Subject:
|
Re: 3. What exactly is bigotry? More definitions. Trolling admitted.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 10 Mar 2000 21:53:39 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
JSPROAT@IO.spamcakeCOM
|
Viewed:
|
1501 times
|
| |
|
|
Todd Lehman wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jeremy H. Sproat writes:
> > I have a profound and irrational dislike for homosexuals in general, due to a
> > harsh experience I had with a gay boss and his mate during my high school
> > job. I recognize this bias as a flaw in my own character, and something to
> > always be aware of. The majority of gays I've met are nowhere near as trashy
> > as this couple (in fact most have been extremely kind and understanding), and
> > I'm slowly getting over it.
> How differently do you imagine that you would feel today if you had never had
> that harsh experience with your gay boss and his mate?
I would probably view homosexuals on a more even keel. I might, by way of
example, compare it to my feelings towards Muslims. Having worked with a few
exceptionally awesome folks who happened to be Islamic, my POV towards Muslims
in general is very favorable.
Like I said, my feelings towards homosexuals is irrational, and something I
need to be aware of.
> > Show me, in scientific and reasonable terms, the advantage to homosexuality.
> > I don't think there is any.
> I believe that God created bisexuality, homosexuality, and sexuality in
> animals and humans for a very good reason.
> (Oops, that's not a scientific reason.)
:-D
> > How can you defend homosexuality with reason? I don't think you can.
> How can you attack homosexuality with reason? I don't think you can.
Nope, not one bit. I was bringing up the point that sexual practices don't
necessarily belong in a rationality vs. religion discussion.
> > Homosexuality is irrational, having more to do with emotion and bias than
> > anything else IMO. (Please correct me if I'm wrong.)
> Is homosexuality any more irrational than heterosexuality or asexuality?
Good point. What I *should* have said is that any kind of sexuality for
pleasure is irrational, having more to do with emotion and bias than anything
else. Not that there's anything inherently wrong with pleasure; it's just
that from a rationalist point of view, pleasure introduces some messy factors
into the equation.
> (Don't try to suggest that homosexuality is irrational because its result
> is fewer progeny. Individual organisms in a deme often sacrifice their own
> genetic materials for the better good of the deme. Insect populations and
> tribes are excellent examples.)
I was following you until "deme". Is that a deme as in "a local, usually
stable population if interbreeding organisms of the same kind of species"?
No, homosexuality is irrational for the same reason heterosexuality is
irrational. See previous paragraph. Heterosexuality has the benefit of
reproduction, but that's hardly the driving force in the majority of
couplings.
But that is all irrelevant to the discussion I was having with Eric. My
intent was to poke holes in his argument (religion == homophobia (thus
rationality == homophilia) because religion == irrationality), by pointing out
that homosexuality itself is irrational.
> > OTOH, I can think of two or three medical reasons why *some* homosexual
> > activities can be harmful, but they're not really an issue with responsible
> > parties.
> Can you think of any medically harmful homosexual activity which wouldn't also
> be medically harmful in heterosexual form?
That's really secondary, isn't it? I mean, how prevalant is anal intercourse
amongst heterosexual couples? It's fairly low, isn't it? (I dunno for sure,
but I bet the Kinsey Institute might have some actual numbers...) The
incidence of hemmoraging -- and increased exposure to physical trauma as well
as venerial disease -- is *much* higher with anal intercourse than it is with
vaginal intercourse.
But please see the rest of my point. Amongst responsible parties, risk of
spreading venerial disease is minor.
Arg. I said something the wrong way, and now I'll be working twice as hard to
patch it up. I am not, nor was I previously, picking on homosexuals or
homosexual activity. Discussing it was a means to make a point. And that
point is, ultimately, you can't live a rational life to the exclusion of
irrationality.
Cheers,
- jsproat
--
Jeremy H. Sproat <jsproat@io.com> ~~~ http://www.io.com/~jsproat/
Card-carrying member of the Star-Bellied Sneech Preservation Society
|
|
Message has 4 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
541 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
|
|
|
|
