User Tag List

First 45678 Last

Results 51 to 60 of 130

  1. #51
    veteran attention whore Jeffster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESFP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    6,727

    Default

    The Texas GOP Platform doesn't make laws.

    Trust me, if it did, we wouldn't have every damn thing in this state printed in English AND Spanish. Also, abortion would be outlawed and dinosaurs would be legally mythical creatures. None of that is the case.

    Also, the state platform doesn't even represent the majority of state republicans, much less the majority of Texans. I participated in the Brazos County republican convention in 1996, and 95 percent of the platform is approved on a voice vote with no one bothering to read it at all. It's written by political marketing people who are trying to win the support of interest groups they feel are crucial to winning elections.

    There, problem solved. Find something else to bitch about. Texas still rules suckas. OUT.
    Jeffster Illustrates the Artisan Temperament <---- click here

    "I like the sigs with quotes in them from other forum members." -- Oberon

    The SP Spazz Youtube Channel

  2. #52

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    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.

    [snip]

    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?
    To begin with very thoughtful and interesting response, thanks for taking the time, I'm not 100% familiar with utilitarianism and consequentialism so pardon any misunderstanding.

    Is the question the widespread acceptance of homosexuality?

    I'm unsure of the extent to which the earlier societies and anthropological examples which are unheld as homonormative are accurate to be honest, this is just as a consequence of being familiar with many similar arguments made socialists and communists about proprietorship in past societies and tribal contexts and the deconstruction and fate of those arguments.

    Besides, even should those examples exist the question, from a straight consequentialist and utilitarian point of view would be does the precedent in other contexts, of either time or place, provide sufficient evidence that a present cultural trend or chang is harmless, is it not?

    It is all very well to indicate other contexts but we all have to live in the present one, no one begins from an ideal or perfect or even simply prefered context, so in order to ask whether these changes could be harmful you have to ask what the present context is, however it was arrived at.

    I would suggest that the present context is heteronormative, the vast majority of people are heterosexual, commentators suggest that culturally we are attuned to heterosexuality, that the unconscious, indeliberative (or should that be undeliberative? I'm not dealing in neologisms, I dont have the proper words sometimes) or organic in presentation is heterosexual. Hence he great efforts made by the homosexual minority to supply themselves with pride, identity etc. through independent media and scene.

    Your argument, if I'm not misrepresenting it, and its not my intention, is that there is no harm consequent from a change in that. Now, for the stake of argument I'm presuming, and correct me if I'm wrong, that you're suggesting this is an organic change and not one legislated or compelled through pressure, opinion formers or formal agenda. Where would the harm be right?

    Well, I would refer you to the idea of there being an original harm done to a minority of homosexuals by being presented with their identity as abnormal. If this constitutes harm, harm special enough as to provoke a movement for change which draws support and is sponsored by quarters who arent part of the oiginal impacted population itself, then how could its equal opposite not also be harmful? Surely it is more harmful, from the position of utilitarianism, simply because it has a greater negative impact upon the greatest happiness of the greatest number?

    That's apart from more straightforward questions to do with culture and politics associated with but not exclusive to the topic of homosexuality, such as closed mindedness posing as sophisticated open mindedness, public censor and self-censor, how those things operate both within and outside the original population/audience.

    It could be a different issue or topic, apart from a societal level change in culture, but I believe that the way that the homosexual agenda has been articulated at present has done harm and will continue to do harm, not least to homosexuals themselves. It brooks no opposition, not even internal, it doesnt brook much in the way of doubts or second thoughts, its divisive of many of its fellow travellers even, for instance the treatment of many UK "political lesbians" who left the gay community, married and settled down. There are people who are drawn into the scene who are lonely, vulnerable individuals who wind up in a worse state afterwards.

    It invites a situation where a whole range of behaviour is treated under a single heading of (homo)sexuality and thereby made unassailable. For instance I know of one indivdual who suffered from bi-polar, other mood and personality problems, pretty obvious attachment problems and misery consequent upon his developing sexual attraction to anyone who showed them attention or approval. Now I would have thought that individual needed to reflect upon a lot of things, however he instead "came out" and met with a unanimous chorus of approval from friends, even family, everyone altogether had an explanation for "why he was the way he was". They now actually have a child with a woman, an abusive male partner and every one of them problems with alcohol, there's now pressure for people in his circle to accept some homosexuals have "a quirk" and "be happy for them". Sreally?

  3. #53

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffster View Post
    There, problem solved. Find something else to bitch about. Texas still rules suckas. OUT.



  4. #54
    Senior Member matmos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    NICE
    Posts
    1,721

    Default

    Equal opportunity legislation which is inclusive to all minority groups is critical, otherwise discrimination will tacidly perpetuate.

    For example, as a British subject and an Ulster Roman Catholic, Lark would be the beneficiary of the following legislation:

    Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998
    Section 75 and Schedule 9 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998 came into force on the 01 January 2000 and placed a statutory obligation on public authorities in carrying out their various functions relating to Northern Ireland, to have due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity –

    between persons of different religious belief, political opinion, racial group, age, marital status or sexual orientation;

    between men and women generally;

    between persons with a disability and persons without; and
    between persons with dependants and persons without.

    In addition, without prejudice to this obligation, Public Authorities are also required to have regard to the desirability of promoting good relations between persons of different religious belief, political opinion, and racial group.

    The statutory obligations are implemented through Equality Schemes, approved by the Equality Commission, and by screening and carrying out Equality Impact Assessments (EQIAs) on policies.
    Source: Section 75 | Statutory Duty | Equality | Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister

    It would be fair to say that catholics for many years would be unable to get a job because of bigotry by the majority Ulster protestants.

    Such legislation was brought in to give people like Lark a fair crack at the whip. Lark's response is to conflate protecting rights with promulgating, what he (and a minority of zealots) sees, as abnomal behaviour. Although reading Lark's post, it is hard to think of someone less of an authority on what is "normal" than Lark. He confuses fairness for all with some non-existent gay conspiracy.

    Lark would be in the dole queue if it were not for the kind of policies he claims to detest.

    He may also wish to consider his position as a "social worker" in Northern Ireland, which is clearly out of kilter with his professional and legal commitments. Whether he likes it or not he is obliged to obey reasonable laws - the same laws that protect him from discrimination.

    Equality Commission Northern Ireland - The Law

  5. #55
    ^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
    To begin with very thoughtful and interesting response, thanks for taking the time, I'm not 100% familiar with utilitarianism and consequentialism so pardon any misunderstanding.

    Is the question the widespread acceptance of homosexuality?

    I'm unsure of the extent to which the earlier societies and anthropological examples which are unheld as homonormative are accurate to be honest, this is just as a consequence of being familiar with many similar arguments made socialists and communists about proprietorship in past societies and tribal contexts and the deconstruction and fate of those arguments.
    Look it up. Homosexuality is not nearly as sketchy a concept as socialism. The understanding among historians, anthropologists, and sociologists is virtually unanimous that homosexuality was commonplace and not particularly stigmatized in classical Greece. The evidence is rather overt.

    And my example about the Papuan tribals is important because we studied them in the 20th century whille they were still maintaining that culture. Their behavior was observed first hand, consequently leaving little room for doubt.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Besides, even should those examples exist the question, from a straight consequentialist and utilitarian point of view would be does the precedent in other contexts, of either time or place, provide sufficient evidence that a present cultural trend or chang is harmless, is it not?
    Well, it would be relevant if the history told us something about the present, but actually extrapolating that can be difficult. As it were, though, I don't see evidence that homosexuality is responsible for the downfall of Greek people, for example.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    It is all very well to indicate other contexts but we all have to live in the present one, no one begins from an ideal or perfect or even simply prefered context, so in order to ask whether these changes could be harmful you have to ask what the present context is, however it was arrived at.
    I do. My point about history was to demonstrate that not only is homosexuality not new, but the open acceptance of it isn't either.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    I would suggest that the present context is heteronormative, the vast majority of people are heterosexual, commentators suggest that culturally we are attuned to heterosexuality, that the unconscious, indeliberative (or should that be undeliberative? I'm not dealing in neologisms, I dont have the proper words sometimes) or organic in presentation is heterosexual. Hence he great efforts made by the homosexual minority to supply themselves with pride, identity etc. through independent media and scene.
    In... some sense that is true. It is true that heterosexuality is a part of the dominant culture in this society, and that homosexuality is stigmatized. The last thing you said is only very loosely true. I would say that homosexuals seek other sources of support, pride, solidarity, etc.. because they need it to face the opposition of a disapproving majority.

    That being said, there is a difference between being straight, and being against gays. The vast majority of the population may be straight, but polls inidicate that the acceptance of homosexuals is higher than ever, around or above 50% at this point, so in terms of the general opinion of homosexuality, we can no longer oppose it in the name of the majority.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Your argument, if I'm not misrepresenting it, and its not my intention, is that there is no harm consequent from a change in that. Now, for the stake of argument I'm presuming, and correct me if I'm wrong, that you're suggesting this is an organic change and not one legislated or compelled through pressure, opinion formers or formal agenda. Where would the harm be right?
    It actually doesn't matter to me which it is, frankly, but this is largely organic, or I would prefer to say an informal cultural transtition, but there have been legal elements, too. The means do not concern may that much. I'm concerned with the results.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Well, I would refer you to the idea of there being an original harm done to a minority of homosexuals by being presented with their identity as abnormal.
    I would like to add that this is no violation of mere folkways. Homosexuality has long been something that can result alienation, removal of economic opportunities, and threat of injury or death by the hands of others. It is beyond being considered abnormal, it had long be considered highly punishable.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    If this constitutes harm, harm special enough as to provoke a movement for change which draws support and is sponsored by quarters who arent part of the oiginal impacted population itself, then how could its equal opposite not also be harmful? Surely it is more harmful, from the position of utilitarianism, simply because it has a greater negative impact upon the greatest happiness of the greatest number?
    That would be true, but I have to stop this train of thought here because I believe to be a non-sequitur. The equal opposite of this would be heterosexuality being condemnded, rejected, and punished, akin to the way homosexuality has been. I do not see the point in mentioning it because I am convinced that will never happen, and I do not see what the gay rights "agenda" has to do with that. So yes it would be bad, and in fact worse because it would be a minority punishing a majority, but this has no meaning outside of the purely hypothetical realm because it is not happening and will not happen.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    That's apart from more straightforward questions to do with culture and politics associated with but not exclusive to the topic of homosexuality, such as closed mindedness posing as sophisticated open mindedness, public censor and self-censor, how those things operate both within and outside the original population/audience.

    It could be a different issue or topic, apart from a societal level change in culture, but I believe that the way that the homosexual agenda has been articulated at present has done harm and will continue to do harm, not least to homosexuals themselves. It brooks no opposition, not even internal, it doesnt brook much in the way of doubts or second thoughts, its divisive of many of its fellow travellers even, for instance the treatment of many UK "political lesbians" who left the gay community, married and settled down. There are people who are drawn into the scene who are lonely, vulnerable individuals who wind up in a worse state afterwards.
    First of all, this is quite speculative, and I cannot say if this is indeed happening or not, so that poses a problem. Secondy, while I do notice some trends like this, I happen to notice them in every movement associated with a controversial issue, often regarding opposiing sides no less. So, those who are against the gay rights movements seem to be to just as intolerant of opposition or insubordination. Furtermore, all kinds of movements having nothing to do with homosexuality are like that. I'm not saying that it's okay because it is common, but I am saying that it is nothing that makes the gay rights movement deserving of being singled out.

    Furthermore, even those flaws do not completely mitigate a movement's worth. Actually, the more stigmatized a group is, the more opposition it faces, the more it tends to be this way, because people seek conviction and solidarity in the face of adversity. I actually believe these elements you complain about would dwindle away if homosexuality were accepted more into the mainstream, giving them the chance to let their guard down. I believe something like that happened with feminism. There is still a gap between men and women for sure, but it is definitely smaller than it was in 1970, and it would seem that the presence of what one might call fanatical feminism is also much lower than it was in 1970. There isn't so much incentive for it now.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    It invites a situation where a whole range of behaviour is treated under a single heading of (homo)sexuality and thereby made unassailable. For instance I know of one indivdual who suffered from bi-polar, other mood and personality problems, pretty obvious attachment problems and misery consequent upon his developing sexual attraction to anyone who showed them attention or approval. Now I would have thought that individual needed to reflect upon a lot of things, however he instead "came out" and met with a unanimous chorus of approval from friends, even family, everyone altogether had an explanation for "why he was the way he was". They now actually have a child with a woman, an abusive male partner and every one of them problems with alcohol, there's now pressure for people in his circle to accept some homosexuals have "a quirk" and "be happy for them". Sreally?
    This is both an anecdotal example, and it's being made to draw a point that I thing conflates a lot. By and large, I do not thing people are aiming for, or even creating the circumstance you are describing. I do not nothing it is common for homosexuality be used as a shield for other problems as 1) Legitimately in psychology, homosexuality has extremely little to do with any other behavior than exactly what it means, and 2) it is still too stigamtized for most people to find it useful to try hiding something else behind it. The situation you describe sounds unreal to me. In my observation, such a person in most cases would be subsequently viewed as queer on top of all of their other problems, be stigmatized even more, and be an example for bigoted people to say "see, that's how screwed up fags are".
    Go to sleep, iguana.


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

  6. #56
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Magic, you do realise the several problems presented by references to Ancient Greece and other cultures?

  7. #57
    Senior Member eagleseven's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    331

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    In my observation, such a person in most cases would be subsequently viewed as queer on top of all of their other problems, be stigmatized even more, and be an example for bigoted people to say "see, that's how screwed up fags are".
    You mean like this?

    It invites a situation where a whole range of behaviour is treated under a single heading of (homo)sexuality and thereby made unassailable. For instance I know of one indivdual who suffered from bi-polar, other mood and personality problems, pretty obvious attachment problems and misery consequent upon his developing sexual attraction to anyone who showed them attention or approval. Now I would have thought that individual needed to reflect upon a lot of things, however he instead "came out" and met with a unanimous chorus of approval from friends, even family, everyone altogether had an explanation for "why he was the way he was". They now actually have a child with a woman, an abusive male partner and every one of them problems with alcohol, there's now pressure for people in his circle to accept some homosexuals have "a quirk" and "be happy for them". Sreally?

  8. #58
    Ginkgo
    Guest

    Default

    From my understanding, sexual orientation is a social construct that describes a part of the person's identity and personality. As such, it needs approval by others before it can really be understood as it is. Before it was a social construct, when it was characterized as more of a behavioral thing with sodomy and various other acts, I don't think it suffered from as much stigmatization as it does now. In Greece and other cultures, I believe there was just "the act", but now it's been associated with a whole array of masculine/feminine behaviors and traits that really have nothing to do with the base orientation.

    Taken from wiki... oh how I hate you wiki... you make me lazy.

    The first known appearance of homosexual in print is found in an 1869 German pamphlet by the Austrian-born novelist Karl-Maria Kertbeny, published anonymously,[25] arguing against a Prussian anti-sodomy law.[26][27] In 1879, Gustav Jager used Kertbeny's terms in his book, Discovery of the Soul (1880).[27] In 1886, Richard von Krafft-Ebing used the terms homosexual and heterosexual in his book Psychopathia Sexualis, probably borrowing them from Jager. Krafft-Ebing's book was so popular among both layman and doctors that the terms "heterosexual" and "homosexual" became the most widely accepted terms for sexual orientation.
    Probably why you never really hear the explicit "homosexuality" in the Bible or other ancient texts. It wasn't as much of a social and cultural thing as it is now, and this is why there are completely different dynamics about it in the Western World.

    Note that I'm not saying that culture is causal of the behavior or the identity of the person. Such a thing has its roots in both genetics and environment. Rather, culture simply acknowledges, accepts, or doesn't accept these things in it's own sphere. The law has it's place in culture, and it's up to whoever's in a position of power to determine whether behavior is accepted or not.

    Will homosexuality cause a decline in the success of a culture? Will sodomy or transgendered people? I don't see how this could happen. And if so, why would it need to be stamped on a person with paperwork? Sure, that could benefit them if the people accept this about them, but it could also harm them if they are not accepted.

  9. #59
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Yes, sexual "orientation" as a concept dates back to the 19th century. There was no concept of sexual "orientation" back in ancient times, whether in regards to the Greeks or even to the Bible. So already one is operating under an anarchronism here as to how "homosexuality" is being understood.

  10. #60

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mystic Tater View Post
    From my understanding, sexual orientation is a social construct that describes a part of the person's identity and personality. As such, it needs approval by others before it can really be understood as it is. Before it was a social construct, when it was characterized as more of a behavioral thing with sodomy and various other acts, I don't think it suffered from as much stigmatization as it does now. In Greece and other cultures, I believe there was just "the act", but now it's been associated with a whole array of masculine/feminine behaviors and traits that really have nothing to do with the base orientation.

    Taken from wiki... oh how I hate you wiki... you make me lazy.



    Probably why you never really hear the explicit "homosexuality" in the Bible or other ancient texts. It wasn't as much of a social and cultural thing as it is now, and this is why there are completely different dynamics about it in the Western World.

    Note that I'm not saying that culture is causal of the behavior or the identity of the person. Such a thing has its roots in both genetics and environment. Rather, culture simply acknowledges, accepts, or doesn't accept these things in it's own sphere. The law has it's place in culture, and it's up to whoever's in a position of power to determine whether behavior is accepted or not.

    Will homosexuality cause a decline in the success of a culture? Will sodomy or transgendered people? I don't see how this could happen. And if so, why would it need to be stamped on a person with paperwork? Sure, that could benefit them if the people accept this about them, but it could also harm them if they are not accepted.
    Thought provoking post, very well framed and pretty succinct.

    I'm beginning to think that perhaps the risks associated with being identified are greater than the willingness of many to be identified with, in this case, being transgendered, I was talking to someone else about religious identity in a different context and, well, without wanting to derail the thread, and it would, its not as simple as being willing to be identified with your choosen identity. Which is what I first imagined. I'm still not sure how much of an allowance and service that the legislator should make for an individuals choice of identity though.

    To be truthful I dont think that homosexuality could cause cultural decline, its been a constant in some shape of form for a long time, however has it had/sought/be ascribed the cultural status it presently has before? What is the consequences of that?

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