Gays, lesbians, bisexuals

[inked]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

That would be a cool thread alright, good idea Lotesse. [/not very subtle hinting] The morality discussion was relevant because there was a debate about the morality of homosexuality, but now it is definitely an off-shoot IMO.


You know who gets mentioned even less in this thread? Bisexual people. And poor ol' transgendered people aren't even in the title. It is the GLBT community after all.

This brings me to an apology of sorts. Inked, I was always getting after you about saying "the gay community", but it actually is a correct term. The catch is the gay community isn't a community in the traditional use of the word - as in people who live in the same area, or people who have similar ideals.
I think the reason I jumped on this term is because it implies there's some kind of gay hive mind; I still think we should be wary of the term for that reason.

Nurv, I have mentioned bi's on the thread many times but you might not have read that far into the articles .

[Nurvingiel]

Oh yeah. Hee. (Well, it's possible I didn't read that far into the articles.) I wasn't saying they weren't mentioned at all, just less than gays and lesbians.

Spock, there's already a thread on homosexual marriage? I do seem to vaguely recall a thread like that. IIRC the original poster wanted us to lay off talking about that subject here. Personally I feel it is appropriate to talk about gay marriage in this thread, but the OP did have a point.

[brownjenkins]

spock [what's with the bolded name thing btw? ] is just fulfilling contractual obligations to say "try to keep the reply posts on subject" at least once per week

[Spock]

I've no control over the bolded name.

it was my understanding that all mods, and admins were supposed to have bolded names from the get go..in my case it took longer

Nor, it seems, do I in curbing wandering posts.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

there's already a thread on homosexual marriage? Personally I feel it is appropriate to talk about gay marriage in this thread, but the OP did have a point.

Yes there is and a continuing dialogue on that subject should be posted there and not here. Occasional reference to GM here is fine.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

spock [what's with the bolded name thing btw? ] is just fulfilling contractual obligations to say "try to keep the reply posts on subject" at least once per week

I bold people's names so they can see I said something to them. It makes life easier.

You're name is bolded now though Spock.

So, no posting on gay marriage here? Alrightee. I'll go bump the other thread.


And now for something on topic... Inked, what do you think about my earlier comments that much of our society is built on anomalies? I think that accepting gay relationships is yet another positive anomaly that will strengthen the fabric of society.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I bold people's names so they can see I said something to them. It makes life easier.
You're name is bolded now though Spock.

ibid: Post 764

[Nurvingiel]

[OT]I know they didn't do it right away, but now your username is in bold.[/OT]

I bumped the other thread.

Did anyone read the Xtra West article? Lotesse, would you care to carry on our discussion about sexism and the acceptance of non-straight relationships in modern Western society? Anyone else is free to join in of course.

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by The Wizard from Milan

Of couse the impius thinks that the pius is in the wrong. But there is no symmetry between my position had his. I am a person of the highest moral fiber, who has done what is right at great personal cost the whole of my life. As far as he, read his posts; they speak for themselves. Don't limit yourself to reading his posts about LGBT, read his posts on his own patients with STD, or his own patients who have an undesired pregnancy. Appalling.

WORD!!! It IS appalling.

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Lotesse, would you care to carry on our discussion about sexism and the acceptance of non-straight relationships in modern Western society? Anyone else is free to join in of course.

Yes, I'd LOVE to when I have some free time on a computer; I'm literally on "borrowed time" right now at the expensive hotel comp., but what I'd REALLY like to talk about & get others' input on is the world of bisexuality. A subject I have much interest in for personal reasons, and one which, as Nurvi was saying, gets WAY too little press and doesn't get taken as seriously by either "straight" society OR Gays & Lesbians.

[Nurvingiel]

My input on bisexuality... hm. I don't really have much of one, to tell you the truth. It's not like I don't care about bisexual people, I just don't really have an opinion. Of course most, if not all of my opinions about gay and lesbian people are about the rights I believe they should have. I think bisexual people deserve those same rights, which would be the same ones as straight people.

Human rights are for all human beings.

[Spock]

....that is exactly what "Data's" delema was.

[Nurvingiel]

Data from Star Trek? That reminds me of an interesting question my second year biology prof put to us once.
She said that by the definitions of a living organism, robots are alive. She pointed out that they protect themselves from harm, obtain energy, regulate their internal temperature, and a few other conditions to being alive which I'm pretty sure included making other robots. Isn't science fiction awesome?

And if Data were a live, sentient being, should he have the same rights as human beings or not? This issue is one we obviously do not yet have to tackle.

(I just want to point out I don't think gay people are robots. )

[The Wizard from Milan]

Originally Posted by inked

you assert your "moral sentiments" as the absolute by which all else must be judged. Finally some ture confessions: your morality is based on your sentiments, e.g., your feelings. Do they change when you have indigestion or a headache?

Well, my dear, you seem surprised. That is either because you don't understand what I write or because you pretend not to. I had already said that my moral judgement are based on feelings and I had already said that moral feelings can change according to the circumstances. I concede that it might be difficult for you to understand such a concept. Sweeping proclamations of what supposedly is the right thing to do in any circumstance are neither a marker of intelligence nor a marker of deep morality.
It is absolutely obvious that morality may or may not prescribe a different course of action according to personal circumstances such as indigestion and headaches and the situation on which the moral judgement is called.

[Butterbeer]

Originally Posted by The Wizard from Milan

It is absolutely obvious that morality may or may not prescribe a different course of action according to personal circumstances such as indigestion and headaches and the situation on which the moral judgement is called.

why?

must be the oddest most pointless definition of any concept of morality i ever heard then ...

[The Wizard from Milan]

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

why?

must be the oddest most pointless definition of any concept of morality i ever heard then ...

It is obvious to me that a person personal circumstances influence what he/she is morally bound to do in certain situations (and not in others). So I think that one is morally bound not to kill innocent people regardless of one's own headache. But one is morally free not to help a stranger in need if one has his/her own head exploding by headache or is bent in two by stomackache

[Butterbeer]

i think you confuse morality with volition ...

if one has a certain moral view, having a headache does not alter this ...

if one, for the sake of argument beleives abortion is morally justifibale ... waking up one day with a headache does not mean morally that they can then morally suddenly take the view it is wrong .... without utlimately changing their moral viewpoint ...

personal morality is not a pin ball machine ....

in terms of sexuality one may be gay, straight, bisexual or any shade of gray in between, and by volition in certain moods experiment with these shades of grey to any larger or lesser degree .... but whatever one's volition here, if one feels rightly or wrongly that this experimentation is morally wrong, despite the desire to experiment, the principle of morality stands aside as a seperate concept from volition.

to compare people's morality and quite often firmly held beleif's (be they agreeable to you, or to me, or not) with the transitory nature of headaches or indigestion or whims of mood, is frankly a flagrantly insulting thing to do, whether that was your intent or not ...

your use of the word "morality" is not to me justifiable in any sense of the word as i understand it, if it is so flighty or mood-driven or fancifully flighty ...

therefore i wonder if you mean volition rather than morality? ... because i'll lay you 25-1 against that you could not win such an argument in the context you put it ...

best BB

*starts running an "amoral" ?? book - any takers?*

[The Wizard from Milan]

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

i think you confuse morality with volition ...

if one has a certain moral view, having a headache does not alter this ...

if one, for the sake of argument beleives abortion is morally justifibale ... waking up one day with a headache does not mean morally that they can then morally suddenly take the view it is wrong .... without utlimately changing their moral viewpoint ...

personal morality is not a pin ball machine ....

in terms of sexuality one may be gay, straight, bisexual or any shade of gray in between, and by volition in certain moods experiment with these shades of grey to any larger or lesser degree .... but whatever one's volition here, if one feels rightly or wrongly that this experimentation is morally wrong, despite the desire to experiment, the principle of morality stands aside as a seperate concept from volition.

to compare people's morality and quite often firmly held beleif's (be they agreeable to you, or to me, or not) with the transitory nature of headaches or indigestion or whims of mood, is frankly a flagrantly insulting thing to do, whether that was your intent or not ...

your use of the word "morality" is not to me justifiable in any sense of the word as i understand it, if it is so flighty or mood-driven or fancifully flighty ...

therefore i wonder if you mean volition rather than morality? ... because i'll lay you 25-1 against that you could not win such an argument in the context you put it ...

best BB

*starts running an "amoral" ?? book - any takers?*

No. No.
I meant exactly what I wrote.
Sorry if you are offended but I stand by waht I said.
The point though is more subtle than what you understood.
My morality is by definition moral and therefore not fanciful; nonetheless it may be in part influenced by my status in the instant. To have a set of ten rules written in stone and immutable certainly simplifies life, but it is not the gateway to morality. Morality is an issue of judgement; I trust my own moral judgements and nobody else's. This is the key that people don't seem to grasp; I have no doubt that other people's judgment can be fanciful or wimsical; it is my own moral judgment that I trust. I know that whatever my status is I will do (or strive to do) the right thing; it is just the the actual thing that I do might be dependent on my status.

[Butterbeer]

oh frig, just LOST that whole post -- maybe it's just as well - it was getting pretty vitrilolic indeed: maybe defining LWFM as Satan might have being going too far???

BUT:

The point though is more subtle than what you understood.

what is so subtle and so far above my grasp, prey?

what can only the ALL omnipotent all powerful mind of the moral master himslef LWFM state that no mere mortal can possibly understand because it is so subtle?


That you do not understand the word morality and its definition?


...anyway, before i set off again and lose it again ...

[The Wizard from Milan]

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

oh frig, just LOST that whole post -- maybe it's just as well - it was getting pretty vitrilolic indeed: maybe defining LWFM as Satan might have being going too far???

BUT:






what is so subtle and so far above my grasp, prey?

what can only the ALL omnipotent all powerful mind of the moral master himslef LWFM state that no mere mortal can possibly understand because it is so subtle?


That you do not understand the word morality and its definition?


...anyway, before i set off again and lose it again ...

I did not mean it as an offense.
I should have probably written "The point is more subtle than I managed to communicate to you".
I did not write, nor did I mean "it is above your grasp"; I meant only that we did not seem to be talking about the same thing.
Some points just are subtle and difficult to communicate, that's all. And there is no point discussing them unless the two parties understand what the other means.

There was another sentence in my post to which you don't refer, but that others might have found objectionable, so I edited it away.

I don't see my own mind as all powerful at all; it has all the limitations of the human species, I guarantee you. That is sufficient for me to say that my moral sentiment (although very advanced) is not definite, not set in stone, but always subject to improvement. Yet it is the best that I have ever found.
People who are used to think that the morality comes from a God, often misinterpret my statments as saying that I rival with an imagined God for morality. NOT AT ALL. I believe that morality comes from humans and is therefore fallible. In particular I known mine and I know it is very strong.