Go to The Golden Rule Needs Some Iron
- Add a comment
- Go to The Errors of the Liberal Religion-- Part 2
what you mean then goldenmean is that homosexuals choose to be homosexual
just as murderers choose to murder
or thieves choose to steal
that they could have chosen heterosexual sex.
there was a fork in the road -- hetero/homo - and they deliberately chose homo.
because it was more appealing than hetero?
posted by
Xeno-x
on
December 4, 2006
at
7:19 PM
| |
reply
Golden Mean, glad to see you back...
note that I responded in your most recent post to a comment you made awhile ago.
posted by
Dyl_Pickle
on
July 10, 2005
at
10:13 AM
| |
reply
I see legal action here . . .
What if the fruit flies hire an attorney and file a class action law suit against those changing their seuxality without their permission?
posted by
archiew
on
July 10, 2005
at
8:48 AM
| |
reply
Sorry I haven't been keeping up lately
Archiew, that is a fascinating question. I think religion and philosophy attempt to answer the same questions with different answers. Religious people think they have an answer to all the questions (even if it is just "trust in God"). Philosophers think they must question all the answers.
But I don't think they are mutually exclusive. Some important philosophers have been religious (Immanuel Kant, for example). Religious people, for various reasons, have simply committed themselves to belief in ONE belief system, while philosophers generally try to find the value or the error in all belief systems without committing themselves to any one of them.
posted by
GoldenMean
on
July 9, 2005
at
8:38 PM
| |
reply
Are Religious Thought and Philosophy
mutually exclusive?
posted by
archiew
on
July 8, 2005
at
3:53 AM
| |
reply
Well we are closer as to marriage but further apart on adoption! The thing is, I agree wholeheartedly that children are better off with active dads, but if we are not going to legislate against single parents raising kids, I see no basis for legislating against gay ones doing so. Indeed, I would go as far as to suspect that two gays are better than one straight at raising a child. Two heads are better than one, even if one of them is not a man. Kids languishing in foster care need families, like
now. With them, we've already passed the June and Ward Cleaver moment. I'm not saying this means we ought to make it worse; rather I argue that we are wise not to make the best the enemy of the better, and that gay parents raising a child are better than foster care or orphanages doing so.
posted by
Dyl_Pickle
on
June 9, 2005
at
4:28 PM
| |
reply
Let us come a little closer
---to agreement, that is. You wrote that it frustrates you "when traditionalists say gays need to learn the responsibilities and commitments of conventional marriage, and then say in essence that under no circumstances would they agree to extend all the legal privileges of marriage to gays..."
While I think gay relationships are not good for society, and are also not capable of the unique bonding that occurs between a man and a woman, they may be the only serious relationship gays can handle. So I personally do not object to the marriage of gays. Let them seek as much happiness and commitment together as they can.
But what I DO object to is gays raising children. A gay household is NOT the best support system for a child. A child is best raised by a mother AND a father. Every child should be given a chance to have one of each. So I would deny gay couples the right to adopt children, even if they are married. I realize that many gay couples would have children in the house anyway, from earlier marriages, or from cheating on their gay partner by having sex with the opposite sex. I feel sorry for those children, but they are already victims of broken families which cannot be restored by any act of society. I do not condone society giving adoption rights to gay couples, thereby taking away the child's chance to be adopted by a heterosexual couple.
So are we closer, or farther apart?
posted by
GoldenMean
on
June 8, 2005
at
9:08 PM
| |
reply
We have come closer to agreement.
I like when that happens, when even in maintaining different views the distance between them shrinks. I suppose the remaining distance constitutes my opinion that social factors weigh more heavily in people's lives than you acknowledge. I do not like to minimize either social factors nor individual will power, and there are those who minimize or exaggerate one or the other. I don't think you minimize social factors necessarily, but I don't think your argument gives them enough weight, including on this issue. It is the problem of demands and responsibilities and rewards. Just as it frustrates me when conservative ideologues and business owners lecture the poor on how they need to get a job to prosper, and then pay their workers lousy wages and do not supply health benefits when the poor finally do accept that responsibility, it likewise frustrates me when traditionalists say gays need to learn the responsibilities and commitments of conventional marriage, and then say in essence that under no circumstances would they agree to extend all the legal privileges of marriage to gays, even those who, a minority though they may be, accept these obligations. Those traditionally in positions of power and social approval -- including the heterosexual and wealthy -- are,
some of them, much more willing to impose burdensome obligations on others, in the interests of social cohesion, than they are to bear these burdens themselves. And it is not coincidental that those in power seek to impose the greatest proportional responsibility on those least powerful and most socially disadvantaged, whether it is the poor or the gay. Some liberals construe this to excuse the less powerful from personal responsibility, an enormous mistake as you rightly argue, but some conservatives construe this mistaken notion as an argument against providing those who do show the requisite responsibility a guarantee of a fair share of the rewards.
posted by
Dyl_Pickle
on
June 8, 2005
at
6:39 PM
| |
reply
That was just a quick search
I am sure there is much more research available, if a person has the time to look for it. Some of it may be more current and counter my position. But this research I found DOES show that homosexuals have far less commitment of years and loyalty to a single partner. You say it may be because society does not recognize homosexual marriage, and that may be a factor. But as you said, gays can choose to be faithful or not. To me, that is the bottom line. If a gay relationship was as satisfying and fulfilling as a hetero relationship, it seems to me that the gay statistics would be closer to the hetero statistics, regardless of other factors.
Dylan, gays may not be able to marry, but over the last 15-20 years, gay couples have won the rights to many financial benefits, health insurance, adoption of children, etc. in many cities and states. In these cases, they have many of the benefits of marriage already, without the commitment. What a deal! So the overall gay situation is not so bleak as your comment implied.
If anything, my quick search for statistics strengthened my suspicion that gays are AVOIDING the stress and commitment of a relationship with the opposite sex, and thereby missing out on the emotional rewards and the opportunity for the growth of their character. For whatever reasons, bad past experiences or genetics, they are choosing a low-potential relationship that limits their chances at greater happiness. That is their choice, but it is also their loss.
posted by
GoldenMean
on
June 7, 2005
at
9:34 PM
| |
reply
That source's information from 1984 might not hold true today, though. Plus, it is still a matter of individual choice -- gays can choose to be faithful or not, just as straights can. If more gays than straights choose not to be, that might have something to do with the fact that society has traditionally treated gays as people not to be expected to engage in monogamous relationships. We don't give them marriage or the social or legal benefits thereof, so why should we expect them to embrace all the responsibilities and limits of marriage? Not that this justifies promiscuity, but if we expect gays to behave responsibly, we should hold out the carrot of membership in the club of meaningful monogamous relationships. Heterosexual society has to do its part to bring gays into the monogamy fold. If they try to do so and gays still resist, then you will have a stronger argument and I will concede.
posted by
Dyl_Pickle
on
June 7, 2005
at
7:39 PM
| |
reply
Rovesciato
As you can see in my comment to Painter, what some homosexuals do privately is malicious and criminal. They are willingly killing each other with AIDS. But, still, I agree with your point that they are entitled to their privacy.
posted by
GoldenMean
on
June 7, 2005
at
4:52 AM
| |
reply
Painter
I found some research. In the journal AIDS (May issue) it was reported that homosexual relationships last an average of 1 to 1.5 years. The study was conducted by Dr. Maria Xiridou of the Amsterdam Municipal Health Service. Among heterosexuals, by contrast, 67% of first marriages in the US last AT LEAST 10 years, and researchers report that more than 75% of married people say they have been faithful to their vows (had no extra-marital sex).
But homosexuals are not as faithful. Fidelity is not defined in terms of sexual behavior, but rather by their "emotional commitment" to each other. About 95% of the couples have an arrangement whereby they may have sexual activity with others. ("The Male Couple", 1984, David McWhirter).
Of course it is true that many "swinging" married man/woman couples have such an agreement, but I suspect that it is closer to 5% than 95%.
While conducting my search, I came across a very disturbing story, concerning "bug chasers". This is the term for homosexuals who WANT to get infected with AIDS. Once they get it, they become "gift givers" and infect as many others as they can (without telling them). This is probably a small minority of the gay community, but it makes me sick to my stomach. It was titled "Bug Chasers" in Rolling Stone magazine on Feb 6, 2003. Here is the last paragraph of the story, told from the perspective of the reporter:
"Carlos offers, not for the first time, to have me come along and watch him and Richard have sex, but I decline. In the taxi to Richard's place, the conversation falls silent. He hasn't been tested in a couple of years, and he's reluctant to get a test now. He might very well be AIDS positive already. But as long as he doesn't know for sure, he can always hope that tonight is the night he gets the virus. Every date is potentially The One. Stepping out of the cab into the rain, I ask what he will do if he finds out one day that he has succeeded in being infected -- ending the fun of being a bug chaser. He stops, then says he might move on to being a gift giver: 'If I know that he's clean and I'm fucking him, it sort of gets me off. I'm murdering him in a sense, killing him slowly, and that's sort of, sick as it sounds, exciting to me.' "
All I have to say is, homosexuals beware.
posted by
GoldenMean
on
June 7, 2005
at
4:48 AM
| |
reply
Dylan
I am glad we agree that atheist attacks against the word "God" in public life are unreasonable. Atheists are about 10% of the population. So the word "God" potentially offends 10% of the people. If we remove the word "God" from the Pledge, etc., then we are potentially offending 90% of the population. So the offended atheists can just keep their earplugs handy.
posted by
GoldenMean
on
June 7, 2005
at
4:27 AM
| |
reply
Hemlocker
Welcome to Blogit. I agree that there way too many psychological "disorders" and "diseases" that become excuses for failure. General Patton (who I honor and respect greatly) was right that we should require soldiers to do their duty regardless of their fears, but I don't think it is helpful to kick their ass.
posted by
GoldenMean
on
June 7, 2005
at
4:21 AM
| |
reply
Golden Mean:
I do acknowledge that atheism believes God does not exist, because it cannot prove that God does not exist.
I'm saying that for the state officially to endorse religion over atheism -- one belief over another -- does not hold with the Establishment Clause. It also does not really threaten religious freedom, as far as I can tell.
I have written (but not posted here) about how there is essentially little difference between a government that believes in God but does not officially announce as much, and one that does. Either one can impose religious norms on people.
For this reason, I would not find it helpful to abolish public mentions of God. It wouldn't change anything, and it would alienate so many religious people for no good reason. I like to reserve alienation for times when it can't be helped.
Today, the 5th graders with whom I worked did an awful job saying the Pledge of Allegiance. People got up half way through the pledge, people said it half-heartedly as they jotted down notes or giggled or slouched, people said it at different paces, etc. I was furious. This happens a lot. I lectured them (controlling my temper, though) on respect for one's country, etc., and made them get up and say it again. There were still some who didn't do it right. That just disgusts me. When I was in elementary school, which was not long ago, not at all "old school", everyone said the pledge, in unison, hands on hearts, the way it is done. Then Mrs. Keelan would said "Good morning everyone", and we would say, in perfect unison, "Good morning, Mrs. Keelan." Now, she had to teach us to do that, but we still did it, and she enforced it. I wish that were done vigorously in all schools.
Anyway, I digress. I had no problem saying the "under God" part because of the reasons I mentioned above, but strictly speaking, the government mildly establishes religion by evincing a belief in God over against a belief in atheism. I don't think this is necessary much of a problem, but it is reason to be very, very careful about letting the wall between church and state crumble.
I would also pay close attention to Rovesciato's words in his last comment. He makes an important case regarding the moral disapproval of homosexuality that some maintain for reasons that bear, in my view, tenuous connections to rational or objective norms. Also consider the nature/choice distinction: yes, people choose to have sex, whether gay or straight. In that sense, straights choose to be straight, gays to be gay. But what they DESIRE to do is beyond their control. They can refrain from looking at naked women or men and stay away from provocative situations, but they cannot change their inherent tendencies. Gays should have the same right -- and not just legally but morally -- to act on their sexual desires (albeit responsibly and monogamously, and though many gays are notoriously polygamous -- sorry liberals, but that's just plain true, and harmful -- they are not NECESSARILY so; it is possible for gays to live together lovingly and monogamously). I heed Rovesciato's point about not painting gays with a broad brush. Those who behave irresponsibly deserve censure on the same grounds as straights who behave irresponsibly, but I just see nothing inherently wrong with gays satisfying their sexual appetites.
posted by
Dyl_Pickle
on
June 6, 2005
at
6:36 PM
| |
reply
the "liberal religion"
Today we have post-traumatic stress disorder. It was once called battle fatigue, shell-shock and what-all. General George Patton called those afflicted with it "psychoneurotics" or just plain cowards. If you come across one of these damn cowards, he was reputed to say, kick his ass and tell him to do his duty. Hemlocker
posted by
Hemlocker
on
June 6, 2005
at
4:22 PM
| |
reply
yeah, you did push the gay button a little here, particularly since your post inadvertantly associates homsexuality with psychopathic behavior. i understood what you were using the fly example for but the wrong implication is left too easy to make. anyway the homosexuality issue is a good example of what i'm talkiing about as far as morality vs integrity. aside from religous citations there are a truck load of reasons why homosexuality is supposed to be deviant behavior, but these all are really criticisms of individual homosexual behavior transposed on the group. (this is a place where individual moral choice is not applied by conservatives. this is also the case on drugs and gambling and other such behaviors that they would have banned outright. why sould people who can moderate themselves be punished for the behavior of those who can't) i admit myself to being a little weireded out at times when i see guys holding hands or what not, but i consider this to be my own problem that i need to deal with myself and not theirs. the problem with the moral prohibition of homosexuality, even if it is divinely sanctioned, is that it involves snooping, or minding someone else's private business (and most public behavior is predominately private. if two guys kiss and then challenge you to acknowledge their behavior in some manner then they are out of line but two guys kissing and otherwise minding their own business is our own problem). the crux is that to pursue a moral condemnation of homosexuality one has to violate their own personal integrity, ie. one has to fail to discipline themselves to not mind other people's business and has to use a moral precept to cover this failure. thus the adherance to morality in this case corrupts integrity, which is to say that morality in this case makes people weaker, corruptable (in their willingness to not make a personal moral choice as opposed to a public one) and potentially evil. if the moral prohibition is also tainted with a politic, as it is, the person is further removed from integrity in that their pursuit of the prohibition has a double purpose: the prohibition itself and the desire to "win" to political game. since the language, and doubtless also the thought, is concerned with the right morality of the prohibition this other, and tastier, goal of beating the other side further corrupts personal integrity, as there is little or no admission that the game is being played in large part for the game. being honest with oneself is hard enough. politics makes that game almost impossible to win.
posted by
rovesciato
on
June 6, 2005
at
12:06 AM
| |
reply
But personally, in real life, I try to respect and tolerate all beliefs
It is only on the internet that I try to motivate people to have some fresh thoughts about their stale beliefs.
posted by
GoldenMean
on
June 5, 2005
at
8:40 PM
| |
reply
Dylan
Apparently you don't agree with me that the humanist/secular/atheist faction of liberalism is a religion in itself.
Then consider this. Most religious expression in America is harmless, or even very beneficial to people. Recognizing this, wouldn't it be the mature position of the humanist/secularist/atheist to tolerate public religious VERBAL expression, that costs them nothing? Does the sight of a Christian cross or a Jewish candelabra or a Muslim crescent make them physically ill? Isn't "tolerance" a holy doctrine of their religion? They seem to be the most INTOLERANT of all.
Two further points:
1) The term and concept of "GOD" is very generic, and allows each person being subjected to this horrible word, to use their own interpretation of it. So any attack of the word GOD by itself is going WAY too far, in my opinion.
2) Humanists/secularists/atheists do not KNOW that there is no God. It is their metaphysical BELIEF. I am just as offended by their attempt to forcibly impose their specific metaphysical BELIEF upon society as I am by any other BELIEF.
posted by
GoldenMean
on
June 5, 2005
at
8:07 PM
| |
reply
Painter
You are right that "think" is the operative word. I do know the reasons for MY choices, and I do know when I am trying to AVOID sometimes with those choices. I sincerely hope that you also know your reasons for choice and avoidance. But we cannot know each other's reasons. Therein lies the limitation of social science.
I think (there is that phrase again) that we are both reacting to the familiar arguing points of the homosexual issue, without really addressing each other's specific arguments. I will not be able to convince you that the primary controlling factor in homosexuality, or any other human activity, is human will or moral autonomous choice. You will not convince me that any biological/hormonal/genetic factor can completely override choice. I could cite some cases I have heard of where people changed their sexual preference from homosexual to heterosexual, married and have families, primarily from religious conversion. But I do appreciate you pointing out the medical studies of hermaphrodites. What a horrible state to be born in!
For my part, to investigate my suspicion that gays are avoiding stress and commitment, I will try to find some statistics, if they exist, on the longetivity of homosexual relationships as opposed to heterosexual ones. If I find anything, I will report back, whether it supports my suspicion or not.
Fair enough, Painter?
posted by
GoldenMean
on
June 5, 2005
at
7:44 PM
| |
reply
The problem arises when a private group asks for public support -- whether public buildings for meeting space, funds, or whatever. Once the private group, whatever its religious affiliation or lack thereof, asks for such support (rather than adopting the sometimes-helpful attitude "leave us alone, we're not hurting anyone") they agree to accept the terms on which that support is offered, terms which include a requirement that the state not establish religion. For the government to materially support religious practices amounts to a mild form of establishment -- the severe form, an established church with rigidly enforced mandates, if of course not a danger here.
The point is, we are a country with good historical reason for fearing anything tending toward an established church: the corrupt and tyrannical monarchy imposing the British church on the people. There are plenty of other examples of the dangers of letting one group's freedom of religion be construed to require others to support that religion and thus negating the latter's freedom -- the witch trials, the Inquisition, and today Islamic fundamentalism and Chinese Communism (religion worshipping the State rather than God, but still religion). Considering this, one can be forgiven for being allergic to any material state support for religion, for that always involves the state giving official imprimatur either to one religion over another or religion over atheism. The state is best when it does not officially take sides on these matters.
A religionist might argue that God and his people don't need material support from the state. Politics may reasonably be thought to corrupt religion. The eagerness of some to emphasize that the Constitution does not explicitly order a separation of church and state, and to interpret this as evidence that the Framers would have allowed an organic blending of church and state, should thus disturb both secularists who do not want to be compelled to support religon and believers who want their faith to stay pure and uncorrupted by the worldly affairs of politics.
We have discussed before the hazards of state support for controversial things, for while everyone pays taxes (in theory) not everyone supports the particular things those taxes support. I don't want my money paying for an exhibit of a cross doused in urine or cow dung, nor do I want my (tax) money paying for the public display of a beautiful cross -- I'll pay for that privately, thank you. Let those who are not religious not pay for religious things, and let those who are religious pay for religious things. If the Boy Scouts are willing to do what they do without any public support, then I don't blame them at all.
posted by
Dyl_Pickle
on
June 5, 2005
at
7:39 PM
| |
reply
Dylan
I agree wholeheartedly with the necessity of the First Amendment, and the right of gays, liberals, conservatives, religious believers and anyone else to speak out with no threat of governmental sanction. If a racist becomes known in society, his neighbors are likely to oppose him and find ways to shun him or make him re-think his position.
But it is the liberals in America who developed the concept of "politically correct" speech, is it not? Meaning that certain words cannot be used, certain views should not be expressed. How far is it from "politically correct" to "banned?" Not far, I am afraid. It is the liberal camp that is supporting the rash of determined attacks on religious expression. Shouldn't religious words and symbols be protected by the First Amendment? I emphatically think so, but many liberals don't think so. The Ten Commandments have beened banned from public buildings already. In the pledge of allegiance, "Under God" was replaced in a school by "under the belief system of your choice." The Boy Scouts, a private, voluntary organization of great value to our youth, have been systematically and viciously attacked by liberals for their requirement to believe in some kind of God. Crosses have been removed from city and county government crests. A cross cannot appear in a public building, unless it is immersed in a jar of urine, or smeared with excrement (then it qualifies as "art").
Liberals say they are trying to keep religion separate from government. That is not how I see it. This is the perfectly understandable, and despicable, attempt of one belief group, liberals, to REPLACE the public influence of any other belief group, especially conventional religions. Just another cycle in a long line of religious oppression. As a student of religious history, I see nothing new but this: this time, the clever believers trying to impose their religion are claiming to not be religious AT ALL. But they are in many ways. That is the purpose of this series of posts, to explain liberalism as having many of the same characteristics of religion.
This might make it easier for those liberals who ARE members of conventional religions, to better understand what the humanist/secular/atheist liberals are trying to do to them, and begin to strongly oppose it, if they are not opposing it already.
posted by
GoldenMean
on
June 5, 2005
at
7:14 PM
| |
reply
I think
operative word is "think"
does anyone really know?
there are those who become gay other than having a biological determination.
Bad experiences with women -- mothers or others -- growing up turns them away. they have a deep psychological aversion to heterosexuality.
And, I support, there are other reasons for such -- bad sexual experiences -- bad marital experiences -- etc.
However, there is enough evidence to indicate that the human species is not restricted sexually to male/female in a natural, biological manner.
Recent studies of babies born with both male and female genitals (or doctors are confused in one way another as what sex (they think maybe babies should be either male or female) -- or hermaphrodite have found increased levels of hormones that cause this "abnormality" -- and the problem arises when those in authority try to decide what sex the infant should be.
But this alone should be enough evidence that human sexuality is not restricted to either/or -- but has a grey area between the two --and genetic disposition that causes hormone levels different than the bodily appearance is just one demonstration of such.
so I would disagree with the generalized statement "They (homosexuals) are avoiding mainly one thing: the high level of stress and difficulty in relationships between women and men. They are avoiding secondarily the commitment that is a natural result of man/woman relationships."
I don't see where anyone can come to that conclusion.
posted by
Xeno-x
on
June 5, 2005
at
3:10 PM
| |
reply
Yes, it is as my senior-year American Government teacher said: "In a democracy, the majority doesn't need the First Amendment. It's the minority that needs that protection."
We could argue with the statement's simplicity, but it's true that the First Amendment sometimes is a much better protector of fiercely unpopular speech than the majority opinion is!
In France, it's illegal to say anything racist! Can you imagine? Even putting aside the obvious question of who gets to determine what is racist (some think any criticism of a black person is necessarily racist, and it is such people who would be in charge of enforcing a law against racism), that's bullshit. The French man, a member of its Socialist Party, explained in his guest lecture: "There are some things you just don't say." I think that's reprehensible. It's a product of majority opinion; the majority is anti-racist (good!) and that majority stupidly thinks it's productive and necessary to ban racist speech (bad!). Our First Amendment protects what in bleeding-heart France would get shot down!
posted by
Dyl_Pickle
on
June 5, 2005
at
10:55 AM
| |
reply
Sorry guys
I inadvertently pushed the "gay button" in my quest to find evidence of objective science being used to push subjective moral agendas. I saw that fruit fly story in the paper yesterday, and seized upon it. I notice that none of you disagreed with me that the fruit fly experiment is being improperly used as justification for human homosexuality. But I am not politically anti-gay, I just object to the in-your-face tactics of militant gays, and to the public display of intimate sexual behavior, whether it is man/man, woman/woman, man/woman, or woman/man.
I wish I could get away from the gay subject, but Dylan asked a crucial question: "Liberals ask, and a lot of people wonder the same thing, why on Earth would anyone choose to be gay in a society that has traditionally frowned upon it? If a gay person could just as easily be intimate with someone of the opposite sex, why the hell would he/she choose someone of the same sex?"
I, and Rovesciato, have an answer for you. Rovesciato has a brilliant observation of human behavior in general, which is paraphrased as: When people DO a certain specific action or type of behavior, it must be asked, WHAT ARE THEY AVOIDING? I find this to be very pertinent to the advanced moral/ethical/social capability of humans (as opposed to FRUIT FLIES, for crying out loud).
So what are homosexuals AVOIDING when they CHOOSE homosexual behavior? They are avoiding mainly one thing: the high level of stress and difficulty in relationships between women and men. They are avoiding secondarily the commitment that is a natural result of man/woman relationships. I suspect that comparatively few homosexual relationships reach the level of commitment that heterosexual relationships routinely reach. The recent rash of homosexual marriages allowed by one or two local cities does not invalidate my suspicion that the great majority of homosexuals are in relationships that pointedly limit commitment.
But back to the high level of stress. Relationships between women and men (or boys and girls) are very difficult to start and maintain. The more meaningful and fulfilling and lasting we want the relationship to be, the more difficult it becomes. I had difficulty in childhood approaching girls, and I have a great deal of difficulty in my marriage. I have been married once, to the same woman, for 21 years. The stress level continues to be extremely high, but the rewards of loving a woman and receiving her love (and commitment) in return are well worth it. The same rewards may be possible loving a person of the same sex, but I doubt it. And it is not possible for two persons of the same sex to produce another living person from their own bodies, to intensity the bonds of love and commitment. To me, homosexual relationships are low-potential, physically handicapped relationships. I think that most gays are AVOIDING the high stress of a relationship with the opposite sex, and AVOIDING commitment. BUT I HAVE NO DESIRE TO OUTLAW HOMOSEXUALITY OR DISCRIMATE AGAINST GAYS.
Well I probably pushed more gay buttons there, but at least I got my true opinion hashed out.
I would much rather get back to the "religion" of liberalism. I made a comment to Rovesciato in the last post, which included this:
What I consider "liberal" is a consistent denial of the strength of human will, a lowering of expectations of human accomplishment and a denial of personal responsibility. Thus it spawns a vast excusing of ethical weakness, and a loathing of those who show a strong conviction of ethical principle. And liberals seem to be much more mean-spirited and dishonest in their attacks on their opponents. They seem to be less willing to bow to the will of the majority of the people.
Just like a religion, like true believers, they are convinced that their views MUST be enforced upon all of society, even if the majority of society is against them. LIberalism tries to champion weakness, and to deny personal responsibility. That will never be a winning philosophy, because weakness is repulsive and tending towards failure, and personal responsibility is a basic moral/ethical reality, and a physical reality as well. When we make mistakes in the physical world, we immediately pay a personal price. When I cut myself with a knife, no one else bleeds.
posted by
GoldenMean
on
June 5, 2005
at
5:59 AM
| |
reply
A very thought-provoking post, GoldenMean.
As for psychopaths/sociopaths, it is their desensitization to normal stimuli that sets them apart. This can be from something learned or genetic. They know right from wrong, but make willful choices, uncaring about the ramifications or consequences.
As for gays, the concept of right or wrong is a non-issue. This is a matter of biology, except in those few instances where people actually choose to be gay, which then would be considered aberrant behavior, but still not necessarily wrong (maybe by common social standards).
posted by
saul_relative
on
June 4, 2005
at
10:23 PM
| |
reply
Correction: First long paragraph, middle line, should say
"Heterosexual BEGINS feeling..."
posted by
Dyl_Pickle
on
June 4, 2005
at
3:54 PM
| |
reply
Golden:
I agree with the crucial distinction you make between control and influence; genes only influence (unless some genetic disease actually cripples or kills us, which you were not writing about).
I don't follow some of your applications, though, particularly the one about being gay.
Conservatives argue that people aren't born gay, aren't naturally gay; they choose to be gay. Liberals ask, and a lot of people wonder the same thing, why on Earth would anyone choose to be gay in a society that has traditionally frowned upon it? If a gay person could just as easily be intimate with someone of the opposite sex, why the hell would he/she choose someone of the same sex? The potential answers won't get us very far unless we admit that the only rational explanation for some people still choosing the gay way of life is that they feel naturally inclined toward it. The heterosexual beings feeling attraction toward the opposite sex in adolescence. The homosexual begins feeling attraction toward the same sex. People discover their sexual orientation, come upon it naturally. Why would there be a natural inclination to engage in sex that by its nature cannot produce children? I don't know, but it's plain to me that some people feel naturally more attracted to the same sex.
To justify the moral right of a gay person to act on his natural inclinations, I could argue a lot of things, which I won't analyze unless you ask: 1) the major source of opposition to being gay is the Bible, which also says that people who work on the Sabbath should be executed; that it's OK to hold slaves; and that women are second-class citizens, none of which even the most ardent fundamentalists would consider binding principles today; 2) natural but harmful inclinations must be resisted adamantly -- alcoholism, depression, kleptomania, compulsive eating; but there is nothing NECESSARILY harmful about gay relationships or sex. Harm can come from them, just as harm can come from straight sex; but there is nothing intrinsically harmful with the act, that I know of. So it seems perfectly justified to follow one's deep natural inclination in this regard. If straights have a right to act on (albeit responsibly) their sexual desires, why not gays too? As long as it's between consenting adults who love eachother?
Pretty much everything else, except the somewhat hyperbolic liberal-bashing, I concur with.
posted by
Dyl_Pickle
on
June 4, 2005
at
3:52 PM
| |
reply
it doesn't take a liberal
to understand that homosexuality is as natural genetically as being male or female.
All it takes is being an objective scientist or objective observer.
There is too much evidence that human sexuality is not limited to being purely male or female.
There has been too much observation of homosexuality throughout the animal kingdom.
We come down to earth and we understand.
We see things as they really are and we understand.
We come from an already biased position and we never understand.
posted by
Xeno-x
on
June 4, 2005
at
12:24 PM
| |
reply
Copy (or write down) this comment's web address (URL), which is:
Next, go to the email or web page where you want to link to this comment, and paste
(or type) the web address.
