Subject:
|
Re: Lavender Brick Society
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 20 Sep 2004 17:43:07 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1829 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
So keeping sex private keeps sex “holy”, or set aside, as an ultimate act of
giving. Making it a common act in the streets cheapens it to
meaninglessness.
|
Oddly, this is straight out of Mircea Eliade’s “The Sacred and The Profane,”
which speaks of the investment of “sacredness” into certain
places/customs/actions so that those places/customs/actions are preserved
against alteration due to changes in society. I’m not a big fan of Eliade, who
reads, to me, like a watered-down version of a watered-down Heidegger, but
that’s beside the point.
As far as meaninglessness goes, if your notion of “meaning” requires the
artificial sequestering of a place/custom/action, then you’re welcome to do that
in your own life, but it’s not appropriate for you to require it of others, even
if your view is shared by the majority.
| |
| |
Didn’t you read your post? You’re claimed, with no specificity, that “when
people make private things public it is at the least embarrassing and at the
most offensive.” Lacking a disclaimer, your claim applies to all private
matters, and my statement was a contradiction of yours.
|
Maybe some things, but not those things. Are you specifically arguing
that public sex is beautiful?
|
Depends on the participants, IMO. Really it’s just a matter of aethetics, as
far as I’m concerned. I’m not pretending that my aesthetic values are
equivalent to some universal standard of decorum, nor am I insisting that my
values must be shared, upheld, and protected by everyone else.
| |
| |
“Don’t ask, don’t tell,” right? You’ve stated outright that the revelation
of homosexuality will
|
No, “can”.
|
Fine. Can. But even that disclaimer is a disturbing indication that you “can”
be unable to treat people with equal respect when those people reveal aspects of
themselves that you find aesthetically unappealing.
| |
When offensive things are thrust into my face (and I’m not talking
specifically about the gay lifestyle here)
|
Holy moley! Ease up on the mixed metaphors, will you? We’re a family forum,
after all.
| |
and I am taunted by them; yeah, it can affect my attitude toward them. I
think you overestimate your ability to control your emotions (unless you
happen to have some pointed ears that I don’t know about)
|
You’re deliberately misstating the situation. The mere expression of a natural
lifestyle (be it gay, straight, or what have you), which doesn’t in itself
constitute a threat or harm, is not “taunting.” The fact that you identify it
as such speaks of either hardcore narcissism or really unhinged insecurity.
Can’t you just allow people to exist as they are? Why must they closet
themselves to suit your preferences?
| |
| |
The fact that you feel so threatened by a
festive and pointedly campy celebration of freedom is truly amazing.
|
That’s a clever way to put it. I suppose you feel the same way about a KKK
march as well.
|
As a matter of fact, I do recognize a KKK march as an expression of free speech.
In fact, in 1989, while I was at Penn State Altoona, a number of students
protested the right of a local KKK chapter to hold a march. I, however,
protested the protesters, whom I identified as attempting to restrict free
speech, and I wasn’t alone in my view.
So if your question is whether I accept the right to speech and expression that
is uncomfortable to me, then the answer is yes, absolutely (insofar as one can
have “absolutes” in matters of social convention, of course).
| |
| |
Yes, now that you mention it. But I was actually referring to your
perception that your awareness of someone’s homosexuality causes you to
treat that person differently.
|
You know, treating them differently isn’t necessarily bad. I treat men and
women differently. So what?
|
Lesbian women or heterosexual women?
Do you require women to hide the fact of their sex/gender because it makes you
uncomfortable? Do you object to women marrying the person of their choice, and
do you propose that women should alter their behavior because their behavior
“can” cause you to treat them with less respect?
If not, then you’re clearly applying a different standard of respect to
heterosexual women than to gay men or women. But if so, then I suspect that
your issues re: interpersonal respect run far deeper than simple questions of
sexual inclination.
| |
| |
| |
Not just gays, but everyone. If we keep the private and intimate stuff
private, then everybody wins, no?
|
To make everyone more like you,
|
Civilized?
|
If “civilized” means “rampantly-repressive and beholden to immutable social
taboos,” then yes.
| |
| |
or perhaps just more generically alike?
|
Yeah, that’s the ultimate goal-- a world of clones of me.
|
Take it to lugnet.off-topic.clones, please
| |
| |
Where do I exit this crazy ride? That may equate to “everyone wins” in your
world, but to many people, the repressive, anti-sexual fantasy land that you
propose is not discernably different from full-blown dystopia.
|
Perhaps. But to many people, the open, self-indulgent, any-thing-goes
carnival isn’t utopia either.
|
But the expression of homosexuality doesn’t prevent you from doing anything
other than pretending that homosexuality doesn’t exist or isn’t natural. The
behind-closed-doors society that you advocate does require intrusive
repression of other people’s lives and lifestyles.
Your right not to feel “repulsed” does not supersede other people’s rights not
to be subjected to institutionalized repression.
| |
| |
| |
You are correct. Are you saying that gays are particularily repressed?
|
Specificity, please. Particularly repressed relative to whom?
|
I was speaking in governmental policy terms (besides marriage).
|
Well, that’s a big one, so let’s not just omit it. Many of the protections and
benefits of marriage are also currently denied to gays, so that’s a form of
repression not practiced against women or blacks or Christians or atheists or
Train-heads or stamp collectors or whatever.
Additionally, certain types of crimes against children are subject to much
greater penalties than are those same crimes committed against adults. This is
because of a societal impression that children are an “innocent” class of
citizen who need special protection; to put it another way, they are entitled to
additional protection because they are potentially subjected to additional
crimes beyond those inflicted upon most adults. Similarly, if another group is
specifically persecuted in ways not applied to the population at large, then
that group is, in my view, eligible for special additional protection under the
law.
You can complain that laws already exist to protect gays against assault or
discrimination, so they shouldn’t be “privileged” with additional protections.
But to someone interested in equal protection under the law, the very act of
singling out a group or person due to general characteristics or habits is a
separate problem all by itself.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Lavender Brick Society
|
| (...) Though I've never even heard of Eliade or his/her? work, why would that be "odd"? That you aren't a fan and that I sound like (okay, I googled it...) him should sound about right, no;-) (...) Again, the ultimate expression of society isn't (...) (20 years ago, 20-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Lavender Brick Society
|
| (...) I believe sexual intercourse is an intimate bonding experience physically, emotionall, spiritually, and psychologically. It is the ultimate "giving" of oneself, and thus should be considered to be a highly meaningful experience. It should be (...) (20 years ago, 20-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
106 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
