I was posting on a private bulletin board elsewhere, and the subject of homosexuality came up. You guys have seen me in those debates. I don't always have the most popular or accepted opinion, but I'm always very respectful and conciliatory, and over the years, my opinions have shifted to become increasingly moderate and favorable to the liberal position than they began.
But MAN, you go anywhere and say ANYTHING on this topic that is not straight down the fricking party line, and you get treated like you're the next Hitler!
The debate, when I joined it, was over whether Blizzard Entertainment was fair to ask a "gay-friendly" guild to stop advertising its membership skew on public chat, while there are dozens of Christian guilds that some participants in the debate contended are given free reign.
One guy was saying that it was unfair to jump straight into criticizing Christians whenever the subject of homosexuality came up. I came in and voiced the thought that when you're looking for an analogy to anti-homosexual prejudice, anti-religious prejudice is one of the closest comparisons you can find, and so the criticism was fair.
I basically said that because both sexual orientation and religious faith are based on subjective analyses of an individual's own feelings, they run into the same kinds of prejudice from people who deny the reality or merit of those feelings. I also mentioned that both groups consist of many people who, rather than being born into a society of similar folk who belong to the same group (ie, white kids being born into white families and black kids being born into black families), are instead raised among people who don't understand them, and force them to go seeking likeminded people elsewhere, as adults.
Seriously, that's all I said. And people came right back at me with, "So you're saying that gay people CHOOSE to be gay! Typical!"
Wh-wh-wh-WHAT? Arrrrgh! I didn't say anything like that! All I did was say something they hadn't heard before, and so they took it as an attack!
Are we ever going to achieve anything like unity or idealogical tolerance if a person can't even say something that (to me, at least) seems perfectly reasonable and moderate without getting flamed?
(The original person I got into it with and I actually reconciled like grown-ups rather quickly, which was cool. But people are still sniping at me like I just butchered their sacred cow.)
Is there some awful insult in that statement that I missed? Or are people just so concerned with holding up their own personal struggle as THE struggle to end all struggles, and THE plight to be pitied above all other plights, that even drawing an analogy to another plight is offensive to them?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't know, personally, I think I might see where they think that this:
quote:Originally posted by A Rat Named Dog: both sexual orientation and religious faith are based on subjective analyses of an individual's own feelings,
means this:
quote: "...gay people CHOOSE to be gay!..
It might not be what you intended to say, but that's what the honed in on.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Silly Geoff. We're all past homosexual marriage here. The current hot topic is abortion.
-o-
I've actually never grasped why the they're-born-that-way/they-choose-to-be-gay is an important battleground for either side in this. I just don't get why that matters at all.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It's more important for the "they choose it" side.
If they accept that they were born that way, they have to try and figure out why they think god hates gays, and then why he'd create people who HAVE to be gay. It doesn't make sense to them, so it must be a choice, and thus they can choose not to be gay, and not go against god's will.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:both sexual orientation and religious faith are based on subjective analyses of an individual's own feelings
absolutely does not mean
quote:...gay people CHOOSE to be gay!..
Unless they don't consider sexual attraction a feeling, in which case there's pretty much no point in talking to them at all because they've redefined "feeling" in a private way and will get offended if you don't acknowledge it.
"Subjective analyses of an individual's own feelings" can be used as a very strong basis that sexual attraction is not chosen.
Think of all the discussions we've had about religious experiences. Every time, there are people who insist that the more likely explanation is non-spiritual, while people who have experienced them insist they are definitely spiritual.
Similarly, you see the arguments over whether homosexuality is a choice or not, with people who are homosexuals steadfastedly stating that they know they didn't choose it and others telling them they did.
It's a very apt analogy. Obviously, it's not a perfect fit - no analogy is. Yes, if someone wants to, they can create a line of thinking from "both sexual orientation and religious faith are based on subjective analyses of an individual's own feelings" to "gay people CHOOSE to be gay." But you can also get to a bunch of other conclusions from that statement as a starting point.
Geoff, I think the problem is less oversensitivity and more an inability to appreciate nuanced thinking.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
I've never been religious, but I'm extremely spiritual, and I think (and correct me if I'm wrong here, o ye of a more religious nature than I) many (if not most) of the faithful view their religion the same way homosexual people view their sexuality: something that is built into the way they are as a person, for whatever reason, and not a "choice" the way many of the non- or quasi-religious view it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I've never been religious, but I'm extremely spiritual, and I think (and correct me if I'm wrong here, o ye of a more religious nature than I) many (if not most) of the faithful view their religion the same way homosexual people view their sexuality: something that is built into the way they are as a person, for whatever reason, and not a "choice" the way many of the non- or quasi-religious view it.
Not me - I choose to be Catholic. However, the evidence I have for why I believe Catholicism to be true is highly subjective, and it is this where the parallel exists for me.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
Well, I choose my religion, but I don't know whether or not I chose to be a religious person - the kind of person who can have faith. It may be inborn - being able to have faith may be something innate in me - or it may have been entirely learned, as I was raised in a household where I was taught to have faith. It's probably both, actually. A lot like same-gender attraction.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I see spirituality as partial indoctrination, and partially something everyone has the capability to have, depending on how their life goes.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Geoff, as soon as I saw that line in your post, I thought "oops, that's where you're on thin ice."
Since I was also tempted to ask what you meant specifically by that, I can see where someone on a board where people are even MORE apt to jump to conclusions than is the norm for Hatrack might simply post the reply you got.
It's not that there aren't other possible interpretations of that sentence. It's that ONE clear possible interpretation (one that doesn't require any thought at all, obviously...) is that you were simply trying to state that you think "gay feelings" are subjective and under the individuals "control."
I don't have enough recollection of your prior posts on the topic to know if that's what you were thinking. I do have enough history here with you that I would've asked first before issuing a challenge to your statement.
Besides, I'm with Icarus on this one. Who cares? The person is gay if they say they're gay. So what...now, what's the issue we're here to discuss.
At any rate, I'm guessing from your post that this wasn't all coming from one individual, but that you got dogpiled, and nobody asked what you really meant. To which I simply have to say...the internet is a dark and lonely place and you should never stray too far from Hatrack.
Come in. Set a spell. Enjoy the slideshow. Listen to the soothing narration. And then, tell us what you really meant.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:you think "gay feelings" are subjective and under the individuals "control."
Wait - are you telling me there are people who think "subjective" implies something being under someone's "control"?
I weep.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Well, I choose my religion, but I don't know whether or not I chose to be a religious person
Sorry, that's closer to what I meant.
I view it as less of a choice, however, in that one faith (presumably the one you're a part of) seems to be the truest to you, and that participating in any other faith would be less preferable. I view sexuality the same way: regardless of sexuality, we're certainly CAPABLE of having sexual interaction with either men or women, but we certainly have a preference.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
In a later post, I clarified by saying that I don't think that people can simply decide what their feelings are, on either subject. All they can do is figure out how they feel (for reasons beyond their control), be honest with themselves, and then decide what to do about it. That line may be what helped me reconcile with the original protestor, come to think of it.
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
I agree that you could argue that religion is not exactly a choice either.
I don't get up in the morning and choose to have faith, I simply have it.
Sure, I could choose to ignore it and not follow what I believe...but then again someone who is gay could choose not to follow what they feel as well.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by A Rat Named Dog: That line may be what helped me reconcile with the original protestor, come to think of it.
I'm just delighted to know people who still care about this sort of outcome.
(Yay, Dog!)
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Rat, I think some people just browsed your comment and landed mouth first on the word "Analyze". Analysis implies making a decision based on something. Making a decision assumes choice. They assumed you meant something different than what you really were saying.
That's why discussion is so difficult in this world of constant sound bytes.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Oddly enough, I agree with Dog and Dag on this one. I've often heard it said that homosexuality isn't a choice, but a realization about themselves of something that already was there. It seems to me that when you said, "both sexual orientation and religious faith are based on subjective analyses of an individual's own feelings," you were recognizing the part where the homosexual makes the revelation, as well as the underlying existence of homosexuality. I hope it wasn't totally lost on the people sniping you that you were (in a roundabout way) defending that guild.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Dagonee...
Well, in the vernacular, I do believe that subjective has taken on a host of meanings that are pejorative and not too far afield from the "under control of the individual" in some contexts. For example, students often complain that grading is "subjective" by which they mean unfair and up to the whim (sometimes conscious hatred) of the teacher and always to the disbenefit of that particular student.
Subjective morality has been used as another name for moral relativism, which has a connotation of conscious choice when offset against so-called "objective" or Scripture-based morality.
I'd agree that talking about "subjective feelings" shouldn't necessarily have the same nuance of "under individual control" but it suffers from a negative aura surrounding other uses of the word, I think. And...people might just be reacting to the (unnecessary) redundancy (perhaps emphasis?) of putting subjective in front of the word feelings. Everyone knows feelings are subjective, so if you are emphasizing that aspect of it, people might assume you're doing so for a reason. Like you aren't just making the point that it's up to the person's individual feelings, but that you think that's a bad thing too!
Geoff, come to think on it, there's also the dynamic in such settings where people will much more aggressively dogpile the person who has similar views to their own...but not quite, and leave the aggressively different entirely alone. Why is that? I have several related theories:
a) The person who is close but seems just outside the norm is a bigger threat to group cohesion than the clearly different person is. The "close but not quite" person might seduce others into their heresy, whereas the truly different person is only going to be used as an easily dismissed "example," as in "see, that's why we're fighting this fight."
b) Cowardice. It's a lot easier to start a fight with someone when you suspect it's all going to end up warm and fuzzy in a few minutes. Statements that seem ambiguous might cause the largest reactions in this context because its an opportunity for strictly limited warfare -- either you all end up hugging (virtually) or you find out who the group should be dismissive of. Again, the nearby but different get the biggest reaction.
c) Evolution. We compete most with those who might also inhabit our niche. There may just be a built-in animal reaction to someone who is like us. An air of superiority is almost assured to bring out this reaction, actually, because the one thing that a niche-occupier cannot afford to do is admit that someone else could fill their space better.
Oh well.
I think your use of the word subjective was correct, but dangerous in some contexts. If I were talking to people who are mostly high-school or college age, I would avoid the use of that term or only use it in very carefully constructed sentences.
That's just my subjective analysis, of course.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Bob, In that case, how responsible is Dog for the misconseptions of his audience? I think your analysis pretty much hit the nail on the head, but when we're writing these posts, especially in a quickly moving discussion, it'd be really hard to remember every coloqialism that each word has gained.
Also. I'd call option b) opportunism. Cowardice could be option d: fear of confronting those viewed as alien or "other," fear of ideas too different from our own, etc.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I think Geoff has ZERO responsibility for the misconceptions of others in a case like this. As CT pointed out, and I agree, it's a mark of how nice a person he is that he spent the time and energy to discuss it with the person.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Yay! Full agreement all around. Break out the Doritos.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I'm late to this (as usual) but I wanted to say that I agree with a lot of what's already been said (by Dagonee and Bob, mostly). However, I did stop to re-read the phrase, "because both sexual orientation and religious faith are based on subjective analyses of an individual's own feelings," and if it had come from anyone else, I'd probably have asked for clarification.
That's not because I don't understand the difference between the two, but because I often don't trust other people's grasp of the subtleties in their own words, especially if I don't know them, and ESPECIALLY anything posted on a gaming forum. Yeah, that's prejudiced, but it's a case where the exceptions prove the rule. Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:both sexual orientation and religious faith are based on subjective analyses of an individual's own feelings
absolutely does not mean
quote:...gay people CHOOSE to be gay!..
It is if you're dealing with people who have knee jerk reactions before they take the time to read the friggin' words.
Geoff, I'm sorry you got whacked on the head by the Professionally Offended. Consider the source and treat it as you would treat a four year old chiding you wrongly.
That said, I don't really agree with your analogy that much. When I say that my being gay is not a choice, it means something very different than when I say my being religious is not a choice. I believe that being gay is more than merely an emotional thing. I think it's physiological as well. Pheremones, maybe.
I could choose not to be religious, but I couldn't do so and still maintain my personal integrity. But I couldn't choose not to be gay. Just not to act on it.
Still, there are definite similarities between homophobia and theophobia. If someone were to talk about gay people the way King of Men talks about religious people, I don't think anyone would hesitate before calling him a bigot. But it's religion, so he gets away with it.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I don't know that he gets away with it that much. Many people have called his views on religious people bigoted.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I don't think Geoff's analogy was even about choice. It was about the way people arrive at the knowledge which forms the basis for the underlying difference.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Seems like the debate has wandered off into the familiar territory of sexual identity.
From what I understand about the whole Blizzard schtick is that they dont want guilds based in religion/politics/or other sensitive topics advertising in public channels.
If a Christian guild forms and starts saying things like "Christian guild looking for new members" in a public chat channel then they will incure the same penalties as the homosexual ones. Its not that Blizzard is picking on homosexuals for special treatment, though that is certainly an idea many homosexuals want to roll around in. Blizzard merely does not want its public channels bogged down by people arguing about sensitive topics. World of Warcraft is game where you go an have fun, not a political/religious/ethical forum in any way shape or form. The very fact that there has been such a strong uproar over any sort of discipline against homosexuals in the game clearly shows the propensity of chat channels becoming shouting matches.
If you wanted to have a guild within World of Warcraft where the membership is entirely homosexual in nature, you are completely welcome to found one, and you can recruit on the internet in fan websites, etc. Nobody will stop you from doing it. You just can't say in the public channels that you are looking for homosexuals to join your guild because there is going to be some person aged 10-40 who will start spounting off crap about how he/she hates gays and then you have the channels all bogged up and nobody can discuss anything game related. Better to avoid that altogether by discouraging any sensitive theme based guilds from advertising within the game.
I really don't think the oppressive element exists in this situation. I think the homosexual guild in question misunderstood blizzards motives and jumped into the "Help Help I'm being repressed!" bandwagon.
As for the nature of homosexuality, the nurture nature arguement, and the morality of it all, I am going to refrain from engaging in this particular one for now.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:If a Christian guild forms and starts saying things like "Christian guild looking for new members" in a public chat channel then they will incure the same penalties as the homosexual ones. Its not that Blizzard is picking on homosexuals for special treatment, though that is certainly an idea many homosexuals want to roll around in.
If you would re-read the original post, it claims that "there are dozens of Christian guilds that some participants in the debate contended are given free reign." Now I don't know if this contention is true or not, but a poster who believes it can reasonably argue that there is indeed discrimination against homosexuals.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:If a Christian guild forms and starts saying things like "Christian guild looking for new members" in a public chat channel then they will incure the same penalties as the homosexual ones. Its not that Blizzard is picking on homosexuals for special treatment, though that is certainly an idea many homosexuals want to roll around in.
If you would re-read the original post, it claims that "there are dozens of Christian guilds that some participants in the debate contended are given free reign." Now I don't know if this contention is true or not, but a poster who believes it can reasonably argue that there is indeed discrimination against homosexuals.
Agreed, I just dont think the evidence is there. oh ho ho post #69 sorry my immature side got the best of me.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Christian guild, quantity one. Two minutes' googling.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Irrelevant to the contention that Christian guilds are advertising in chat, KoM.
i have no idea if they are or not, but you're missing the root of the dispute if you think this proves anything relevant to the discussion.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Ah. I didn't see the 'public chat' bit. On the other hand, would this homosexual guild be permitted to advertise on the forums, after being chucked out of the chat?
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
Own3d
Though their Username is "ignoRe", so maybe that covers them.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
Ooh I just clicked on someone in that forums link to their own church. It was www.landoverbaptist.org and my Panda Platinum cecurity thing blocked it. Is anyone here a member of that church or know anything worthwhile about it and why it might be blocked by my internet security system?
Posted by Avatar300 (Member # 5108) on :
Maybe because you can take the bible sex quiz.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
Oops, I didn't mean for that to be hyperlinked. Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
I think that site is an anti-Christian site, not somebody's actual church.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
Landoverbaptist.org is a joke - and is EXTREMELY anti-Christian -Conservative.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
To be fair, though, it can sometimes be hard to tell, in a world containing Jack Chick and Fred Phelps, what is satire and what is the real thing.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
sorry my immature side got the best of me.
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)