The Nehor wrote:I would have a lot more respect for sexual subcultures that insisted they chose this and that this is what they want. This makes them someone standing for something. As it is, Coggins is right. It's a horrible feeling of victimization that demeans the people claiming it and inspires pity in everyone else. I hate it when people pity me and I'm pretty sure most healthy humans feel the same way.
Well, what if people say they chose their lifestyle? Would that change others calling them perverse and deviant? If others continue to harass them about their choice when can they start to feel victimized?
The Nehor wrote:I would have a lot more respect for sexual subcultures that insisted they chose this and that this is what they want. This makes them someone standing for something. As it is, Coggins is right. It's a horrible feeling of victimization that demeans the people claiming it and inspires pity in everyone else. I hate it when people pity me and I'm pretty sure most healthy humans feel the same way.
Well, what if people say they chose their lifestyle? Would that change others calling them perverse and deviant? If others continue to harass them about their choice when can they start to feel victimized?
I'd still think they were perverse but I'd respect them more. Anyone can and should feel victimized by injustice (this is a good thing if it leads them to take action to correct it). Anyone who feels victimized and blames their actions on innate traits (whether they actually are innate or not) is becoming more and more powerless.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
Justify things like joining a cult that pays it's clergy, but preaches against paid clergy? Justify things like joining a cult that was (and to an extent, still is) fundamentally racist? Justify things like emotionally abusing your children, telling them they will be tormented in Hell if they don't follow the cults rules? Justify things like treating sex as if it is some sort of spiritual procedure that needs to be done properly in order to appease the bearded guy in the sky?
Glass houses, and all. A lot of peope think Mormons are twisted in the head too.
Now, already, Kemp drops his pants and we see exposed the real truth, not even two full pages into the thread (and if dropping one's pants in public is genetically determined, we'll have to forgive him his choicless impulse...).
Within a few posts, using the Savic study as a hook, Kemp switches gears to the standard Romper Room Madalyn Murry O' Hairesque religion bashing that will, from here on, stand in for serious critical argument.
Move along, nothing to see here.
But we knew that...
Don't forget about the critical argument I was responding to :
Gazelam wrote:Some people just get twisted in the head and learn to justify things in their own mind. That doesent make it right.
Twisted in the head. Eloquent, thoughtful, intellectual, and detailed argument, eh. I guess no worse than this one:
It's the liberal media. Leftist therapeutic culture. Secular humanism. And even if it were true, it wouldn't matter if homosexuals are born that way. God hates them.
You're right, Droopy. Nothing to see here.
We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.
H.L Mencken
I don't think they claim that they were born that way so they can play the victim card. I think they say it because as far as they know it's true and helps you understand why it appeals to them even though we find it revolting. From there they can establish the reason they feel the need for society to let them do their thing--it's not a simple matter of them changing preference since it does not seem to go away. Heterosexual activity is not a suitable substitute for them. One then must ask what justifications we have in nosing into their buisness. The disguist factor nor the religious factor seem to be sufficient.
All that said, I wish that government would stay out of adult relationships altogether, even heterosexual ones. It should limit its concern to parents and children. I really dislike using the government as a tool to declare which relationships are or are not legitimate with a special status.
By the way, I respect schizophrenic John Nash who was born that way far more than I respect a group of swingers who simply chose their lifestyle. I respect many others with various conditions who were born that way (blind, deaf, etc.) even when lobbying for themselves (beeping crosswalks, etc.) far more than I respect a group of weirdos who choose to live on a nudist colony.
Last edited by Analytics on Tue Jun 17, 2008 6:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
Don't forget about the critical argument I was responding to
My concern was you apparent inability to respond critically, not the substance of the augment you were responding to.
It's the liberal media. Leftist therapeutic culture. Secular humanism. And even if it were true, it wouldn't matter if homosexuals are born that way. God hates them.
You're right, Droopy. Nothing to see here.
And if you'd like to try demonstrating that philosophically, be my guest.
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us
- President Ezra Taft Benson
I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.
I don't think they claim that they were born that way so they can play the victim card. I think they say it because as far as they know it's true and helps you understand why it appeals to them even though we find it revolting.
Interestingly, within the homosexual subculture, the "born that way" argument does not seem always to have had precedence. Back in the Seventies, another attitude was that the "Gay" lifestyle was a radical, liberating alternative to the horrid bondage of traditional heterosexual Judeo/Christian marriage and family norms. One was thought to be able to choose the alternative, and it was proposed as such. The deterministic reductionism presently popular is really a creature of the last 20 years or so, as I've followed it. This approach was, I think clearly constructed by the Gay rights movement for non-homosexual public consumption as well as a convenient rationalization that puts the lid on some very thorny psychological and philosophical problems that homosexuals would otherwise have to ask themselves.
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us
- President Ezra Taft Benson
I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.
asbestosman wrote:I don't think they claim that they were born that way so they can play the victim card. I think they say it because as far as they know it's true and helps you understand why it appeals to them even though we find it revolting. From there they can establish the reason they feel the need for society to let them do their thing--it's not a simple matter of them changing preference since it does not seem to go away. Heterosexual activity is not a suitable substitute for them. One then must ask what justifications we have in nosing into their buisness. The disguist factor nor the religious factor seem to be sufficient.
All that said, I wish that government would stay out of adult relationships altogether, even heterosexual ones. It should limit its concern to parents and children. I really dislike using the government as a tool to declare which relationships are or are not legitimate with a special status.
By the way, I respect schizophrenic John Nash who was born that way far more than I respect a group of swingers who simply chose their lifestyle. I respect many others with various conditions who were born that way (blind, deaf, etc.) even when lobbying for themselves (beeping crosswalks, etc.) far more than I respect a group of weirdos who choose to live on a nudist colony.
I think marriage IS mostly about protecting the children. I think on some level most of us accept this. The common story about women intentionally getting pregnant to induce a man to marry her must be based on something.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
The Nehor wrote:I think marriage IS mostly about protecting the children. I think on some level most of us accept this.
I don't deny that. I'm merely suggesting that there may be a more effective way of accomplishing those goals without misuse of government.
The common story about women intentionally getting pregnant to induce a man to marry her must be based on something.
Last I checked it was based on monetary considerations--the woman involved is stereotypically often looking either for a man who has wealth, or can provide her with an escape from her 3rd-world homeland.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
Droopy wrote:Interestingly, within the homosexual subculture, the "born that way" argument does not seem always to have had precedence.
CFR.
Droopy wrote:Back in the Seventies, another attitude was that the "Gay" lifestyle was a radical, liberating alternative to the horrid bondage of traditional heterosexual Judeo/Christian marriage and family norms. One was thought to be able to choose the alternative, and it was proposed as such.
CFR.
Droopy wrote:The deterministic reductionism presently popular is really a creature of the last 20 years or so, as I've followed it.
CFR.
Droopy wrote:This approach was, I think clearly constructed by the Gay rights movement for non-homosexual public consumption as well as a convenient rationalization
CFR.
Droopy wrote: that puts the lid on some very thorny psychological and philosophical problems that homosexuals would otherwise have to ask themselves.
Are you speaking from personal experience, or do you just make things up as you go along? Or is this little history lesson simply hijacked from Rush Limbaugh's newsletter?
We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.
H.L Mencken
The common story about women intentionally getting pregnant to induce a man to marry her must be based on something.
Last I checked it was based on monetary considerations--the woman involved is stereotypically often looking either for a man who has wealth, or can provide her with an escape from her 3rd-world homeland.
This is often true but why does the man accept that he should marry her? I would argue it's about the child.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo