quote:The debate will rage on. I've been on the Internet since 1987 and I can tell you this for sure.
Whenever discussions like these arise, they rarely end amicably if at all.
You may be intimately familiar with the internet in general, Steev, but Hatrack isn't like that. We're unlikely to come to a consensus on this subject, and it will undoubtedly not be the last time that we chew the subject over, but it's more likely than not that this thread will end amicably--probably with us discussing something completely unrelated, or with us producing a torrent of bad puns.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: You may be intimately familiar with the internet in general, Steev, but Hatrack isn't like that. We're unlikely to come to a consensus on this subject, and it will undoubtedly not be the last time that we chew the subject over, but it's more likely than not that this thread will end amicably--probably with us discussing something completely unrelated, or with us producing a torrent of bad puns.
You’re quite right.
For me Hatrack is now the most civil place I've been on the Internet although thread conversation derailment is as old as the hills.
I used to belong to another group for one of my many hobbies. For about six years they lived in piece and understanding but one day things started degrading and within a mater of months the whole forum was dissolved forever. All I could do was sit back and watch. Thread derailment didn’t even work. It was one train wreck after another. That was almost five years ago.
Even the most civilized forums can still succumb to disarray, usually when it's least expected.
posted
So all the interesting threads moved to this side and I didn't realize it. I see a couple of new people have posted heartfelt things here. Welcome to hatrack.
Glad to have you, but be warned: this is a place that causes lots of thinking. If you aren't ready to examine and question your own ideas and motives this probably isn't the place for you.
You don't have to change your mind, but you'll get good results if you are willing to examine the ideas with respect and courtesy. Otherwise it tends to be demanded and you tend to get blown off. But if you go into it with a good spirit, normally the rewards are tenfold.
posted
No to Octavia Baker. I just looked her up in our library data base and, judged by the covers of her books, she looks interesting. Of course, one should never, ever judge anything by its outward appearance--which is sort of why Strawcat is in the place where he is.
I've been browsing the discussion threads here. People sure are preoccupied with Homosexuality recently/currently. I have to wonder why, when Gay people are so determined to create a world for themselves which is so decidedly outside the mainstream of the heterosexual one, they are so bent on coercing everyone else--like 98 percent of the world--to validate that world.
Just a thought. Probably not a very interesting or entertaining one at that.
Posts: 13 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I have to wonder why, when Gay people are so determined to create a world for themselves which is so decidedly outside the mainstream of the heterosexual one, they are so bent on coercing everyone else--like 98 percent of the world--to validate that world."
It has been my experience that when I find myself wondering how people could possibly be so silly or inconsistent on a given issue, I have usually worded the question improperly or else made assumptions that they are not making when they reach their own conclusions.
In other words, your "wondering" on this topic depends on certain assumptions that I believe you would do well to reconsider. Perhaps the issue is not that gay people are inexplicably hypocritical, but rather that you are ascribing to them motivations that they do not possess and are therefore understandably confused by behavior which seems inconsistent with the motivations you have invented for them.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Tom has the right idea. It's interesting that the ones that would accuse me of only seeing the surface of things are the ones who projects intentions onto the surfaces of other's actions. The whole virtue of intuition and empathy is to see beneath the surface of things.
posted
But inuition and empathy presumes truth, as if the empathetic someone has the authority to guess that what THEY feel is somehow real for the other person.
To make such presumptions without ever meeting them, without talking to the subject, is a dangerous sort of arrogance. Especially when it is couched with gentle excuses and roundabout ways to avoiding one's responsibility that they are making boldfaced accusations.
Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Uhh.. not quite. Empathy is a sort of attunement with other people. If the emotions you pick up are not the actual emotions of the other person then it's not empathy but something else. Inuition tries to grasp the unmediated reality that lies below the surface of things. Usually, what you get is what you get and you can't always make sense of it. It just sort of comes to you instantaneously from out of no where. So, if I'm incorrect, I'm incorrect in my interpretations, not in my perceptions.
To judge others is an entirely different matter, something that I try to keep to a minimum. And to presume what other's intentions are is a completely self-defeating activity, though in many cases it is inevitable.
posted
"wondering" on this topic depends on certain assumptions that I believe you would do well to reconsider. Perhaps the issue is not that gay people are inexplicably hypocritical, but rather that you are ascribing to them motivations that they do not possess and are therefore understandably confused by behavior which seems inconsistent with the motivations you have invented for them.
What motivations would one conclude from the pressure they exert these days--meaning within the past (even) two years?
If interpreting the furious activities of many in the Gay community to legalize same sex marriage, to insist that they be granted (somehow) guarantees that no one suggest their lifestyle is anything other than laudible--even legally challenging or otherwise maligning those speaking such dissent aloud--if interpreting that to mean they have other motivations than those perhaps implied by my "wonderings" then I wish to be set straight.
I am not responding so literally to Strawcat's worry that OSCar is overburdened by his "failure" to embrace his suppressed homosexual urges. I guess my response was directed more broadly. Reading the threads on this site as well as living in one of the most liberal areas of the country has led me to the place I am in right now. I would not assume to understand all motives of any person--who can? And certainly not of a whole group of people I have no intimate knowledge of. Yet, I do interpret many Gay's seeming insistence that other people validate their choice as coercive. As a heterosexual, one sometimes feels a remarkable pressure from Gay people to declare their traditional views of sexual behavior as small-minded, almost Neanderthal, that belief in and adherence to traditional views of sexual pairing is something we must apologize for. I don't ask that Gay people apologize for their lifestyle. I just ask that they don't ask me to pity myself because I disagree with it.
Posts: 13 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps what we are saying is that assuming an emotional reaction is empathy and intuition, and then giving advice based on that to someone you don't know is what is arrogant. Often, one can't really tell until after the fact if an impression was correct or not.
I'm not saying that it can't happen. I've had many experiences that prove to be 'something more'. But knowing when they are that, and when they are emotional reactions is a skill that takes a long time to grasp. And I cannot claim to have done so yet.
And you HAVE judged OSC. You have 'intuitively' determined that he is burdened and repressed. If he only lets go of his burden, he will be happy. This is PC speak for saying that what he is doing is wrong, and he would be happier if he changed to conform more closely to your particular worldview.
I assume you say you don't judge people because you think it is wrong to do so. But judging someone in such a manner is not necessarily evil. In fact, we must do this. We choose our friends by judging their actions, and we appoint others to impose punishments based on judgements that certain actions require imposed consequences. It is part of how we keep society civil.
What is wrong about judgement is when we decide we know why that person has done such a thing, and that they have proven themselves evil by their acts. One can and should judge that someone has done something wrong, but they must also withold judgement as to what is in that person's heart and what God thinks of them.
posted
But strawcatz doesn't believe empathy and intuition are emotional. He believes they are empirical. I can see his point. But part of the point is that empathy/intuition is largely noise that is difficult to intepret.
It's like how folks can take months to find the search button. I myself only learned to click post count to view recent posts earlier this week. I'd always been going through the profile screen.
I'm reminded of something I shared on the other side from my 1990 journal. How do you know the difference between hope and self deception? Hope is from the Holy Spirit and self deception is from pride.
Perhaps the identification of intuition as emotion is due to the experience of trying to read one's own intuition, and getting feedback. Trying to have empathy for oneself. It sounds stupid, but having stuffed my feelings with compulsive behavior for years I often didn't know what I felt.
Posts: 666 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:What is wrong about judgement is when we decide we know why that person has done such a thing, and that they have proven themselves evil by their acts. One can and should judge that someone has done something wrong, but they must also withold judgement as to what is in that person's heart and what God thinks of them.
But I don't ascribe "evil" to anyone's actions. I only ask them to ask themselves (if I'm correct) whether or not it corresponds to their own needs; not MY needs.
Whether or not I'm being rude, arrogant, prompous or pretentious is a red herring to distract from the issue at hand. Since I don't really care how arrogant I am in the eyes of others for this particular purpose, I'll just have to agree with you and say that I am indeed being arrogant so that we can get back on topic, unless we're finished discussing the issue altogether.
Posts: 38 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Whether or not I'm being rude, arrogant, prompous or pretentious is a red herring to distract from the issue at hand.
This is simply not true. Being viewed as rude, arrogant, pompus, and pretentious makes it almost impossible for your message to be recieved as you wish it to. It's part of the message that is recieved, whether you will it or not.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's true. But now that we've all progressed a little in our assumptions and thoughts, it's far too late to go back in time and change the past. What's said is said and there's no changing that. I've tried to clarify my intentions, and that's the best I can do.
quote: What motivations would one conclude from the pressure they exert these days--meaning within the past (even) two years?
Have you tried asking them? If you ask, in my experience, they say that they would largely like to be accepted as equal citizens, to have their relationships socially accepted and recognized as valuable -- and to ultimately see this respect reflected in the legal recognition of their devotion to each other in the same manner that heterosexual unions now enjoy.
In other words, if you ask them about their own motivations and take the time to understand their replies, you find that the appearance of hypocrisy is in fact a reflection of your own erroneous assumptions.
quote:if interpreting that to mean they have other motivations than those perhaps implied by my "wonderings" then I wish to be set straight.
I hope you will consider that mission accomplished. I'm telling you flat-out that you're wrong. If you're not satisfied, I'll see if I can locate an actual gay person to vouch for me on that one.
quote:Yet, I do interpret many Gay's seeming insistence that other people validate their choice as coercive.
I submit that it is in fact persuasive, not coercive, except in those cases where individual gays have given up on the possibility of persuasion and have sought to use the courts to coerce society into recognizing rights to which they feel themselves entitled by the Constitution. If the latter offends you, I'm afraid I have to shrug; the right of one group to lobby against perceived injustices is, as far as I'm concerned, one of the fundamental strengths of American society.
quote:As a heterosexual, one sometimes feels a remarkable pressure from Gay people to declare their traditional views of sexual behavior as small-minded...
I am myself a heterosexual, and yet I have never felt a "remarkable" pressure of this kind, despite enjoying the acquaintance of many homosexuals. Perhaps your sentence would do better if you substituted "I" for "one" and omitted the "As a heterosexual" bit, as it's clear that the pressure you feel is not an inevitable consequence of our shared preference for the opposite sex.
quote: I don't ask that Gay people apologize for their lifestyle. I just ask that they don't ask me to pity myself because I disagree with it.
I would wager that if you asked any random gay person whether they'd prefer the right to legally marry the person they love over the chance to watch you pity yourself on their behalf, they'd go for the former. I assure you that their primary goal is not to humiliate and humble heterosexuals in general, nor you specifically, and indeed they are only concerned with us at all insofar as we rather stubbornly insist that they remain second-class citizens.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
My experience with Gay people is not as limited as your responses seem to imply. Nor is my attitude as caustic as it may "read". That it my fault, obviously. Or at least 50% so. :-)
I have numerous friends who are Gay or who are involved in the Gay community. A man I worked closely with (before he moved to Europe) had a child with two lesbian women--Zachary, a true delight. I also work with a few Gay people at present. I shared opera tickets with a Gay man who was heavily into S&M--an elementary music teacher.
I live in the Seattle area. Society and government here are very much defenders of people's rights to live almost any lifestyle; it does seem to make a conservative feel attacked at times, and very frequently to feel completely "rural" in our attitudes and defense of traditional values--as though only farm hics could ever subscribe to conservative views. This is not imagined; it is pretty clearly documented in the laws passed, the stories that make news daily, the fairly even understanding that the politically liberal "voice of reason" is truly the only one a sane person would confess to.
I also work in a high school. A high school in any place is quite dominated by the liberal point of view; in Seattle the atmosphere is replete with it. The few conservative "leaners" with whom I work tend to keep a low profile in such a place unless we are willing to take on nearly everyone. And besides, we know we'd lose. Perhaps that whole atmosphere makes me sound more frustrated than I actually feel. Or maybe I feel more frustrated than I sound. Sometimes I am. Most of the time, I'm not.
Perhaps in other places where the atmosphere may be more oppressive of people who live outside the "traditional" flow of life, the Gay community feels more maligned and misunderstood. I don't wish anyone to feel they are considered second class; I have experienced enough of that dealing with the liberal voices I live amongst--including many in my own family who decidedly do not espouse "traditional moral values."
It's not that I am ignorant on the whole topic of Gay people and what they want; it's that I hold to the same guidelines and defenses for heterosexual monogamy as a way of life that OSC does. It doesn't make me ignorant or close minded to defend that choice; to voice it may certainly make me sound opinionated. I think that is a comfortable (or at least a familiar) place to be on this site. I'm not complaining about, nor unprepared for disagreement. This seems one of the most thoughtful and intelligent places to discuss matters of importance (and import) that I have seen. I don't feel I can begin to approach the level of knowledge I see reflected here, nor the level of discussion. Still, I don't apologize for my beliefs or opinions--unless they are careless and flighty. On the issue of Gay people's rights, I am neither ignorant nor careless. I am not without empathy for people who hold different conclusions or opinions from myself--a thing that has been greatly discussed here lately. Nevertheless, I know what I have experienced, and that isn't nothing. It is not always possible to prove something you know to be true; that doesn't make the thing false.
It is my observation (through many sources) that not all Gay people just want to be thought of as "equal" to straight people--in their rights, in their reception and acceptance within the society. Sometimes, they want to be "more equal" and will go to great lengths to achieve that status. Take a look at the trial here (down the street from where I live) of the female Presbyterian pastor who turned the area upside down last summer for a trial held to decide if her openly gay relationship should be cause to be removed as a leader of her congregation. While the same situation (a gay pastor, not a lesbian one) back East recently "defrocked" the man, the woman here was able to receive sanction--even though it was (and is) clearly in contradiction with the tenets of that church in particular, and the Christian religion in general.
Posts: 13 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: But now that we've all progressed a little in our assumptions and thoughts, it's far too late to go back in time and change the past. What's said is said and there's no changing that.
Actually, that's not technically true. You can always go back and edit posts that came out wrong. Some people smile upon it, others frown upon it, but it is possible.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:it does seem to make a conservative feel attacked at times, and very frequently to feel completely "rural" in our attitudes and defense of traditional values--as though only farm hics could ever subscribe to conservative views
Strictly speaking, this IS a rural attitude. In general, 80% of urbanites nationwide are in favor of gay marriage. If you oppose it, your attitude IS by definition rural.
The problem here is whether you -- or the people around you -- consider rural attitudes to also be unsophisticated and/or underdeveloped.
"It is my observation (through many sources) that not all Gay people just want to be thought of as "equal" to straight people--in their rights, in their reception and acceptance within the society. Sometimes, they want to be 'more equal' and will go to great lengths to achieve that status."
Again, I dispute this claim -- especially if you're going to use it as a rationalization for the denial of marriage rights and other "concessions," for fear of granting gay "activists" too much power.
Consider your own example, one that you apparently feel demonstrates how the gay community wants to be BETTER than equal. I can see how you feel that way; to you, a gay pastor is demanding special rights, the ability to live in sin with an unmarried partner and still represent her church. But this is the wrong way to look at it, in that it's not the way she looks at it -- and thus describing it in those terms does her a disservice by misrepresenting her motivations.
To her, she merely wishes to share her life with the person she loves. If this person were male, she would marry him without complication. Because this person is not male, she cannot marry her legally. She has chosen, therefore, to live with this person "in sin." (Note, however, that a handful of Christian churches will perform gay marriages. Presumably, in these churches, this sort of arrangement would not still be considered sinful.) The problem, of course, is that she does not consider what she is doing to be sinful, and believes that this should not jeopardize her leadership role in the church; other members of the church disagree.
Is this an insidious plot? Clearly not. Is this an example of seeking special privileges? Clearly not. At worst, it is a case of selfish human impulses and normal desires conflicting with duty to a organization with democratic policies. In other words, it's not a dangerous movement or part of a wicked scheme; it's just one person wanting to love another person without having her church hate her for it. That she cannot control her church's reaction, of course, should not prevent her from attempting to persuade them to accept her opinion.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: I am myself a heterosexual, and yet I have never felt a "remarkable" pressure of this kind, despite enjoying the acquaintance of many homosexuals. Perhaps your sentence would do better if you substituted "I" for "one" and omitted the "As a heterosexual" bit, as it's clear that the pressure you feel is not an inevitable consequence of our shared preference for the opposite sex.
Perhaps he ought to say "As a heterosexual who has traditional beliefs about sexuality". Tom, you may feel no pressure because you do not hold those traditional beliefs.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Actually, that's not technically true. You can always go back and edit posts that came out wrong. Some people smile upon it, others frown upon it, but it is possible.
That's not the same thing as changing the past. I would call that deceptive since it purports that we can and people should pretend as if we didn't say what we said.
Posts: 38 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No link with the others replies but... I tried to read the first mail : i didn't understand, so I tried to understand with the replies, but it didn't work. Conclusion : what a pity not to be a native english speaker !
Posts: 28 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can there be separate but equal? This has been the argument against granting civil unions. But doesn't it apply to the underlying situation? Are homosexuals and heterosexuals not by their nature separate? Can they ever, then, really be equal?
This is the problem with the lack of definition whether sexual orientation is a race or a religion, or if it should stand as a category next to them. The trouble with creating it as a separate category becomes what is included in it. I'll be frank that I don't think a society can endure which permits people sexual expression without consequence. The consequence of heterosexuality is you could cause pregnancy and all the condundra that go with it. The consequence of homosexuality is what? Maybe it is just sour grapes that we breeders feel others cannot have our reward if they do not bear our anxiety.
Posts: 666 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
But this is the wrong way to look at it, in that it's not the way she looks at it -- and thus describing it in those terms does her a disservice by misrepresenting her motivations.
quote:
You mean then, that the truth of a thing is dependent of the intent of that thing, not the thing itself? That sounds way too conditional. It is my contention that a truth is true regardless of any belief in it. It stands for itself. It justifies itself. It is what it is and calling it something else does not change its nature.
What she did was exactly what I said she did. Calling it something else just because it proves a biased point does not change the thing that she did.
Posts: 13 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
Is this an insidious plot? Clearly not. Is this an example of seeking special privileges? Clearly not. At worst, it is a case of selfish human impulses and normal desires conflicting with duty to a organization with democratic policies. In other words, it's not a dangerous movement or part of a wicked scheme; it's just one person wanting to love another person without having her church hate her for it. That she cannot control her church's reaction, of course, should not prevent her from attempting to persuade them to accept her opinion.
quote:
A plot in that she wants to love whoever it is she loves? No. A plot in that she is trying to change the basic tenets of her religion so she can do so without challenge? Yes. And a plot in that she had support of Gay activists from all over the United States VERY noisily shouting and hollering for her not to be challenged--absolutely it was a plot.
You can't join a club, say you love the club because of what it is, then stage a coup to change the basic structure of the club--and not expect to rile people. Why not just make your own club if what the club IS doesn't satisfy you? There's a real arrogance in people who demand that an entire group bow to their will.
And who says her church hates her for loving a woman? I am certain there are people IN the church who are so foolish and blind as to hate her for that. Thinking people don't do that. Her church obviously did not do that. But is it fair for someone who breaks a law of an organization they voluntarily join demand that all the members then ammend their thinking (and rules) to accommodate her breaking that law?? No one is forcing her to be there. Why should she force them to change so she can stay?
And while we're on that, isn't a religion based on God's rules and laws? Men can ask God to change a law, but if he doesn't, they should just accept his answer and get on with it.
posted
"I'll be frank that I don't think a society can endure which permits people sexual expression without consequence."
Why not, pooka? If there are truly no consequences, why is there a problem?
------
"You mean then, that the truth of a thing is dependent of the intent of that thing, not the thing itself?"
Nope. I mean that you aren't entitled to reframe and mischaracterize her motivations and intent, nor to slander the actual results of her actions, simply because you disagree with them. I don't think George Bush invaded Iraq because he's an evil man who wants to hurt people, even if the result so far has been a lot of hurting; it would be practically slanderous, then, for me to suggest otherwise.
In the same way, you're positing motivations here which do not exist, and using those imaginary motivations to justify your own prejudice.
(As for your second post, I'm afraid that it appears to be a reply to things I did not say.)
posted
Depends on what you think a society is, Tom. I think of society the same thing I said about churches in another thread. It's a place to raise kids and a place to tame men. That means there has to be normative standards and consequences for breaking them.
If you think a society is an arrangement for boosting everyone's self esteem you are going to have a different opinion from me.
The consequence of heterosexuality is not pregnancy itself- that is the natural consequence. The consequence is what then happens. Marriage if both are free, the choice to be honest if one or the other is not, potential for abortion, the possibility of discovery if subterfuge is chosen, divorce and disgrace are all the social consequences. I feel that all these consequences tend to bear more heavily in a natural way on a woman. It takes the artificial constructs of society to force the involvement of the sort of men who cause pregnancy out of marriage in the first place.
Posts: 666 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
In the eyes of the law, with respect to certain legal rights and responsibilities, I think heterosexual and homosexual "marriages" can be considered equal (that is, equal in those spheres the government is best suited, mainly law).
Not in the churches. Not in the homes. In the eyes of the government.
I am a part of a well-established majority speaking what I believe that majority believes. One individual, or say even a tiny percentage within a large group, acts with extreme arrogance when it tries to force changes on that majority group--changes which lie counter to that group's core beliefs. "I like the group. I want to be a part of the group. But you have to change what you are if I'm going to be content." It could even be a positive change they want but it would still be arrogant of them.
Insofar as reframing the actions of the Presbyterian pastor, I certainly didn't do that. I have no certain knowledge of her motives. It was apparent that she did not want to be cast from her congregation--but she was very clear that she knew her behavior was in direct conflict with the laws of her church. She was an ordained minister and one could be fairly certain she was knowledgable on their rules, etc. In the language of the church--she knew she was committing sin. She made it clear that she was not going to change her behavior (stop sinning) but was willing to put her congregation through enormous conflict in order to be able to continue to break the law that, in her position as a minister, she was supposed to defend. Certainly to honor.
Whether she believed her desires were justified really isn't the point. She was the instrument (or was used as one by a sort of political machine--either unwillingly or complicitly) that threw her church community into chaos. Many people do believe the event and its ruling ultimately weakened the credibility of her church--particularly when a very similar case received an opposite ruling only a few months later.
You said I was positing motivations which do not exist? How can you know that? How can you know what her motivations really were? You project your conclusions toward motives and you are being insightful and open minded. I do the same (if I did) and I am justifying my own prejudices?? Hmmmm.
And I still say that her motivations don't change (or even justify) her actions. Whether she feels justitfied because she is sure her reason is noble--she thinks the law is wrong and ought to be changed--isn't the issue. (At least not my point.) She accepted the way things were when she entered her priesthood. She didn't go into that blindly--though it would seem now there was a degree of disingenuousness in her. Later, she wanted her church to change its laws so that she could continue living a way of life contrary to its laws--but now be in good standing. And they did, in the end, compromise their laws; sort of but not really.
Whether in this instance or any other, I am not the only person who is puzzled by an organization which conducts itself counter to its own laws. It makes no sense. It becomes the major cause of its own demise--as what it is.
Glory. I'm tired. Have a nice night.
Posts: 13 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"If something natural has a consequence, why does society need to provide one?"
When did that become the question? Before we head to this subject, can we answer the first question: why should something without any negative consequences be taboo?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
