Subject:
|
Re: Lavender Brick Society
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 21 Sep 2004 13:39:12 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2025 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
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”?
|
Well, just in terms of parallel evolution of ideas re: sacred v. profane. And
whatever other oddity you’d care to contribute, of course.
| |
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?
|
I do not believe that there are any absolute standards for society, and all
standards are determined by cultural convention. Some actions or attitudes may
be horribly repugnant to me (torture, murder, George W Bush, etc.) but I don’t
assert these as truly absolute evils in any transcendent, metaphysical sense.
As far as the greater validity of one opinion or another, I would suggest that
an opinion that is consistent with observed reality is of superior validity than
an opinion that is in conflict with observed reality. I think that you believe
this, too, except that your standard of “observed reality” differs from mine, at
least in terms of supernatural matters.
If one is not convinced of the existence of an absolute deity, then it becomes
much easier for that person to recognize that the “absolutes” of society are
nothing more than deeply ingrained traditions or preferences.
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
But if you were constantly forced to hide your religion, for instance, under
penalty of persecution, denial-of-rights, and perhaps assault or murder,
wouldn’t you make it an issue at every opportunity?
Out of curiosity, what qualifies as “making their sexuality an issue” in this
context? If a woman has a picture on her desk of herself and her girlfriend on
vacation, is she making her sexuality an issue? If a man brings his boyfriend
to the company’s Christmas party and they happen to kiss, are they making their
sexuality an issue? If a woman mentions in conversation that it’s disheartening
to know that she can’t legally wed her female companion of ten years, is she
making her sexuality an issue?
| |
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.
|
Do you really know a lot of gays who force you to relate to them in terms of
their gayness? What does that mean, exactly?
And I ask the following question in all seriousness: If these people really do
require you to relate to them in this way, is it possible that they are reacting
to a perceived threat from you? Not a physical threat, of course, but maybe
some kind of tension that puts them on the defensive in this way?
I ask because I’ve known a few dozen gay men and women over the years, and none
of them ever forced me to relate to them in terms of their gayness. Even one
who was a consummate jerk was a jerk for reasons wholly separate from his
sexuality.
| |
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.
|
Like it or not, sex is germane to most of what we do, though your threshold
for identifying it may differ in different contexts.
I have known Christians who can’t go an hour without forcing me to relate to
them in terms of their faith (to paraphrase your term). This can range from the
passive wearing of a crucifix to the reading of a bible in the cafeteria to the
“footprints in the sand” thingie on their desk to all-out proselytizing to save
my immortal soul. While I may find these people annoying to some degree or
another, I don’t claim that they should keep their faith private or practice it
only behind closed doors with other consenting Christians.
| |
| |
| |
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?
|
Sure, if you don’t mind talking to yourself.
(actually, after I typed that, I realized that your joke was funnier than mine.
Bravo!)
| |
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.
|
I clearly don’t advocate anything and everything, but I don’t pretend that my
preferences are based upon metaphysical absolutes, either. Our point of
disagreement may be that you accept that these absolutes exist and are knowable
to humans, while I don’t.
| |
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?
|
Unfortunately, that would be equivalent to the old “separate but equal”
segregation that was rightly thrown out by the Supreme Court.
However, I’ve said time and again that I support the right of a church to
endorse any definition of marriage that it wants within the tenets of its faith
(or outside of them, for that matter). But I don’t believe that any religious
faith has the right to control secular law. If the State chooses to endorse
man-man or woman-woman marriage, then that’s really none of the church’s darned
business.
Both sides can be accommodated as long as both sides recognize that neither has
the authority to dictate the policies of the other (except in cases of abuse,
etc., which are a separate discussion.)
| |
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
|
If a crime is committed, then that crime should be prosecuted. However, if the
victim of the crime is specifically targeted because of some general trait or
characteristic, then I believe that this constitutes an additional crime.
That’s why the interment of Japanese civilians was a crime, and it’s why racial
profiling is a crime, frankly.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Lavender Brick Society
|
| (...) Since that happened well before the civil rights movement, the only applicable legality that I can think of is the 5th Amendment (nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law), but I believe they were classified as (...) (20 years ago, 21-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
