User Tag List

First 56789 Last

Results 61 to 70 of 112

  1. #61
    Member Amphion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    82

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eagleseven View Post
    Then you are a declared enemy of homosexuals, which, in my mind, is far worse.
    I don't recall making any statements whatsoever about my feelings toward homosexuality.

    Quote Originally Posted by eagleseven View Post
    Lark clearly values his religious beliefs more than his family, as he is more willing to abandon his family, than his religion.
    I didn't perceive that Lark said he wanted to abandon his family either. I perceived that he didn't want his brother to bring his gay lover to his house, which is different.

    Quote Originally Posted by eagleseven View Post
    I don't choose to live that way. Family Values > Religious Values
    So Lark's metaphorical brother is the one who set's Lark's family values?

    Quote Originally Posted by eagleseven View Post
    Stigmatizing homosexuality worked wonders in suppressing homosexual tendencies throughout the Western World for the past 1,500 years.

    Are you crying because your own tactics are used against you?
    So.... I have been suppressing homosexual tendencies in the Western World for the past 1,500 years?

    Quote Originally Posted by eagleseven View Post
    Since when do sincerely held beliefs automatically gain respect?
    I'm drawing a distinction between reasonable beliefs drawn from innocent or well-meaning starting points as opposed to other less noble types of beliefs.

    Quote Originally Posted by eagleseven View Post
    Extremists of all sorts hold sincere beliefs, yet I don't see you bending-over-backwards to "respect" the KKK.
    I can't imagine you have any idea what I bend over backwards for, since you know absolutely nothing about me.

    Quote Originally Posted by eagleseven View Post
    We are not interested in discussion, as there is no reasoning with religion.
    There is only a grain of truth in this statement. I do agree that a philosophic life is a life of free inquiry, whereas a religious life tends to be a life of obedience, but even in a religious life some discussion is needed to interpret the tenets of the religion, or to answer the question of how man ought to live.

    Quote Originally Posted by eagleseven View Post
    Our intent is to fundamentally change the values of Western Civilization, and we are winning. A combination of stigmatizing homophobes, educating through the media, and demonstrating that homosexuals are just like everyone else through example, is finally defeating 2000-year-old religious bigotry.
    That was sort of my entire point in a nutshell. You're not interested in civil discussion, so good luck with your stigmatizing. I really don't have a dog in this fight.

  2. #62

    Default

    Good job standing up for yourself, Amphion. Eagleseven inadvertently proved your point about the "You're with us or you're against us" stigmatizing used by the gay lobby. He also somehow inferred a point of view (antigay) that you never stated.

    It was clear (to me at least) that if you had a dog in the fight, you weren't showing your cards.
    Everybody have fun tonight. Everybody Wang Chung tonight.

    Johari
    /Nohari

  3. #63
    Senior Member matmos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    NICE
    Posts
    1,721

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Amphion View Post
    I didn't perceive that Lark said he wanted to abandon his family either. I perceived that he didn't want his brother to bring his gay lover to his house, which is different.
    Well we can all invite who we like into our homes, and similarly refuse entry. If Lark's [imaginary] gay brother were refused entry along with his gay lover based on something other than being gay (like being an obnoxious drunkard, say) you'd have a point.

    I think you're mincing your words. The scenario seems very clear: shunning your brother because he has a gay partner is much the same as shunning his gay partner. The outcome is the same and either way homophobic discrimination comes into play.

    By your logic, Lark's brother would thank him for shunning his partner and pop in for a cup of tea, grateful of Lark's grudging acceptance. Right?

    If I were rejected from someone's home because of, say, the ethnicity of my wife, that's rejecting me as well. Forget the semantics.

    You reject someone's partner, they won't thank you for it.

  4. #64
    Member Amphion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    82

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bananatrombones View Post
    Well we can all invite who we like into our homes, and similarly refuse entry. If Lark's [imaginary] gay brother were refused entry along with his gay lover based on something other than being gay (like being an obnoxious drunkard, say) you'd have a point.

    I think you're mincing your words. The scenario seems very clear: shunning your brother because he has a gay partner is much the same as shunning his gay partner. The outcome is the same and either way homophobic discrimination comes into play.

    By your logic, Lark's brother would thank him for shunning his partner and pop in for a cup of tea, grateful of Lark's grudging acceptance. Right?

    If I were rejected from someone's home because of, say, the ethnicity of my wife, that's rejecting me as well.
    Here's an example from my own family.

    My brother moved in with his girlfriend who had a daughter from a previous marriage. Because they were living together and not married, my parents would not visit them in their home, and they were not permitted to spend the night in my parent's house (at least not in the same bed).

    This caused a great deal of pain and anxiety on both sides. However, my parents are wonderful people. They're not the scum of the Earth. They're just very old fashioned, and they have strong (but sincerely held) beliefs about love and marriage.

    Eventually my brother married her, but she didn't get an annulment from the previous marriage so they could not be married in the Catholic church. My parents really struggled with it, and so did my grandmother! They didn't even get up for communion at the ceremony. I think it's fair to say it damaged my parents relationship with my brother's wife, who is now the mother of their grandchildren.

    Is that sad? You bet. But it's complicated, and any attempt to make it black and white would miss the mark completely. When good people make decisions because they sincerely believe they are doing the right thing, and those decisions are not based on fear or hate, but the desire to please God, then I think they should be met with understanding.

    But I agree. If my family rejected my girlfriend or spouse due to her ethnicity then I would interpret it as a rejection of me, and I would make it clear that was the case.

  5. #65
    Vaguely Precise Seymour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/so
    Posts
    1,565

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    If you mean that opening a discussion instead of using name calling to end it is worthwhile I'd agree but if you're implying that under scrutiny its all just phobia of one shape or another I'd disagree.
    I wasn't meaning to imply it's all just phobias. I do think most objections boil down to ones of tradition, religion and emotion (typically disgust)... but I admit to being biased in this area. That doesn't mean any given individual is motivated by all three, or that there aren't additional arguments... I'm just not convinced those additional arguments are what motivate people.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    And not to question that at all, your personal experience that is, but the characterisation of perspectives or principles as religious, traditional or emotional is generally a disdainful and dismissive characterisation.
    Tradition exists for a good reason and the conservative impulse (to trust what is time-proven) is often a good one. I'm also not anti-religion (or anti-Christian) and struggle with whether I still consider myself a Christian or not. Also, as an Fi-dom, I think our emotions often have something important to tell us, even though I acknowledge they are not Truth in themselves.

    And I admit my own stance is backed by emotion, too. I struggled for a long time with my religious believes and negative feelings about homosexuality. In the end, it was direct experience that convinced me, which isn't something I can give to someone else. Heterosexuality was unnatural and wrong when forced upon me (partially by myself). I paid a big cost to come out. I don't wish what I went through to be inflicted on the next generation of gay people; that's one reason I bother to discuss it.

    So, I don't mean to sound denigrating. I think the conflicts created between religion and homosexuality are a tragedy. It seems so unnecessary and painful that I hope some day we all move beyond it. Groups using gay marriage as a fundraising tool haven't helped the discussion any.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Now I'm willing to accept that contexts and being discussed here in which you could be entirely correct, perhaps the mainstream of opposition to homosexuality in the US could be characterised this way, I dont know, I dont live there, what I do know is its a generalisation and as a consequence is apt to be falsifiable.
    Well, "boil down to" definitely implies simplification and generalization, I admit. There may well be exceptions to my generalization... but generally most arguments I've heard appeal to one or more of those three aspects.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    You could as easily say that all the supporters of homosexuality are secularist, modernist and rationalist, which patently wouldnt be the case, the idea that any unfavourable, perhaps even neutral, discussion of sexuality results in accusations of homophobia should be evident enough that becoming emotionally riled up and angry is an affliction of both sides of that particular debate.
    I know where the anger and hurt is coming from for gay folks. I also know what it's like to have one's religious beliefs attacked and to be a member of religious minority. Both experiences can lead to a kind of bunker mentality, which, I think, can cut off real communication.

    I do appreciate you going into more depth, and didn't mean to denigrate.

  6. #66
    mrs disregard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    7,855

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Or what really is free speech?

    On about three seperate forums now I'd read where people had to edit their insulting posts went to the whole idea of freedom of speech to excuse their behaviour, I've heard it said in response to the discussion about insults of the Pope by public servants in the UK.

    Now I'm getting used by the day to a world racing to the bottom in terms of a complete loss of rectitude and manners were assurity of punishment is just about the only thing motivating people but does anyone else get annoyed when they hear someone behaving like an asshole say their rights are being violated? Or that their right to behave like as asshole was the reason for resisting Nazism or totalitarianism?

    I think it makes a complete mockery of the very idea of rights or freedom altogether, which I think has become so, so broad a statement of principles or norms that its beginning to lose touch with reality anyway.

    The thing about freedom of speech specifically is that I think it is important and defensible, not simply from ill conceived legislation but even from a kind of creeping close mindedness which makes topics "off limits" because they are too cringeworthy or offensive. That's totally different from permitting someone to act like a sophist at best and a bully at worst with stupid remarks.
    I completely agree.

    When I see a member defend their personal attacks with the freedom of speech, it disappoints me, but when I see many members defend a mob-like attack on the character of another member with that same defense, I become bewildered.

    It makes me wonder what sort of shelter the contributors expect will be there for them if they were in a similar situation.

    The hey-day of the Golden Rule has passed, I suppose.

  7. #67
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Amphion View Post
    Where you see pathological fear of homosexuality, I see contempt. You may think it's small minded, or based on illegitimate premises, but I don't view it as fear-based.

    Would it be different if Lark's brother was a polygamist? What if Lark said, "You know what, I don't approve of polygamy, I think it's morally repugnant. I love my brother, but I'll be damned if he's coming over to my house with his three wives, because I don't condone his behavior."

    My personal observation is that gay activists are attempting to stigmatize any anti-gay sentiment as "homophobic" as a way of controlling the acceptable public discourse about gays. So unless you subscribe to the idea that gays should be able to marry, adopt children, and have a place of equal respect in modern culture to non-gay couples, you are "homophobic" and presumably in need of education. At the very least, your outdated, draconian, insensitive, and hateful views shoud be marginalized and not taken at all seriously. So it's a way of leveraging political correctness to advance an agenda.

    It's effective but it's not worthy of respect, because some people disagree with things like gay marriage or gays adopting children based on sincerely held beliefs, whether moral, philosophical, or practical. I think it's an important discussion for modern society, but labeling and stigmatizing the conservative side circumvents that discussion in the name of political power.
    That's a very good argument and to be honest a very clear illustration of my point, the analogy with polygamy is a good one.

    Its a shame, in a way, that its in response to BT because they are an internet troll who craves control over others, they try to achieve it in a variety of manners and pretty much harping on that I'm homophobic is an attempt on their part to "push buttons". Just so you know, trying to engage them in any sort of dialogue or discussion is a waste of time.

  8. #68
    Senior Member matmos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    NICE
    Posts
    1,721

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Just so you know, trying to engage them in any sort of dialogue or discussion is a waste of time.
    Oooh. The irony.

    We'll let Amphion be the judge of that, shall we?

    Maybe if you took things a little less personally you might pick up a new trick.

  9. #69
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by disregard View Post
    I completely agree.

    When I see a member defend their personal attacks with the freedom of speech, it disappoints me, but when I see many members defend a mob-like attack on the character of another member with that same defense, I become bewildered.

    It makes me wonder what sort of shelter the contributors expect will be there for them if they were in a similar situation.

    The hey-day of the Golden Rule has passed, I suppose.
    I dont understand your entire post I like the final line, that makes sense and I'd not thought about it in this context.

  10. #70
    Senior Member eagleseven's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    331

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Amphion View Post
    I don't recall making any statements whatsoever about my feelings toward homosexuality.
    I was simply addressing the position you were defending regarding homosexuality. If that is not your personal opinon, it matters not, as you were actively defending the anti-homosexual position.

    Claiming devil's advocate doesn't grant immunity to the devil's argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by Amphion View Post
    I didn't perceive that Lark said he wanted to abandon his family either. I perceived that he didn't want his brother to bring his gay lover to his house, which is different.
    Tis no different from a father who denies the existence of his son-in-law. It rips the family apart, and creates distrust/resentment.

    Quote Originally Posted by Amphion View Post
    So Lark's metaphorical brother is the one who set's Lark's family values?
    It is obvious that Lark's religious (aka cultural) values set his family values.

    Quote Originally Posted by Amphion View Post
    So.... I have been suppressing homosexual tendencies in the Western World for the past 1,500 years?
    The "contempt for homosexuality" that you defend above has stigmitized homosexual for the past 1,500 years.



    Quote Originally Posted by Amphion View Post
    I'm drawing a distinction between reasonable beliefs drawn from innocent or well-meaning starting points as opposed to other less noble types of beliefs.
    Is one who believes fantasy for noble ends superior to one who believes truth out of fear?

    Quote Originally Posted by Amphion View Post
    I can't imagine you have any idea what I bend over backwards for, since you know absolutely nothing about me.
    You just stated that "innocent or well-meaning starting points" gain your respect, even if they ultimately lead to an evil end.

    You are arguing that the means justify the ends.

    Quote Originally Posted by Amphion View Post
    There is only a grain of truth in this statement. I do agree that a philosophic life is a life of free inquiry, whereas a religious life tends to be a life of obedience, but even in a religious life some discussion is needed to interpret the tenets of the religion, or to answer the question of how man ought to live.
    You change the young, not the old. Religion is maintained by the old, and is resistant to change.

    Quote Originally Posted by Amphion View Post
    That was sort of my entire point in a nutshell. You're not interested in civil discussion, so good luck with your stigmatizing. I really don't have a dog in this fight.
    Then perhaps you should avoid tending the wounds of the dogs in the fight for your entertainment. Otherwise, expected to be bitten.

Similar Threads

  1. Humanism the basis for the world's religions and philosophy
    By Survive & Stay Free in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 09-25-2011, 11:40 PM
  2. [NT] Strategies for Rationalists in a Sensationally Feely world.
    By murkrow in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 06-24-2009, 08:54 PM
  3. [ENFP] ENFP-When is it safe for Fi to come out?
    By sculpting in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 02-19-2009, 11:06 PM
  4. Plot for NT World Domination
    By MerkW in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 85
    Last Post: 12-18-2007, 02:13 AM
  5. Help Stop the Plot For NT World Domination
    By ThatsWhatHeSaid in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 12-14-2007, 02:12 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