Homosexual marriage II

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

I. Rex is genuine in showing how utterly ridiculously wrong it is to refer to black people as "Negroes," by using the word in a sarcastic way in a post directed to Lief in a conversation.

Originally Posted by IRex

And by the way I didnt necessarily have a problem with this initial use given its context.

So which is it? Should we start a new thread?

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by Lief

We have Negro Congressmen, IR.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Ha ha! Yes and we even have injuns in congress too! You sound like you are living in the 50’s Lief. Talking like this just undermines your other arguments so bad because it makes you seem completely out of touch.

Now its nice that you acknowledge BLACKS are now in congress (they were in the 1800’s by the way but that didn’t stop whites from creating laws BANNING them from being elected officials because they argued they werent competent enough to be…) and that that’s evidence enough that they are competent enough to hold these positions. So why aren’t CURRENT homosexual relationships evidence enough to show that THEY can work too? I don’t understand why you continue to ignore that when you allow it in every other instance.

I don't know; ask I. Rex yourself if you're so keen on pushing your defense of Lief's usage of Negroes to describe black people. Ask I. Rex yourself, lady.

[Rían]

That was a general question to the entire group ("Should we start a new thread?"), because IRex's comment made me interested about the usage of the word. Words are very interesting to me.

And I'm not "keen on pushing [my]defense of Lief's usage of Negroes to describe black people." Nor am I interested in eating my son with ketchup! (now mustard, OTOH ... ) It seems that you just don't ever understand me. I'm just interested in how the use of the word, the feelings aroused by the word, etc. have evolved over time.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

The difference is enormous. i. Rex was being sarcastic, Lief, however, means it. Lief shows himself to be genuine in his thinking that there is nothing wrong with referring to black people as "Negroes." I. Rex is genuine in showing how utterly ridiculously wrong it is to refer to black people as "Negroes," by using the word in a sarcastic way in a post directed to Lief in a conversation.Doesn't take a genius, Rian, doesn't take a genius...

The shape of words doesn't matter; it's what's meant by them. Someone can use "African American" in such a way that it is loaded of negative connotations, and someone can use "Negro" in a way which is utterly devoid of such connotations, though it is certainly associated as a whole with racism. Just like if I said, "Catholic", it would be meant in a good way, and if, say, your average Seventh-day Adventist said it, it would be meant in a bad way, and similarly, if I say "Papist", which I do, I mean it in a good way, but if said SDA said it, it would probably be meant in a bad way. Most Americans will call Latter-Day Saints "Mormons", without meaning any harm by it, or a member of the Society of Friends a "Quaker", again without meaning any harm by it, even though those are not the best words for them, and in the former case at least is a word which is specifically avoided by the Establishment.

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

The shape of words doesn't matter; it's what's meant by them.

Well, that is exactly the point I've been driving home like a determined carpenter hammering at nails, Gwaimir. That is precisely my point. He comes across as having an albeit unaware harmfully condescending attitude towards an entire race of people, either by being out of touch with what today's standards are or by being just plain narrow-minded. But that can be fixed, free your mind and your ass will follow, as Bootsie Collins says.

But Gwai, you were right on the money about the seventh-Day Adventist thing & Catholics, though; I was raised in that horrible cult-church for a few years of my childhood and can heartily attest to the truth of that statement. They think Catholics are like agents of satan, or something, and that they worship idols, have the mark of the beast, all that crazy tripe. I hate the seventh-day adventist church. Hate. That. Church. Such emotionally and spiritually destructive human beings, it is so, so sad. And I was baptised catholic, so I got some flak for that fact wen I was a wee girl, lemme tell you. They claimed I was possessed by demons. Hate those people. No excuse for such deliberate ignorance.

We are so, so off topic on gay marriage at this point, aren't we? O.K., I'll quit giving Lief a hard time for his Negroes thing, what the hell. Back to the topic at hand... Carry on, folks...

[The Gaffer]

Words are very interesting in that they have meaning in two different places at the same time: in the intention of the speaker and in the mind of the listener. One of the key social skills of being a functional human is being aware that these two meanings may be very different...

Anyway, back on topic, Civil Partnerships have been massively popular since they were introduced here about a year ago:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/gayrights/...964055,00.html

Over 15,000 ceremonies. Compares with approx. 270k straight marriages (in 2003).

I don't see the fabric of society crumbling around me. (Or at least, no more than is usual.)

So, for our friends contemplating the "defining marriage.." issue Stateside, is there any interest in what the experience is in other countries? Are people studying what is going on there to see what happens?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I know, environment is certainly a very powerful force upon people's lives. Maybe it becomes "completely insurmountable," in some cases and maybe not. And maybe when it is completely insurmountable, a married couple can live with their differences. But that is much more varied kind of situation, something that is very unpredictable and which it is definitely impossible to generalize about or make laws about.

Biology is powerful and consistent for the vast majority of cases, though. So when you're talking genetics, that's a different matter.

I might remind you that I see homosexuality as coming from the environment. So that would be a difference that can be overcome or lived with, or other, like coming from a different culture. A man having a sexual relationship with another man, however, is a different kind of relationship not because a homosexual is innately a different kind of person from a heterosexual, but because a woman-man relationship is different genetically than a man-man or woman-woman relationship. I hope that that clarifies my position.

Bad for society, but how can we discriminate regarding individual cases and motivations? That's like the cultural example. It's something we just can't handle. Laws can't be taylored for every individual couple- like IR said, every marriage is different.

I think that you are putting way too much emphasis on the act of sex in a marriage. You have admitted that individuals are all different, and that being homosexual in and of itself is not something that can't be worked past, even in a heterosexual relationship.

Remember what marriage is. It's not a sexual covenant between two people. It's a covenant of love. In fact, there are cases of men and women who are married to one another yet simply can't have sexual relations due to some physical impairment (i.e. quadriplegics). And there are other marriages where, due to age or other factors, sex is a very small part of that relationship, and certainly not a deciding factor.

By insisting that marriage must be between a man and a woman just because of biology, and at the same time condoning heterosexual marriages that fall far short on the love side of the equation, it is you who are making marriage less than what it is.

Dedicating your life to another person has absolutely nothing to do with sex.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

No, that is simply not true. It has nothing to do with my particular religion. It's the sense in which Augustine and Aquinas speak of nature, but also the sense in which Aristotle and Epictetus speak of nature; I'm sure you won't go so far as to claim that they were also dirty Papists.

What is "natural" is completely based upon time and place in society. It was "natural" to leech people in the middle ages. It would be considered torture today.

How you view the world has everything to do with your time and place, just as how I view the world has everything to do with mine.

Everything is relative. It's just that some things are more widely-agreed upon at a given place and time.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

But anyway, regardless of where it comes from, it is the sense which is generally meant when one objects that homosexuality is not natural; that being the case, it is mere sophistry to prove it is natural, when you mean something else by "natural".

No, when someone says that homosexuality is not natural, it simply means that it is not natural, or "normal", in their point of view. And if a point of view is held by a large majority it may be generally defined as "unnatural", but that doesn't make it so, except in a relative sense.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

I think that you are putting way too much emphasis on the act of sex in a marriage. You have admitted that individuals are all different, and that being homosexual in and of itself is not something that can't be worked past, even in a heterosexual relationship.

Remember what marriage is. It's not a sexual covenant between two people. It's a covenant of love. In fact, there are cases of men and women who are married to one another yet simply can't have sexual relations due to some physical impairment (i.e. quadriplegics). And there are other marriages where, due to age or other factors, sex is a very small part of that relationship, and certainly not a deciding factor.

By insisting that marriage must be between a man and a woman just because of biology, and at the same time condoning heterosexual marriages that fall far short on the love side of the equation, it is you who are making marriage less than what it is.

Dedicating your life to another person has absolutely nothing to do with sex.

Relationships, as you so rightly point out, are way more than just sex. If the only difference likely to exist between homosexual and heterosexual relationships was in bed, I wouldn't be making two of the major arguments I have been forwarding. But the relationship between a man and a woman, which involves many different facets of how it functions, is going to logically be significantly different from that which exists between people of the same gender, because biologically the two genders are significantly different in mind as well as body.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

But Gwai, you were right on the money about the seventh-Day Adventist thing & Catholics, though; I was raised in that horrible cult-church for a few years of my childhood and can heartily attest to the truth of that statement. They think Catholics are like agents of satan, or something, and that they worship idols, have the mark of the beast, all that crazy tripe. I hate the seventh-day adventist church. Hate. That. Church. Such emotionally and spiritually destructive human beings, it is so, so sad. And I was baptised catholic, so I got some flak for that fact wen I was a wee girl, lemme tell you. They claimed I was possessed by demons. Hate those people. No excuse for such deliberate ignorance.

How horrible! I knew that they were pretty anti-Catholic, but that stuff; there's no excuse for it!

I don't know about all Catholics, but Gwai is DEFINITELY the agent of satan

[Arien the Maia]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

How horrible! I knew that they were pretty anti-Catholic, but that stuff; there's no excuse for it!

I know this is OT but this is the last I will say about it...Lotesse is right...I was also raised in a Catholic/Advestist home and it pretty much screwed me up for good. They are VERY distrustful (to put it nicely) of Catholics. The whole thing makes me sad

[Rían]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

I don't know about all Catholics, but Gwai is DEFINITELY the agent of satan

ROFL!!!!



(good one, hector! What makes it so funny is that it's just so opposite of true!)

[Jon S.]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Relationships, as you so rightly point out, are way more than just sex. If the only difference likely to exist between homosexual and heterosexual relationships was in bed, I wouldn't be making two of the major arguments I have been forwarding. But the relationship between a man and a woman, which involves many different facets of how it functions, is going to logically be significantly different from that which exists between people of the same gender, because biologically the two genders are significantly different in mind as well as body.

Do you know personally any married/lifetime committed gay or lesbians couple or are you (as it appears) simply repeating what others have told you to think?

[Lief Erikson]

I have a close personal friendship with one lesbian right now at my college, and I have witnessed the transformation of another friend from lesbian to heterosexual. I have also homosexual and formerly homosexual acquaintances who aren't personal friends, though they are acquaintances. And this isn't counting my relationships with people of other sexual orientations here on Entmoot.

[Jonathan]

That is a good example that sexual identities aren't just black and white. There is no clear line between heterosexuality and homosexuality or even heterosexuality and bisexuality and when we divide people into groups - heterosexuals, homosexuals, bisexuals etc. - we simplify and we let our own ideas, beliefs and prejudices influence us when we decide who should belong to which group.

Gayness can't be measured

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

That is a good example that sexual identities aren't just black and white. There is no clear line between heterosexuality and homosexuality or even heterosexuality and bisexuality and when we divide people into groups - heterosexuals, homosexuals, bisexuals etc. - we simplify and we let our own ideas, beliefs and prejudices influence us when we decide who should belong to which group.

How does your first statement follow from what I said? I provided evidence that people can change so that they no longer have sexual attractions for people of the same sex but rather only for people of the other gender. I bet it can go the other way too- heterosexuals can lose those instincts and gain homosexual ones. The logical conclusion from that is that since people's sexuality can change, it is not likely the result of biology but rather environment. The example doesn't show that there are a million phases of in-between between three socially constructed categories. For there isn't an in-between shown in my example- only change from one category to another.

I'm not sure how your conclusion follows, either, but I will make a couple points on this.

First is that one's own ideas or beliefs as to who should belong to each group aren't necessarily wrong.

Second is that the argument also goes both ways. If what you're saying is true, then people here who say that homosexuals can't change and become heterosexual are also simplifying and allowing their beliefs, ideas or prejudices influence them as to who should belong to which group.

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I provided evidence that people can change so that they no longer have sexual attractions for people of the same sex but rather only for people of the other gender.

No, you did not. You provided your first-hand observation from your own perspective that people can deny their sexual attraction toward people of the same sex, and choose to act only as a heterosexual. You provided no "evidence" or "proof" that homosexual people can no longer have sexual attraction true to their nature, only that they can choose to deny their true nature and conform to be something that they are not. There is no proving what goes on in the private mind and heart of a person.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

There is no proving what goes on in the private mind and heart of a person.

I agree. There is no proof. But in a court of law, the testimony of witnesses is considered valid evidence. It isn't proof as to what happened in any given case, for of course they could be lying, but it is considered to be evidence.

You told me earlier, in the American Culture thread, that you like movies . We're alike on that point, anyway. But your telling me that you like movies isn't proof that you do. Maybe you're lying- how am I to know?

I don't think you're lying, because you very much seem to me to be truthful to what you believe on this site. You seem to me to be that way all the time. So your word is good evidence, as far as I'm concerned. Not proof, because as you rightly point out, I can't know what's going on in your head. But your word is good evidence, and I believe you. Wouldn't you consider the personal accounts of your friends about their feelings to be evidence that what they're saying is true?

[Lotesse]

A leopard cannot change his spots. A biologically extant trait cannot be erased. It can be denied, and by force of will and choice, be denied, in order to conform for whatever reasons, but the leopard will still be spotted. Even if he's become convinced that a vegetarian life is morally better for him than that of a carnivore, he will always yearn for meat, eating leaves and trees til his dying day he will want what he is genetically pre-disposed to want, as it is his born nature, to be a carnivore, not an herbivore. And he can swear up and down that his spots mean he's now a giraffe, but the truth is - he is not and never will be a giraffe, only a reformed leopard. And shame upon those outside forces messing with his leopard mind to get him to be ashamed of and deny his leopard-ness. Shame upon such wicked forces.

[Lief Erikson]

Now you're arguing based on genetics, but you didn't answer my question. I'm basically saying, "If your friend told you he was delighted about something, would you distrust him immediately and think what he's saying is just as likely to be false as true?" I suspect that if his word was that questionable, you wouldn't have him as a friend. So personal testimony is evidence, and the more you trust the person, the stronger the evidence is for you.

From your most recent post, you seem to me to be basically saying, "but homosexuality is genetic, so this testimony can't be true." That doesn't mean that the testimony is not evidence. It just means you don't think it's sufficient evidence, because of your take on the genetic evidence.

Jonathan is right that current scientific theory is considering the possibility that homosexuality comes from a mixture of biology and environmental influence. The verdict is still out on the source of homosexuality. My view, though, is that the eyewitness accounts badly weaken the case that homosexuality comes from biology. I trust those I know who have told me that they used to be homosexual, but now are heterosexual. Hence, for me personally the case for homosexuality being genetic is completely invalidated.

But you and others here have not met the same people I have. For all you know, I might be too trusting of the people I have met. From your perspective, maybe they tricked me. That must be a possibility. Hence, while for me personally the accounts of those I have met invalidate the possibility that homosexuality is genetic, for you, they will be less compelling evidence than they are for me (because you don't know the people personally). They must, however, still be evidence. Not such strong evidence as they are for me, but evidence nonetheless.