Homophobia causes the problems, not homosexuality

[MysticSang'ha]

Another great thing about female sexuality...orgasms are completely independent from fertility. So our climaxes are for pleasure only.

 

[Storm]

Here's the thing Rev. To many of us this is not an abstract moral issue, it really is a war. I try to stay civil, because I want results. It requires a great deal of effort on my part.

When we were 15, my best childhood friend killed himself. He gave no warning and left no note. He just got his dad's .38 and put a bullet through his temple, leaving his family and friends in a welter of grief.
We were pretty sheltered Catholic kids in the 70's. I don't know for a fact why he did it. But I am a lot less naive than I was then. I am quite sure that Christian homophobic bigotry was the cause of my friend Kenny "freely choosing to escape the demon of homosexuality", in the only way he knew how. I cannot read some of the stuff I do here without hearing "Sorry about that kid you knew. But I am still sure that the bronze age guys who wrote the Bible were right.", even if they don't know they are writing it.

The only reason I am not honest about what I think, and try to stay civil, is because I hope that there are fewer kids who suffer Kenny's fate as time goes on. It would feel really good to be more honest. But if the @1robin s of the world kill even more kid it will not have been worth it.

Tom

Our tactics may differ, but our goal is the same. I think that being polite and conciliatory and meek only helps them pretend "it's just my opinion." I refuse to enable that delusion. Plus, as a general rule, I'll extend courtesy by default, but it can be forfeited. And respect must be earned. I won't fake it.

 

[Storm]

Also, in fairness, the Christian response has improved a good deal over the years. Hardly ever do Christians now say, "Sorry about that kid you knew. But the bronze age guys I believe in are still right. Too bad Kenny is burning in Hell."

Tom

I don't count that as much of an improvement, seeing as the only reason such people don't say the last bit is because they don't want to face the consequences they know they deserve. They just give you that particular smile that lets you know damned well it's what they mean.

I cannot abide people who won't stand by their convictions.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Our tactics may differ, but our goal is the same. I think that being polite and conciliatory and meek only helps them pretend "it's just my opinion." I refuse to enable that delusion. Plus, as a general rule, I'll extend courtesy by default, but it can be forfeited. And respect must be earned. I won't fake it.

I agree. When there are biphobic, homophobic, and misogynistic slurs and aggressions being displayed, and especially toward me, they have taken civility out of the discussion.

 

[Uberpod]

The benefit is spiritual rather than physiological. It's an exercise in self-restraint. Many philosophies preach it. I couldn't honestly tell you what the psychological effects are. I'm only one human being. I haven't done a case study of abstinence versus indulgence.



As a Christian, I believe that the truth is axiomatically good, and that therefore the study of said truth is a worthwhile pursuit. I wouldn't go as far as to say that all attempts at 'isolating objective truth [are] inherently good.' I have reservations about certain research in the fields of medicine and genetics for example.



The right thing rarely correlates with the practical thing. I hope that I'll always do what I believe to be right, and not what I know to be expedient.


Mind-independent facts are true regardless of whether we comprehend them. That's not to say they're incomprehensible though. I don't think they are, not entirely at any rate.

I agree that what's 'right' and 'wrong' has changed. Christ fulfilled the Law after all. I don't agree that morality is transmitted from the bottom-up though. Morality is decreed from above. For me, rightness doesn't correspond to the democratic will but the will of our creator. I'm not a consequentialist. Moral axioms can't be discovered empirically.

I don't agree that the claim is faulty. Onanism, a conscious spilling of one's seed, is sinful. The function of the sexual organs is observed empirically. Sperm exists for conception, not for spilling on the floor. Sex is pleasurable, another purpose is its enjoyment with your spouse.

You seem a bright and tactful fellow. However, if you are simply choosing top down morality at the dictates of antiquities, without a care to consequence in the real world, we have little more to discuss. We might as well not continue on to discuss homosexuality. Final question: Do you think abstaining sexually can channel energy into the spiritual plane?

 

[columbus]

I agree. When there are biphobic, homophobic, and misogynistic slurs and aggressions being displayed, and especially toward me, they have taken civility out of the discussion.

@Storm

I cannot abide people who won't stand by their convictions.

The question is do you want the pleasure of catharsis or preventing more damage done? They aren't mutually exclusive, but there is a tradeoff.
I try to remain politely civil(with more success sometimes than others), but I don't consider myself "conciliatory and meek". You can be blunt and sarcastic while remaining politely civil.

Tom

 

[Storm]

@Storm

The question is do you want the pleasure of catharsis or preventing more damage done? They aren't mutually exclusive, but there is a tradeoff.
I try to remain politely civil(with more success sometimes than others), but I don't consider myself "conciliatory and meek". You can be blunt and sarcastic while remaining politely civil.

Tom

I wasn't referring to you specifically, Tom.

And that's absolutely not the question. I know you know that, because you took "conciliatory and meek" from the post where I answered the actual question, which is about tactics, not catharsis.

But if that's the way you want to play it, fine. Which is more important, the pleasure you get from currying favor with the people driving our youth to suicide, or making them stop?

You certainly can get results with civility, when people are willing to listen. When they're not, you still get results: they smile and nod while you demonstrate that their views are acceptable.

 

[Revoltingest]

No, actually you never have. I have no idea what got you started on your little hobby of passive aggressive sniping at my posts, but you've been doing this for years. I've tried many times to engage you rationally, but as soon as I make a point you can't twist to make me look stupid, suddenly talking to me is beneath me. Of course, you're always eager to talk about me.
It's all rather pathetic. If I am so far beneath your notice, put me on ignore. If you want to confront me, grow a spine and confront me. But this Mean Girls drama queen thing of yours says a lot more about you than me.
LMAO

It's good you can laugh about it.

 

[columbus]

Which is more important, the pleasure you get from currying favor with the people driving our youth to suicide, or making them stop?

Um, what?

Tom

 

[Storm]

It's good you can laugh about it.

It's not like there's anything else I can do, is there?

You turn around and quote that saw when you've refused for years to even tell me what your problem is? Yeah, I'm gonna laugh at that.

 

[Revoltingest]

Here's the thing Rev. To many of us this is not an abstract moral issue, it really is a war. I try to stay civil, because I want results. It requires a great deal of effort on my part.

I appreciate your civility & your compelling posts. I am no less involved in this "war" for philosophical & personal reasons too, but the real question is what conduct best effects our goals. I find that humanity trumps hate, & that equanimity beats anger.

When we were 15, my best childhood friend killed himself. He gave no warning and left no note. He just got his dad's .38 and put a bullet through his temple, leaving his family and friends in a welter of grief.
We were pretty sheltered Catholic kids in the 70's. I don't know for a fact why he did it. But I am a lot less naive than I was then. I am quite sure that Christian homophobic bigotry was the cause of my friend Kenny "freely choosing to escape the demon of homosexuality", in the only way he knew how. I cannot read some of the stuff I do here without hearing "Sorry about that kid you knew. But I am still sure that the bronze age guys who wrote the Bible were right.", even if they don't know they are writing it.
The only reason I am not honest about what I think, and try to stay civil, is because I hope that there are fewer kids who suffer Kenny's fate as time goes on. It would feel really good to be more honest. But if the @1robin s of the world kill even more kid it will not have been worth it.
Tom

I too had a friend who committed suicide from bullying & failing to fit in. Perhaps this & other memories of the effects of bullying are part of why I detest rampant incivility. It effects no positive changes in people, & it causes real harm.

 

[Revoltingest]

You turn around and quote that saw when you've refused for years to even tell me what your problem is?

That is less than factual. We discussed it two years ago. (And you've been gone since then until recently.) To reiterate, I won't converse with one who continually insults & misquotes me.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

@Storm

The question is do you want the pleasure of catharsis or preventing more damage done? They aren't mutually exclusive, but there is a tradeoff.
I try to remain politely civil(with more success sometimes than others), but I don't consider myself "conciliatory and meek". You can be blunt and sarcastic while remaining politely civil.

Tom

Not speaking for Storm, but I don't play nice with people who would rather see me dead or burning in hell and who engage with me in such a manner.

I've been burned way too many times by playing nice and giving them an opening.

For me, it's definitely preventing more damage done. It's far more effective than continually approaching the conversation with civility, taking hit after hit after hit, being misrepresented, dehumanized, and victim-shamed, while their hits are merely dressed up as a simple difference of opinion.

I think people are under the assumption that abusers will listen to reason. They don't. Look at somebody's posts who have been mentioned as an example of severe homophobia and bigotry....reasoning with him has gone absolutely NOWHERE. Years have gone by. He's even mentioned he's sick of discussing it but continues sharing so much misinformation and hatred that several people have not been able to keep up in even one thread.

Thousands of pages are available for reference.

Dozens of members have utilized reason. Have shown patience time and time again.

NOTHING. Reason and civility have not changed his mind in the slightest.

Storm is no fool. As other queers in this thread, she along with the rest of us have experienced a kind of terror and abuse that straights just never experience in their lives. It's disingenuous to equivocate their hardships with ours because they are blinded by their straight privilege.

As you've mentioned, this is a war. I'm willing to negotiate terms and conditions, but I don't need to be friendly to people who are looking forward to the day I'm dead. I can love people, but for these mindsets, it's much safer for me to love from a distance. And if it necessitates me to swing my arms in order to create that safe distance from these particular people, then so be it.

 

[Vigilans]

You seem a bright and tactful fellow.

Likewise to you.

However, if you are simply choosing top down morality at the dictates of antiquities, without a care to consequence in the real world, we have little more to discuss. We might as well not continue on to discuss homosexuality.

Equally, I say that you favour a democratic, bottom-up understanding of morality at the dictate of modernity. I would add, however, that the weight of history is in my favour. The theory of the common will as the seat of authority is a very new one. Most societies have historically been vary wary of equating righteousness with populism. I wouldn't say I'm 'without a care to consequences in the real world, but I do think they're of secondary concern. I think you're right. We've gone about as far as we can with this discussion. We'll agree to disagree.

Final question: Do you think abstaining sexually can channel energy into the spiritual plane?

I'd like to answer this question Uberpod, but I'm afraid I'm not familiar with the language. Is the phrase 'spiritual plane' of Buddhist origin? If it's at all relevant, I confess that abstinence leaves me feeling frustrated and irritable sometimes. But, then again, it helps me to feel closer to God. I'm a young man, not a wise old monk. I'm probably not experienced enough to answer your question.

 

[Storm]

That is less than factual. We discussed it two years ago. (And you've been gone since then until recently.) To reiterate, I won't converse with one who continually insults & misquotes me.

As I recall, after quite some time observing the pattern, I asked and you refused to answer. That's not a discussion, so yours is the "less than factual" statement.

I've never known what your problem is. I suspect it's that you know you never earned the respect for me to really care. So just go right on with your Mean Girls act. I expect no more.

 

[Storm]

Um, what?

Tom

Makes about as much sense as you asking whether the pleasure I get from catharsis is more important. I told you exactly why I take the approach I do, and you chose to ignore it and imply I'm just enjoying myself to the detriment of the cause. So much for your vaunted civility.

 

[Midnight Rain]

Equally, I say that you favour a democratic, bottom-up understanding of morality at the dictate of modernity. I would add, however, that the weight of history is in my favour. The theory of the common will as the seat of authority is a very new one. Most societies have historically been vary wary of equating righteousness with populism. I wouldn't say I'm 'without a care to consequences in the real world, but I do think they're of secondary concern. I think you're right. We've gone about as far as we can with this discussion. We'll agree to disagree.

What about our increased knowledge of psychology and sociology? Would that assist us in choosing the basis of morality rather than simply populism? Mainly because the root of our morality is not a bottom up democratic system though it has functioned as such with the evolution of ethics. However the basis behind those ethics often are not purely dictated by popularity.

 

[Revoltingest]

As I recall, I asked and you refused to answer. That's not a discussion.

It will do.

 

[Storm]

It will do.

No, it really won't... well, except to display how dishonest you are about the whole thing. After all, you're perfectly aware that my statement was completely factual. What a shocker.

 

[Uberpod]

Equally, I say that you favour a democratic, bottom-up understanding of morality at the dictate of modernity.

I guess I must clarify, I am not talking about a popularity contest or putting things to a vote to determine what is moral. I am talking about a morality modeled after law and science where empiricism and precedent reign over mere opinion. General outcomes of various contentions can be measured and tested. Claims can be directly compared on what types of sequelae emerge.

I would add, however, that the weight of history is in my favour. The theory of the common will as the seat of authority is a very new one. Most societies have historically been vary wary of equating righteousness with populism.

I am much more an elitist than a populist. I believe well-trained experts can process information to be get at truth. I think it a lofty goal to get beyond common sense. Given the exponential changes in human understanding, in my view, the weight of the past is vastly bogged down by ignorance. We can certainly glean apt hypotheses from antiquity but we certainly cannot draw conclusions about morality from them.

I wouldn't say I'm 'without a care to consequences in the real world, but I do think they're of secondary concern. I think you're right. We've gone about as far as we can with this discussion. We'll agree to disagree.

Fair enough then.

I'd like to answer this question Uberpod, but I'm afraid I'm not familiar with the language. Is the phrase 'spiritual plane' of Buddhist origin? If it's at all relevant, I confess that abstinence leaves me feeling frustrated and irritable sometimes. But, then again, it helps me to feel closer to God. I'm a young man and not a wise old monk. I'm probably not experienced enough to answer your question.

I just wonder whether religious passion can come from stores of excess sexual passion or whether sexual frustration can be channeled into religious conviction at least for a time before the rupture. ( haha I believe rupture is inevitable but not rapture.) Cheers !!