Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Obama, Gay Marriage, Original Sin, Founding Fathers, Catholics, and Pearls

Obama, Gay Marriage, Original Sin, Founding Fathers, Catholics, and Pearls (Page 6)
Thread Tools
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2012, 11:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
No, I believe it's a mistake to equate the plights of gays with the plights of blacks who were sold on auction blocks, whipped, hung repeatedly, denied the right to vote, made to plow our fields, build our buildings, and fight our wars and/or women made to bear our children, no ownership, no representation or vote...
I see. People being murdered because they're gay, or stoned because they're gay, or being disowned by their families because they're gay, or losing their jobs because they're gay, or constantly being tormented and bullied because they're gay, or being told they should be put in camps and left to die because they're gay, is somehow different, Gotcha.

With regard to "icky", don't hate the messenger. It's not my fault.
You've brought this up several times; I sense there's more to it than you're letting on.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2012, 11:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
I don't see how "every society chanced upon the same taboo randomly without just cause" is more parsimonious than that it's innate human (and animal) nature.
I don't think this is true. The ancient Egyptians didn't. I've heard it claimed this is why Nefertiti has the weird-ass head.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 30, 2012, 12:04 AM
 
What percentage of cultures do you think it is true of, and what percent is expected if there is no natural basis for it?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Valley of the Sun
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 30, 2012, 12:32 AM
 
It was a common practice amongst the Hawaiian royalty
The Risks and Rewards of Royal Incest - National Geographic Magazine
By David Dobbs
Photo: Baron/Getty Images

When New England missionary Hiram Bingham arrived in Hawaii in 1820, he was dismayed to find the natives indulging in idolatry, hula dancing, and, among the ruling family, incest. The Hawaiians themselves did not share Bingham's shock at the royals' behavior. Royal incest, notes historian Joanne Carando, was "not only accepted but even encouraged" in Hawaii as an exclusive royal privilege.
¡Viva Cristo Rey!
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 30, 2012, 12:34 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
What percentage of cultures do you think it is true of, and what percent is expected if there is no natural basis for it?
It depends on what time period you're talking about. Again, my understanding is this was less of a big deal in the ancient world.

I'm curious. Do you think rape and murder are cultural taboos (enforced by severe penalties) because we're innately averse to them? Like taboos against incest, societies were able to develop taboos for one or both of them on their own.

My opinion? I'd say they're taboos because of the opposite. We're a little too unaverse. We need to be taught these things are wrong under force of penalty.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 30, 2012, 12:44 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
It depends on what time period you're talking about. Again, my understanding is this was less of a big deal in the ancient world.
My understanding is that was mostly for royalty, who were mostly considered superhuman (as in they weren't like humans). I doubt many of the royalty didn't have to train themselves to overcome this innate trait in order to participate though.

I'm curious. Do you think rape and murder are cultural taboos (enforced by severe penalties)
Let me stop you right there, I don't think that's what taboo means. I think taboo is more about manners than laws. As in most people wouldn't even realize it was against the law, because it wouldn't need to be. I don't think that theft or tax evasion is taboo either.
     
Forum Regular
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 30, 2012, 08:42 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Some people seem to confuse the severity or the duration of the oppression with the legitimacy or quality of the claim.
*biting my tongue trying not to bring Israel/Palestine into this*
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 30, 2012, 11:50 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
It was a common practice amongst the Hawaiian royalty
The Risks and Rewards of Royal Incest - National Geographic Magazine
It was(/is) common practice amongst a lot of royalty all over the world.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 30, 2012, 03:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
My understanding is that was mostly for royalty, who were mostly considered superhuman (as in they weren't like humans). I doubt many of the royalty didn't have to train themselves to overcome this innate trait in order to participate though.
Is this because it wasn't practiced by the populace at large, or that the farther back you go the less you know about the populace at large? Now, my understanding is the Romans have census data which shows this was practiced throughout entire societies. Likewise, my understanding is incest was only illegal in the Roman Empire if you were a citizen. Why would it be legal for non-citizens? One can surmise a reason would be they were practicing it, no?

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Let me stop you right there, I don't think that's what taboo means. I think taboo is more about manners than laws. As in most people wouldn't even realize it was against the law, because it wouldn't need to be. I don't think that theft or tax evasion is taboo either.
I'm unclear here. Are you saying rape and murder aren't taboo? I assume not because that doesn't make sense.

FWIW, raping and killing someone is generally considered to be poor manners.
( Last edited by subego; May 30, 2012 at 03:14 PM. )
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 30, 2012, 03:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Is this because it wasn't practiced by the populace at large, or that the farther back you go the less you know about the populace at large? Now, my understanding is the Romans have census data which shows this was practiced throughout entire societies. Likewise, my understanding is incest was only illegal in the Roman Empire if you were a citizen. Why would it be legal for non-citizens? One can surmise a reason would be they were practicing it, no?
While reading this, I was about to ask you why it IS illegal, since virtually no one is practicing it. There are lots of laws that seem completely unnecessary, and I don't think you can draw any conclusion based on their existence alone.



I'm unclear here. Are you saying rape and murder aren't taboo?
Yes
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 30, 2012, 05:01 PM
 
I dunno. I suppose I do have some insight into some of this. My wives often tell people they're sisters, other times they tell people they're married, and occasionally they'll even use the term "sister-wife". It has led to some interesting comments, and the more recent "shame shame" type of rebukes for raising a child in such evil. Then my wife will just give them the finger and tell them where they can get off. Overall, however, most people don't seem to mind and no one's been physically aggressive. A have been told by the sheriff that they've received a few calls about our arrangement, but their office just informs them that we've broken no laws and that they have more important things to do than waste their time harassing us.

Throughout all of this, I can say one thing for certain, people adapt quickly. As long as you mostly mind your own business and don't try to force a change, others will learn to accept. All it takes is exposure and time. I figure by the time Emma starts school the vast majority of people won't even raise an eyebrow over her family.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 30, 2012, 06:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
A have been told by the sheriff that they've received a few calls about our arrangement, but their office just informs them that we've broken no laws and that they have more important things to do than waste their time harassing us.
This would be hilarious if it wasn't so pathetic. I hate people.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 30, 2012, 06:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
While reading this, I was about to ask you why it IS illegal, since virtually no one is practicing it. There are lots of laws that seem completely unnecessary, and I don't think you can draw any conclusion based on their existence alone.
I wasn't drawing a conclusion from a law, I'm drawing a conclusion from the lack of a law.

As for why it's illegal in the here and now? Who knows? I'd tack a lot of it on the Bible. Also, it is, under most circumstances in Western society, a pretty severe symptom of a ****ed up family situation. I choose the word "symptom" carefully, as I would say it does not cause the situation, but is instead caused by the situation.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Yes
What definition are you using? I give you leave to quote the dictionary without it being considered an asshole move.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 30, 2012, 07:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
I see. People being murdered because they're gay, or stoned because they're gay, or being disowned by their families because they're gay, or losing their jobs because they're gay, or constantly being tormented and bullied because they're gay, or being told they should be put in camps and left to die because they're gay, is somehow different, Gotcha.



You've brought this up several times; I sense there's more to it than you're letting on.
My homophobic landlord has been trying to evict me or make me move for 6 months now after I stupidly told her I was bi and my roommate was gay. But its still different. Blacks got prejudiced over looks, a physical trait which could not be hidden. Gay people easily can hide the fact, its more a volunteery admission. A gay white man could still enter a white mans only club and just had to keep his mouth shut about being gay. A white gay man could still join the army and be treated as a white man as long as he didn't say anything and tried to sleep with a bunk mate. Black men couldn't hide that he is black.

Both kinds of discrimination share the same root causes of ignorance and intolerance. But one absolutely suffered way more.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 30, 2012, 10:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I wasn't drawing a conclusion from a law, I'm drawing a conclusion from the lack of a law.
even worse... that provides even less information


What definition are you using? I give you leave to quote the dictionary without it being considered an asshole move.
To be honest, that's a difficult question. I'm not using a definition, only my life experience as an english speaker. Sometimes a definition simply isn't enough to define a word, only enough to refer to something the reader already understands and simply doesn't know the word for. The definitions I've found are woefully unspecific, and don't differentiate things which are clearly not included (like tax evasion). This comes the closest of what I've found:
Online Etymology Dictionary
It includes a concept of revulsion and uncleanliness, which I think are integral. It's not the fact that murder is forbidden that decides whether it is taboo, it's whether it makes you a monster for doing it. Something along those lines. Obviously even this can be twisted to almost any end, as the words to describe it can themselves be ambiguous if you want them to be... Like I said, it's difficult.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 30, 2012, 10:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
even worse... that provides even less information
This wasn't meant to be a single data point, it's supposed to be taken along with the existant records of incest being committed by commoners under that law.


Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
To be honest, that's a difficult question. I'm not using a definition, only my life experience as an english speaker. Sometimes a definition simply isn't enough to define a word, only enough to refer to something the reader already understands and simply doesn't know the word for. The definitions I've found are woefully unspecific, and don't differentiate things which are clearly not included (like tax evasion). This comes the closest of what I've found:
Online Etymology Dictionary
It includes a concept of revulsion and uncleanliness, which I think are integral. It's not the fact that murder is forbidden that decides whether it is taboo, it's whether it makes you a monster for doing it. Something along those lines. Obviously even this can be twisted to almost any end, as the words to describe it can themselves be ambiguous if you want them to be... Like I said, it's difficult.
Will you accept revolting as a good substitute word? It's not necessarily an exact synonym for taboo, but I think what it describes it describes with precision.

In what sense do you consider incest unclean? I guess it is from a genetic standpoint, but that's a pretty abstract way of putting it. Mentally?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 30, 2012, 10:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Will you accept revolting as a good substitute word?
I don't see why not, but this kind of thing usually doesn't work. How about "we'll see"?

In what sense do you consider incest unclean?
In the same way babies are considered cute and clear skies are considered beautiful: just so, which is because everyone (within statistical noise) agrees, which is because it comes from human nature, which is because it happens to coincide with best practices for long term survival.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 30, 2012, 11:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
I don't see why not, but this kind of thing usually doesn't work. How about "we'll see"?
Fair enough.

Are murder and rape revolting?


Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
In the same way babies are considered cute and clear skies are considered beautiful: just so, which is because everyone (within statistical noise) agrees, which is because it comes from human nature, which is because it happens to coincide with best practices for long term survival.
I would imagine there were periods of history where you could give that response to "in what sense do you consider homosexuality unclean?"

Things like this can be socially constructed.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 31, 2012, 02:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
This would be hilarious if it wasn't so pathetic. I hate people.
I wasn't very surprised, there's always a few out there. They can piss and moan all they want, I know the cops aren't coming to arrest us or take away my kid, so they can go get bent.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 31, 2012, 11:13 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
A have been told by the sheriff that they've received a few calls about our arrangement, but their office just informs them that we've broken no laws and that they have more important things to do than waste their time harassing us.
What the hell? What do they expect to happen?

Probably the type of people that support anti-sodomy laws and such.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 31, 2012, 12:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Fair enough.

Are murder and rape revolting?
In and of themselves? Not in the sense that revolting carries the implication of surprise or shock, or the complete inability to understand why they were done. Obviously I'm going to be thinking of one extreme, like a Murder She Wrote episode, while you're going to be thinking of Silence of the Lambs, so this post won't be well received.

I would imagine there were periods of history where you could give that response to "in what sense do you consider homosexuality unclean?"

Things like this can be socially constructed.
Yes they can be. Some clearly are constructed, like witch-hunting and phrenology. Others clearly aren't, like baby cuteness and clear-sky/water prettiness. I think incest is more like the latter than the former, and homosexuality isn't.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 31, 2012, 02:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
In and of themselves? Not in the sense that revolting carries the implication of surprise or shock, or the complete inability to understand why they were done. Obviously I'm going to be thinking of one extreme, like a Murder She Wrote episode, while you're going to be thinking of Silence of the Lambs, so this post won't be well received.
Sure it will be.

I'm honestly trying to get your opinion. There are no wrong answers. I wasn't trying to trap you with the question.

I'm in a rush, so I'll finish later.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 1, 2012, 08:18 AM
 
Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
I see. People being murdered because they're gay, or stoned because they're gay, or being disowned by their families because they're gay, or losing their jobs because they're gay, or constantly being tormented and bullied because they're gay, or being told they should be put in camps and left to die because they're gay, is somehow different, Gotcha.
Yes, it's different; in scope and severity. First of all, none of the above were US government-sanctioned responses to homosexuality. You know, since the discussion was decidedly about US policy, a US President, and the views of varying US demographics.

What you describe above applies to fat people, ugly people, people with zits, people of differing religions or ideals, ex-girlfriends, boyfriends, ex-husbands and wives, etc and while this type of persecution is a horrible trait of human nature, it does not mean one is a suitable argument for the other. When people invoke the historical racial and gender injustices in an attempt to illustrate the plights of homosexuals, they are exploiting and marginalizing the plights of blacks and women. People simply do not view them in the same vein.

You've brought this up several times; I sense there's more to it than you're letting on.
What do you suppose that is? I apologize if you're feeling personally convicted by anything I'm saying as that is certainly not my intent.
ebuddy
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 1, 2012, 09:26 AM
 
ebuddy, your opinions on this issue are simply wretched. Your cranial-anus insertion is so complete, you don't even realize how utterly moronic these statements are. It's just one eye-roller after another.
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Yes, it's different; in scope and severity.
Pfft. Because being killed, fired, bullied, disowned by family, and tortured by quacks isn't severe enough for you.

First of all, none of the above were US government-sanctioned responses to homosexuality.
That's right, no one employed by the government has ever been fired for being gay. No one in the military has ever lost their job for being gay. No one in the civil service has ever lost their job for being gay. Get fncking real.

What you describe above applies to fat people, ugly people, people with zits, people of differing religions or ideals, ex-girlfriends, boyfriends, ex-husbands and wives, etc and while this type of persecution is a horrible trait of human nature, it does not mean one is a suitable argument for the other.
Uh, if you fire someone for being fat or for having zits, you will get your ass handed to you in court. Wrongful dismissal and all that.

When people invoke the historical racial and gender injustices in an attempt to illustrate the plights of homosexuals, they are exploiting and marginalizing the plights of blacks and women. People simply do not view them in the same vein.
No, *YOU* do not view them in the same vein, because your views on homosexuality are defective. Being persecuted unjustly is wrong, period, but you have deliberately chosen to blind yourself to these injustices because of prejudice and bigotry.

And.....

I'd like to address the irrelevant but constantly mentioned comparison of incest. To say people are against both homosexuality and incest because both are "icky" is complete nonsense.

First, "icky" is utterly subjective, personally and culturally. People view these things as "icky" because of imposed cultural norms, not because inherent ickiness lead to those cultural norms. You have the cart before the horse, ebuddy.

Second, incest is not universally described. Parent-child and sibling-sibling sex is *almost* universally proscribed (except for instances of royal incest), but not because of "ick" but because of clearly observed incidences of birth defects from such relationships. However, other "incest" prohibitions are culturally-determined. For instance, in ancient Judaism, aunt-nephew sex was banned but uncle-niece sex was accepted, except by the Essenes, who were the only objectors. Also, first cousin and second cousin sex was not only permitted, it was a widely accepted norm of marriage all over the world until the 19th century. First-cousin marriage is still common in the Islamic world today, but it started to become proscribed in the west only in the last 200 years. Today, cousin sex has "ick-factor", but that's because (like I said about) culturally-imposed norms cause ick-factor, not the other way around.

Lastly, for anyone to object to homosexuality because of "ickiness", and then based on that feeling insist that discriminating against gays is fine is on the intellectual level of shunning women because they have cooties. This is playground bullish!t you're supposed to have grown out of, buddy.

Every time you open your mouth on this issue, ebuddy, you drop to a lower rung of hell in my opinion.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 1, 2012, 09:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
What you describe above applies to fat people, ugly people, people with zits, people of differing religions or ideals, ex-girlfriends, boyfriends, ex-husbands and wives, etc and while this type of persecution is a horrible trait of human nature, it does not mean one is a suitable argument for the other. When people invoke the historical racial and gender injustices in an attempt to illustrate the plights of homosexuals, they are exploiting and marginalizing the plights of blacks and women. People simply do not view them in the same vein. .
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 1, 2012, 10:01 AM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Uh, if you fire someone for being fat or for having zits, you will get your ass handed to you in court. Wrongful dismissal and all that.
..and for being gay too. There's no law which protects employers from wrongful dismissal suits when they wrongfully dismiss people because they are gay... or have zits, or are fat, etc. I'm pretty sure we already have equal protection here.
     
cgc
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Down by the river
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 1, 2012, 10:13 AM
 
Why can't companies fire people for being fat, a smoker, or nearly any other reason? Their employees represent the company so they'd have to maintain a certain image. Hopefully that's all spelled out in the employment contract and other positions (e.g. not in the public eye) were available. Military members can be "fired" (not allowed to reenlist or kicked out) for failing to present a military image or for failing a fitness test. A Hooters girl was suspended for being overweight, only 28 states have laws preventing people from being fired for smoking, paramedics have been fired for smoking, and the list goes on. I have no problem with those firings but I hope they had an opportunity to correct their behavior and it was in their employment contract.

The issue of gays being discriminated against is different but could there be instances where they cannot represent a company appropriately so they could be legally fired? I can't think of one...
( Last edited by cgc; Jun 1, 2012 at 10:30 AM. )
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 1, 2012, 12:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
ebuddy, your opinions on this issue are simply wretched. Your cranial-anus insertion is so complete, you don't even realize how utterly moronic these statements are. It's just one eye-roller after another.
Pfft. Because being killed, fired, bullied, disowned by family, and tortured by quacks isn't severe enough for you.

That's right, no one employed by the government has ever been fired for being gay. No one in the military has ever lost their job for being gay. No one in the civil service has ever lost their job for being gay. Get fncking real.

Uh, if you fire someone for being fat or for having zits, you will get your ass handed to you in court. Wrongful dismissal and all that.

No, *YOU* do not view them in the same vein, because your views on homosexuality are defective. Being persecuted unjustly is wrong, period, but you have deliberately chosen to blind yourself to these injustices because of prejudice and bigotry.

And.....

I'd like to address the irrelevant but constantly mentioned comparison of incest. To say people are against both homosexuality and incest because both are "icky" is complete nonsense.

First, "icky" is utterly subjective, personally and culturally. People view these things as "icky" because of imposed cultural norms, not because inherent ickiness lead to those cultural norms. You have the cart before the horse, ebuddy.

Second, incest is not universally described. Parent-child and sibling-sibling sex is *almost* universally proscribed (except for instances of royal incest), but not because of "ick" but because of clearly observed incidences of birth defects from such relationships. However, other "incest" prohibitions are culturally-determined. For instance, in ancient Judaism, aunt-nephew sex was banned but uncle-niece sex was accepted, except by the Essenes, who were the only objectors. Also, first cousin and second cousin sex was not only permitted, it was a widely accepted norm of marriage all over the world until the 19th century. First-cousin marriage is still common in the Islamic world today, but it started to become proscribed in the west only in the last 200 years. Today, cousin sex has "ick-factor", but that's because (like I said about) culturally-imposed norms cause ick-factor, not the other way around.

Lastly, for anyone to object to homosexuality because of "ickiness", and then based on that feeling insist that discriminating against gays is fine is on the intellectual level of shunning women because they have cooties. This is playground bullish!t you're supposed to have grown out of, buddy.

Every time you open your mouth on this issue, ebuddy, you drop to a lower rung of hell in my opinion.
I think ebuddy is dead on, and its very similar to my position. And I'm the only one out of the 3 of us practicing gay sex here so I think my opinion has a little more value then you straight guys.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 1, 2012, 01:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
I think ebuddy is dead on, and its very similar to my position. And I'm the only one out of the 3 of us practicing gay sex here so I think my opinion has a little more value then you straight guys.
How about you quit being lazy and tell me *where* I'm wrong here.

And guess what: being gay does't make you right about all things gay.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 1, 2012, 01:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
No, I believe it's a mistake to equate the plights of gays with the plights of blacks who were sold on auction blocks, whipped, hung repeatedly, denied the right to vote, made to plow our fields, build our buildings, and fight our wars and/or women made to bear our children, no ownership, no representation or vote...
As opposed to being forced to wear purple triangles as identification, having their homes vandalized and burned down, dragged into the streets and murdered, then eventually rounded up and sent to concentration camps where they were buried alive, burned alive, dismembered, gassed, tortured, experimented upon, and everything else unimaginable and gruesome. And if it was even possible to be any worse in such a hell hole, it was reported that the homosexuals were treated in an even more exceptionally cruel manner than other captives.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 1, 2012, 04:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
In and of themselves? Not in the sense that revolting carries the implication of surprise or shock, or the complete inability to understand why they were done. Obviously I'm going to be thinking of one extreme, like a Murder She Wrote episode, while you're going to be thinking of Silence of the Lambs, so this post won't be well received.


Yes they can be. Some clearly are constructed, like witch-hunting and phrenology. Others clearly aren't, like baby cuteness and clear-sky/water prettiness. I think incest is more like the latter than the former, and homosexuality isn't.
Sorry this took so long. I wanted to get a look at a paper on the subject, and had to hit up a friend at a university to get it. As an aside, kudos to astronomers and astrophysicists for having every paper I've ever needed available online for free. The social sciences can go **** themselves.

I'm slowly moving towards your position. A key component of my position was the widespread incest in Ptolemic Egypt. Looking into it, there seems to be plausible evidence these were colonial Greeks who, for various (mostly racist) reasons, didn't want to intermingle with the locals.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 1, 2012, 05:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
How about you quit being lazy and tell me *where* I'm wrong here.

And guess what: being gay does't make you right about all things gay.
I did explain it in a previous post go look, and read ebuddy's post a second time then. Agreeing with what he had to say does not require me to post the same thing again.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 1, 2012, 05:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
As opposed to being forced to wear purple triangles as identification, having their homes vandalized and burned down, dragged into the streets and murdered, then eventually rounded up and sent to concentration camps where they were buried alive, burned alive, dismembered, gassed, tortured, experimented upon, and everything else unimaginable and gruesome. And if it was even possible to be any worse in such a hell hole, it was reported that the homosexuals were treated in an even more exceptionally cruel manner than other captives.
Funny, I think Jews not Gays when I read that.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 1, 2012, 06:29 PM
 
So, who gets the gold at the Suffering Olympics™?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 1, 2012, 11:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
Funny, I think Jews not Gays when I read that.
I don't think the gays thought it was funny when it happened to them during Hitler's reign of terror.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 2, 2012, 12:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
ebuddy, your opinions on this issue are simply wretched. Your cranial-anus insertion is so complete, you don't even realize how utterly moronic these statements are. It's just one eye-roller after another.
Egadz man, your tighties are so bunched up here that I'm surprised you can even see what you're typing let alone formulate a cogent argument. I'm going to start by eliminating or modifying your version of all the arguments I've never made in order to address whatever, partially-reasoned points of yours remain:

Pfft. Because being killed, fired, bullied, disowned by family, and tortured by quacks isn't severe enough for you.

That's right, no one employed by the government has ever been fired for being gay or fat or ugly or zitty or... No one in the military has ever lost their job for being gay or engaging sexual misconduct of any kind or fat or slow or unique in any way. Not to mention the number of gays that have served our military honorably throughout history. I wonder what it was they were able to do that the discharged gays couldn't. As it turns out, perhaps one's sexual orientation is not as critical to killing people and blowing sh!t up as your fncking real morons would have you believe. No one in the civil service has ever lost their job for being gay or again, for any countless number of reasons. Get fncking real.
I should've just struck-through all of the above, but repetition is the key to retention and you apparently need the facilitative approach a little more than most.

Uh, if you fire someone for being fat or for having zits, you will get your ass handed to you in court. Wrongful dismissal and all that.
Uh... get fncking real. Of course, no one has ever had their asses handed to them for discriminating against a homosexual.

No, *YOU* do not view them in the same vein, because your views on homosexuality are defective. Being persecuted unjustly is wrong, period, but you have deliberately chosen to blind yourself to these injustices because of prejudice and bigotry.
I should've guessed, referring to discrimination of any kind as a "horrible trait of human nature" would be construed as advocating the behavior to those who can't separate emotional blathering from reason and by expressing a concern with the practice of equating the plight of homosexuals with the plights of blacks and women in the US would demonstrate prejudice and bigotry to you. My views on homosexuality are based on fact first, observation second. Simply put, gender and race are more clearly genetic and immutable than homosexuality, scientifically and otherwise; the primary reason homosexuals have not endured nearly the same degree of discrimination as have those of varying races and gender. I've given you absolutely zero cause for concluding that my views on homosexuality are defective, particularly by virtue of the fact that you simply don't appreciate my contribution... whatever defective means to you.

I'd like to address the irrelevant but constantly mentioned comparison of incest. To say people are against both homosexuality and incest because both are "icky" is complete nonsense.

First, "icky" is utterly subjective, personally and culturally. People view these things as "icky" because of imposed cultural norms, not because inherent ickiness lead to those cultural norms. You have the cart before the horse, ebuddy.
Is that so? Can you prove that this is an imposed cultural norm or does it not make more sense that this is an innate reaction to a patently unique social behavior and the related sentiment and subsequent civil laws were crafted around the majority, innate response to the behavior?

Second, incest is not universally described. Parent-child and sibling-sibling sex is *almost* universally proscribed (except for instances of royal incest), but not because of "ick" but because of clearly observed incidences of birth defects from such relationships. However, other "incest" prohibitions are culturally-determined. For instance, in ancient Judaism, aunt-nephew sex was banned but uncle-niece sex was accepted, except by the Essenes, who were the only objectors. Also, first cousin and second cousin sex was not only permitted, it was a widely accepted norm of marriage all over the world until the 19th century. First-cousin marriage is still common in the Islamic world today, but it started to become proscribed in the west only in the last 200 years. Today, cousin sex has "ick-factor", but that's because (like I said about) culturally-imposed norms cause ick-factor, not the other way around.
Hmmm. So... all of the above were deemed acceptable in varying degrees with the exception of parent-child or sibling-sibling sex, yet homosexuality remained socially problematic throughout. How does this make your point? Incest was reserved for the highest rung of society, parent-child and sibling sex is out of the question only because of birth defects (never mind the 1 in 25-40 chance of down syndrome alone among the offspring of mothers 45+ yrs of age for example or the fact that monogamous homosexuals cannot reproduce at all) and yet we can't get you to champion these other scenarios? To sum up: gay rights is apparently your cause du jour and as such should be mine as well. Got it. Anything else?

Lastly, for anyone to object to homosexuality because of "ickiness", and then based on that feeling insist that discriminating against gays is fine is on the intellectual level of shunning women because they have cooties. This is playground bullish!t you're supposed to have grown out of, buddy.
Absolute, emotional nonsense through and through. Take a deep breath and try again.

Every time you open your mouth on this issue, ebuddy, you drop to a lower rung of hell in my opinion.
Here's your tolerance ladies and gentlemen. As long as you champion whatever it is mckenna champions, say whatever it is mckenna wants you to say, and how he wants you to say it; you'll be in his good graces. Otherwise, you should be very concerned what mckenna thinks of you personally.
( Last edited by ebuddy; Jun 2, 2012 at 12:49 PM. )
ebuddy
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 2, 2012, 01:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Uh... get fncking real. Of course, no one has ever had their asses handed to them for discriminating against a homosexual.
Isn't it the goal of many in the anti-gay community to support traditional values and eliminate the ability to punish for anti-gay behaviours.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 2, 2012, 03:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Simply put, gender and race are more clearly genetic and immutable than homosexuality
What is your evidence this is/was mutability versus visibility?

My understanding of how these things work is there's a direct correlation between discrimination and how obvious the "otherness" is.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 2, 2012, 04:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
What is your evidence this is/was mutability versus visibility?

My understanding of how these things work is there's a direct correlation between discrimination and how obvious the "otherness" is.
Fair enough, I'll go with this in the context of mutability as the difficulty of shaping how they appear to others.
ebuddy
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 2, 2012, 04:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Fair enough, I'll go with this in the context of mutability as the difficulty of shaping how they appear to others.
Well, that's its own issue if you have any interest in a non-platonic relationship. Both in terms of finding one, and maintaining one.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2012, 04:00 AM
 
Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
I don't think the gays thought it was funny when it happened to them during Hitler's reign of terror.
Show me anything that tells a story about how gay people had to sit in the back of a bus. Had to use different washrooms from non-gays. Had special seating locations in the back of restaurants and could not vote and perhaps I will change my opinion they suffered as much as woman and blacks when it comes to the struggle of equality.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2012, 05:23 AM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
Funny, I think Jews not Gays when I read that.
That's would be because gays were the other group of "undesirables" along with the Jews. They went through identical treatment as the Jews with one exception, and that was the aforementioned exceptional cruelty. Considering what happened to the Jews, I can only imagine what happened to the homosexuals in those camps... and that's really not something I want to dwell on.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2012, 05:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
That's would be because gays were the other group of "undesirables" along with the Jews. They went through identical treatment as the Jews with one exception, and that was the aforementioned exceptional cruelty. Considering what happened to the Jews, I can only imagine what happened to the homosexuals in those camps... and that's really not something I want to dwell on.
And I wonder how many straight men got treated like homosexuals because of accusations of being gay. Unlike being black, being gay is a self identifiable issue. I'm pretty sure most gays didn't go report to the Nazi's under the self disclosure of being gay. The numbers reflect this as the estimate is only 15000 homosexuals died in the camps. On top of that many died from being killed and beating by other inmates. Nazi persecution is a poor example. Every color and race and every religious group basically got persecuted. Even white people not of the Aryan look where.

Show me where Gays suffered as much as Blacks and woman in the United States of America. You know that country between Canada and Mexico. Gay men didn't suffer nearly as much as Blacks and Woman. A gay man outed in San Francisco could go to Seattle start again. A Black man couldn't change his color. A woman couldn't change her gender. Even today woman are discriminated against far more then homosexuals. You don't see a gay man making 15k less then a non gay men, yet you do see woman in the same position and qualifications making far less then a men.

Homosexuals get discriminated against, im in a major battle to stay in my home because my landlord is a major homophobe right now, into its 7th month. But its is no where close to what Blacks and Woman have endured.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2012, 07:25 AM
 
I want to add little Afghani girls who get acid thrown in their face for going to school to the list of people who have suffered more than gays.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2012, 10:37 AM
 
End the US Gitmo for Gays!!!
ebuddy
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2012, 10:51 AM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
Show me anything that tells a story about how gay people had to sit in the back of a bus. Had to use different washrooms from non-gays. Had special seating locations in the back of restaurants and could not vote and perhaps I will change my opinion they suffered as much as woman and blacks when it comes to the struggle of equality.
What you fail to appreciate is that, once it is known you are gay, you are indeed treated differently. You lose friends, family, possible job opportunities, and a host of other opportunities. People are, in fact, murdered solely because they're gay. People are denied jobs, or fired from existing positions, solely because they're gay. They're discriminated against in housing (get it?), because they're gay. Why do you think this has been such a hot button issue for the past decade or so, with vicious, hateful, diatribe being spewed out by those who pretend they're religious? There's more to life than external, visible, differences. It is a civil rights issue, depute the denials from the ignorant, who can't comprehend the depth of the issue.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2012, 01:57 PM
 
Show me the official government policies that discriminate, that prevent Gay people from getting jobs or other opportunities. That's the difference between the scale of discrimination. Blacks and Woman suffered from official policies that had to be changed in Government while Gay people suffer personal discrimination from individuals. Its why I don't consider the two of them the same. I've lost 2 friends from being gay and been fighting for my home for the last 6 months because of a seriously homophobic manager. Never lost a job but most people at work don't even know I'm gay. I don't where flashy rainbow shit to broadcast im gay. I don't interject every conversation with who I slept with the night before. I don't try to talk about dick and who's hot at work.

Who people sleep with and where the genitals end up should be a private thing. I don't like any couple seriously making out and being overly sexual in public, straight or gay. About the only thing different in a lot of places is a gay couple cant hold hands and show affection in public with out the risk of a individual being offended and causing problems. But that isn't government sponsored persecution like the blacks suffered. That's just a individual idiot.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2012, 03:10 PM
 
Don't ask, don't tell.

It used to be official Federal government policy to fire your ass if you were homosexual.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2012, 06:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Don't ask, don't tell.

It used to be official Federal government policy to fire your ass if you were homosexual.
No it wasn't. Thousands of gays have served honorably in the military without discharge. The policy was as much about protecting gays in a quartered environment of trained brutality and the morale of a diverse collective as it was protecting anyone else from gays, but make no mistake; you could be gay at any time throughout history and serve in the armed forces.
ebuddy
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2012, 07:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
No it wasn't.
Semantics. The bad kind.

If you really think the fact the government had to catch you is a hair worth splitting then we'll have to agree to disagree.
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:19 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2014 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2