User Tag List

First 34567 Last

Results 41 to 50 of 130

  1. #41
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    The simplist response is that there is no moral equivalence between arguments about homosexuality and slavery. I know that lots of black civil rights campaigners dont appreciate the analogies and comparisons either.
    Indeed. IIRC, one of them is Martin Luther King Jr.'s daughter.

  2. #42
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Treating it as simply ridiculous is pretty dismissive, instead of doing that I'd think it would be a better idea to engage with just why this situation has come about.

    If it proves to be hate, ignorance, blind spite all the usual things liberal prejudice would suggest it is then well and good, not much can be done about that, for some people I dont doubt that that actually is the case but if there a sense of grievance as a consequence of social fragmentation and fissures and how that's been handled both culturally and politically wouldnt it be a good idea to examine that?
    I was expressing my sentiments at that last part. I could give a lengthy explanation of my position, but that post was mostly in response to Peguy (building off of Lateralus) in explaining why people were taken aback in this thread, and that his impression was incorrect. In other words, explaining why it would be wrong it enforce a sodomy law was not my goal at that moment.

    Now, just because someone appears to be dismissing an idea out of hand now, does not mean they never thought about it. In fact, if anyone does a good job with their analysis, than anything they are quickly dismissing should have at one time been something they considered extensively. Let's be clear that open-mindedness does not mean an unwillingness to take a stance on anything.

    But as best as I can tell, the only reasoning behind this sort of law is a kind of fuzzy, rather unsubstantiated conjecture about our culture, what it is supposed to be, what damages it, and the reasons it needs to be kept authentic. Nothing I have read or heard has really given me reason to believe the premises.

    So, I do not understand how two people of the same sex having sex with each other, or one person putting their penis in another's rear-end, has some kind of malignant impact on society. If it's merely a complaint about the culture that some people once knew changing, I have two answer..

    1) Get over it, because culture inevitably changes. That it is merely changing at all is not something you can do anything about.
    2) Anyone that thinks homosexuality in this society is new has an unrealistic idea of our culture and history.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  3. #43
    AKA Nunki Polaris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    451 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INFp Ni
    Posts
    1,373

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    The simplist response is that there is no moral equivalence between arguments about homosexuality and slavery. I know that lots of black civil rights campaigners dont appreciate the analogies and comparisons either.
    No one said there was a moral equivalence between arguments about homosexuality and arguments about slavery. You're deliberately missing the point, which is that precedent does not make right.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark
    That not everyone, for a variety of reasons, is going to be supportive, in agreement, want to promote your personal identity as the norm.
    Granting people the right to do as they wish in the privacy of their own lives does not force anyone to do anything. If I tell Jimmy that he can go swimming if he wants to, I haven't by extension told everyone else, or even Jimmy himself, that they must embrace the act of swimming. I've only said that I'm not going to step in and prevent an individual from doing what he wants to on his own personal time. It's the farthest thing from intruding on anyone's ability to make personal judgments on the matter. What would be intrusive is if, like you, I decided it was my business to stick my nose in the details of Jimmy's life.

    If by "supporting, agreeing with, and promoting their personal identity as the norm," you mean making it a law that you can't fire a good worker because they were born a female and are now a male, or because of their private sexual tastes, that raises questions about your attitude toward such laws in general. There are laws, for instance, against firing Catholics on the basis of their religion, and according to your logic, this forces society to "support, agree with, and promote their personal identity as the norm." There are many more such laws in place, and a lot of them protect very small minorities from a frequently prejudiced majority: atheists, racial groups, unpopular religions, and many more people are all safeguarded against workplace discrimination.

    Do you want to see these protections removed? Do you want to see an end to these laws which, according to you, force society to "support, agree with, and promote a personal identity as the norm?"

    If you're being consistent, the answer would have to be yes, at least in regard to minorities who are protected by such laws. The question is how you would feel if your boss called you one day and said you're fired because you're a devout Catholic. Supposing you lived in a place where devout Catholics are a minority, how would you feel about that? Would you embrace your unemployment as you would the unemployment of a homosexual under the same circumstances? If you answer yes, that shows consistency on your part. If you answer no, it proves that you're not giving the full reason you oppose basic protection for homo- or transsexuals.

    Might it have something to do with a personal vendetta? Do you think your personal vendettas should dictate the law?
    [ Ni > Ti > Fe > Fi > Ne > Te > Si > Se ][ 4w5 sp/sx ][ RLOAI ][ IEI-Ni ]

  4. #44
    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 Magic Poriferan View Post
    I was expressing my sentiments at that last part. I could give a lengthy explanation of my position, but that post was mostly in response to Peguy (building off of Lateralus) in explaining why people were taken aback in this thread, and that his impression was incorrect. In other words, explaining why it would be wrong it enforce a sodomy law was not my goal at that moment.

    Now, just because someone appears to be dismissing an idea out of hand now, does not mean they never thought about it. In fact, if anyone does a good job with their analysis, than anything they are quickly dismissing should have at one time been something they considered extensively. Let's be clear that open-mindedness does not mean an unwillingness to take a stance on anything.

    But as best as I can tell, the only reasoning behind this sort of law is a kind of fuzzy, rather unsubstantiated conjecture about our culture, what it is supposed to be, what damages it, and the reasons it needs to be kept authentic. Nothing I have read or heard has really given me reason to believe the premises.

    So, I do not understand how two people of the same sex having sex with each other, or one person putting their penis in another's rear-end, has some kind of malignant impact on society. If it's merely a complaint about the culture that some people once knew changing, I have two answer..

    1) Get over it, because culture inevitably changes. That it is merely changing at all is not something you can do anything about.
    2) Anyone that thinks homosexuality in this society is new has an unrealistic idea of our culture and history.
    OK, cool, just your last points though, would you have the same opinion if the people growing in the present culture where to experience a change in which seriously immoderate condemnation of particular lifestyles or choices became resurgent?

    With respect, "Get over it, because culture inevitably changes." is an opinion I'd only expect if the cultural changes in question you either 1) Affirm and Approve, 2) Dont believe are significant or will interfer with life as we know it.

    I dont think homosexuality is new, its something which for a variety of reasons has been around for a long time, people, homosexual and heterosexual, still debate its origins or development and I expect that will always be the case.

    What is new is the prominance it has achieved and that its directly in contest now with what some people define as heteronormativity, that it should be given parity with heterosexuality when its not something most heterosexuals before now have ever had much cause to consider, its a political, topical issue in a way its never been before.

  5. #45
    Senior Member eagleseven's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    331

    Default

    Two Questions:

    1. Will heterosexual couples be arrested for having anal sex?

    2. Will two men still be able to have non-anal sexual relations?

  6. #46
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    OK, cool, just your last points though, would you have the same opinion if the people growing in the present culture where to experience a change in which seriously immoderate condemnation of particular lifestyles or choices became resurgent?

    With respect, "Get over it, because culture inevitably changes." is an opinion I'd only expect if the cultural changes in question you either 1) Affirm and Approve, 2) Dont believe are significant or will interfer with life as we know it.
    Depends. Your choice of the word "immoderate" skews things a bit, because by some definitions of that word, that basically means unreasonable, and of course I opposie any unreasonable measure of response, but that it is tautological and does not actually get down to the point of contention.

    I do believe different behaviors should be accepted or rejected differently. The two main issues with condemnation is if the condemned act really deserves to be in the first place, and if the action then taken against it is workable/effective.

    As you can gather then, I do have axioms for judging if a culture change is good or bad in my mind, and I assume everyone else does. I personally subcribe to a kind of positive utilitarianism as my ethical code, which of course is fundamentally teleological. It's very simple in premise and extremely flexible in its applicability. I rather bluntly pave it over other peoples' ethical philosophies because I think it is wholly superior. But of course, I expect other people to stand up for their own ethics.

    Anyhow, with that out of the way, my personal way of assessing if a cultural change is good or bad then, is based on whether or not I think it ultimately has net positive or negative results (of course, in comparison to its alternatives). I have found no compelling argument that accepting homosexuality is more negative to society overall than trying to condemn, prevent, or remove homosexuality, and in fact I've found much to the contrary.

    If other people are against homosexuality via a similar ethical philosophy to mine, then I would be willing to hear their explanation as to how homosexuality is bad from a consequentialist perspective. On the other hand, my point was, that if their morals are not consequential but instead simply based on an attachment to what currently is, then they are hopeless anyway because the current state of things will change.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    I dont think homosexuality is new, its something which for a variety of reasons has been around for a long time, people, homosexual and heterosexual, still debate its origins or development and I expect that will always be the case.

    What is new is the prominance it has achieved and that its directly in contest now with what some people define as heteronormativity, that it should be given parity with heterosexuality when its not something most heterosexuals before now have ever had much cause to consider, its a political, topical issue in a way its never been before.
    That would entirely depend on the society you are talking about. It was nothing new in Greece or Rome. There was plenty of discussion about it in feudal Japan (where it was, I would say, more complicated and controversial than it was in Greece). And this goes back to the most primitive societies. There are, for example, Papuan tribes where homsexuality is normative, prevalent, and actually practiced more often than heterosexual acts (which are basically viewed as strictly reproductive). I'd like to note that Greece and Rome are extremely important to the existence and state of our own culture, they are ancestors. this rejection of homosexuals seems to have come from the synthesis of the more eastern Hebraic cultures into the west, mixing with the Hellenistic culture.

    So, really, Americans (and I guess Europeans), are really reacting to something that has awoken from a long sleep, and the wide acceptence of homosexuality is not really newer than homosexuality itself.

    That being said, alluding to comments I made above, I don't take it as a valid complaint that something merely violates a society's current idea of normativity. Is it for the better or for the worse?
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  7. #47
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    381

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eagleseven View Post
    Two Questions:

    1. Will heterosexual couples be arrested for having anal sex?
    Yes and oral sex as well since they also propose to outlaw that... I can just see the headlines now...
    "Prominent business man faces 15 years in jail for receiving oral sex from mistress after angry wife sets up hidden cam in the bedroom" LOL!

    - something tells me the law will stop being popular right about then..

    Quote Originally Posted by eagleseven View Post
    2. Will two men still be able to have non-anal sexual relations?
    No, since oral sex will also be banned they'll pretty much be left with - well nothing.

    I can also envision other hilarious headlines from this legislative plan of attack on what other people do in their bedrooms since it also targets pornography & stripping..

    "A group of high school football players arrested for convincing the girls from the cheerleading squad to strip for them, the teens ranging in age from 16 to 18 are facing up to 25 years in jail for each count"

    "An entire texas national guard unit has been arrested after a playboy magazine was found in soldier's luggage during a routine TSA check. The magazine was fingerprinted and partials matching all the male soldiers in XYZ unit were found. Each face charges ranging from possession to intent to distribute"
    Quote Originally Posted by whatever View Post
    watch where you're driving f$cktards! I have the right of way!!! :steam:

  8. #48
    Don't Judge Me! Haphazard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Posts
    6,707

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by spin-1/2-nuclei View Post
    No, since oral sex will also be banned they'll pretty much be left with - well nothing.
    Well, someone lacks creativity
    -Carefully taking sips from the Fire Hose of Knowledge

  9. #49
    Senior Member eagleseven's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    331

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by spin-1/2-nuclei View Post
    No, since oral sex will also be banned they'll pretty much be left with - well nothing.
    Ya know...there is still frot, aka the Spartan way!


  10. #50
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    381

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Haphazard View Post
    Well, someone lacks creativity
    guilty as charged...

    Quote Originally Posted by eagleseven View Post
    Ya know...there is still frot, aka the Spartan way!

    well you learn something new everyday.
    Quote Originally Posted by whatever View Post
    watch where you're driving f$cktards! I have the right of way!!! :steam:

Similar Threads

  1. Gay marriage and black people
    By great_bay in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 02-22-2016, 10:30 PM
  2. Polygamy and Gay Marriage
    By lowtech redneck in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 06-03-2014, 08:59 PM
  3. Gay Marriage and SCOTUS: Hi ho and here we go
    By Totenkindly in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 12-09-2012, 07:20 AM
  4. Iowa Supreme Court Overturns Gay-Marriage Ban
    By 01011010 in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 93
    Last Post: 04-12-2009, 12:58 PM
  5. Gay rights, marriage, and adoption
    By Kiddo in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 206
    Last Post: 06-09-2008, 10:15 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