all non-procreative sex as wrong is kind of a non-starter.
    I don't think so. And for the record, Lakhani and other Perrenialists often cite Islamic sources far more than Catholic-Christian ones - including that piece I cited.

  9. #69
    Vaguely Precise Seymour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/so
    Posts
    1,565

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    I don't think so. And for the record, Lakhani and other Perrenialists often cite Islamic sources far more than Catholic-Christian ones - including that piece I cited.
    I can't claim any knowledge of Islamic sources. Do they disallow sex for married post-menopausal women (or people infertile for other reasons)?

  10. #70
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Seymour View Post
    I can't claim any knowledge of Islamic sources. Do they disallow sex for married post-menopausal women (or people infertile for other reasons)?
    I don't know off hand.

Similar Threads

  1. Make the Case for Your God(s)
    By Passacaglia in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-27-2016, 07:27 PM
  2. The Case for Reparations
    By Lateralus in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 06-09-2014, 09:58 PM
  3. The Case for Gamma
    By Kierva in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-15-2014, 10:14 AM
  4. The issue of gay marriage
    By Torai in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 318
    Last Post: 04-19-2011, 10:45 PM
  5. So what's really the big deal about Gay marriage?
    By Sniffles in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 222
    Last Post: 12-19-2008, 12:06 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO