Subject:
|
Re: Lavender Brick Society
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 20 Sep 2004 19:49:15 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1804 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
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.
|
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;-)
| |
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.
|
Again, the ultimate expression of society isn’t anarchy. I have a right to try
and shape our society the way I see fit, as you ARE DOING by advocating yours.
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
But see, now you are hiding under the cover of relativism. Nobody’s opinion is
any more valid that anyone else’s-- except those who have opinions that may
affect your behavior (and with those with whom you agree;-) You want your cake
and eat it, too. You can’t just argue from a standpoint of believing in
nothing. Or do you believe in no standards for society?
| |
| |
| |
“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.
|
Are we still?
| |
| |
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.”
|
That’s not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about those who insist upon
making their sexuality an issue in every situation, in every instance.
| |
The fact that you
identify it as such speaks of either hardcore narcissism or really unhinged
insecurity.
|
Well, I don’t so save the pop psychology. And speaking of your PP diagnoses,
people who insist upon revealing their sexual orientation sound to me to be
either hardcore narcissists or suffering from a case of really unhinged
insecurity...
| |
Can’t you just allow people to exist as they are?
|
Yes, as I have stated many times before (as long as “as they are” means that
they aren’t er, thrusting their agendas in my face)
| |
Why must they
closet themselves to suit your preferences?
|
NOT closet themselves. Just keep their sexuality private. (as I want
heterosexuals to do as well) If it becomes known in casual discourse, fine. I
have no problem with that! Knowing someone is gay isn’t the problem. It’s
people who need you to relate to them in terms of their gayness. It really is
more of an issue of respect than anything else.
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
I was referring to the characterization as “festive and pointedly campy
celebration”. The KKK is more about hatred than freedom.
| |
| |
| |
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?
|
Let me restate. I have no problem with gay people as people. I find the
thought of gay sex (particularily among men) repulsive. I would like to relate
to gays as just people, not as sexual people. Why must sex be an issue? Why
must sexual orientation be germane? Why must one’s identity be inexorably
interconnected with their sexuality? Why do gays (for the most part) feel the
need to tell the world of their particular sexual orientation? And you may say
that not all gays are like that, to which I’d say “Hallelujah” and of course I
know that! They aren’t the ones about whom I’m speaking.
| |
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.
|
Is there a place between there and all-out (no pun intended) sexual freedom?
Would you now like to argue against clothing? (in warm climes, for instance)
| |
| |
| |
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
|
Or perhaps lugnet.loc.us.me?
| |
| |
| |
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 know, it’s hard to defend limitations and very easy to attack them, and
quite easy to advocate anything and everything. Is this what you propose as an
alternative, because if it is, then the discussion is over, because at that
point I’ll be happy to agree to disagree.
Because in a truly enlightened society, all are free to do as they please but
refrain from certain behaviors out of respect for those who might find their
behavior offensive. As I have said before, freedom without responsibility is
worthless.
| |
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
Only because we “have been there” already.
| |
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.
|
I would like to start a conversation that distinguishes between using the terms
“marriage” and “civil union”, because I think therein lies much of the
disagreement. Gays are looking for equal protection; others are looking for
preserving the definition of marriage as the union of omow. Can both sides be
accommodated?
| |
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.
|
A crime is a crime. Equal prosecution 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.
|
A crime is a crime. Besides, why single out the particular persecution of gays?
Why not women? Why not the elderly? Why not racial? Why not economic? Why not
political? Because it’s a mess and unnecessary IMO
JOHN
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Lavender Brick Society
|
| (...) Well, just in terms of parallel evolution of ideas re: sacred v. profane. And whatever other oddity you'd care to contribute, of course. (...) I do not believe that there are any absolute standards for society, and all standards are determined (...) (20 years ago, 21-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Lavender Brick Society
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
