Monday, May 12, 2014

Who's obsessed with homosexuality?

Here's a question.

Let's say you have two populations of people: one that believes that sodomy and same-sex marriage is moral, and another that believes sodomy and same-sex marriage is immoral.

The population that believes sodomy/same-sex marriage is moral is such that they can - with little outcry from their community - spawn mass protests of companies whose owners oppose same-sex marriage, fire or attempt to fire people for having given donations in opposition to same-sex marriage even if there were no allegations of wrongdoing on their parts at their job, and generally punish anyone who ever criticizes sodomy or same-sex marriage.

The population that believes sodomy/same-sex marriage is immoral tries to pass laws outlawing same-sex marriage, supports organizations that regard sodomy/same-sex marriage as immoral, and believes it should be legal to refuse to lend one's business services to a same-sex marriage ceremony.

How can someone make the argument that the latter is 'obsessed' with sodomy/same-sex marriage, but that the former isn't?

I say it's not possible. When people say 'you're obsessed' in this case, all it can cash out to is this: 'I think this is very, VERY important. So do you, but I think I'm right and you're wrong, so you should stop talking about it.'

It's like living in a world where people fuck in public on a regular basis, but it's the people who argue that public sex is vulgar that get accused of being obsessed with sex.

38 comments:

Carlos said...

I can already hear the following exuding the lips of a GLAAD infantryman:

"Uh, you just commented on sexuality so this shows that it's, like, you who is obsessed with sexuality, you conservative bigot"

Gyan said...

Conservatives claim that marriage is pre-political institute, i.e. prior to the State, and thus State has no right to revise the definition of marriage.

Thus, the State must take the social consensus on the marriage as given.

Now, I agree here but I claim that the same-sex marriage has not been politically or judicially imposed but has emerged from the people in a pre-political manner.

That is, some people started having same-sex ceremonies and other people started accepting these ceremonies as marriage or equivalent. Only, then the political and judicial processes got started.

Thus, in this sense, the partisans of same-sex marriage are correct that the conservatives, despite big on pre-political nature of marriage, have turned to the State to suppress this pre-politically evolved custom of same-sex marriage.

Pls note that I make no claims on the moral right or wrong of same-sex marriage.

Crude said...

Gyan,

Not really the focus of this post. Still..

Same-sex marriage has quite clearly been politically and judicially imposed. Judges declaring by judicial fiat that there exists a 'right' to gay marriage out of the blue, with zero persuasive precedent, is an imposition.

Likewise, who are the conservatives saying that marriage is a 'pre-political institute'? The ones I've seen have largely argued that marriage was defined since the founding of this country as being between a man and woman, and that any change to such would require new legislation of the appropriate type to be passed.

Finally, is gay marriage moral or right in your view?

Goldenrush Apple said...

I have observed the same thing. It's quite a bizarre accusation to be honest.

Pertaining to your last paragraph, there were similar incidents that "Americans are afraid of sex" when objection came to explicit sex scenes in movies. The director Steve McQueen (not the actor) said that when his lead actor didn't get an Oscar nomination for the movie Shame and the same accusation was hurled by people (those in the indie movie world, mostly) when received an NC-17 rating. This is coming off from the stigma that Americans are prudes (G_d forbid) and homophobic (cause we see lynching stories of gays every other day ...). I remember one person saying that Europeans had a "mature view on sex."

Americans are just too square for their own good. /sarc

Goldenrush Apple said...

* Blue Is the Warmest Color was the movie I was referring to that received the NC-17 rating.

Crude said...

G_d? May I ask why the letter omission? I've seen it before but I figure I should ask rather than presume.

And, I think it's a tactical accusation. I saw this over at McGrath's blog as well - mocking Christians who didn't want to bake a cake for a gay wedding because 'it's just a pastry' and how they should 'just bake the silly little pastry.' But when you suggest that LGBT activists shouldn't get so worked up at the lack of a pastry... suddenly that cake isn't 'just a pastry' anymore, but instead a matter of tremendous importance, a fundamental bulwark against lynch mobs.

I don't think these things tend to be a matter of sincere belief, but of intentional framing. The European thing is one I've heard before as well. Psychologically charged descriptions of opponents seems like a big progressive tactic in general. Does it have a conservative parallel? I don't see it as much, but perhaps I miss it.

Gyan said...

"marriage was defined since the founding of this country as being between a man and woman"

Defined where?
It was never defined, indeed, there was never any need to define such a self-evident thing.

And again, surely you can not mean that marriage was undefined in America prior to the founding.

"Same-sex marriage has quite clearly been politically and judicially imposed"
What does "imposed" mean? In a certain sense, all the conclusions of political process are an imposition, particularly on the losers. But as a matter of fact, de facto same-sex marriages, i.e cohabitation plus the ceremony, started to occur and gain social acceptance BEFORE any judicial imposition.

Naturally, a new-grown custom occurs in a niche before it gets out to the wider society. The same-sex marriage did occur first by popular initiative and only later it received political patronage and sanction.

I do not blame conservatives for being "obsessed". But the argument of judicial imposition is not the full story.

My own views--transgressive tendencies need to be restrained and not encouraged, for the benefit of the sufferers themselves.

Crude said...

Gyan,

Defined where?

It was never defined, indeed, there was never any need to define such a self-evident thing.


Er... when it's self-evident from the historical legal context, it is in fact 'defined'. You can point out that the bill of rights doesn't explicitly name and define 'humans' as being who the laws apply to, but arguing that rabid bats are therefore guaranteed a trial by jury owing to some off the cuff interpretation would be inane.

But as a matter of fact, de facto same-sex marriages, i.e cohabitation plus the ceremony, started to occur and gain social acceptance BEFORE any judicial imposition.

Wonderful. Who gives a shit? What didn't occur before the judicial imposition was the passing of laws redefining marriage. Hence, judicial imposition.

You act as if a change in culture means, welp, we don't really need to pass a law to reflect our change in preference - we can just reinterpret things however we like, come what may.

I do not blame conservatives for being "obsessed".

They're not obsessed, unless liberals are also and are more stridently obsessed.

But the argument of judicial imposition is not the full story.

"It's popular in some places!" is irrelevant. Is a law now unpopular? Then change the law.

My own views--transgressive tendencies need to be restrained and not encouraged

Not what I asked. So, I repeat.

Finally, is gay marriage moral or right in your view?

Gyan said...

Is it your contention that the great wrong with same-sex marriage was that it was judicially imposed?
That you would have no objection if it passed through legislature and the law was changed to redefine marriage?

And by the way, something assumed by all is not the same as "defining" that thing. "Defining" has a very specific meaning.

Eg. various Christian beliefs existed from the very beginning but they were defined only later.

So what it looks like is that Conservatives attempted to suppress a popular movement to include same-sex couples in marriage. From this perspective, all the imposition was done by the Conservatives. Note, I do not say that it was wrong for the Conservatives to impose.

My views I have indicated quite clearly.

Gyan said...

"a change in culture means,we don't really need to pass a law to reflect our change in preference"

It is useful to appreciate limits to the political process. It is not possible for the political process to resolve ALL conflicts and disputes. For instance, it usually takes a revolution to make a country communist. Or a civil war to end established slavery.

Customs precede written laws. In fact, it is absurd and servile for a people that their marriage laws can be changed at the whim of State.

Laws reflect customs or at least should reflect for a free people. However, judicial process is a normal part of politics. There is nothing wrong, per se, in judges ruling on laws. I am sure it does not feel like "judicial imposition" to those that agree with the content of the judgment.

In short, a revolution was effected once the concept of same-sex marriage was put to the political process. If you would take part in the process, you must be prepared to accept your possible loss.
By passing DOMA, the conservatives legitimized the concept of "same-sex marriage". If the concept was really so inane, it would not have required a law to suppress it.

Crude said...

Is it your contention that the great wrong with same-sex marriage was that it was judicially imposed?
That you would have no objection if it passed through legislature and the law was changed to redefine marriage?


Yes, it was a great wrong that it was judicially imposed. If it were passed through the legislature, I would have objected to it intellectually, but it would not have been a judicial imposition.

And by the way, something assumed by all is not the same as "defining" that thing. "Defining" has a very specific meaning.

In this case, no, it doesn't. The presence of a 'right' to gay marriage in the US, legally speaking, is inane. It requires a leap and an absurd twist of logic.

So what it looks like is that Conservatives attempted to suppress a popular movement to include same-sex couples in marriage. From this perspective, all the imposition was done by the Conservatives.

No, it was not, for the reasons I already said. Furthermore, they even went so far as to pass laws barring gay marriage in their states precisely to avoid the inane interpretation that such a thing was already guaranteed by law. The fact is that if the judiciary is bold enough, they are entirely capable of overriding whatever laws they wish. It turns out they are and were so bold.

It is useful to appreciate limits to the political process. It is not possible for the political process to resolve ALL conflicts and disputes.

So, once again your attitude is that if you want something bad enough in this country but you can't pass a law in favor, it's completely acceptable to abuse the system however you can to get what you want.

Fantastic.

Customs precede written laws. In fact, it is absurd and servile for a people that their marriage laws can be changed at the whim of State.

They WERE changed at the whim of State. Judiciary is PART of the State. You just happen to like that part.

By passing DOMA, the conservatives legitimized the concept of "same-sex marriage". If the concept was really so inane, it would not have required a law to suppress it.

There are laws against child molestation too. I suppose the lesson here is that by passing those, conservatives have justified child molestation. Your logical reasoning would be incredible if it could be said to exist.

My views I have indicated quite clearly.

Then please answer my question. Is gay marriage moral or immoral? Should gay marriage be legal or not, in your view? This is the last time I ask you before deciding you're not intellectually honest.

msgrx said...

Gyan:

"So what it looks like is that Conservatives attempted to suppress a popular movement to include same-sex couples in marriage."

"Popular movement"? Sure there were some people pushing for it, but I can't say I noticed much in the way of grassroots organisation or activity, which is usually taken to be the mark of an actual popular movement. Besides, if the movement was so popular, why did they rely on judicial activism to get their way, rather than through the usual mechanism of lobbying legislators and so forth?

"For instance, it usually takes a revolution to make a country communist. Or a civil war to end established slavery."

Hey, speak for yourself, Yankee. We in Britain managed to end slavery considerably earlier than you did, and we didn't have to kill several million of our own people to do so.

Also, we did so by passing a law through Parliament, not by judicial fiat.

Crude said...

msgrx,

Hey there, and good points. I would humbly suggest that civil war in an actual functioning representative democracy largely 'makes sense' for people who lack the support for what they desire. But I'm sure Gyan would say something about how it's all legitimate and someone else's fault if he likes what they desire. ;)

nv said...

LOL! The logic is undeniable.

Anyways, we all know who is obsessed here:

//The fans had urged Nintendo Co. to add same-sex relationship options to the English hand-held Nintendo 3DS game ahead of its June 6 release.//

//Several past life games like "The Sims" and "The Elder Scrolls" have allowed players to create characters that can have same-sex relationships.//

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/07/nintendo-tomodachi-life-gay-_n_5281671.html

I mean, you don't have to buy the game, really. Next thing you know SpiderMan will have to be gay, because otherwise you are being a bigot.

Crude said...

nv,

I love how 'The Elder Scrolls' is regarded as a "Life Game". Holy hell.

Yeah, I have long suspected that the LGBT movement is made up of people with tremendously eggshell-fragile egos, and things like Tomodatchi Life just prove as much.

What I wish Nintendo would do in response is either A) simply not include it in their next game, or B) allow you to make a character who is 'gay' in the character creation room... but you can go to the hospital and pay in-game currency to instead make yourself 'straight'.

Let me stress, by the way, that I don't have a problem with gay characters being in games. But I resent this bizarre 'social justice warrior' action on it where they can arbitrarily demand it take place in whatever game, and if you refuse you're a terrible person who must bow to them in apology. That shit is getting ridiculous.

And I also am waiting patiently for a game where a character identifies as a lesbian at the start of the game, but by the end of it is an ex-lesbian. Since, unlike with gay males, that's been known to happen with fair frequency.

nv said...

Crude,

I love how 'The Elder Scrolls' is regarded as a "Life Game". Holy hell.

Indeed. Heh!

What I wish Nintendo would do in response is either A) simply not include it in their next game, or B) allow you to make a character who is 'gay' in the character creation room... but you can go to the hospital and pay in-game currency to instead make yourself 'straight'.

Unfortunately, they budged to a certain extent (see below).

//We apologize for disappointing many people by failing to include same-sex relationships in Tomodachi Life. Unfortunately, it is not possible for us to change this game’s design, and such a significant development change can’t be accomplished with a post-ship patch. At Nintendo, dedication has always meant going beyond the games to promote a sense of community, and to share a spirit of fun and joy. We are committed to advancing our longtime company values of fun and entertainment for everyone. We pledge that if we create a next installment in the Tomodachi series, we will strive to design a game-play experience from the ground up that is more inclusive, and better represents all players.//

http://www.nintendo.com/whatsnew/detail/c4FWbi-Uave2T9R1h7SFzX0aoa-d4pgx

Let me stress, by the way, that I don't have a problem with gay characters being in games.

Agreed. I feel the same way.

But I resent this bizarre 'social justice warrior' action on it where they can arbitrarily demand it take place in whatever game, and if you refuse you're a terrible person who must bow to them in apology. That shit is getting ridiculous.

That's my problem as well, and this type of behavior will not be going away.

And I also am waiting patiently for a game where a character identifies as a lesbian at the start of the game, but by the end of it is an ex-lesbian. Since, unlike with gay males, that's been known to happen with fair frequency.

Well, that would give the player more options, but we all know the LGBT advocacy groups would be all over it.

Crude said...

nv,

I saw Nintendo's response, but honestly to me it seemed like a blow-off more than anything. We'll see what happens in the future, but at the end of the day what happened was Nintendo said 'no' and gave an excuse, but didn't even explicitly promise to include same-sex couples in the future. Vague apologies and promises to be 'more inclusive' in the future are pretty weak on this front.

That's my problem as well, and this type of behavior will not be going away.

Personally, I wonder about that. I think it requires a certain amount of mental energy and agitation that seriously runs risk of giving people fatigue. Not to mention, we now live in an era where making and selling games is more 'open' than ever. We see with Vox Day some movement to make a conservative sci-fi publishing outfit. We may not have to wait long for the same to pop up with games.

Well, that would give the player more options, but we all know the LGBT advocacy groups would be all over it.

Yeah, it does seem to be a taboo topic right now outside of porn. The thing about modern social trends is that they move rapidly and unpredictably. The Social Justice Warriors are trying their damndest to make themselves into a state-sanctioned church - but the problem with making something holy-by-force is that it invites the possibility of making blasphemy appealing.

But, we'll see one way or the other.

nv said...

Crude,

//I saw Nintendo's response, but honestly to me it seemed like a blow-off more than anything. We'll see what happens in the future, but at the end of the day what happened was Nintendo said 'no' and gave an excuse, but didn't even explicitly promise to include same-sex couples in the future. Vague apologies and promises to be 'more inclusive' in the future are pretty weak on this front.//

I hope you are right, but I have a problem with them even apologizing and leaving some wiggle room to address the "problem."

//Personally, I wonder about that. I think it requires a certain amount of mental energy and agitation that seriously runs risk of giving people fatigue. Not to mention, we now live in an era where making and selling games is more 'open' than ever. We see with Vox Day some movement to make a conservative sci-fi publishing outfit. We may not have to wait long for the same to pop up with games.//

Well see, though, there is truth in what you wrote. However, look at the propaganda on the whole Michael Sam draft selection. I just think these LGBT groups will continue to push. I mean, even liberal Christians are buying this is a civil rights issue. I'm fine with Vox(es) of the world doing there thing though. In fact, I welcome it.

//The thing about modern social trends is that they move rapidly and unpredictably. The Social Justice Warriors are trying their damndest to make themselves into a state-sanctioned church - but the problem with making something holy-by-force is that it invites the possibility of making blasphemy appealing.//

True enough...

Crude said...

nv,

I hope you are right, but I have a problem with them even apologizing and leaving some wiggle room to address the "problem."

I agree entirely.

I just think these LGBT groups will continue to push.

Oh, I don't doubt they'll continue to push. In fact, I think they will push and push and push and eventually push too far, because I don't think the overriding concern here is strategic or tactical. I think it's emotional.

As for liberal Christians, that's no surprise. Liberal anyone is saying it's a 'civil rights issue', and I think that's less about belief and more about rhetoric.

Anyway, we'll see what happens. The Michael Sam thing is, I suspect, only just beginning.

Acatus Bensley said...

Gyan I don't think same sex marriage is a popular movement. Most people don't seem eager about the whole ordeal. In fact they may only support it because they see it as an inevitability. The majority of Americans believe that the LGBT community is 25% of population when in fact they're only 1 to 2%. I can't actually find the link to the polls, but this so called popular movement seems to be rooted in deception not genuine allegiance to LGBT community.

Here we go

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=jOByU97gJuiusASnioGoAQ&url=http://www.gallup.com/poll/147824/adults-estimate-americans-gay-lesbian.aspx&cd=1&ved=0CCQQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNH3uSUGgodftBNoPAiYNyvMlePTYw

Crude said...

Acatus,

I think the number is closer to 3% estimated, but that's still ridiculously smaller than what Americans think.

It also comes hot on the heels of a lot of ridiculous media manipulation. But it's also pretty irrelevant - especially in places like Arkansas, where it's still damn unpopular but the judges slammed it through anyway.

This is irrelevant to Gyan, though. It's very much a 'if I want it, I want it, and I'll do whatever I can to get it' situation there.

Acatus Bensley said...

You know I've never heard a good argument for gay marriage. The stuff I hear in the media only works on people with the attention span of an elementary school student. I don't believe there is an argument. At best you can say I want to marry Richard, and tell some irrelevant sob story. You definitely can't call it a right. Heterosexuals don't even have a right to marriage, at least not officially.

Crude said...

They found out a while back that they didn't need very good arguments. What they needed was a lot of emotional appeals and a media that was willing to cast gay marriage opponents as hicks who wanted to kill celibate gays with their bare hands.

Acatus Bensley said...

That's another thing that fascinates me about the media and gay marriage. The people who actually work in the media are only doing their job. They'll freely admit to having no real ulterior motives even if the content they show to American people says otherwise. Apparently there's an unseen group of individuals directing this social engineering through the media. It's like something out of a movie.

Crude said...

Have you been watching the Hugo Awards drama? It goes a long way towards explaining the current situation. Lots of 'we only care about writers and good stories, it's just a coincidence that so much of sci-fi is dominated by hard "progressives"' talk, until a popular indie conservative author helps get a few conservatives on the ballot. Then it's full-blown 'SHUN THEM'.

Acatus Bensley said...

No I haven't been following the shenanigans. Sounds entertaining though. I'll look into it. But I still truly believe that the guys working cameras and what not are apathetic and just taking orders. Don't get me wrong. It's no secret that Hollywood is a liberal hell hole, but so many people are oblivious and apathetic these days that they can easily exploited to the point where the real culprit behind the liberal media is incognito. For all we know there could be no single group of liberals running the media, perse just influencing it excessively. All you have to do is yell loud and feel passionate in order to garner support. You said it yourself. I hope my beliefs are correct. We've got problems if liberals DIRECTLY control Hollywood.

Crude said...

I don't think there's a grand conspiracy per se, though I am very sure there's all kinds of small groups of people who watch each other's backs in this or that organization. It's how things are done, and human nature.

I also don't think conservatives are entirely lacking blame here. People make mistakes, they make missteps, they frame issues wrongly. But yeah, yelling loudly and feeling passionately is a big part of it. Or, really, just being tactical about it.

Apathy is a big issue. A lot of people don't really care about what's going on and just would like to get through their day, then go home and enjoy themselves. The sad fact is, the group that screams and makes specific demands, by virtue of making noise, will always be the group that gets preferential treatment. The group that acts mature and tries to keep things civil and calm? Well, they're the ones who can be safely ignored.

Acatus Bensley said...

You know I wouldn't have a problem with apathy if people were consistently apathetic. Too many morons remain politically uninformed and like to pretend they know shit about politics at the last second simply because they saw a speech that had something to do with maybe one thing they care about. If people with no interest in politics didn't vote then a person who actually cared about our values and prosperity would always get into office. But hey a black president or female president is more important than the actual policies that come with said president. I know I'm sort of off topic, but you get the idea. Could fifteen million illegal immigrants ruin elections with an informed populace? Could the administration get away with a second water gate with an informed populace? Could any psychologically damaged person with a sob story get to redefine a core aspect of our society simply by feeling strongly about it with an informed populace? Of course not.

Gyan said...

msgrx,
It was a lot easier to ban slavery in England since there weren't a lot of people economically invested in slavery in England. It was not an institution as it was in America.

Crude said...

Gyan,

It actually was an institution in England. That institution was simply phased out.

Also, I suppose you would regard the south's taking up arms as a very legitimate and reasonable expression of justice. The culture of their people had spoken, after all.

Joe Langa said...

Dear Crude,

I've been following your blog for quite a while. I really appreciate your sharp wit and excellent critical commentary. Please keep this up.

Regarding the LGBT activist issue, I'd like to add some comments about the Nintendo affair.

The anime fan/soft core porn site Sankakucomplex has commented on this issue and quoted Japanese fans. What's more there are also comments by non Japanese users of the site.

Japanese comments quoted on the site, probably from the Japanese 2ch forum:

“Cultural differences? Poor Nintendo…”

“Typical Yanks.”

“I would think they could have patched it, but if they did imagine the problems which would follow…”

“I can’t help but think these options end up annoying more players when they are put in and they end up with unwanted same sex proposals.”

“How about an option to turn it on or off?”

“Then they get accused of discrimination if it is not on by default.”

“Why are they so desperate to play this stuff with gay marriage anyway?”

“This has more to do with the political clout of the GLBT lot than cultural differences.”

“America, land of the free as ever.”

“The game was just a knock-off anyway, you’d think they’d have realised there might be international sensitivities when they saw The Sims.”

“I think discrimination against minorities is awful, but when these pressure groups do stuff like this it is just as bad.”

“Please just spare our galge this treatment…”

“The sad thing is that this probably just means either the next game will never come out or it will completely drop the marriage system.”

“Next they will be complaining about the games which come out in Japan only…”

Link: (NOT SAFE FOR WORK!)
ht tp://www.sankakucomplex.com/2014/05/11/nintendo-sorry-for-not-allowing-gay-marriage/

You may prefer to browse the site with images turned off, because of numerous pornographic ads. However it is education from the point of view of what at least many of the typical visitors to that site think of the issue, they're hardly usually religious people, and of course what the Japanese think, although one can't say that these comments are broadly representative of their society.

Best wishes,
LTD.

Crude said...

Joe,

First, hello and thanks for the kind words. I really appreciate it.

Second, thanks also for the information. I actually recall poll numbers showing that Japan's population is opposed to gay marriage. Via wiki: According to the survey by Nihon Yoron Chosa-ka, conducted on 1 and 2 March 2014, 42.3% of Japanese supported same-sex marriage, 52.4% were against.

I imagine that, like in Russia, the debate's a lot more touchy for one reason: their nation is dying. Horrible demographic trends, and a cultural attitude towards sex that has problems far beyond the usual jokes about their porn focus. One thing I found interesting about the Russian situation (and which was altogether buried in Western coverage of it) was that Putin explicitly made reference to Russia's need for children as one reason that same-sex marriage and acceptance in general isn't exactly a priority over there, alongside issues of morality and culture. I'm wondering if sometime we're not going to see the same thing out of the Japanese PM, who seems very concerned with that same issue.

Still, it's interesting to see those comments, largely because the game site talk in America is usually overwhelmed with people screeching how great it all is.

Goldenrush Apple said...

So this is the response I get when commenting on an an actor who thinks gay "marriage" is A-OK and that his show changing people's minds on the issue:

>>

A fictional gay couple helps to normalise prejudice assumptions in the same way as a fictional interracial couple would have helped to do the same for that cause, too.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Homosexual/bisexual characters SHOULD be portrayed as average human beings, because that's precisely what the vast majority of them are, regardless of certain assumptions about them which do much of the political Right no favours. Sexuality should never be a political issue. Yes, there are extremists in the homosexual community (such as it is), but there are extremists among us heterosexuals, too. Same goes for the divides between different racial groups, too. Extremists should never define those they claim to speak on behalf of."

Like really? There's so much stupidity in that post that I don't where to begin.

Crude said...

Golden,

Having a look at that response you provided...

Homosexual/bisexual characters SHOULD be portrayed as average human beings, because that's precisely what the vast majority of them are,

That really depends on what's meant by 'average human beings'.

regardless of certain assumptions about them which do much of the political Right no favours.

Assumptions? People do have some assumptions about homosexuals/bisexuals* which are wrong or uninformed, but there's also a good share of inconvenient data that isn't so average. The statistics I've seen for (say) the average number of sexual partners homosexual males have in a lifetime - or even have in the average past year of their lives - indicates quite a bucking of the average.

Sexuality should never be a political issue.

Absolute nonsense, which no one really believes when you get right down to it.

Acatus Bensley said...

There's nothing average about anyone who isn't heterosexual. The fact that people go out of their way to make people think otherwise proves it. The AVERAGE person is heterosexual. There's a myriad of reasons to view LGBT people as very atypical. That's an inconvenient truth for them, but a truth nonetheless. There have even been studies that show some gay men have female figures. Average human beings my ass. Biology not bigotry.

Water into Whine said...

The problem with the initial conversation is that Crude is talking about you, and you're talking about the people. Why not talk about a group that actually exists, like socially isolated people who can appreciate being such. Anyway,

judicial imposition
is a necessary position
if one is going to maintain
a view, this is categorical
but this side of things is missing
because we don't appreciate your kissing
and it is frankly disgusting,
but disgusting things don't comprehend
because then they'd have to comprehend themselves
which is too weak a thing to build a movement on.
But every condition is an imposition,
it's just a matter of if you like it,
and if you do, then that's alright,
until the night, but if you do, that's fine,
if that's who you are, and some don't,
and they do better,
categorically not contingently,
though that as well sub specie aeternitas,
which is the only correct measure.

- Jesus, Matthew 22:31, NLT.

Realistically it comes down to the general formula that the label 'homophobia' does, namely the contradictory assertion that one's opponents are to be disregarded because they're arguing based on arbitrary instincts and urges, and on the other hand they are necessarily irrational because they are opposed to the realisation of an irrational urge. It's a bit of a distorted interpretation of the parable of the mote and the beam, where the point is to give the other person a beam so that they can't criticise you either. Obviously, one can't be obsessed with sex of a particular type without doing it, because sex is an urge and not to have sex is a priori not to have an urge, but the truth behind it is that if one stands against the world and take sexual degeneracy as a characteristic of the world, then, being defined as we are by our relationships, evidently this side of things becomes quite pronounced when we criticise people, and coincidentally also in the people themselves. Evidently, one's appetites are never an excuse to be an immoral, so to be moral is not to follow any appetites or make claims on their basis, in which sense one should at least admit that the majority of the LGBT movement are inherently immoral and those who are against it are not, in their capacity as people standing against it, in which sense one should never make arguments based on association with this. Generation of vipers, and such things, etc.

Crude said...

I should make clear when I refer to 'the response Golden provided' I meant 'the response from the person, that Golden provided'.

Goldenrush Apple said...

And to add further clarification since I know I did a horrid job of quoting the person:

I am quoting someone who responded to me and Crude is commenting on certain sections of that response.