NationStates Jolt Archive

Should a person's self-respect not extend to their sexuality?

We aren't talking about "proud" in the sense of a feeling of accomplishment. We're talking about "proud" in the sense of being able to have that self-respect.

To which, gender orientation is irrelevent. Unless you are speaking not to inferiority, but to the inferiority complex... in which case, I suppose, one might 'lack pride' because one is short... or 'gay'.

To which, gender orientation is irrelevent.

Not at all. Gender orientation is precisely what they are being told they should be ashamed of.

Unless you are speaking not to inferiority, but to the inferiority complex... in which case, I suppose, one might 'lack pride' because one is short... or 'gay'.

That complex is exactly what many people attempt to cause. They attempt to make homosexuals (and members of other minority groups) feel that they are inferior because of their sexuality - that they should lose self-respect because of it.

The pride they are expressing is in opposition to that idea - expressing the fact that their sexuality does not make them inferior.

That makes no sense.

I can't 'intelligence'? I can't 'gay'? I can't 'tall'? I can't 'artistic'?

Considering a half decade ago I was an immigrant with nothing but a suitcase and the clothes on my back, I think 'sit on my ass and do nothing with my life' is a joke. Nice attempt at being patronising, though. It would have been better if it made any sense.

Glad to help.

Yeah, that does make no sense. Bit of a brain fart there, eh?

At least it was funny. To me, anyway, but that's all that matters.

Yeah, that does make no sense. Bit of a brain fart there, eh?

At least it was funny. To me, anyway, but that's all that matters.

Fart jokes have their own thread, stop letting them cross-pollinate. ;)

Not at all. Gender orientation is precisely what they are being told they should be ashamed of.


And 'self' is now defined by sexuality?


That complex is exactly what many people attempt to cause. They attempt to make homosexuals (and members of other minority groups) feel that they are inferior because of their sexuality - that they should lose self-respect because of it.

The pride they are expressing is in opposition to that idea - expressing the fact that their sexuality does not make them inferior.


People are not attempting to cause an inferiority complex when they victimize, harass, or do violence unto the homosexual, or any other minority. They are trying to beat 'the problem' into submission, or out of existence.

Be proud of what you do as a person, not what you are... we all are 'person'. We're measured by humanity, not just being human.

Fart jokes have their own thread, stop letting them cross-pollinate. ;)

I'll have you know that I can pollinate wherever I damn well please, good sir...

...Though I assume the queen will scold me for that little mishap on the last page, but oh well, at least I owned up to it on my own.

But now, you're thinking, "Hey, bees can't talk...", and then I'll tell you that I'm not a bee, and there's no queen, but there is in another dimension that I travel to with my interdimensional warp device I made from an old turnip and a satellite dish, and then you'll say, "Oh, that's a lie, that's impossible", and then I'll tell you that "Nothing is impossible if you set your mind to it", and then you'll attempt to make a jetpack out of a hundred fireworks and a milk crate with a guitar strap, and...

I'll have you know that I can pollinate wherever I damn well please, good sir...

...Though I assume the queen will scold me for that little mishap on the last page, but oh well, at least I owned up to it on my own.

But now, you're thinking, "Hey, bees can't talk...", and then I'll tell you that I'm not a bee, and there's no queen, but there is in another dimension that I travel to with my interdimensional warp device I made from an old turnip and a satellite dish, and then you'll say, "Oh, that's a lie, that's impossible", and then I'll tell you that "Nothing is impossible if you set your mind to it", and then you'll attempt to make a jetpack out of a hundred fireworks and a milk crate with a guitar strap, and...

Silly. Everyone knows bees don't exist.

Silly. Everyone knows bees don't exist.

Well, you've got a point.

Well, you've got a point.

Euclid said that a point is "that which has no part".

GnI has a part.

A huge one. It scares girls.

At first.

Oh Jhahannam: I like the quote in your sig!

As someone who almost wasted four years at uni on a useless anthropology degree instead of a useless creative writing degree, I have to say that I, too, am very interested about the genetic mechanisms by which sexual preference is determined.

May I just ask why? Is it curiosity?


Where I become concerned, however, is when people try to find proof for or against the genetic basis of sexual preference in order to validate or invalidate it. Both gay rights supporters and opponents are guilty of this "appeal to nature" to try to strengthen their politics, and both sides, in my opinion, are wrong to do so. Homosexuality does not need to be legitimated by science; it is legitimated by the experiences of individuals within a culture.

This is a terrific tidbit. I was actually thinking about "scientific research" as it relates to correlations between race and intelligence. Nothing good can come out of such "research." Either we conclude "wow, no wonder those niggers are stupid," or "wow, I guess those niggers are as smart as us after all." The whole basis for the research is racist from the start.

As it goes for sexual preference, we have four outcomes:

1) Homosexuality is not genetically predetermined; argument that "we can't help it" falls, and LGBT rights movements lose ground.
2) Homosexuality is not genetically predetermined; nobody cares, and we move on.
3) Homosexuality is genetically predetermined; argument that "we can't help it" succeeds, and LGBT rights movements advance on appeals to pity.
4) Homosexuality is genetically predetermined; therefore, queers need to be cured; LGBT rights movements lose ground.

The scientific outcome of the "nature vs. nurture" debate does not determine the social outcome of the debate about homosexuality.

Maybe it's just me lacking curiosity or being bitter about the debate, but I like option two best.

Oh, and my thoughts on genetic predetermination: there is not one gay gene. There may be several, but not one. Reason? If the heterosexual trait is completely dominant, then it fails to explain bisexuality, and if it is incompletely dominant, then it fails to explain why bisexual people don't outnumber both heterosexual and homosexual people combined.

Euclid said that a point is "that which has no part".

GnI has a part.

A huge one. It scares girls.

At first.

Then GnI are very similar, in that sense.

Yes.

Then GnI are very similar, in that sense.

Yes.In scaring girls?

And 'self' is now defined by sexuality?

No, but sexuality is a part of "self".

People are not attempting to cause an inferiority complex when they victimize, harass, or do violence unto the homosexual, or any other minority. They are trying to beat 'the problem' into submission, or out of existence.

...by making the person feel that they should be ashamed and should either hide the characteristic or change it.

Be proud of what you do as a person, not what you are... we all are 'person'. We're measured by humanity, not just being human.

You're using a different definition of "proud" here.


As it goes for sexual preference, we have four outcomes:

1) Homosexuality is not genetically predetermined; argument that "we can't help it" falls, and LGBT rights movements lose ground.
2) Homosexuality is not genetically predetermined; nobody cares, and we move on.
3) Homosexuality is genetically predetermined; argument that "we can't help it" succeeds, and LGBT rights movements advance on appeals to pity.
4) Homosexuality is genetically predetermined; therefore, queers need to be cured; LGBT rights movements lose ground.

Actually, you've haven't described the possible scientific outcomes at all. First of all, we aren't just looking at homosexuality. We are looking at sexuality as a whole. Second of all, it is very unlikely that a trait as complex as sexuality is completely genetically determined or completely unaffected by genetics.

The scientific outcome of the "nature vs. nurture" debate does not determine the social outcome of the debate about homosexuality.

This is true. But understanding sexuality is an interest in and of itself - outside of that debate.

Oh, and my thoughts on genetic predetermination: there is not one gay gene. There may be several, but not one. Reason? If the heterosexual trait is completely dominant, then it fails to explain bisexuality, and if it is incompletely dominant, then it fails to explain why bisexual people don't outnumber both heterosexual and homosexual people combined.

It's likely that sexuality is affected by a number of factors. I find the idea that there is one gene that controls sexuality to be downright silly. Even a seemingly simple trait like skin color is affected by at least 5 different genes, as well as numerous other factors. I would expect a complex trait like sexuality to be even more complex.

You're using a different definition of "proud" here.


The actual meaning isn't the right one?

The actual meaning isn't the right one?

There are multiple meanings, as shown in the M-W definition.


Pride

1: the quality or state of being proud: as a: inordinate self-esteem : conceit b: a reasonable or justifiable self-respect c: delight or elation arising from some act, possession, or relationship <parental pride> 2: proud or disdainful behavior or treatment : disdain3 a: ostentatious display b: highest pitch : prime4: a source of pride : the best in a group or class5: a company of lions6: a showy or impressive group <a pride of dancers>

You seem intent on using only 1:c, while the best definition in this context is 1:b.

Or:


Proud

1: feeling or showing pride: as a: having or displaying excessive self-esteem b: much pleased : exultant c: having proper self-respect 2 a: marked by stateliness : magnificent b: giving reason for pride : glorious <the proudest moment in her life>3: vigorous, spirited <a proud steed>4chiefly British : raised above a surrounding area <a proud design on a stamp>

You seem intent on ignoring 1:c, which is the best definition in context.

There are multiple meanings, as shown in the M-W definition.


Pride

1: the quality or state of being proud: as a: inordinate self-esteem : conceit b: a reasonable or justifiable self-respect c: delight or elation arising from some act, possession, or relationship <parental pride> 2: proud or disdainful behavior or treatment : disdain3 a: ostentatious display b: highest pitch : prime4: a source of pride : the best in a group or class5: a company of lions6: a showy or impressive group <a pride of dancers>

You seem intent on using only 1:c, while the best definition in this context is 1:b.


Actually, it looks like the 'gay and proud' definition is MUCH closer to 3c or 4, neither of which makes no sense to me. My use of the word 'pride' is closer to most all of the definition encompassed by (1).


Or:


Proud

1: feeling or showing pride: as a: having or displaying excessive self-esteem b: much pleased : exultant c: having proper self-respect 2 a: marked by stateliness : magnificent b: giving reason for pride : glorious <the proudest moment in her life>3: vigorous, spirited <a proud steed>4chiefly British : raised above a surrounding area <a proud design on a stamp>

You seem intent on ignoring 1:c, which is the best definition in context.

I don't see the connection. Having proper self-respect has nothing to do with sexuality.. certainly not as a artifact somehow separated from the remainder of one's existence.

'I'm gay and proud' makes as much sense as 'I'm human and proud'.

Actually, it looks like the 'gay and proud' definition is MUCH closer to 3c or 4, neither of which makes no sense to me.

....except it isn't.

As has been explained to you numerous times, the "gay and proud" definition is more a "lack of shame" than anything else you're trying to pin on it. It is, essentially, the expression of a reasonable self-respect.

I don't see the connection. Having proper self-respect has nothing to do with sexuality.

Having proper self-respect can have something to do with any trait you have. If you are convinced that there is something wrong with you because you are left-handed, that trait is related to your loss of self-respect. Sexuality, in particular, is one trait that is often attacked as being something you should be ashamed of - that you should lose self respect over.

certainly not as a artifact somehow separated from the remainder of one's existence.

Unfortunately, bigots do pick out a few traits to separate from the rest of one's existence.

'I'm gay and proud' makes as much sense as 'I'm human and proud'.

If someone was suggesting that you should be ashamed of being human, it would make sense to respond in that manner.

Would it not be a part of a reasonable self-respect not to be ashamed of being human?

If someone was suggesting that you should be ashamed of being human, it would make sense to respond in that manner.

Exactly, the ultimate core point of this is context. You need to look at why the word is being used, what the person using it is trying to express. In this case pride is the opposite of shame, thus the person is clearly and unambiguously trying to express the fact that he does not want to be ashamed of his sexuality. Whether what he is doing holds up to one specific exact dictionary definition of pride is irrelevant.

'I'm gay and proud' makes as much sense as 'I'm human and proud'.

I'm sorry, but I don't see how saying "I'm human and proud!" doesn't make any sence. I AM proud to be human, and nothing you say can stop me from being so.

Let's take this out of context for a moment (don't worry, I'll bring it back). Try to think back, have you ever been teased or ridiculed? It seems to be the bain of middle school years (at least it was for me, but I'm assuming you didn't have to deal with the homophobes), so try thinking back to those dreadful years. Bring to mind what ever it was you were teased for (preferably for some trait that still applies to you). Thinking back to that herassment, how did you feel? Did it get to you (answer A), or did you feel resilient and defiant (answer B)? How do you feel now about this trait. Does it still haunt you (Answer A), or do you feel that the teasers weren't justified, and you're still defiant (answer B). If you could answer B to either set of questions, you actually know what we're talking about. That feeling is the same feeling of Pride that homosexuals are feeling when they say "I'm gay and Proud!"

People are not attempting to cause an inferiority complex when they victimize, harass, or do violence unto the homosexual, or any other minority.
You are profoundly mistaken. That is precisely what they are trying to do.

Because, obviously, the only delineations are 'gay' and 'straight'. No one ever got suspended from a tree for, for example, the colour of their skin, or their religious beliefs. Right?

The idea that the homosexual minority is even close to the most forcefully discriminated against is, frankly, laughable.

Where did I say that homosexuals were the only group discriminated against, or even the group discriminated against the MOST? I am perfectly aware of the MYRIAD of levels of discrimination in the world. It seems rather like you're arguing that non-heterosexuals should shut up and stop whining about equal rights because someone somewhere else has it even worse.

May I just ask why? Is it curiosity?

I'm just an incredible nerd for physical anthropology. It fascinates me. You know how every little girl wanted to be a teacher (ironic since I am now) or a princess a mom? I wanted to be an anthropologist. Or a rollie-pollie doctor.

This is a terrific tidbit. I was actually thinking about "scientific research" as it relates to correlations between race and intelligence. Nothing good can come out of such "research." Either we conclude "wow, no wonder those niggers are stupid," or "wow, I guess those niggers are as smart as us after all." The whole basis for the research is racist from the start.

As it goes for sexual preference, we have four outcomes:

1) Homosexuality is not genetically predetermined; argument that "we can't help it" falls, and LGBT rights movements lose ground.
2) Homosexuality is not genetically predetermined; nobody cares, and we move on.
3) Homosexuality is genetically predetermined; argument that "we can't help it" succeeds, and LGBT rights movements advance on appeals to pity.
4) Homosexuality is genetically predetermined; therefore, queers need to be cured; LGBT rights movements lose ground.

To me, it goes even further than this. Evaluating the "morality" of various sexual preferences on the basis of whether or not they are "natural" is completely nonsensical and pointless. Imagine if it was determined that homosexuality is genetic, and therefor "natural". What would that prove? Colorblindness is genetic. Should we break out the pride flags? Computers aren't natural, but they're pretty useful, and most of society doesn't consider them an evil perversion. Natural =/= desirable, and vice versa.

The actual meaning isn't the right one?

"Actual" meaning? Harmony means agreement and accord. That's it's primary meaning according to M-W. Does that mean it can't mean a simultaneous combination of notes? Sorry, we've already given it a meaning, got to find a different word. Come on, even you know that's a pretty weak argument.

You are profoundly mistaken. That is precisely what they are trying to do.

QFT. Thank you.

....except it isn't.

As has been explained to you numerous times, the "gay and proud" definition is more a "lack of shame" than anything else you're trying to pin on it. It is, essentially, the expression of a reasonable self-respect.


So... in effect, it is the same as saying 'human and proud'.

Only... adding the specific proviso of gay-ness.

Nope. Still not buying it.

So... in effect, it is the same as saying 'human and proud'.

If human beings were oppressed and marginalized by a non-human species? Yes.

I'm sorry, but I don't see how saying "I'm human and proud!" doesn't make any sence. I AM proud to be human, and nothing you say can stop me from being so.


See - now you seem to be using 'proud' exactly the way I thought you were using it, and counetr to Dem's alleged meaning. ANd it's still a nonsense to me.

Proud to be human? As opposed to what? Which choices did you make, exactly?


Let's take this out of context for a moment (don't worry, I'll bring it back). Try to think back, have you ever been teased or ridiculed? It seems to be the bain of middle school years (at least it was for me, but I'm assuming you didn't have to deal with the homophobes), so try thinking back to those dreadful years. Bring to mind what ever it was you were teased for (preferably for some trait that still applies to you). Thinking back to that herassment, how did you feel? Did it get to you (answer A), or did you feel resilient and defiant (answer B)? How do you feel now about this trait. Does it still haunt you (Answer A), or do you feel that the teasers weren't justified, and you're still defiant (answer B). If you could answer B to either set of questions, you actually know what we're talking about. That feeling is the same feeling of Pride that homosexuals are feeling when they say "I'm gay and Proud!"

I was the largest child in my class (if not in the whole year) from age 5 onwards, until I was about 15. As a consequence of which - if I was ever in a fight, it was me that got blamed for the fight, no matter who started it. I was clearly bigger, so I should have known better.

Even worse if one of the other kids got hurt. Then I was a bully.

As a consequence of which, I literally fought every single day of my school life (except when I was off sick), for a decade. Sometimes just one other kid... more often two or three. Sometimes... well, a lot more.

Did it get to me, or did I feel resilient and defiant? The question is almost meaningless. What I felt was pain, every day, for ten years. It 'getting to me' made it happen more... but then, so did 'being resilient and defiant'. I went through both stages at different times. The old scenario about standing up to bullies doesn't work when you are a foot taller than everyone else... they just gang up on you, and you are STILL always the one responsible.

So - yeah, I was resilient and defiant. I fought back every day... sometimes hard, sometimes just enough to stop my new shirt getting ripped again.

Does it still haunt me? Do I think they weren't justified? A bit of each. I don't see any reason I had to fight for my survival every day of my school career. Were they 'justified'? By their lights, yes - I was the big kid, and I obviously needed my ass kicked. Of course they weren't justified. I was just me - that's no reason to make me a victim of violence as a child.

So. I got in fights on a daily (at least) basis until I hurt someone bad enough to hospitalise them. After that, I still got in fights, but not as often. I dress in fuck-you fashion. I live a fuck-you lifestyle. I always take the victims side, I always fight for the underdog, because there's some of me in them.

But, I'm not 'proud' of what I am. That makes no sense. I just was big and tall. I still am. I am proud of what I do, and I'm proud of how I live... and I'm proud of which sides I take in a fight. But I'm not 'proud' of those aspects of 'me' that are beyond my control.

If human beings were oppressed and marginalized by a non-human species? Yes.

All humans are oppressed and marginalised by all other humans. It's a dog eat dog world out there. Except one of the dogs is a person, and the other is another person.

I'm proud of how I live... and I'm proud of which sides I take in a fight.
Try understanding our "pride" as meaning precisely what you said above, and then you will get it.

All humans are oppressed and marginalised by all other humans.

But not oppressed BECAUSE they are human.

All humans are oppressed and marginalised by all other humans.

Perhaps. So? I have no problem with any other sort of pride that similarly develops as part of the consciousness of an oppressed group.

Try understanding our "pride" as meaning precisely what you said above, and then you will get it.

Then the "I'm gay and..." is irrelevent, and doing more harm than good.

But not oppressed BECAUSE they are human.

Not strictly true. If they were dolphins, they wouldn't be 'oppressed'... because they are humans, other humans will FIND excuses to oppress them.

Not strictly true. If they were dolphins, they wouldn't be 'oppressed'... because they are humans, other humans will FIND excuses to oppress them.

Can you rephrase?

Can you rephrase?

Humans are oppressed just because they are human. Everything else is flavour text.

If it wasn't person A victimising person B, it would be person A victimising person C - for some other reason. It's the predatory nature of humans.

Okay, not ALL humans are party to that mechanism. But, I'd say more are, than aren't. So - governments can wage war on their racial minorities, their 'illegal' immigrants, their religious outsiders... and most people will go along with it.

Where did I say that homosexuals were the only group discriminated against, or even the group discriminated against the MOST? I am perfectly aware of the MYRIAD of levels of discrimination in the world.

What you said was: "It's a lot easier to tell people to fuck off when you're in the majority, and you're reasonably sure no one's going to, say, string you from a tree or bash your brains out with a brick because you're straight. No offense".

Who exactly is the 'majority' in your argument? Hmmm... "no one's going to bash your brains out with a brick because you're straight".... I see.

Seems fairly specific to me.

So - since I'm not gay, I can't possibly understand. It's a gay thing. I'm just reading what is suggested in what you wrote.

It seems rather like you're arguing that non-heterosexuals should shut up and stop whining about equal rights because someone somewhere else has it even worse.

Pretty sure I didn't say anything like that, actually.

As long as my partner is mentally sound, I DON'T CARE.

Humans are oppressed just because they are human. Everything else is flavour text.

If it wasn't person A victimising person B, it would be person A victimising person C - for some other reason. It's the predatory nature of humans.

Okay, not ALL humans are party to that mechanism. But, I'd say more are, than aren't. So - governments can wage war on their racial minorities, their 'illegal' immigrants, their religious outsiders... and most people will go along with it.

Whatever, the point is, no human will oppress other humans by using the excuse that because they are human (rather than black, female, young etc...) they SHOULD be oppressed. Nobody is oppressed because of this and forced in to feeling shame for the very fact that they are human, rather than some other trait they possess but other humans don't.

Whatever, the point is, no human will oppress other humans by using the excuse that because they are human (rather than black, female, young etc...) they SHOULD be oppressed. Nobody is oppressed because of this and forced in to feeling shame for the very fact that they are human, rather than some other trait they possess but other humans don't.

But it could be dark hair. Light hair? Red hair? Your sexuality? Your race? Your ethnic heritage?

Those who will victimise, will do so for whatever reason is convenient. Whatever makes a convincing excuse.

Who exactly is the 'majority' in your argument? Hmmm... "no one's going to bash your brains out with a brick because you're straight".... I see.

Seems fairly specific to me.

So - since I'm not gay, I can't possibly understand. It's a gay thing. I'm just reading what is suggested in what you wrote.

It is specific, because we were discussing a particular topic. My "suggestion" was that you don't know what it's like not to be straight if you're straight. You could switch the words out for many different minority/majority group structures and it would hold true, but we weren't talking about all of them--we were talking about heterosexuals and non-heterosexuals.

I didn't say "because you're straight, no one will try to bash your brains out", equating being straight with safety. I said "No one is going to try to brash your brains out because you're straight", equating non-straightness with lack of safety. You took "If A, then B" and made it "Not A, so not B". It's not a valid argument.

It is specific, because we were discussing a particular topic. My "suggestion" was that you don't know what it's like not to be straight if you're straight. You could switch the words out for many different minority/majority group structures and it would hold true, but we weren't talking about all of them--we were talking about heterosexuals and non-heterosexuals.

I didn't say "because you're straight, no one will try to bash your brains out", equating being straight with safety. I said "No one is going to try to brash your brains out because you're straight", equating non-straightness with lack of safety. You took "If A, then B" and made it "Not A, so not B". It's not a valid argument.

Because, of course, 'gay' people would never victimise a straight person?

You might want to think about the implication of superiority you just attached to one gender orientation.

But, I'm not 'proud' of what I am. That makes no sense. I just was big and tall. I still am. I am proud of what I do, and I'm proud of how I live... and I'm proud of which sides I take in a fight. But I'm not 'proud' of those aspects of 'me' that are beyond my control.

So your self-respect does not extend to aspects of you that are beyond your control?

So - since I'm not gay, I can't possibly understand.
No, I'm sure you COULD understand, but you seem wilfully determined not to.

Actually, you've haven't described the possible scientific outcomes at all. First of all, we aren't just looking at homosexuality. We are looking at sexuality as a whole. Second of all, it is very unlikely that a trait as complex as sexuality is completely genetically determined or completely unaffected by genetics.

I am looking at the narrow, political focus of the biological determinism debate. I think you knew that, so I'm wondering whether you are here to nitpick what I say to belittle me. I don't feel as though your response is very productive. I'm asserting that there is something harmful for sexual minorities in even having the debate about biological determinism with sexuality.

I don't believe sexuality is completely genetically determined. That's part of the point I make in my post that you responded to. I did not say that I'm certain it isn't, because I don't know. That's the point. Right now, we don't know. We may come to know later.


It's likely that sexuality is affected by a number of factors. I find the idea that there is one gene that controls sexuality to be downright silly. Even a seemingly simple trait like skin color is affected by at least 5 different genes, as well as numerous other factors. I would expect a complex trait like sexuality to be even more complex.
I'm glad we agree.

I'm just an incredible nerd for physical anthropology. It fascinates me. You know how every little girl wanted to be a teacher (ironic since I am now) or a princess a mom? I wanted to be an anthropologist. Or a rollie-pollie doctor.
That's cool. I find sexuality to be a wonderful part of the human condition, but I guess my agnostic-empirical franken-worldview makes me disinterested in how it got to be.

I would love to know, however, how we can start having more functional sexual relationships and stop being ashamed of the sexuality inherent in the human condition.


To me, it goes even further than this. Evaluating the "morality" of various sexual preferences on the basis of whether or not they are "natural" is completely nonsensical and pointless. Imagine if it was determined that homosexuality is genetic, and therefor "natural". What would that prove? Colorblindness is genetic. Should we break out the pride flags? Computers aren't natural, but they're pretty useful, and most of society doesn't consider them an evil perversion. Natural =/= desirable, and vice versa.

I don't see it as "far" but rather elementary. At any rate, I think we agree that the biological determinism debate is beside the point. :)

Because, of course, 'gay' people would never victimise a straight person?

You might want to think about the implication of superiority you just attached to one gender orientation.
What are you here to say? Do you want us all to concede that Gay Pride sucks and agitate against it?

To be honest, I don't think you've said anything emotionally supportive of the queer community. Not that it's your job to make us feel good or anything, but I feel that your point is dwarfed by your negative tone.

EDIT: And what do you want from us? Do you have grievances that you'd like to state? Have you been victimized by "gay" people?

EDIT 2: And as an aside, it really pisses me off that discussions about sexual minorities reduce to us discussing the morality of male-male anal sex; I imagine lesbians and bi women find it tiresome and alien to their interests.

What are you here to say?


Here? This thread? To answer the question of whether or not I'm heterosexual. Such as it is.


Do you want us all to concede that Gay Pride sucks and agitate against it?


No. I really don't care. I think the phrase 'gay pride' is stupid, and actually does more harm than good - just as I believe 'black pride' is/does. But, you can do what you want.


To be honest, I don't think you've said anything emotionally supportive of the queer community.


Okay. Since the initial question was about my sexuality, I'm strangely comfortable with not bouying your spirits. Since my secondary point was my perception of an inaccuracy in terminology, I'm still not too upset that you don't take it as a pep-talk.

This is not the thread for me to defend homsexuality or homosexuals, and I don't really see that I'm currently needed to leap to the defence.


Not that it's your job to make us feel good or anything, but I feel that your point is dwarfed by your negative tone.


My point is that 'gay pride' seems counterintuitive. If you express 'pride', you make it (sound like) something you 'do', not something you are. And I honsetly don't see how 'pride' is the best word available to convey respect.


EDIT: And what do you want from us?


From 'us'? I was under the impression I was responding to Ryadn. Any 'us' here, is your remit, not mine.


Do you have grievances that you'd like to state? Have you been victimized by "gay" people?


I'm not confused that some gay people being arseholes equates to all people being arseholes. I don't hold random homosexuals responsible for the stupidity I've dealt with in individuals... and more than I hold all black people accountable for the actions of one black person, or all whites responsible for the actions of one white person - etc.

EDIT 2: And as an aside, it really pisses me off that discussions about sexual minorities reduce to us discussing the morality of male-male anal sex; I imagine lesbians and bi women find it tiresome and alien to their interests.
As do gay males who are not into anal.

Because, of course, 'gay' people would never victimise a straight person?

You might want to think about the implication of superiority you just attached to one gender orientation.

Why do you have apostrophes around gay? Do you not believe in so-called 'gay' people?

Given the two choices, I'm going to assume you're just trying to be obnoxious, because no one who can read and write could be that genuinely nonsensical.

Why do you have apostrophes around gay? Do you not believe in so-called 'gay' people?

Given the two choices, I'm going to assume you're just trying to be obnoxious, because no one who can read and write could be that genuinely nonsensical.

The apostrophes should also have been around 'straight. I didn't pay enough attention, I'm afraid.

I don't believe in gay people... or straight people. I don't believe in black people or white people. I believe in people... in an approximately infinitely complex variety.

It's not an attempt to be obnoxious - I just don't believe our sexualities are as two-dimensional (or our races, etc) as might be suggested.

I'm not confused that some gay people being arseholes equates to all people being arseholes. I don't hold random homosexuals responsible for the stupidity I've dealt with in individuals... and more than I hold all black people accountable for the actions of one black person, or all whites responsible for the actions of one white person - etc.

I don't hold you responsible for the stupidity I've dealt with from others. I hold you responsible for your own.

The apostrophes should also have been around 'straight. I didn't pay enough attention, I'm afraid.

I don't believe in gay people... or straight people. I don't believe in black people or white people. I believe in people... in an approximately infinitely complex variety.

It's not an attempt to be obnoxious - I just don't believe our sexualities are as two-dimensional (or our races, etc) as might be suggested.

...so you're not straight, is what you're saying? Since you 'don't believe in' straight people?

I don't believe sexuality or gender or, bloody, what we like on our sandwiches is two-dimensional, either, but I don't see what that has to do with your extended argument against gay pride. Which I, for myself, have already defined as less pride and more a committment to be true to ourselves as we are and a refusal to feel shame.

I don't hold you responsible for the stupidity I've dealt with from others. I hold you responsible for your own.

As you should, if and when it should manifest. I'd expect nothing less... it's how I assay those around me, also.

...so you're not straight, is what you're saying? Since you 'don't believe in' straight people?


I believe I already addressed this, near the start of the thread, including any qualifiers it may have warranted.

Apparently you didn't notice, although you seem practically at war with me over some of my comments later in the thread... funny how questioning 'straight' orientation doesn't get a notice, but questioning 'gay' orientation is practically pistols-at-dawn.

...
I don't believe sexuality or gender or, bloody, what we like on our sandwiches is two-dimensional, either, but I don't see what that has to do with your extended argument against gay pride.

It has nothing to do with the 'pride' issue. You asked why there were apostrophes, and implied they were there just to offend you. They're not connected, I was just being polite and responding to you.

questioning 'gay' orientation is practically pistols-at-dawn.
Or shotgun at 2:30 AM, in my case.

No. I really don't care. I think the phrase 'gay pride' is stupid, and actually does more harm than good - just as I believe 'black pride' is/does. But, you can do what you want.

For what it's worth, I don't much care about Pride parades. I never go to them, and I dislike ostentatious public displays of sexuality (that includes heterosexual people flaunting their lifestyle :p).

What I have concluded about this whole discussion though is that you don't accept the understanding of "pride" that the LGBT community has. What you take to be pride is different from what Pride-goers take to be pride. And as long as you refuse to accept the understanding the LGBT community has about what pride means for it, you are not here to communicate with the LGBT community.


Okay. Since the initial question was about my sexuality, I'm strangely comfortable with not bouying your spirits. Since my secondary point was my perception of an inaccuracy in terminology, I'm still not too upset that you don't take it as a pep-talk.

Why didn't you read a few lines below where I tell you that I don't have such grandiose expectations?


This is not the thread for me to defend homsexuality or homosexuals, and I don't really see that I'm currently needed to leap to the defence.

I don't imply anything when I write. I mean exactly what I have written, and I never asked you to defend homosexuality.


My point is that 'gay pride' seems counterintuitive. If you express 'pride', you make it (sound like) something you 'do', not something you are. And I honsetly don't see how 'pride' is the best word available to convey respect.

Duly noted. But I think the point other posters had been making all along is that the way we understand pride is different. It seems like you're here to condemn it because of what it means to you. This leads me to the conclusion that this discussion is not very useful.


I'm not confused that some gay people being arseholes equates to all people being arseholes. I don't hold random homosexuals responsible for the stupidity I've dealt with in individuals... and more than I hold all black people accountable for the actions of one black person, or all whites responsible for the actions of one white person - etc.
I was just wondering because it seems like you are here to debate a small point rather than to come to an understanding of why gay pride is important to some people. I may not find "pride" very interesting either, but there it is.

I am looking at the narrow, political focus of the biological determinism debate.

But the people you are talking to are not. We are interested in the biology of sexuality for its own sake. The political questions are another matter and, I think are pretty well answered for many of us.

I think you knew that, so I'm wondering whether you are here to nitpick what I say to belittle me.

Not at all.

I don't feel as though your response is very productive. I'm asserting that there is something harmful for sexual minorities in even having the debate about biological determinism with sexuality.

I don't. I refuse to agree that furthering our knowledge of biology - including the biology of sexuality - is somehow harmful.

People being idiots and trying to use any scientific information to try and oppress sexual minorities is harmful. Finding out the information is not.

EDIT 2: And as an aside, it really pisses me off that discussions about sexual minorities reduce to us discussing the morality of male-male anal sex; I imagine lesbians and bi women find it tiresome and alien to their interests.

The emphasis on it certainly is strange, and I think it stems from rather misogynistic points of view, so that makes it even more tiresome.

I don't really think it is "alien" to anyone's interests, though. If gay men cannot engage in the consensual sexual relations of their choice, that affects all of us.

Hetrosexual, why yes, yes I am, thank you for asking.

But the people you are talking to are not. We are interested in the biology of sexuality for its own sake. The political questions are another matter and, I think are pretty well answered for many of us.

That's fair.


The emphasis on it certainly is strange, and I think it stems from rather misogynistic points of view, so that makes it even more tiresome.

I don't really think it is "alien" to anyone's interests, though. If gay men cannot engage in the consensual sexual relations of their choice, that affects all of us.
That is true, and I certainly believe "an injury to one is an injury to all." What I'm getting at is that some women must resent the fact that the way the debate is currently framed, it's a fight for gay men's issues. I think it's a shame that civil unions for two consenting adults regardless of sexuality and gender identity will be a long time coming because the whole debate is basically about a very narrow part of gay male sexuality. In other words, trans people, lesbians and bi women will continue to suffer second-class citizenship because people find this part of gay male sexuality "icky."

I worry that its centrality in the debate is not helping.

I think the phrase 'gay pride' is stupid, and actually does more harm than good - just as I believe 'black pride' is/does. But, you can do what you want.


What harm can it possibly do? If I were to tell somebody that I'm gay and proud, the only thing I have to deal with is being ridiculed for being gay, not proud.

If you express 'pride', you make it (sound like) something you 'do', not something you are.


Being proud DOES NOT imply that any action has been taken. I believe you are the ONLY person I have ever met who took that pride implied an action to be the only definition. Yes it is one of the definitions, but not the only one.

And I honsetly don't see how 'pride' is the best word available to convey respect.


What word would you suggest?

For what it's worth, I don't much care about Pride parades. I never go to them, and I dislike ostentatious public displays of sexuality (that includes heterosexual people flaunting their lifestyle :p).


Agreed.


What I have concluded about this whole discussion though is that you don't accept the understanding of "pride" that the LGBT community has. What you take to be pride is different from what Pride-goers take to be pride. And as long as you refuse to accept the understanding the LGBT community has about what pride means for it, you are not here to communicate with the LGBT community.


Here's the thing. You have a minority that chooses to use a phrase in a fashion other than it's usual understanding. UNLESS they really DO mean they are 'proud of their sexuality' (which is nonsensical).

You say I'm not here to communicate with the LGBT community (apparently) because of this difference between the majority and minority understandings of the word.

Don't you see the inherent problem with that?


Why didn't you read a few lines below where I tell you that I don't have such grandiose expectations?


I read the whole thing. You said "To be honest, I don't think you've said anything emotionally supportive of the queer community", and I agreed, and explained why.


I don't imply anything when I write. I mean exactly what I have written, and I never asked you to defend homosexuality.


Again, what you said was "To be honest, I don't think you've said anything emotionally supportive of the queer community". Like I said - this isn't the place or time.


Duly noted. But I think the point other posters had been making all along is that the way we understand pride is different. It seems like you're here to condemn it because of what it means to you. This leads me to the conclusion that this discussion is not very useful.


I'm not condemning.

My grandmother once spent twenty minutes discussing with the vicar about her sore vulva.

She was talking about her uvula, but she was using the wrong word - and as such (while the conversation was hilarious to witnesses) her conversation was entirely misleading... even destructive.

I'm telling you that you are saying vulva. You are saying it's not your problem, and that everyone should use the word 'vulva' when they mean 'uvula'.


I was just wondering because it seems like you are here to debate a small point rather than to come to an understanding of why gay pride is important to some people. I may not find "pride" very interesting either, but there it is.

You're right on one element, I'm not here to understand why 'gay pride'... well, anything. Because this thread is about 'are you heterosexual'.

Here's the thing. You have a minority that chooses to use a phrase in a fashion other than it's usual understanding. UNLESS they really DO mean they are 'proud of their sexuality' (which is nonsensical).

I'm telling you that you are saying vulva. You are saying it's not your problem, and that everyone should use the word 'vulva' when they mean 'uvula'.

That's a ridiculous comparison and you know it. There is no ambiguity about the word "uvula"--it refers to a specific PHYSICAL object which can be pointed to. Pride is not a physical object, it is an abstract. Your objection is based on the argument that abstracts can not be and are not interpreted in a multitude of ways. That's like saying, "The word "sick" is usually understood to mean physically ill. So if you say "I was sick about the article I read in the paper" you are being nonsensical. There is no way reading can make you physically ill."

That's a ridiculous comparison and you know it. There is no ambiguity about the word "uvula"--it refers to a specific PHYSICAL object which can be pointed to. Pride is not a physical object, it is an abstract. Your objection is based on the argument that abstracts can not be and are not interpreted in a multitude of ways. That's like saying, "The word "sick" is usually understood to mean physically ill. So if you say "I was sick about the article I read in the paper" you are being nonsensical. There is no way reading can make you physically ill."

Ridiculous situation? Absolutely. Ridiculous comparison? Not at all. The exact same principle is at work - the person speaking (an individual - like my grandmother, or a collective) is using a non-typical (even inappropriate) terminology, and thus needlessly distorting what they are trying to communicate.

Under those circumstances, if someone points out the problem ("Did you really mean vulva? etc"), the ideal response would be to thank the helpful person, and amend your utilised vocabulary to be more functional.

Your usage appears to be the minority. Nobody else appears to share your comprehension difficulty.

Ridiculous situation? Absolutely. Ridiculous comparison? Not at all. The exact same principle is at work - the person speaking (an individual - like my grandmother, or a collective) is using a non-typical (even inappropriate) terminology, and thus needlessly distorting what they are trying to communicate.

Under those circumstances, if someone points out the problem ("Did you really mean vulva? etc"), the ideal response would be to thank the helpful person, and amend your utilised vocabulary to be more functional.

It appears to only be non-typical and inappropriate to you. I'm not going to amend my vocabulary to fit your specific definition of a word. That's why we have dictionaries. You may choose to interpret any word any way you wish, of course, but should you choose to, for example, define a "pet" as only a cat, dog, bird or fish, those in the world who keep reptiles or amphibians as pets are not obliged to create a new word to accomodate your presumption.

You have a minority that chooses to use a phrase in a fashion other than it's usual understanding. UNLESS they really DO mean they are 'proud of their sexuality' (which is nonsensical).

The thing is, it's not actually particularly difficult to understand what is meant by "gay pride." In fact, it's plainly obvious.

People who object to it are generally just being obnoxiously disingenuous.

Ridiculous situation? Absolutely. Ridiculous comparison? Not at all. The exact same principle is at work - the person speaking (an individual - like my grandmother, or a collective) is using a non-typical (even inappropriate) terminology, and thus needlessly distorting what they are trying to communicate.

Under those circumstances, if someone points out the problem ("Did you really mean vulva? etc"), the ideal response would be to thank the helpful person, and amend your utilised vocabulary to be more functional.

The difference is that your grandmother was confused, and didn't know the difference between a vulva and a uvula. The more important questions, is whether or not the vicar knew what she was talking about, and why he let her continue for twenty minutes talking about such a touchy subject, pun intended completely.

Take it like the phrase "Irish and Proud" or some similar statement. You can't control being Irish. Why should you be proud of it? In my view, it's connected to self-esteem and social standing, "fitting in" and being a part of your community. People A) need other people, and B) need to feel good about themselves. If you look at the negative of the statement, "Irish and Ashamed" it makes more sense. Why would you be ashamed about being something you can't control? It suggests you aren't comfortable with yourself, your situation, your community.

Words have different meanings, and those meanings change. Attempting to shoehorn definitions based on your personal opinion of how they should be used is rather silly. Simply because the term is being used incorrectly in your view, doesn't mean it is actually incorrect.

I´m beginning to think I´m just sexual and that´s it.:p

I´m beginning to think I´m just sexual and that´s it.:p

That's ok.

The thing is, it's not actually particularly difficult to understand what is meant by "gay pride." In fact, it's plainly obvious.

People who object to it are generally just being obnoxiously disingenuous.

zing!

I am bi and im a guy and i dont care:sniper:

I am bi and im a guy and i dont care:sniper:

Don't care about what?

Don't care about what?About snipers, presumably.

That's ok.

;)

I´m beginning to think I´m just sexual and that´s it.:p

That's how I feel.

That's how I feel.

Yeah, labels are bad. Hetero, Homo, Bi... meh, everyone enjoys sex so... let´s just leave it at being sexual. Saves time and hazard.:D

Yeah, labels are bad. Hetero, Homo, Bi... meh, everyone enjoys sex so... let´s just leave it at being sexual. Saves time and hazard.:D

Maybe someday everyone will feel that way.

Hetero, Homo, Bi... meh, everyone enjoys sex so... let´s just leave it at being sexual.

But how are we determine who is and who isn't a potential sex partner?

I'm so hetero and comfortable with my sexuality, that i could have sex with another man.


wait..nm

But how are we determine who is and who isn't a potential sex partner?

By asking?
¨Say, do you like men or women or both?¨
Like that...:D

By asking?
¨Say, do you like men or women or both?¨
Like that...:D

It's so much easier to learn these things by labels.

But how are we determine who is and who isn't a potential sex partner?

How about communication? You need to talk before doing the hots.

It's so much easier to learn these things by labels.

Then we should have labeled butts. That way, if someone wants to know what we are, all they have to do is bend us over and check the label.

¨Ah, no. Mary´s label says she is bi and I only go for hetero girls.¨

¨Yay! Herbert´s states he´s gay and so am I!! Let´s hook up.¨

What do you think about that?:p

How about communication?

Of course. But ideally you can narrow the pool prior to communication.

Also, straight men can be a little... um....

What do you think about that?:p

I'm not against it. :)

Of course. But ideally you can narrow the pool prior to communication.

Also, straight men can be a little... um....



I'm not against it. :)

I know what you mean but straight guys wouldn't be so prejudiced(?) if labels didn't exist.

I know what you mean but straight guys wouldn't be so prejudiced(?) if labels didn't exist.

Where do you get that idea?

To a certain extent sexual orientation groups people quite naturally... and to the extent that our society extends such categories beyond their natural limits, that is mostly because of prejudice. It is not the cause of it.

Yes'm. Women are divine, so sleek and sexy. Men, on the other hand, are lumpy and awkward.

I like lumpy and awkward :fluffle:

Where do you get that idea?

To a certain extent sexual orientation groups people quite naturally... and to the extent that our society extends such categories beyond their natural limits, that is mostly because of prejudice. It is not the cause of it.

This may sound like a joke to you but I´m saying it quite seriously. My best friend is gay. And I remember that while in college I always tended to gravitate towards gay groups of friends. Actually, my best friends from college were all gay. One time, while at a club, my best friend told me that he was sure I had a gay guy trapped inside my body and that was the reason I have such good rapport with same sex oriented people. Perhaps that´s the reason (not that I have a gay guy in me) why I´m so comfortable too saying that I do not label myself as gay or straight or bi. I´m just a sexual being.

Where do you get that idea?

To a certain extent sexual orientation groups people quite naturally... and to the extent that our society extends such categories beyond their natural limits, that is mostly because of prejudice. It is not the cause of it.

I disagree. Most straight guys I know have no problem with hanging out with gay guys but they do have problems with being labeled gay. The society is the one to blame.

This may sound like a joke to you but I´m saying it quite seriously. My best friend is gay. And I remember that while in college I always tended to gravitate towards gay groups of friends. Actually, my best friends from college were all gay. One time, while at a club, my best friend told me that he was sure I had a gay guy trapped inside my body and that was the reason I have such good rapport with same sex oriented people. Perhaps that´s the reason (not that I have a gay guy in me) why I´m so comfortable too saying that I do not label myself as gay or straight or bi. I´m just a sexual being.

Well, if you aren't gay, straight, or bi, feel free when you come to my side of the pond to bring another girl or two with you. The more the merrier, I say.

Well, if you aren't gay, straight, or bi. Feel free when you come to my side of the pond to bring another girl or two with you. The more the merrier, I say.

Duly noted, Galloism-senpai.;)

I disagree. Most straight guys I know have no problem with hanging out with gay guys but they do have problems with being labeled gay. The society is the one to blame.

How does any of that contradict anything I said?

How does any of that contradict anything I said?

I just wanted to have the last word. lol

Then we should have labeled butts. That way, if someone wants to know what we are, all they have to do is bend us over and check the label.

¨Ah, no. Mary´s label says she is bi and I only go for hetero girls.¨

¨Yay! Herbert´s states he´s gay and so am I!! Let´s hook up.¨

What do you think about that?:p
:fluffle:

This may sound like a joke to you but I´m saying it quite seriously. My best friend is gay. And I remember that while in college I always tended to gravitate towards gay groups of friends. Actually, my best friends from college were all gay. One time, while at a club, my best friend told me that he was sure I had a gay guy trapped inside my body and that was the reason I have such good rapport with same sex oriented people. Perhaps that´s the reason (not that I have a gay guy in me) why I´m so comfortable too saying that I do not label myself as gay or straight or bi. I´m just a sexual being.
I like your way of thinking.

:fluffle:


I like your way of thinking.

Thank you.:fluffle:

This may sound like a joke to you but I´m saying it quite seriously. My best friend is gay. And I remember that while in college I always tended to gravitate towards gay groups of friends. Actually, my best friends from college were all gay. One time, while at a club, my best friend told me that he was sure I had a gay guy trapped inside my body and that was the reason I have such good rapport with same sex oriented people. Perhaps that´s the reason (not that I have a gay guy in me) why I´m so comfortable too saying that I do not label myself as gay or straight or bi. I´m just a sexual being.Lucky you. I wish I had a gay guy inside me.

Lucky you. I wish I had a gay guy inside me.

Oh, but you might have him already and you don´t know about it.:p

Oh, but you might have him already and you don´t know about it.:pDon't you think I'd feel something different, though?

Don't you think I'd feel something different, though?

Ah, that kind of inside, eh.:p

Ah, that kind of inside, eh.:p

ROLF:eek:

ROLF:eek:

;)

Lucky you. I wish I had a gay guy inside me.Oh, but you might have him already and you don´t know about it.:pDon't you think I'd feel something different, though?Ah, that kind of inside, eh.:p

Damn, you caught on. It would have been so much funnier if it had continued for a few more posts. :)

Damn, you caught on. It would have been so much funnier if it had continued for a few more posts. :)

:p

See, that was actually the first thing that occurred to me. :)

The difference is that your grandmother was confused, and didn't know the difference between a vulva and a uvula. The more important questions, is whether or not the vicar knew what she was talking about, and why he let her continue for twenty minutes talking about such a touchy subject, pun intended completely.

Take it like the phrase "Irish and Proud" or some similar statement. You can't control being Irish. Why should you be proud of it? In my view, it's connected to self-esteem and social standing, "fitting in" and being a part of your community. People A) need other people, and B) need to feel good about themselves. If you look at the negative of the statement, "Irish and Ashamed" it makes more sense. Why would you be ashamed about being something you can't control? It suggests you aren't comfortable with yourself, your situation, your community.

Words have different meanings, and those meanings change. Attempting to shoehorn definitions based on your personal opinion of how they should be used is rather silly. Simply because the term is being used incorrectly in your view, doesn't mean it is actually incorrect.

Curious. You say "Why would you be ashamed about being something you can't control?", but apparently no one gets why the exact opposite is similarly nonsensical.

The thing is, it's not actually particularly difficult to understand what is meant by "gay pride." In fact, it's plainly obvious.

People who object to it are generally just being obnoxiously disingenuous.

People? Generally?

In other words - this isn't the first time you've heard that?

I rest my case.

People? Generally?

In other words - this isn't the first time you've heard that?

I rest my case.
First time I've heard THIS particular load of nonsense. More usual is to be told that we should just keep quiet and hidden.

First time I've heard THIS particular load of nonsense. More usual is to be told that we should just keep quiet and hidden.

If that's what you bring to the table, maybe it's not bad advice.

If that's what you bring to the table, maybe it's not bad advice.
I am particularly proud of standing up to people like you. :upyours:

I am particularly proud of standing up to people like you. :upyours:

And I'm not ashamed of standing up FOR 'people like you', even though some of those people are as rude as you are.

If that's what you bring to the table, maybe it's not bad advice.

Excuse me? We are not going to bow our heads and just hide ourselves in our closets (you have no idea how cramped and uncomfortable it is in there). We are not going to grovel and and be ashamed of who we are, simply because a few people dislike us. We are going to stand up tall and be Proud of who we are. sorry if it makes you or anyone else uncomfortable, but that's your problem.

That is a matter that is up for debate. I find the majority of women attractive. I find the majority of transsexuals attractive, but I only find an extremely small percentage of men attractive. Many of the homosexuals I know consider me straight and most straight people I know consider me bi. I usually go with bi.

Curious. You say "Why would you be ashamed about being something you can't control?", but apparently no one gets why the exact opposite is similarly nonsensical.

Being unashamed about something you cannot control is nonsensical?

And I'm not ashamed of standing up FOR 'people like you', even though some of those people are as rude as you are.
Oh? And when would that have been? You have shown nothing but reflexive hostility from the start.

I am here to break up this fight.

Pride means that we are happy to be who we are (sexuality is a beautiful part of the human condition) and unashamed of ourselves. Maybe "they" chose the wrong word back in the day to describe the awesome feeling of having a minority sexuality or gender identity. But what was done will be with us for a long time. We've been calling it "Pride" for a long time, and we will continue to call it Pride. Those like grave_n_idle will continue not to like it for a long time and make attempts to persuade people not to call it Pride in vain.

Then we will move on, and everybody will be Happy(TM). :)

For my part, I am proud to be bi. It took a long time and a lot of effort to deheterosexualize myself. And with enough conscious effort watching gay pornography, making friendships with gay men, and getting over the fact that you like your penis but nobody else's (a serious hurdle) you too can deheterosexualize yourself.

In other words - this isn't the first time you've heard that?

Nope. Generally you hear it from the people who think affirmative action etc. signifies an era where straight white men are oppressed. Disingenuity in the service of bigotry. It's an old story.

In your case, though, you're just being annoying.

Excuse me? We are not going to bow our heads and just hide ourselves in our closets (you have no idea how cramped and uncomfortable it is in there). We are not going to grovel and and be ashamed of who we are, simply because a few people dislike us. We are going to stand up tall and be Proud of who we are. sorry if it makes you or anyone else uncomfortable, but that's your problem.

First - if I tell someone else they are bringing nothing to the table, that isn't an insult to you, or any collective, just ebcause you might sahre a sexual orientation, gender, skin colour, or anything else with the person I'm talking to.

I've never been one to argue the 'gays' should be quiet and stay hidden' agenda, but some people should, if all they have is vitriol. Nothing to do with their orientation.

It doesn't make me uncomfortable - I just think it's the wrong word. It's confusing and destructive to the overall platform. I'm not sure why anyone would defend it, bearing that in mind.

Nope. Generally you hear it from the people who think affirmative action etc. signifies an era where straight white men are oppressed. Disingenuity in the service of bigotry. It's an old story.


Eh?

DIscrimination is discrimination. There is no 'positive' discrimination.


In your case, though, you're just being annoying.

Well, that was useful. I suppose instantly dismissing someone is easier than thinking.

It doesn't make me uncomfortable - I just think it's the wrong word. It's confusing and destructive to the overall platform. I'm not sure why anyone would defend it, bearing that in mind.
You have stated that repeatedly. We are unpersuaded.

You have stated that repeatedly. We are unpersuaded.

I honestly think he lives in his own little bubble, a very small alternate reality of his own make.

I honestly think he lives in his own little bubble, a very small alternate reality of his own make.
Meh. I kind of understand his point, but it just seems like a crappy way to make it. And also small cookies. We're never going to call it the "Sexuality is Part of the Wonderful Human Condition, So Let's Enjoy Ourselves" parade, so this is kinda how that all shakes down.

But I'm not going to go like this anymore: :headbang:

Meh. I kind of understand his point, but it just seems like a crappy way to make it. And also small cookies. We're never going to call it the "Sexuality is Part of the Wonderful Human Condition, So Let's Enjoy Ourselves" parade, so this is kinda how that all shakes down.

But I'm not going to go like this anymore: :headbang:

Oh come on, we all know that Oreos are delicious, especially with a nice, big glass of whole milk.

Oh come on, we all know that Oreos are delicious, especially with a nice, big glass of whole milk.
I know, but if I do that too much more, I will get fat and have a hard time finding sexual partners. :)

I know, but if I do that too much more, I will get fat and have a hard time finding sexual partners. :)

Not all of the laydeez (ha) go for the skin and bones bit, you know. Some like the fat bastards of the group.

Some.

Not all of the laydeez (ha) go for the skin and bones bit, you know. Some like the fat bastards of the group.

Some.
I'm in luck! :D

I'm in luck! :D

I won't have that problem until I hit my mid-40s, thanks to my genes.

Hello, super-high metabolism!

Hellz Yeah. I love bitches.:headbang:

Hellz Yeah. I love bitches.:headbang:

Your words and your smiley don't match. And I hope you and your right hand get along, because calling women 'bitches' is not the way to get laid.

Your words and your smiley don't match. And I hope you and your right hand get along, because calling women 'bitches' is not the way to get laid.

Got that right.

Got that right.

Why, thank you!

You have stated that repeatedly. We are unpersuaded.

Apparently not, because people keep saying things like "sorry if it makes you or anyone else uncomfortable". Clearly, my message is (though very straight-forward) somehow being misinterpreted. I'm suspecting it's deliberate, now.

I honestly think he lives in his own little bubble, a very small alternate reality of his own make.

No, you don't.

That would be what we call 'a lie'.

Apparently not, because people keep saying things like "sorry if it makes you or anyone else uncomfortable". Clearly, my message is (though very straight-forward) somehow being misinterpreted. I'm suspecting it's deliberate, now.
No, I'm pretty sure I know what you are saying. I am simply unpersuaded.

Needs to be another option, but meh.

What would the option be for?

I've never been one to argue the 'gays' should be quiet and stay hidden' agenda, but some people should, if all they have is vitriol.
Now what, in the things that I have said to you, constitutes "vitriol"? I have tried, like others, to patiently explain to you what we mean. I said that "pride" refers to a refusal to feel "ashamed": you told me that nobody has ever tried to make me feel ashamed, and I told you that you were badly mistaken; subsequently you have said that feeling unashamed is just as ridiculous as feeling ashamed. You said that "pride" should attach to things that we do, not things we passively are, and I *agreed* with you, and that this was precisely what we mean, that we are proud of standing up for ourselves: you insist that we cannot possibly mean anything sensible, but must mean something that makes no sense. You insist that the majority of people would share your difficulty in construing the meaning; I told you that, regardless of whether Soheran may have met someone taking a similar line before, I never have. From this, you decide to play victim about how I and others like me are being "rude" and "vitriolic" towards you. All I can see is a wilful refusal to understand, a reflexive hostility that shifts the grounds on which you justify your hostility without any regard to reason.

Bi. Used to say I was about 70/30 in favour of men. Now I'd say it's 60/40. I'm starting to like women more :P

Well, that was useful.

Yes, it is useful for you to understand that just because in certain contexts a word may mean something slightly different to it's dictionary definition doesn't mean you should dismiss the word, especially when everyone knows the meaning they are trying to express by using that word. Any ten year old would have figured that out by now. By complaining that the word doesn't follow the exact dictionary definition (well done Sherlock) when used in such a context you are just being annoyingly pedantic, since it doesn't make a difference to the obvious meaning the person using the word is trying to convey.

Ugh, is GnI doing that whole 'there are no gay or straight people'?

Bleh.

Fine, we get your point GnI. And disagree. So you go on, thinking that no one is gay or straight, just something else...and all the gay and straight people will continue to be gay and straight and use those labels if they so choose. Just like us bi people.

Ugh, is GnI doing that whole 'there are no gay or straight people'?

Bleh.

Fine, we get your point GnI. And disagree. So you go on, thinking that no one is gay or straight, just something else...and all the gay and straight people will continue to be gay and straight and use those labels if they so choose. Just like us bi people.

Actually no, this time he is complaining about the word pride in gay pride.

Actually no, this time he is complaining about the word pride in gay pride.

:headbang:

heterosexual?... never >.< me love other dudes long time ^.^'

Eh?

DIscrimination is discrimination. There is no 'positive' discrimination.

Did I overestimate you? I'm sorry.

Well, that was useful. I suppose instantly dismissing someone is easier than thinking.

Who said anything about "instant"? I've read much of the argument, and noticed people again and again clarifying the sense of "pride" in question... and you stubbornly ignoring their point.

So, yes, I'm dismissing you, but there's nothing instant or unreasoned about it.

Well, that was useful. I suppose instantly dismissing someone is easier than thinking.

I'm sorry [not really], but to me it seems that you're the one who is instantly dismissing us, considering how you're the one who started off by saying that you didn't understand why we used the term pride (remember back on page 13?). You came into this conversation asking a question that you had already answered for youself, without even allowing the opposing side to explain their postition to you. I can say that I have thought extensively about what you're saying, examined why I use the term "pride," and seriously considered if it might be easier to just stop using the term. However, all that thinking has led me to feel that the word "Pride" expresses precisely what I want to say, and I coudn't come up with any other word or phrase to complet the same task.

Now I ask, how much thinking have you done on this topic, how much have you contemplated our way of thinking?

Now what, in the things that I have said to you, constitutes "vitriol"? I have tried, like others, to patiently explain to you what we mean. I said that "pride" refers to a refusal to feel "ashamed": you told me that nobody has ever tried to make me feel ashamed, and I told you that you were badly mistaken; subsequently you have said that feeling unashamed is just as ridiculous as feeling ashamed. You said that "pride" should attach to things that we do, not things we passively are, and I *agreed* with you, and that this was precisely what we mean, that we are proud of standing up for ourselves: you insist that we cannot possibly mean anything sensible, but must mean something that makes no sense. You insist that the majority of people would share your difficulty in construing the meaning; I told you that, regardless of whether Soheran may have met someone taking a similar line before, I never have. From this, you decide to play victim about how I and others like me are being "rude" and "vitriolic" towards you. All I can see is a wilful refusal to understand, a reflexive hostility that shifts the grounds on which you justify your hostility without any regard to reason.

In all seriousness, I think this is a little obtuse. You said "First time I've heard THIS particular load of nonsense". You said "I am particularly proud of standing up to people like you. :upyours:".

Perhaps you don't consider either of those to be at all vitriolic? Then Hadopelia decided to chime in on my comments to you, pretending that my response to those comments was somehow an attack on all gay people. To be honest - that is getting a bit tired, it's the whole 'drunk black man' scenario all over again, this time in reverse.

I'm not entirely sure the 'reflexive hostility' thing is even real, either. I'm not entirely sure who I'm supposed to be being hostile towards. I'm not attacking anyone - but I seem to be getting attacked for a simple comment I made about the (what strikes me as the mis-)use of a word.

Yes, it is useful for you to understand that just because in certain contexts a word may mean something slightly different to it's dictionary definition doesn't mean you should dismiss the word, especially when everyone knows the meaning they are trying to express by using that word. Any ten year old would have figured that out by now. By complaining that the word doesn't follow the exact dictionary definition (well done Sherlock) when used in such a context you are just being annoyingly pedantic, since it doesn't make a difference to the obvious meaning the person using the word is trying to convey.

My comment was a response to "In your case, though, you're just being annoying".

Don't shift the goalposts - the comment I responded to was not, in any way, useful to debate. It also wasn't addressed to you, or even addressing the debate - it was addressing someone else attacking me, personally.

That out of the way - I really don't see the problem. You are, yourself, admitting that it's not a perfect fit. In most contexts, the word would not be taken to mean what you claim it is to be taken to mean.

Pointing that out is hardly some great evil.

Ugh, is GnI doing that whole 'there are no gay or straight people'?

Bleh.

Fine, we get your point GnI. And disagree. So you go on, thinking that no one is gay or straight, just something else...and all the gay and straight people will continue to be gay and straight and use those labels if they so choose. Just like us bi people.

Find a real enemy. Seriously. Attacking someone who is pro-equality, who supports all the 'rights' arguments, and opposes all the real bigotry... just because you don't agree with me over the specifics of the spectrum of sexuality, is just illogical and destructive.

Did I overestimate you? I'm sorry.

I don't know. Why are you asking me? That was a bit of a non-argument, don't you think?



Who said anything about "instant"? I've read much of the argument, and noticed people again and again clarifying the sense of "pride" in question... and you stubbornly ignoring their point.

So, yes, I'm dismissing you, but there's nothing instant or unreasoned about it.

You said I'm "just being annoying". That doesn't sound like you've done anything but dismiss. Did you actually spend any time considering my point?

I'm sorry [not really], but to me it seems that you're the one who is instantly dismissing us, considering how you're the one who started off by saying that you didn't understand why we used the term pride (remember back on page 13?). You came into this conversation asking a question that you had already answered for youself, without even allowing the opposing side to explain their postition to you. I can say that I have thought extensively about what you're saying, examined why I use the term "pride," and seriously considered if it might be easier to just stop using the term. However, all that thinking has led me to feel that the word "Pride" expresses precisely what I want to say, and I coudn't come up with any other word or phrase to complet the same task.

Now I ask, how much thinking have you done on this topic, how much have you contemplated our way of thinking?

Back on page 13, I first made the comment about 'pride'... but you're being disingenuous.

Someone said they were heterosexual "...and proud of it." I questioned that - but they were not "the opposing side" to me... unless, by opposing side, you mean anyone that didn't agree with me?

On that same page, someone made a really good argument - "Well.. slightly less actually. After all, saying you are "different" from the majority requires some guts - although the pride should then not lie with the being but with the daring to say." (Quoted from "The Alma Mater")... but that argument was quickly pushed to the sidelines by a collective response attacking my understanding of 'pride' based on what it usually means.

It had nothing to do with any 'us' or 'we'. It was about the word, and it's seeming illogical position in arguments about sexuality... not 'homosexuality'... just 'sexuality'. And I first made the comment, as I just pointed out, about it being applied (to my eyes, illogically) to being 'straight'.

I have considered it. I've thought about the hows and whys... and it still seems to me, overall, that it probably does more harm than good to use the word 'pride' in this context, or similar contexts about issue like race, etc.

I don't know. Why are you asking me? That was a bit of a non-argument, don't you think?

Obviously.

You said I'm "just being annoying". That doesn't sound like you've done anything but dismiss.

Well, I don't know how good your reading comprehension is, or your imagination, but your interpretation is quite wrong. A judgment that someone or something is "just" being anything involves consideration (and ultimately rejection) of alternatives.

Did you actually spend any time considering my point?

Yes, though it's not like it's the first time I've heard this argument. If it helps: it's stupid because, as usual in these discussions, it abstracts from the actual social reality in which the term is used, a reality in which it acquires a specific sense that is neither unclear nor unjustified.

Ordinarily, I would have pointed this out--I've done it before on threads like this one--but I saw that others had already done so, multiple times, and you saw fit to ignore the point. So why bother?

Yes, though it's not like it's the first time I've heard this argument.


The 'yes' says you did... the rest of the sentence makes it sound liek you didn't.


If it helps: it's stupid because...


It's 'stupid' to use a word incorrectly.


...as usual in these discussions, it abstracts from the actual social reality in which the term is used, a reality in which it acquires a specific sense that is neither unclear nor unjustified.

Ordinarily, I would have pointed this out--I've done it before on threads like this one--but I saw that others had already done so, multiple times, and you saw fit to ignore the point. So why bother?

It doen't matter if a word becomes a clique phrasing. The majority of people, in the majority of contexts, still do not use the meaning for 'pride' that the phrasing suggests. You seem to be suggesting that I'm wrong for questioning the use of the word, because it is being used in a specific circumstance, withing a certain set of social conditions, to mean a certain thing. That 'circumstance' was never questioned - it's the whole use of the word in that social context that is the issue. You are, in effect, telling me I'm wrong because the majority meaning is not allowing for the clique interpretation... and I'm pointing out that that IS indeed, my problem with it. It is a clique interpretation, and it does oppose the majority understanding.

*sigh*

We oppose "pride" to "shame."

The negation of a homophobic society in which homosexuality is shameful is the assertion of pride on the part of gays, lesbians, and bisexuals.

We naturally are more skeptical of an assertion of "straight pride" (or "white pride"), because such an assertion either implies the superiority of heterosexuality (because heterosexuality starts from a position of social recognition and legitimacy) or the social marginalization of straight people (which is nonsense, and usually ultimately also founded on an assumption of straight superiority.)

There's no magic here, no mysticism.

You are, in effect, telling me I'm wrong because the majority meaning is not allowing for the clique interpretation...

No, I'm telling you you're wrong because the "clique" meaning is not a random invention of people who redefine words, but a natural, comprehensible sense acquired in a particular context. "Pride" in the context of opposing a social stigma signifies liberation from that stigma, the negation of shame. That's how it's actually used, and that's how it's actually understood. The debate about "gay pride"--the polemics, the parades, the Days of Silence--is directly and inextricably connected to the debate over the legitimacy of homosexuality.

Why gay pride? Why black pride? Why do these words hold significance, hold meaning, for the people who use them? You stubbornly want to maintain that the mainstream sense of "pride" is opposed to its meanings here... but why, then, is the term used? Where does it come from? A verbal conspiracy?

It gets its significance because it is the rejection of shame, and that's precisely what psychological liberation, liberation from internalized bigotry, is about.

You want to just ignore all this... to, rather than deal with the actual reasons and frameworks in which words acquire meanings and shades of meaning, rather than recognize that other people (not just you) are rational and comprehending and maybe (Heaven forbid!) might even be right in the words they use to describe their movements, mindlessly repeat a strict, narrow prescriptivism about "meaning" that simply doesn't recognize the way language actually functions.

Furthermore, your prescriptions don't even agree with the dictionary (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pride).

"3. a becoming or dignified sense of what is due to oneself or one's position or character; self-respect; self-esteem."

:rolleyes:

*sigh*

We oppose "pride" to "shame."

The negation of a homophobic society in which homosexuality is shameful is the assertion of pride on the part of gays, lesbians, and bisexuals.

We naturally are more skeptical of an assertion of "straight pride" (or "white pride"), because such an assertion either implies the superiority of heterosexuality (because heterosexuality starts from a position of social recognition and legitimacy) or the social marginalization of straight people (which is nonsense, and usually ultimately also founded on an assumption of straight superiority.)

There's no magic here, no mysticism.

You, yourself, see the fault in using the term 'pride' as it relates to 'straight pride'. Thus, your constant denial of the point I'm making just looks like being obtuse. You don't 'negate' homophobia by (what looks like) claiming to be 'proud' of your gay-ness, you create another confrontation - on a false battle-line.

You, yourself, see the fault in using the term 'pride' as it relates to 'straight pride'. Thus, your constant denial of the point I'm making just looks like being obtuse.

The only person who looks "obtuse" is you, who just outright ignored the "because" of my sentence.

No, I'm telling you you're wrong because the "clique" meaning is not a random invention of people who redefine words,


I didn't say it was 'random', or being 'invented'.


...but a natural, comprehensible sense acquired in a particular context. "Pride" in the context of opposing a social stigma signifies liberation from that stigma, the negation of shame. That's how it's actually used,


In context. As opposed to.... You're not seeing it, are you.

And - the problem is, I just don't see that it's doing what you claim it does... it's not 'negating' anything, except in a purely 'denying' it way. Saying 'no no no' isn't the same as making it go away.


...and that's how it's actually understood.


In a certain context, etc.


The debate about "gay pride"--the polemics, the parades, the Days of Silence--is directly and inextricably connected to the debate over the legitimacy of homosexuality.


Polemic, parade and protest are not intrinsically connected to the word 'pride'. You seem to be implying I'm objecting to the conecpts, not the wording.


Why gay pride? Why black pride? Why do these words hold significance, hold meaning, for the people who use them? You stubbornly want to maintain that the mainstream sense of "pride" is opposed to its meanings here... but why, then, is the term used? Where does it come from? A verbal conspiracy?


You support the clique use by referencing other clique use. The wording in 'black pride' suffers the same flaw.


It gets its significance because it is the rejection of shame, and that's precisely what psychological liberation, liberation from internalized bigotry, is about.


That's close to what The Alma Mater said - but where TAM was saying 'pride' was what you had for/in/because of the rejection of those things, you still seem to be implying something else.


You want to just ignore all this... to, rather than deal with the actual reasons and frameworks in which words acquire meanings and shades of meaning, rather than recognize that other people (not just you) are rational and comprehending and maybe (Heaven forbid!) might even be right


I understand the framework. I hear the reasons, although the reasons don't even all seem to agree. I recognise that other people can be rational and comprehending. I recognise that people might be right. I just don't think they are.


...in the words they use to describe their movements, mindlessly repeat


I didn't mindlessly repeat anything. Curious that you consider your own side of the argument to be very well reasoned, and mine to be easily dismissed as being not so.


...a strict, narrow prescriptivism about "meaning" that simply doesn't recognize the way language actually functions.


It does, though - that's the point. The counterculture definition is actually somewhat opposed to how language actually functions, though. Hence my argument.


Furthermore, your prescriptions don't even agree with the dictionary (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pride).

"3. a becoming or dignified sense of what is due to oneself or one's position or character; self-respect; self-esteem."

:rolleyes:

You have to offer a tertiary defintion as evidence that the dictionary disagrees with me?

You have to offer a tertiary defintion as evidence that the dictionary disagrees with me?
If it counts for anything, that's what I always understood pride to mean.

Also, I am still unpersuaded.

The only person who looks "obtuse" is you


An "I know you are, but what am I" argument? What are you, 6?


...who just outright ignored the "because" of my sentence.

I didn't ignore the "because". If A = B because of C, the clause doesn't modify the fact that A is being claimed to equal B.

An "I know you are, but what am I" argument? What are you, 6?

This is not necessary.

I am now sending my peaceful energies your way.

I didn't say it was 'random', or being 'invented'.

No, you didn't, but your argument doesn't make sense unless it is. Otherwise, why object?

In context. As opposed to.... You're not seeing it, are you.

Yes, all kinds of words have different meanings in context. Hell, your use of "seeing" right in that sentence obviously doesn't refer to anything I'm doing with my eyes. So if your objection is really so trivial, why bother making it?

And - the problem is, I just don't see that it's doing what you claim it does... it's not 'negating' anything, except in a purely 'denying' it way. Saying 'no no no' isn't the same as making it go away.

We don't suppose that by being proud of who we are we can make bigots stop hating us. That's not the point.

The point is to stop hating ourselves, to generate a consciousness among us that recognizes our rightful status as equals. That is a means to broader change... though it is also a worthy end in itself.

In a certain context, etc.

Right. But if it's perfectly understandable... again, what's your problem with it?

Polemic, parade and protest are not intrinsically connected to the word 'pride'.

Who said anything about "intrinsic"? In this culture, they are: "pride" is a dominant cultural element of queer liberation.

You support the clique use by referencing other clique use.

No, I broaden the point by noting a similar case... one that shows, again, that this usage is not somehow idiosyncratic or emergent out of nowhere.

That's close to what The Alma Mater said - but where TAM was saying 'pride' was what you had for/in/because of the rejection of those things, you still seem to be implying something else.

That's right. I am. It's not pride in accomplishment; it has nothing to do with "accomplishment." It's the rejection of shame for something that isn't shameful.

I understand the framework.

I don't think you do. Your arguments indicate otherwise. You're just repeatedly referencing the majority usage.

I recognise that other people can be rational and comprehending.

You say you do, but if you did, your attitude would be different.

As a matter of logical truth it is, of course, true that "is" does not imply "ought"--the fact that people do use a word in a particular way does not mean that people should. But in recognizing that other people are rational we should recognize that they probably have reasons for what they do... that, even if at first glance a usage or practice seems absurd, it may not actually be.

This means that we are humble, that we don't automatically assume that even our seemingly justified understanding is right... that we make an effort to see where others are coming from rather than repeatedly insist that they are "wrong" as if our reasoning determined everything. Indeed, even if in the end we still don't understand, we should be willing to consider that the fault might be ours, not theirs--a matter, perhaps, of different experiences.

The counterculture definition is actually somewhat opposed to how language actually functions, though.

Justify that.

You have to offer a tertiary defintion as evidence that the dictionary disagrees with me?

Do you have a problem with the fact that "pride" is a word whose meaning is not narrow, a word for which there are multiple definitions? Is that at the root of this--your range at the facts of language?

An "I know you are, but what am I" argument?

No, it would only be if I hadn't actually pointed out (correctly) how you were being obtuse.

I didn't ignore the "because". If A = B because of C, the clause doesn't modify the fact that A is being claimed to equal B.

Yes, obviously. So?

The point is that "straight pride" is suspect because of particular reasons that only apply to straight pride... not to gay pride.

To pretend that this somehow shows that I am being "obtuse" in failing to see the fault in gay pride is to be, well, obtuse yourself.

;)

No, you didn't, but your argument doesn't make sense unless it is. Otherwise, why object?


Of course it makes sense. SOmething doesn't have to be 'random' or 'invented' to be wrong.


Yes, all kinds of words have different meanings in context. Hell, your use of "seeing" right in that sentence obviously doesn't refer to anything I'm doing with my eyes. So if your objection is really so trivial, why bother making it?


This brings me back to the 'vulva/uvula' thing. The difference is only trivial, why correct it?


We don't suppose that by being proud of who we are we can make bigots stop hating us. That's not the point.

The point is to stop hating ourselves, to generate a consciousness among us that recognizes our rightful status as equals. That is a means to broader change... though it is also a worthy end in itself.


And, again - you use a phrasing that fits your 'clique' definition. You're 'proud of who you are', but not in the way that matches the majority understanding of the word 'pride'.


Who said anything about "intrinsic"? In this culture, they are:


You mean "directly and inextricably" in some way that doesn't suggest an intrinsic link, then?


..."pride" is a dominant cultural element of queer liberation.


By which you mean, the clique definition of pride.


No, I broaden the point by noting a similar case... one that shows, again, that this usage is not somehow idiosyncratic or emergent out of nowhere.


I didn't say it was emergent out of nowhere... another strawman. (No, wait - the same strawman, and I argued against it last time, too).

By idiosyncratic, I assume you don't mean literally idiosyncratic... I assume you mean some kind of contextual collective version? By which token - showing that several similar movements use the same clique meaning wouldn't be an argument against it being 'idiosyncratic'.


That's right. I am. It's not pride in accomplishment; it has nothing to do with "accomplishment." It's the rejection of shame for something that isn't shameful.


Yes. So - it's not the majority usage of 'pride', then.


I don't think you do. Your arguments indicate otherwise. You're just repeatedly referencing the majority usage.


You say that like referencing the majority usage would somehow be bad. I get the framework, I just think using a phrasing that can be argued as causing more harm than good is a 'bad thing'. It doesn't mean I don't understand the context... just that I don't think it makes it all alright to understand.


You say you do, but if you did, your attitude would be different.


Not at all.


As a matter of logical truth it is, of course, true that "is" does not imply "ought"--the fact that people do use a word in a particular way does not mean that people should.


We agree on this much.


But in recognizing that other people are rational we should recognize that they probably have reasons for what they do... that, even if at first glance a usage or practice seems absurd, it may not actually be.


The inverse also holds true, of course.


This means that we are humble, that we don't automatically assume that even our seemingly justified understanding is right...


Physician?


...that we make an effort to see where others are coming from rather than repeatedly insist that they are "wrong" as if our reasoning determined everything.


Physician?


Indeed, even if in the end we still don't understand, we should be willing to consider that the fault might be ours, not theirs--a matter, perhaps, of different experiences.


Who said anything about 'fault'?


Justify that.


You use a narrow definition that opposes the majority meaning. Language functions by shared understanding of the rules and the vocabulary - thus, an 'idiosyncratic' definition is actually contrary to it.


Do you have a problem with the fact that "pride" is a word whose meaning is not narrow, a word for which there are multiple definitions? Is that at the root of this--your range at the facts of language?

Not at all. The 'problem' would be in choosing to assert a minority meaning of a word, even in the face of possible confusion and/or confrontation caused by it. The word has several meanings - by your own admission - so why pretend that it doesn't?

No, it would only be if I hadn't actually pointed out (correctly) how you were being obtuse.


I "pointed out (correctly) how you were being obtuse", to whit "You, yourself, see the fault in using the term 'pride' as it relates to 'straight pride'. Thus, your constant denial of the point I'm making just looks like being obtuse."

To then turn around and say: "The only person who looks "obtuse" is you (...who just outright ignored the "because" of my sentence. )" is just a 'I know you are' response. (Not to mention wrong - I 'ignored' nothing, it was just irrelevent).


Yes, obviously. So?

The point is that "straight pride" is suspect because of particular reasons that only apply to straight pride... not to gay pride.

To pretend that this somehow shows that I am being "obtuse" in failing to see the fault in gay pride is to be, well, obtuse yourself.

;)

I didn't pretend any such thing. You can see how 'pride' can be the wrong word. I rest my case.

I didn't pretend any such thing. You can see how 'pride' can be the wrong word. I rest my case.

Weighed, measured. Judgement: Wanting.

Weighed, measured. Judgement: Wanting.

Not addressed to you, not intending to. Judgement: troll.

And, again - you use a phrasing that fits your 'clique' definition. You're 'proud of who you are', but not in the way that matches the majority understanding of the word 'pride'.

It's the same as telling a child with poor self esteem to be "proud of who you are." And they have programs in the public schools related to that end.

I don't think this is as "minority" a use as you seem to think. It's actually used quite often, in a number of contexts.

Find a real enemy. Seriously. Attacking someone who is pro-equality, who supports all the 'rights' arguments, and opposes all the real bigotry... just because you don't agree with me over the specifics of the spectrum of sexuality, is just illogical and destructive.

There is nothing more destructive to a cause than a person who pretends to be a friend to it, claiming opposition to bigotry etc...while engaging in a worse sort of dishonest bigotry than the out-and-out opposition.

You fit into that category. I've said it before, and note, I claim no actual friendship with you:

With 'friends' like you, who needs enemies?

I reject you. Quite a few people you claim to support reject you.

There is nothing more destructive to a cause than a person who pretends to be a friend to it, claiming opposition to bigotry etc...while engaging in a worse sort of dishonest bigotry than the out-and-out opposition.

You fit into that category. I've said it before, and note, I claim no actual friendship with you:

With 'friends' like you, who needs enemies?

I reject you. Quite a few people you claim to support reject you.
Seconded. This is getting quite tiresome. :(

Seconded. This is getting quite tiresome. :(

I have to disagree. I don't think that Grave's feelings about the use or usefulness of terms make him a bigot.

I have to disagree. I don't think that Grave's feelings about the use or usefulness of terms make him a bigot.
My problem is that he has become aggressive in his tone. It makes me :(

I have to disagree. I don't think that Grave's feelings about the use or usefulness of terms make him a bigot.

The sum of his arguments on the subject have convinced me otherwise.

Of course it makes sense. SOmething doesn't have to be 'random' or 'invented' to be wrong.

You're missing the point. What is wrong about it?

This brings me back to the 'vulva/uvula' thing. The difference is only trivial, why correct it?

The point is that it's not a matter of "correct" or "incorrect." If your point is simply that the usage is less common than another, more prominent usage... so what? The point is trivial because it doesn't do anything; it doesn't actually prove wrongness.

You're 'proud of who you are', but not in the way that matches the majority understanding of the word 'pride'.

Weirdly enough, people seem to understand it quite fine.

You mean "directly and inextricably" in some way that doesn't suggest an intrinsic link, then?

Um, yes? Nothing about culture is "intrinsic", it's all convention... but that doesn't mean that an element of culture can't be "directly and inextricably" connected to something else. In the case of "pride", the word has become a dominant cultural symbol of what liberation is about--a dominance it could not have acquired if it weren't connected to conventions already existent about the meaning of the word.

Recall, again, that the meanings of words are matters of convention. It's not a matter of "Whatever Grave n Idle thinks."

By which you mean, the clique definition of pride.

Yes, but if you were interested in a real discussion, you'd think to yourself, "Why? Why are all these people using this word so prominently in this context? Where does it come from?"

Your argument depends on this definition being opposed to the common, conventional sense... but the very prominence of the usage belies your argument.

I didn't say it was emergent out of nowhere

So where does it come from?

After all, it opposes the common usage of pride so strongly... why did it happen? Why did a bunch of people decide to use a word with a definition that didn't at all fit to describe what they were talking about?

By idiosyncratic, I assume you don't mean literally idiosyncratic... I assume you mean some kind of contextual collective version?

Just a meaning essentially divorced from the common understanding of the word. (Note that the "common understanding" may itself recognize multiple meanings in different contexts.)

By which token - showing that several similar movements use the same clique meaning wouldn't be an argument against it being 'idiosyncratic'.

Yes, it would. It would tell us that different people in similar circumstances, coming from the same broad culture of word usage that you're appealing to, ended up using the same word as representative of their movement... which tells us that their sense of "pride" is not as exclusive as you pretend it is.

Yes. So - it's not the majority usage of 'pride', then.

It's not the most commonly used sense of pride. But it is a sense that, in context, appeals to the common understanding of what "pride", broadly speaking, constitutes.

Sometimes the same word has more than one definition.

You say that like referencing the majority usage would somehow be bad.

Of course it is. Remember my earlier example of the verb "see"? Your methodology here would be much like me repeatedly insisting that your use of "see" is incorrect... because the "majority usage" refers to literal sight.

Of course, in context, it makes perfect sense, even though its definition is not exactly the same as the "majority usage." That's the point: the application of "pride" to the case of queer and black liberation is perfectly natural, perfectly intelligible, in our social understanding of what "pride" is. The fact that the definition does not neatly comply with the most commonly-used definition is irrelevant.

The inverse also holds true, of course.

As a matter of logical truth, yes. As a matter of actually dealing with reality, much less so. It may actually be absurd, but the burden is on the person who makes the argument, and it's not an easy burden to meet.

Who said anything about 'fault'?

You did... you're the one who continually talks about "wrong usage." I'm saying that the wrongness may be with your understanding.

You use a narrow definition that opposes the majority meaning. Language functions by shared understanding of the rules and the vocabulary - thus, an 'idiosyncratic' definition is actually contrary to it.

We call this "begging the question", and you're doing it in a very telling way.

You're right, of course, that "language functions by share understanding of the rules and vocabulary"... and that should tell us something about words that arise to prominent usage: namely, that they have managed to fit that requirement.

The word has several meanings - by your own admission - so why pretend that it doesn't?

Wait, so because the word has several meanings, we should only use one?

Are you even bothering to attempt to make sense anymore?

You can see how 'pride' can be the wrong word.

Um, yes... any word can be wrong in some circumstances.

The question, obviously, is whether it is wrong in this one. And the reasons I gave for its wrongness in the case of "straight pride" simply do not apply.

There is nothing more destructive to a cause than a person who pretends to be a friend to it, claiming opposition to bigotry etc...while engaging in a worse sort of dishonest bigotry than the out-and-out opposition.

You fit into that category. I've said it before, and note, I claim no actual friendship with you:

With 'friends' like you, who needs enemies?

I reject you. Quite a few people you claim to support reject you.

I'm not sure I claimed to be a friend to you, or anyone else here. I just said that I'm not the enemy. If you think my difference of opinion on the matter of (in this case) how the cause should be labelled is the big problem, then I'd have to say you're not really very aware of the real problems being faced.

I've not been a bigot about it, I'm not intolerant of any opinion, lifestyle or identity different to my own. My sole 'opposition' here, has been to suggest that a) I don't think 'pride' is a constructive word that conveys the right meaning... and b) (not the main issue, I suspect) that I don't think the spectrum of sexuality as perpetuated in monochrome is appropriate, or even helpful.

None of that makes me a bigot. Again - if you think it does, you are missing the threat of very real enemies.

As you did last time I became involved inm a discussion of this manner - you are attacking ME, not my argument. Really - I don't feel the need to contend with ad hominem fallacies. I'm just paying you the courtesy of showing you the error of your ways.

With friends like me, who needs enemies? Surely - with the very real enemies out there, bitching about "what are we going to call ourselves" is almost Pythonesque in it's scope. With enemies like there are - who doesn't need friends? Has the cause really got so few enemies that it can't use a friend?

My problem is that he has become aggressive in his tone. It makes me :(

For real?

The post you just agreed with labelled me a "dishonest bigot"? I've been told I'm "mindless". My arguments have been dismissed as "stupid". I've been questioned on my "reading comprehension. I've been told simply not accepting the argument presented was 'stuborn'. I've had my argument mis-represented to me as though it was a claim I made. I've been told I'm "just being annoying". My opposition to the phrasing earned the response "Any ten year old would have figured that out by now". I've been told "First time I've heard THIS particular load of nonsense." and "I am particularly proud of standing up to people like you". I garnered a :upyours: from one poster. I've been told I'm "playing the victim". I've been told my opposition is "wilful refusal to understand" and a reflexive hostility that shifts the grounds on which you justify your hostility without any regard to reason."

I think I've been practically a saint.

You're missing the point. What is wrong about it?


This is shifting the burden.

You said I "was wrong" because the "meaning is not a random invention of people who redefine words". I pointed out that neither "random" nor "invented" were, in any way related to my argument - and you tell me I'm missing the point.

I'm missing the point of MY argument?


The point is that it's not a matter of "correct" or "incorrect." If your point is simply that the usage is less common than another, more prominent usage... so what? The point is trivial because it doesn't do anything; it doesn't actually prove wrongness.


The point is - as I've said a couple of times - I believe the wording is actually harmful.


Weirdly enough, people seem to understand it quite fine.


Okay. And according to the old saying, how many legs does a dog have if you count its tail as a leg? It still has four, because even if you CALL the tail a leg, it's still a tail. You can explain your teminology to people, and they can accept it, even - but that won't make it the right term.


Um, yes? Nothing about culture is "intrinsic", it's all convention... but that doesn't mean that an element of culture can't be "directly and inextricably" connected to something else.


I'm not sure how it is "direct and inextricably" something, without being intrinsically so. You just seem to be quibbling my wording when I called you on your point.


Yes, but if you were interested in a real discussion, you'd think to yourself, "Why? Why are all these people using this word so prominently in this context? Where does it come from?"

Your argument depends on this definition being opposed to the common, conventional sense... but the very prominence of the usage belies your argument.


The third most prominent usage, according to your own source?


After all, it opposes the common usage of pride so strongly... why did it happen? Why did a bunch of people decide to use a word with a definition that didn't at all fit to describe what they were talking about?


This would be a word we are discussing in context of the word 'gay', yes?


Sometimes the same word has more than one definition.


This is true.


The fact that the definition does not neatly comply with the most commonly-used definition is irrelevant.


To an extent, yes - because that's not really what I'm saying is the problem. That's the means to the problem, not the ends.


You did... you're the one who continually talks about "wrong usage." I'm saying that the wrongness may be with your understanding.


No, I didn't mention fault. Don't misrepresent me.

I said I think the wording is wrong - that implies no fault.


We call this "begging the question", and you're doing it in a very telling way.


I don't think so. I'm implicitly claiming nothing. Your own citation shows that this meaning of 'pride' is not the majority usage.


Wait, so because the word has several meanings, we should only use one?


No. But, it would probably be a good idea to, at least, bear in mind the ramifications of other common usages?


Are you even bothering to attempt to make sense anymore?


Yes.


Um, yes... any word can be wrong in some circumstances.

The question, obviously, is whether it is wrong in this one. And the reasons I gave for its wrongness in the case of "straight pride" simply do not apply.

The important part of my argument was - you concede that the word 'pride' can be the wrong one to mean what you are claiming it means. You go on to suggest your reasons... but the fact remains, even in context, you plead special exception.

An "I know you are, but what am I" argument? What are you, 6?

This is you a few pages ago. I'm sure I could dig up more, but my point is not to try and "out-match" your citation of rude and unnecessary behavior.

My point is this: you are here to quibble about a word. Nobody cares except you, and I personally find your tone a little over the top.

I should have been more clear. It was not the substance of the post I was agreeing with, but the sentiment, which I read to be others growing tired of your advocacy.

Ten thousand women can't be wrong!

it still seems to me, overall, that it probably does more harm than good to use the word 'pride' in this context, or similar contexts about issue like race, etc.

You have used the argument that using the phrase "Gay Pride" is destructive, but you have never explianed how (if you have, and I have simply missed it, I apologive, and would you please direct me to the post[s]). Please explain yourself, because in all my life, I have never seen any harm in the phrase. If someone were hurt in some way, shape, or form, for saying "I'm gay and proud of it!' the harm has always come because of the "I'm gay..." part, and the "...and proud of it" part has always been ignored by the person doing the harming.

You have used the argument that using the phrase "Gay Pride" is destructive, but you have never explianed how (if you have, and I have simply missed it, I apologive, and would you please direct me to the post[s]). Please explain yourself, because in all my life, I have never seen any harm in the phrase. If someone were hurt in some way, shape, or form, for saying "I'm gay and proud of it!' the harm has always come because of the "I'm gay..." part, and the "...and proud of it" part has always been ignored by the person doing the harming.

To me, "gay pride" is as ridiculous a concept as "irish pride" or "french pride" or since all of these things imply pride in something that the person has no control over. Be proud of what you can do, be proud of what you have done, but these terms are like me being proud that I have legs or a tongue.

This is shifting the burden.

No, it isn't, it's getting you to see the point you stubbornly refuse to see.

You said I "was wrong" because the "meaning is not a random invention of people who redefine words". I pointed out that neither "random" nor "invented" were, in any way related to my argument

So what is your argument?

I maintain that I was right, that your argument is unsustainable without those elements... but I'm not going to bother explaining why when I know you'll just reply again and again with "No, that's not what I meant."

Come on, be productive: what is the problem with the usage? Yes, it's not the most common usage, but so what?

The point is - as I've said a couple of times - I believe the wording is actually harmful.

Your assessment of "harm" depends on your assessment of "wrongness." If the usage is perfectly legitimate, there's no harm done--people get it.

Okay. And according to the old saying, how many legs does a dog have if you count its tail as a leg? It still has four, because even if you CALL the tail a leg, it's still a tail.

Not if the use of "leg" becomes convention. Not if it becomes a functioning way of transferring meaning. The nature of the object doesn't change, but the meaning of the word does.

I'm not sure how it is "direct and inextricably" something, without being intrinsically so.

Easy: a strong connection that's not a necessary one.

You can't magically change culture to be radically different from what it presently is, but that doesn't mean that culture's present state is somehow "intrinsic" to human society or behavior.

The third most prominent usage, according to your own source?

Of twelve?

Furthermore, dictionaries are rather pedantic about distinctions... the meanings of "pride" aren't neatly separate from one another, such that someone who knows one can't figure out several of the others from context.

This would be a word we are discussing in context of the word 'gay', yes?

The common usages of "gay" are all legitimate (language-wise, anyway--some are offensive, but that is a different challenge.) I'm not sure what you're getting at.

To an extent, yes - because that's not really what I'm saying is the problem. That's the means to the problem, not the ends.

So stop being evasive. What's the problem? That it causes harm? But the only reason for your assessment of "harm" is its failure to communicate. However, just above you said that even if communication is successful, it still isn't good enough for you... which, indeed, you must say, because the fact of the matter is that the word is generally understood in the sense it is meant.

I said I think the wording is wrong - that implies no fault.

By "fault" I don't mean "culpability", rather "error."

I don't think so. I'm implicitly claiming nothing. Your own citation shows that this meaning of 'pride' is not the majority usage.

But that's not what you said.

"You use a narrow definition that opposes the majority meaning."

"Opposes" is not the same as "is slightly different from." One works for your argument (because it implies that there would be a lack of understanding), the other doesn't (because, especially in context, slight differences in meaning may be perfectly comprehensible).

No. But, it would probably be a good idea to, at least, bear in mind the ramifications of other common usages?

Right... and we "bear" this in mind by being perfectly willing to explain the sense in which it is used to anyone who is confused.

The important part of my argument was - you concede that the word 'pride' can be the wrong one to mean what you are claiming it means.

Out of the relevant context, yes. Again, that's true of any word. So?

Well as I'm only a young age, it's impossible for me to say.

I can say how ever I won't say no to men; nor women.

I guess I'd be classed as bisexual but I'd choose men any day. It'd depend on the woman I suppose.

This is you a few pages ago. I'm sure I could dig up more, but my point is not to try and "out-match" your citation of rude and unnecessary behavior.


Again, you're kidding, right?

I make a point that suggests someone else is being obtuse, to which I basically get the response 'no, you're obtuse'. I don't think - in those circumstances - that "An "I know you are, but what am I" argument? What are you, 6?" is particularly strong, and it's certainly not inappropriate.

Trying to 'out-match' my citation of rude and unnecessary behaviour would be missing the point, and a thankless task. As I pointed out, compared to what I've had sent my way, I've been the soul of pleasantry. To suggest that I'm getting aggressive is to ignore the responses I've been referring to, and to pretend my mild tone has been other than it was.


My point is this: you are here to quibble about a word. Nobody cares except you, and I personally find your tone a little over the top.

I should have been more clear. It was not the substance of the post I was agreeing with, but the sentiment, which I read to be others growing tired of your advocacy.

Yes, I am quibbling a word. I think it's a bad word in the context, and does more harm than good. I'm not the only person to make the argument - and there are certainly people out there who are being 'turned-off' from being sympathetic to 'the cause' by the implications inherent in 'pride'.

You say nobody cares except me. Perhaps you are right. If so, it's not my loss.

No, it isn't, it's getting you to see the point you stubbornly refuse to see.


That's your tactic? Anyone who disagrees with you must be 'stubbornly refusing to see' your point?


So what is your argument?


That the phrasing is bad. That it does more harm than good.


I maintain that I was right,


Maintain away. You're wrong. This isn't opinion - you don't get to argue with me what I mean - I'm pretty much the expert on at least that much.



...that your argument is unsustainable without those elements...


Then you are doubly wrong. Being 'random', or even 'invented' has absolutely nothing to do with what I perceive as the weakness of the phrasing.


but I'm not going to bother explaining why when I know you'll just reply again and again with "No, that's not what I meant."


It's not worth debating with someone who points out to you that your misrepresentations of their argument are misrepresentations of their argument?


Come on, be productive: what is the problem with the usage? Yes, it's not the most common usage, but so what?


The problem is that 'pride' evokes certain considerations, which YOu insist are not intended in your understanding of the phrasing. You expand that you carefully explain this to people. The problem - of course - is that people make judgements on something like this based on what you say, without (necessarily) waiting for you to explain why their initial response (based on the actual majority meaning) is erroneous.


Your assessment of "harm" depends on your assessment of "wrongness." If the usage is perfectly legitimate, there's no harm done--people get it.


Not at all. The harm doesn't necessarily rely on how legitimate it is to use the word.


Easy: a strong connection that's not a necessary one.


Then I fear you are using 'inextricable' in an inappropriate fashion.


The common usages of "gay" are all legitimate (language-wise, anyway--some are offensive, but that is a different challenge.) I'm not sure what you're getting at.


Consider your own wording: "Why did a bunch of people decide to use a word with a definition that didn't at all fit to describe what they were talking about".


So stop being evasive. What's the problem? That it causes harm? But the only reason for your assessment of "harm" is its failure to communicate.


I've not been evasive. Far from it. According to some, I've gone on about it beyond all reason.


But that's not what you said.
"Opposes" is not the same as "is slightly different from."


No. It isn't necessarily equivalent to some kind of diametric negation, either.


Out of the relevant context, yes. Again, that's true of any word. So?

So. Case rests. That's enough.

That the phrasing is bad. That it does more harm than good.

That's not an argument, those are two assertions.

The problem is that 'pride' evokes certain considerations,

Sometimes, yes. Not generally.

You expand that you carefully explain this to people.

When necessary, yes.

The problem - of course - is that people make judgements on something like this based on what you say, without (necessarily) waiting for you to explain why their initial response (based on the actual majority meaning) is erroneous.

What of it? What's your point? No movement manages to express itself in terminology that can't be misunderstood or manipulated to harm it... indeed, this may be the intrinsic part of dealing with a culture you are trying to change. In a perfect world, we might be able to express ourselves perfectly... in this one, we make do as best we can.

Is "feminism" less problematic? "Socialism"? Even "equality" evokes the wrong impression sometimes--have you ever read "Harrison Bergeron"?

This demand for perfect expression, at the expense of the cultural symbols that have already developed in the material world, ultimately resolves itself in a demand for inaction, for passivity: the perfect becoming the enemy of the good.

Then I fear you are using 'inextricable' in an inappropriate fashion.

"Inextricable" does not mean the same as "intrinsic." Imagine something stuck in something else by an unbreakable glue: it is inextricable, but not intrinsic.

Same idea here.

Consider your own wording: "Why did a bunch of people decide to use a word with a definition that didn't at all fit to describe what they were talking about".

I still don't know what you're talking about.

I've not been evasive. Far from it. According to some, I've gone on about it beyond all reason.

Maybe, but it's your error to assume that this necessarily excludes evasion. Quantity says nothing about quality.

So. Case rests. That's enough.

Except (obviously) in this case it's within the relevant context.

Maybe, but it's your error to assume that this necessarily excludes evasion. Quantity says nothing about quality.


This is point-scoring, and it bores me.

Consider it a 'win'. You have your 'point'.

Enjoy.

Straight. Always have been. Always will be. Females are so attractive. I don't understand how anyone could want to be gay, quite honestly. Anyway, you people do realize that extremely long posts are boring and not worth reading right?

Men doing men (or women doing women) is a sin.

Men doing men (or women doing women) is a sin.

Then don't do it.

For others, it's no sin at all. And they probably appreciate it if you keep your prejudices in your closet.

Isn't everyone?

Oh yeah. This world is a piece of shit.

Then don't do it.

For others, it's no sin at all. And they probably appreciate it if you keep your prejudices in your closet.

What's a "prejudice" to you?

I sense uneasily a kind of double standard. I mean, homosexuals are allowed to parade on the streets wearing next to nothing proclaiming they are proud to be who they are. Why, on the other hand, must people expressing moral objections to homosexuality keep their beliefs in the closet? Shouldn't both supporters and opposers be equally free to express their opinions?

This is point-scoring, and it bores me.

The irony, of course, is that in noting the non-substance of my comment about evasion, you completely evade everything substantive I said in my post.

What's a "prejudice" to you?

I sense uneasily a kind of double standard. I mean, homosexuals are allowed to parade on the streets wearing next to nothing proclaiming they are proud to be who they are. Why, on the other hand, must people expressing moral objections to homosexuality keep their beliefs in the closet? Shouldn't both supporters and opposers be equally free to express their opinions?

Everyone is equally free to express their opinions.

But being proud of who you are is quite different from trying tell others who they should be.

One can support someone for being proud to be themselves while kindly telling those who would try and impose their views on others where they can shove it.

Everyone is equally free to express their opinions.

But being proud of who you are is quite different from trying tell others who they should be.

Expressing an objection to something doesn't necessarily equate to you wanting to tell others who they should be.

Here is what Regular Squirrels said: "Men doing men (or women doing women) is a sin." That's all he said. All he did was express a viewpoint, and Grave_n_idle basically told him to "keep these prejudices in a closet". Which part of Squirrels' comment implies that he wants to tell others who they should be? Which part of the comment shows that he is trying to impose his view on others?

Why, on the other hand, must people expressing moral objections to homosexuality keep their beliefs in the closet?

Permitting intolerance in the name of tolerance is a contradiction: its consequence is not a tolerant society, but an intolerant one. Gay pride parades, on the other hand, don't promote intolerance of anyone.

Expressing an objection to something doesn't necessarily equate to you wanting to tell others who they should be.

It does when your objection is to how they live their lives or a part of who they are.

Straight. Always have been. Always will be. Females are so attractive. I don't understand how anyone could want to be gay, quite honestly. Anyway, you people do realize that extremely long posts are boring and not worth reading right?
Yes. I am keenly aware of this.


Men doing men (or women doing women) is a sin.
I have questions for you :D

1) Are you trying to say that guys fucking each other in the ass is a sin? If so, where does it say that?
2) Are you aware that not all gay men like to fuck each other in the ass? How does this jive with your point?
3) Where does it say that women having sex with each other is a sin?
4) Why is your religion valid?
5) Can you prove that your holy text has not been fabricated by men?

Permitting intolerance in the name of tolerance is a contradiction: its consequence is not a tolerant society, but an intolerant one. Gay pride parades, on the other hand, don't promote intolerance of anyone.

Tolerance and acceptance are two absolutely different things.

I can tolerate something I do not accept.

What's a "prejudice" to you?

I sense uneasily a kind of double standard. I mean, homosexuals are allowed to parade on the streets wearing next to nothing proclaiming they are proud to be who they are. Why, on the other hand, must people expressing moral objections to homosexuality keep their beliefs in the closet? Shouldn't both supporters and opposers be equally free to express their opinions?

I didn't say "homosexuals should be parading the streets wearing next to nothing proclaiming they are proud"... did I?

The word 'sin' carries an implication - it is a moral judgement, and implies a higher authority. No everyone acknowledges one higher authority, or ANY higher authority... so such a judgement is inherently personal, and doesn't deserve to be treated as any more than such. It certainly should carry no greater weight.

So - people condemning what others do in the privacy of their own bedrooms (bathrooms, kitchens... each other's bedrooms.... etc) gain no special respect from me. They are free to believe as they please, but - to be honest, any time it starts infringing on other people, it should probably be kept to oneself.

The irony, of course, is that in noting the non-substance of my comment about evasion, you completely evade everything substantive I said in my post.

Nothing ironic about it. Substance or no, I realised that I no longer want to play that particular game with you. Accept it with good grace, you win.

It does when your objection is to how they live their lives or a part of who they are.

Well clearly you are objecting to certain Christians to whom belief that homosexuality is a sin is how they live their lives and part of who they are. Aren't you being intolerant?

Tolerance and acceptance are two absolutely different things.

That's right. So don't accept homosexuality as much as you like.

Just don't go preaching about its evils, either.

Well clearly you are objecting to certain Christians to whom belief that homosexuality is a sin is how they live their lives and part of who they are. Aren't you being intolerant?

Not at all. I'm not objecting to anyone's personal beliefs. I'm objecting to the application of those beliefs to others.

I, for instance, feel that being promiscuous would be wrong. Thus, I don't do it. But I don't necessarily think it's wrong for everyone and I would not tell others that they were sinners or evil-doers or whatever for doing so.

It's the opposite of intolerance, really. I'm willing to live as I see fit, while allowing others to live as they see fit without trying to interfere.

Expressing an objection to something doesn't necessarily equate to you wanting to tell others who they should be.

Here is what Regular Squirrels said: "Men doing men (or women doing women) is a sin." That's all he said. All he did was express a viewpoint, and Grave_n_idle basically told him to "keep these prejudices in a closet". Which part of Squirrels' comment implies that he wants to tell others who they should be? Which part of the comment shows that he is trying to impose his view on others?

1) It is stated as fact.

2) The choice of wording... 'sin' is specific, and carries certain implications.

3) All of us that are familiar with judeo-christian theology are aware that - within that theology, all sexual interactions are sinful. (They must be sanctified by the institution of marriage... a 'right' that the christian church forbids to people of non hetero-normative orientations). Thus - to single out the sexual acts of homosexuals, when ALL sexual interaction is sin, is to express a prejudice.

The word 'sin' carries an implication - it is a moral judgement, and implies a higher authority. No everyone acknowledges one higher authority, or ANY higher authority... so such a judgement is inherently personal, and doesn't deserve to be treated as any more than such. It certainly should carry no greater weight.

Saying "being gay is okay" is also a moral judgement, is also based on some final authority, higher or spiritual or not. You based your decision on "being gay is okay" on your own authority - but it's still final. Some people merely choose to base the authority somewhere else.

All moral judgements are inherently personal and if people can say being gay is okay (being gay is right even, for some), then people should also be allowed to say being gay is wrong.


So - people condemning what others do in the privacy of their own bedrooms (bathrooms, kitchens... each other's bedrooms.... etc) gain no special respect from me. They are free to believe as they please, but - to be honest, any time it starts infringing on other people, it should probably be kept to oneself.
Sex is no longer confined to the bedroom. It is everywhere. It's on the telly, it's on the computer, it's in public places. Once the consenting adults stop using private places and bring their affections to the open then I, as a stakeholder in society, have the right and freedom to express what I think. So do you. And so does everybody else. Nobody's view deserves to be "left in the closet".

I'm a flaming fuckin' hetero, baby!!! ;)

Not that I have anything against anyone's personal sexual identity. As long as you don't try to rape me... it's all good with me. Whatever gets you off and makes you happy, is how it should be. Why should anyone try to deny Any happiness someone can get out of this life!!?

Not at all. I'm not objecting to anyone's personal beliefs. I'm objecting to the application of those beliefs to others.

I, for instance, feel that being promiscuous would be wrong. Thus, I don't do it. But I don't necessarily think it's wrong for everyone and I would not tell others that they were sinners or evil-doers or whatever for doing so.

It's the opposite of intolerance, really. I'm willing to live as I see fit, while allowing others to live as they see fit without trying to interfere.

I bet there will be something in which you see and then you vehemently object, and you will act to prevent that something from happening - or at least I hope there will be.

Sex is no longer confined to the bedroom. It is everywhere. It's on the telly, it's on the computer, it's in public places. Once the consenting adults stop using private places and bring their affections to the open then I, as a stakeholder in society, have the right and freedom to express what I think.

Actually, I agree. Society absolutely has the right to say something about public displays of sexuality.

The trouble is, when you act as part of a decision-making public, you should be acting for public reasons: reasons founded upon a concern for right that can be universalized, that is not exclusive to a particular private perspective. And people trying to establish a sexual double standard between gays and straights generally fail to give such a public reason for it.

I see this argument about acceptance versus tolerance.

This is my two cents. I find it intolerant of people's beliefs to say that they can't say homosexuality is a sin or that it is wrong or anything.
Gays and liberals don't have to accept the ideas as right but they should tolerate them like most people who believe homosexuality is wrong tolerate it but don't accept it(it is my experience that that is the view of many people who don't believe it is okay)

1) It is stated as fact.

2) The choice of wording... 'sin' is specific, and carries certain implications.

3) All of us that are familiar with judeo-christian theology are aware that - within that theology, all sexual interactions are sinful. (They must be sanctified by the institution of marriage... a 'right' that the christian church forbids to people of non hetero-normative orientations). Thus - to single out the sexual acts of homosexuals, when ALL sexual interaction is sin, is to express a prejudice.
That's taking quite a lot of liberties with an average poster's statement - that

a. "sin" specifies the same things for all, which it doesn't
b. "familiar with" requires a qualification - how familiar; how did you become familiar etc.
c. "judeo-christian theology" assumes that there is one monolithic, straight-forward theology which is incorrect
etc.

If anything, it shows your prejudices against the Judeo-Christian faith, its principles, and its followers.

I bet there will be something in which you see and then you vehemently object, and you will act to prevent that something from happening - or at least I hope there will be.

Only if it harms me or others.

Saying "being gay is okay" is also a moral judgement,


Well, I didn't say that. I don't accept it's a 'moral' judgement in the same way that 'it;s a sin' is.... and I think a better argument is "being gay is no one else's business".


...is also based on some final authority, higher or spiritual or not.


No - it's based on individuals being able to do what they want, with consent, within the confines of their own lives.


You based your decision on "being gay is okay" on your own authority - but it's still final.


Well, I didn't say it.. so it's not MY authority.... but my authority is only final as far my personal space extends. To me it's final, yes - but once I start interacting with my neighbour, it's no longer final.


Some people merely choose to base the authority somewhere else.


Fine. Just don't immediately assume that the authority you choose gives you the right to make value judgements about me.


All moral judgements are inherently personal and if people can say being gay is okay (being gay is right even, for some), then people should also be allowed to say being gay is wrong.


Wrong? Or 'sin'? There's a difference. Personally, I find it ridiculous to say it's okay' or otherwise... it's how it is. If you're gay, you're gay... it's not a matter of 'right' or 'wrong'.


Sex is no longer confined to the bedroom. It is everywhere. It's on the telly, it's on the computer,


Both of those actually give you the capacity to not witness gay sex. Or any sex.


...it's in public places.


In most places, I'm pretty sure 'sex' is disallowed strongly in public places. Gay or straight.


Once the consenting adults stop using private places and bring their affections to the open then I, as a stakeholder in society, have the right and freedom to express what I think. So do you. And so does everybody else. Nobody's view deserves to be "left in the closet".

If there are gay people banging in your garden, you have a case. No banging in the gardens. But it's not gay specific.

Actually, I agree. Society absolutely has the right to say something about public displays of sexuality.

The trouble is, when you act as part of a decision-making public, you should be acting for public reasons: reasons founded upon a concern for right that can be universalized, that is not exclusive to a particular private perspective. And people trying to establish a sexual double standard between gays and straights generally fail to give such a public reason for it.

Yes. This is how I roughly view the separation of state and religion. However, undoubtedly one's view of society is going to be affected by one's personal views of life. The key is to strike the balance between advocating your views and respecting others and accepting defeat if under the rules that function in that particular society say that your view is defeated in the public sphere.

This is my two cents. I find it intolerant of people's beliefs to say that they can't say homosexuality is a sin or that it is wrong or anything.

I agree. It is intolerant. The question is, is it a justified intolerance? Is it a legitimate intolerance?

If a tolerant society is our aim, then tolerance matters not as an abstract absolute, but as part of the achievement of a concrete end. The result is that we must apply a discriminating kind of tolerance: in general, we tolerate, but we need not tolerate intolerance. We need not tolerate that which is contrary to our end.

I'm intolerant of people that are intolerant.

Wait.


Well anyways. I'm not gay. Totally, totally, totally into the whole "human female reproductive organs, coupled with a nice outer package, and attractive containers for breast milk" thing.

Only if it harms me or others.

That's a pretty broad definition, isn't it? Won't you agree that your definition and my definition will be different? Who's definition is hence "more correct"?

That's taking quite a lot of liberties with an average poster's statement - that

a. "sin" specifies the same things for all, which it doesn't
b. "familiar with" requires a qualification - how familiar; how did you become familiar etc.
c. "judeo-christian theology" assumes that there is one monolithic, straight-forward theology which is incorrect
etc.

If anything, it shows your prejudices against the Judeo-Christian faith, its principles, and its followers.

Not at all.

Judeo-christianity doesn't have to be assumed to be one monolithic, straight-forward theology. However, the Hebrew and Greek scriptures are fairly vital to Christianity, and the Hebrew scripture is fairly important to the Judaism. The common document would be the Hebrew scripture, which also - not coincidentally, expounds quite heavily on the subject of sin. It isn't unreasonable to discuss 'sin' in Judeo-christian terms... it's a judeo-christian concept, rooted in the judeo-christian documents that are central to judeo-christian faith.

Nothing to do with my prejudices.

Familiar requires no qualification other than what I gave it. It doesn't matter where you became familiar, or how... if you ARE familiar with the texts that are central, if you are relatively immersed in the culture, you don't need to be qualified in your familiarity. Unless you think I'm somehow misrepresenting 'sin'?

I am here to break up this fight.

Pride means that we are happy to be who we are (sexuality is a beautiful part of the human condition) and unashamed of ourselves. Maybe "they" chose the wrong word back in the day to describe the awesome feeling of having a minority sexuality or gender identity. But what was done will be with us for a long time. We've been calling it "Pride" for a long time, and we will continue to call it Pride. Those like grave_n_idle will continue not to like it for a long time and make attempts to persuade people not to call it Pride in vain.

Then we will move on, and everybody will be Happy(TM). :)

For my part, I am proud to be bi. It took a long time and a lot of effort to deheterosexualize myself. And with enough conscious effort watching gay pornography, making friendships with gay men, and getting over the fact that you like your penis but nobody else's (a serious hurdle) you too can deheterosexualize yourself.


wait, you forced yourself to have sex with men even though you weren't gay or bi initially?

you're suppressing your heterosexuality the way many gay men would suppress their homosexuality by marrying a woman.

watching gay porn and forcing yourself to to want another mans penis when you weren't born that way...sounds like a mental illness.

Well, I didn't say that. I don't accept it's a 'moral' judgement in the same way that 'it;s a sin' is.... and I think a better argument is "being gay is no one else's business".
There you go. You just made a moral judgement. Don't you get it? Everytime you take a stand, whatever it is, be it repressive or libertarian, you make a judgement based on a set of your personal morals.

If 'it's a sin' is a moral judgement, 'it's not a sin' is a definitely a moral judgement too.


No - it's based on individuals being able to do what they want, with consent, within the confines of their own lives.

Your belief that "individuals being able to do what they want, with consent, within the confines of their own lives" is your final authority, isn't it? There isn't a further authority that you base your judgement on, is there?



Well, I didn't say it.. so it's not MY authority.... but my authority is only final as far my personal space extends. To me it's final, yes - but once I start interacting with my neighbour, it's no longer final.
When you interact with your neighbour you either
1. stick to your own final authority
2. modify your final authority
3. switch your final authority to your neighbour

You still have a final authority.



Fine. Just don't immediately assume that the authority you choose gives you the right to make value judgements about me.
Absolutely not. I just fight for my right to place my authority anywhere I want without people asking me to put it in a closet.



Wrong? Or 'sin'? There's a difference. Personally, I find it ridiculous to say it's okay' or otherwise... it's how it is. If you're gay, you're gay... it's not a matter of 'right' or 'wrong'.
Saying it's "how it is" is basically "it's okay". It looks like you've made no judgement but you have. If you don't make a judgement you'd say "I have no opinion whatsoever". "It's how it is" is a judgement.



Both of those actually give you the capacity to not witness gay sex. Or any sex.
I don't buy the following argument but to respond in kind: why do I have to shirk away? Why can't I have a right to enjoy sex-free TV and computer and advertisements and newspapers and magazines? Anybody pushing their rights too far is going to end up very miserable.

But this is not the onus of the argument.



In most places, I'm pretty sure 'sex' is disallowed strongly in public places. Gay or straight.
This isn't either.


If there are gay people banging in your garden, you have a case. No banging in the gardens. But it's not gay specific. It isn't. It extends to every public issue, from public transport to smoking to environmentalism. But once it's in the public, I have the right to comment. And since certain gay people are intent on taking it to the public sphere I intend to use my right to comment.

Not at all.

Judeo-christianity doesn't have to be assumed to be one monolithic, straight-forward theology. However, the Hebrew and Greek scriptures are fairly vital to Christianity, and the Hebrew scripture is fairly important to the Judaism. The common document would be the Hebrew scripture, which also - not coincidentally, expounds quite heavily on the subject of sin. It isn't unreasonable to discuss 'sin' in Judeo-christian terms... it's a judeo-christian concept, rooted in the judeo-christian documents that are central to judeo-christian faith.

Nothing to do with my prejudices.

Familiar requires no qualification other than what I gave it. It doesn't matter where you became familiar, or how... if you ARE familiar with the texts that are central, if you are relatively immersed in the culture, you don't need to be qualified in your familiarity. Unless you think I'm somehow misrepresenting 'sin'?

We'll see. What would you say are the similarities and differences between "sin" and "crime"?

I agree. It is intolerant. The question is, is it a justified intolerance? Is it a legitimate intolerance?

If a tolerant society is our aim, then tolerance matters not as an abstract absolute, but as part of the achievement of a concrete end. The result is that we must apply a discriminating kind of tolerance: in general, we tolerate, but we need not tolerate intolerance. We need not tolerate that which is contrary to our end.

You said we need to be discriminatory in our tolerance but we shouldn't tolerate intolerance? Isn't that just saying that if it fits your views it is okay to be intolerant but if it doesn't then it is bad?

wait, your forced yourself to have sex with men even though you weren't gay or bi initially?

you're suppressing your heterosexuality the way many gay men would suppress their homosexuality by marrying a woman.

watching gay porn and forcing yourself to to want another mans penis when you weren't born that way...it's a mental illness.

Now that I totally agree with.

Me too. I don't understand if you are straight why you would force yourself to be gay.

I can understand forcing yourself to be straight if you are gay because of all of the discrimination and stuff, but forcing oneself to be gay is quite confusing.

However, undoubtedly one's view of society is going to be affected by one's personal views of life.

Right, but that's not what's at issue.

In all probability, you and I disagree wildly on what is "the best society." These differences are necessarily personal--what else are they going to be? My point is not that we should exclude "personal" views from the public sphere, but that we must adhere to a higher standard of rationality and impartiality in considering them.

I loathe (American) football. My instinctive, partial reaction when I consider whether as a society we should (in one way or another) make provisions for playing football is, "Of course not! What a waste." But I could never vote for a measure representing that view: as soon as I strive for impartiality, for fairness, I realize that my view is grounded on my own arbitrary bases, and cannot legitimately be made law. I cannot come up with any reason to give to the disappointed football fans for my opposition. It's just me being an elitist asshole.

On the other hand, I might have a view that is more impartial, but nevertheless personal: for instance, I support a repeal of public nudity laws. I don't pretend that this view stems from some objective law, but I do think I have good reasons for it, and reasons that apply even for people who are not me: I might say, for instance, that one person's disgust should not trump another person's (non-harmful) freedom of action. That's a perfectly reasonable response to the objections of those who oppose the change in law--it's the kind of thing I could accept even if I were the kind of person who is disgusted by public nudity. I can vote for that, even though I recognize that "reasonable people can disagree"--that there's nothing objective about that standpoint such that any rational person must accept it.

To bring it back to the original topic, the trouble is that people who want to deny gays rights can't reach the second kind of basis. They can't give someone like me, a queer atheist, a response that makes any sense in my terms. It's not that I disagree with them (I can disagree with a just law), it's that they speak in terms that are private: their holy text, their personal disgust. They have no basis for claiming that either of those should mean anything to me.

The key is to strike the balance between advocating your views and respecting others and accepting defeat if under the rules that function in that particular society say that your view is defeated in the public sphere.

"Accepting defeat" is not the same thing. I advocate for legal public nudity, and accept defeat when I lose by complying with the law. I don't even begin to advocate for banning football, because I realize that it lacks any public justification.

Right, but that's not what's at issue.

In all probability, you and I disagree wildly on what is "the best society." These differences are necessarily personal--what else are they going to be? My point is not that we should exclude "personal" views from the public sphere, but that we must adhere to a higher standard of rationality and impartiality in considering them.

I loathe (American) football. My instinctive, partial reaction when I consider whether as a society we should (in one way or another) make provisions for playing football is, "Of course not! What a waste." But I could never vote for a measure representing that view: as soon as I strive for impartiality, for fairness, I realize that my view is grounded on my own arbitrary bases, and cannot legitimately be made law. I cannot come up with any reason to give to the disappointed football fans for my opposition. It's just me being an elitist asshole.

On the other hand, I might have a view that is more impartial, but nevertheless personal: for instance, I support a repeal of public nudity laws. I don't pretend that this view stems from some objective law, but I do think I have good reasons for it, and reasons that apply even for people who are not me: I might say, for instance, that one person's disgust should not trump another person's (non-harmful) freedom of action. That's a perfectly reasonable response to the objections of those who oppose the change in law--it's the kind of thing I could accept even if I were the kind of person who is disgusted by public nudity. I can vote for that, even though I recognize that "reasonable people can disagree"--that there's nothing objective about that standpoint such that any rational person must accept it.

I agree with that. Anything discussed in the public sphere must have a public impact. For example, in the recent Embryology Bill gone through the UK Parliament, while many Christians were really quick to jump to say that "we're playing God and we shouldn't", I decided not to endorse that viewpoint even though I sympathise with it, but the viewpoint that "from a medical point of view, this has benefits for society and hence I am not against it - subject to review of later events".

But you must accept that whether you think something has a public impact can (and probably will) come from a private viewpoint - and not necessarily religion.


To bring it back to the original topic, the trouble is that people who want to deny gays rights can't reach the second kind of basis. They can't give someone like me, a queer atheist, a response that makes any sense in my terms. It's not that I disagree with them (I can disagree with a just law), it's that they speak in terms that are private: their holy text, their personal disgust. They have no basis for claiming that either of those should mean anything to me.
In response to gay marriage rights I will tell you that I do not believe that my God views these marriages with approval and hence spiritually I am against them. But at the end of the day, in the public sphere, that is not my business. I recognise that gays do want their relationships recognised and I can see the benefits of gay marriages in civil society, so that they can have the same civil rights and duties of straight marriages. This viewpoint is subject to further events.

I really do caution against taking absolute viewpoints "based on my religion" in public affairs. My faith is larger than public affairs. This world is not perfect and the decisions taken by consensus in society may conflict with my beliefs. I am absolutely ready to pay the price of being the minority.

That's a pretty broad definition, isn't it? Won't you agree that your definition and my definition will be different? Who's definition is hence "more correct"?

Our definition of what?

I'm intolerant of people that are intolerant.

Different contexts of "intolerant." I'm intolerant of people who are intolerant without justification. And I've been explaining why this kind of intolerance is justified.

you're suppressing your heterosexuality

Didn't you see him note he was bisexual? How is that "suppression" of anything?

watching gay porn and forcing yourself to to want another mans penis when you weren't born that way...

This is an interesting statement of yours, one that begs several questions: most importantly, whether (and how much) heterosexuality in our culture is an imposed construct and not a manifestation of natural reality.

While I am (roughly) an "essentialist" when it comes to sexual orientation, I think it is very probable that our society, by and large, continues to suppress same-sex attraction, especially when it is not exclusive, and also especially in men. To put it differently, what exists here may be more "rebisexualization" than "deheterosexualization"... the opposite of suppression.

:)

You said we need to be discriminatory in our tolerance but we shouldn't tolerate intolerance? Isn't that just saying that if it fits your views it is okay to be intolerant but if it doesn't then it is bad?

Who said anything about "fits [my] views"? Plenty of tolerant views--say, support for capitalism--are radically opposed to my views, but should absolutely be tolerated.

Me too. I don't understand if you are straight why you would force yourself to be gay.

Again, this talk of "forcing"....

Our definition of what?

"Only if it harms me or others."

What "harming me or others" mean.

But you must accept that whether you think something has a public impact can (and probably will) come from a private viewpoint

Fine with me. We have a right to make our own decisions about what constitutes "public impact." The point is that it is "public impact" with which we should be concerned.

In response to gay marriage rights I will tell you that I do not believe that my God views these marriages with approval and hence spiritually I am against them. But at the end of the day, in the public sphere, that is not my business. I recognise that gays do want their relationships recognised and I can see the benefits of gay marriages in civil society, so that they can have the same civil rights and duties of straight marriages.

Politically, that's a perfectly fine position. Personally, I have major problems with it. But in the end, I think that sometimes that's where we have to end up.

Fine with me. We have a right to make our own decisions about what constitutes "public impact." The point is that it is "public impact" with which we should be concerned. Exactly.



Politically, that's a perfectly fine position. Personally, I have major problems with it. But in the end, I think that sometimes that's where we have to end up.
And here is where I say one can be unaccepting but tolerant.

Politics is exceedingly exciting!!

wait, you forced yourself to have sex with men even though you weren't gay or bi initially?

No. It was more of a mental process of exploring the idea that I could find men attractive.


you're suppressing your heterosexuality the way many gay men would suppress their homosexuality by marrying a woman.

Not really. Women are attractive and they always will be so. It is just that I have come to recognize that men are also attractive.


watching gay porn and forcing yourself to to want another mans penis when you weren't born that way...sounds like a mental illness.

Now that I totally agree with.
I said that more for the lulz.

Watching porn doesn't have a lot to do with it, nor does wanting another man's penis. You might be aware that a penis has a body to go with it, and this body has a human personality that goes with it. (Sort of like vaginas have bodies that go along with them and human personalities that go along with them also.)

Please. I shudder to think I would reduce attraction to mere genitalia; love goes much farther than that (I would hope you agree).


This is an interesting statement of yours, one that begs several questions: most importantly, whether (and how much) heterosexuality in our culture is an imposed construct and not a manifestation of natural reality.

While I am (roughly) an "essentialist" when it comes to sexual orientation, I think it is very probable that our society, by and large, continues to suppress same-sex attraction, especially when it is not exclusive, and also especially in men. To put it differently, what exists here may be more "rebisexualization" than "deheterosexualization"... the opposite of suppression.

:)

I would say that it's at least partially true that there exists coercion to enforce heterosexuality; that is, there is such a thing as "compulsory heterosexuality." Or maybe it's "compulsive heterosexuality." I can't decide which... ;)

Now, I have questions about whether our particular sexualities are innate, and I do think they are at least partially malleable. I'm definitely more queer than I used to be... Though in fairness, I can't prove that I was not simply queer all along and that I simply became less repressed...

I would say that it's at least partially true that there exists coercion to enforce heterosexuality; that is, there is such a thing as "compulsory heterosexuality." Or maybe it's "compulsive heterosexuality." I can't decide which... ;)

"Compulsory heterosexuality" is the usual term, for what it's worth. :)

Now, I have questions about whether our particular sexualities are innate, and I do think they are at least partially malleable. I'm definitely more queer than I used to be...

"Malleable", I don't think so--not beyond the kind of experimentation that might end suppression, anyway. The fact that gays, lesbians, and bisexuals have continued existing even through periods of severe stigma and repression, even through their own efforts to "repair" themselves, suggests that there's a great deal of innateness involved.

I'm open, though, to the suggestion that sexual orientation can be fluid... that it's not set in stone at one particular point for the entire period of a person's life.

Why, on the other hand, must people expressing moral objections to homosexuality keep their beliefs in the closet? Shouldn't both supporters and opposers be equally free to express their opinions?
They DO express their opinions, often, and loudly. When they express their opinions, often other people express disagreement. Understand how that works?

i'm here and queer. :D

Not at all.

Judeo-christianity doesn't have to be assumed to be one monolithic, straight-forward theology. However, the Hebrew and Greek scriptures are fairly vital to Christianity, and the Hebrew scripture is fairly important to the Judaism. The common document would be the Hebrew scripture, which also - not coincidentally, expounds quite heavily on the subject of sin. It isn't unreasonable to discuss 'sin' in Judeo-christian terms... it's a judeo-christian concept, rooted in the judeo-christian documents that are central to judeo-christian faith.

Technically speaking, both of you are wrong. :D

The concept of "Judeo-Christian ethics" is an exceedingly monumental concept that has evolved over the past four thousand years. Modern research can even show us specific periods when Hebrew/Jewish/Early Christian/Catholic/Protestant/etc. scriptures changed. Your statement that we can't assume monolithism is true in a sense, but the sheer amount of literature, commentary, and influence that the "Religion of Yahweh" has undertaken makes any meaninful discussion of ethics, morals, and faith a mind-numbing discussion of belief and adherence.

Simply saying "Look at the Tanakh" or "Look at the Book of Numbers" doesn't suffice. One needs to look at why the aggadah prohibits shaving, or requires the High Priest to sprinkle blood before the Tabernacle of the Lord. The "why" is important, rather than just the "what."

Nothing to do with my prejudices.

Familiar requires no qualification other than what I gave it. It doesn't matter where you became familiar, or how... if you ARE familiar with the texts that are central, if you are relatively immersed in the culture, you don't need to be qualified in your familiarity. Unless you think I'm somehow misrepresenting 'sin'?

Sin is best defined as "unacceptable behavior for a given community." In the Hebraic tradition, the taboo was supposedly given directly by God. Unacceptable behavior, or "sin" shifted radically in the first hundred years of the Christian tradition. Sure, the Old Testament remained a vital and essential part of the new faith, but the anti-Judaizers (something I will never understand) excised much of the Israelite religion from the "new" faith of the Roman Empire. How can one excise the commandments of God to worship in the temple, to have a high priest, to sacrifice and pray at allotted times of the day, especially if your Christ is the literal son of God?

"Only if it harms me or others."

What "harming me or others" mean.

Causing objectively demonstrable harm. It's fairly simple really. There are, as always, some grey areas, but most of them are pretty clearly black or white.


"Malleable", I don't think so--not beyond the kind of experimentation that might end suppression, anyway. The fact that gays, lesbians, and bisexuals have continued existing even through periods of severe stigma and repression, even through their own efforts to "repair" themselves, suggests that there's a great deal of innateness involved.

I'm open, though, to the suggestion that sexual orientation can be fluid... that it's not set in stone at one particular point for the entire period of a person's life.

As a general rule, I don't think that the kind of fluidity we see in sexuality is something like a jump from exclusively homosexual to exclusively heterosexual. I think it's more that, over time, we may find ourselves moving slightly along the spectrum. Our tastes in partners tends to change on all sorts of counts over time.

"Malleable", I don't think so--not beyond the kind of experimentation that might end suppression, anyway. The fact that gays, lesbians, and bisexuals have continued existing even through periods of severe stigma and repression, even through their own efforts to "repair" themselves, suggests that there's a great deal of innateness involved.

I'm open, though, to the suggestion that sexual orientation can be fluid... that it's not set in stone at one particular point for the entire period of a person's life.
I agree with this.

I kind of think of it as similar to one's preference for foods. Over time, what you enjoy may change. To a limited extent you could also make yourself get used to eating something you don't particularly like. But you can't really force yourself to like something that you simply don't like.

My comment was a response to "In your case, though, you're just being annoying".

Don't shift the goalposts

I'm not, I was just explaining why you were being annoying.


That out of the way - I really don't see the problem. You are, yourself, admitting that it's not a perfect fit.

Hardly any word is ever a perfect fit in most contexts.


In most contexts, the word would not be taken to mean what you claim it is to be taken to mean.


Yes it is, often. The whole context of "I'm proud with the way I am" which includes thousands of sub-contexts, is a huge use of the word pride.


Pointing that out is hardly some great evil.

No, but it's very pointless and annoying.

Isn't everyone?Fortunately not.

Expressing an objection to something doesn't necessarily equate to you wanting to tell others who they should be.

Here is what Regular Squirrels said: "Men doing men (or women doing women) is a sin." That's all he said. All he did was express a viewpoint, and Grave_n_idle basically told him to "keep these prejudices in a closet". Which part of Squirrels' comment implies that he wants to tell others who they should be? Which part of the comment shows that he is trying to impose his view on others?

The idea of "sin" comes from the idea that everybody should follow one set of rules in order to achieve some sort of "salvation." If one fails to follow these rules, they are consequently damned, in some maner. Therefore, by someone calling something a "sin," they are trying to force the supposed sinner to do something according to their personal morals.

I wonder if it's possible to be, mechnosexual.
as in, the person gets off on looking at a catologue of hoovers or something?

Here's a test, tell if someone is heterosexual... they do not get turned on by the guys in the Abercrombie & Fitch catalog.

heterosexual means you like the oposite gender, compated to homosexual in which you like the same gender.

Actually all humans are Heterosexual, it is the the method of biological reproduction which defines the term.

Homosexuality is a behavior with biological consequences but not of biological origin.

If anything, it shows your prejudices against the Judeo-Christian faith, its principles, and its followers.

I don't know about how GnI came to his understanding of Abramist theologies (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam), but I agree with what he's saying, and I can explain how I came to my desicion. I was raised by a pair of Catholics. I've read most of the bible. I have to go to a Catholic Church every sunday. I do extensive research on as many cultures as I can. If these ideas of GnI are prejudices, then he's damn good at creating his prejudices.

Actually all humans are Heterosexual, it is the the method of biological reproduction which defines the term.

Homosexuality is a behavior with biological consequences but not of biological origin.

Um... no. All humans are sexual (the term that defines how the species reproduces), and homo-, hetero-, ect. defines the behavior.

wait, you forced yourself to have sex with men even though you weren't gay or bi initially?

you're suppressing your heterosexuality the way many gay men would suppress their homosexuality by marrying a woman.

watching gay porn and forcing yourself to to want another mans penis when you weren't born that way...sounds like a mental illness.

I would just like to assert that what he did (or what you're interpreting that he did) is not the norm. PLEASE don't assume that all homo- or bi- sexuals do this to become the way they are.

I would just like to assert that what he did (or what you're interpreting that he did) is not the norm. PLEASE don't assume that all homo- or bi- sexuals do this to become the way they are.
His interpretation is bad. And plus that comment I made was more for the lulz, but at least some mental self-conditioning was involved. :D

Technically speaking, both of you are wrong. :D

The concept of "Judeo-Christian ethics" is an exceedingly monumental concept that has evolved over the past four thousand years. Modern research can even show us specific periods when Hebrew/Jewish/Early Christian/Catholic/Protestant/etc. scriptures changed. Your statement that we can't assume monolithism is true in a sense, but the sheer amount of literature, commentary, and influence that the "Religion of Yahweh" has undertaken makes any meaninful discussion of ethics, morals, and faith a mind-numbing discussion of belief and adherence.

Simply saying "Look at the Tanakh" or "Look at the Book of Numbers" doesn't suffice. One needs to look at why the aggadah prohibits shaving, or requires the High Priest to sprinkle blood before the Tabernacle of the Lord. The "why" is important, rather than just the "what."


Yes, and no. In understanding the Levitical Law, it is important to consider the 'why'. But, in considering the question of whether or not something (even Levitical Law) exists - the 'what' is all that matters.

The Hebrew portion of the scripture is remarkably consistent. Closely examining it shows evidence that it seems to be a fairly concrete cross-section of beliefs, frozen fairly accurately at one point within the evolution of thought. What we have in terms of physical evidence, shows that there has been little change to the written form - we have a 'fossil form' of Hebrew theology... but within that fossil form we can still see traces of evolutionary evidence - the remains of polytheism, etc.

We also have our Greek scriptures, which (appear to) show a much slower accretion - itself, an example of what was happening to the 'thought' we saw snapshotted in the Hebrew scriptures, but which continued evolving even after the main body was set in stone. This forms our secod main record of thought - semi-consistent, and somewhat divergent.

The Christian schools of thought have continued to create 'traditions' to accompany their scriptures - so we still don't have a complete cessation of the thought - but we do have two key epochs of theology.

Is it 'monolithic'? Yes - to an extent. Although the Greek scripture doesn't perfectly fit the Hebrew scripture... and much of the latter tradition isn't entirely consistent with either early form. But still, we have central cores that are fairly concrete, and largely unchanging.... monolithic.


Sin is best defined as "unacceptable behavior for a given community." In the Hebraic tradition, the taboo was supposedly given directly by God. Unacceptable behavior, or "sin" shifted radically in the first hundred years of the Christian tradition. Sure, the Old Testament remained a vital and essential part of the new faith, but the anti-Judaizers (something I will never understand) excised much of the Israelite religion from the "new" faith of the Roman Empire. How can one excise the commandments of God to worship in the temple, to have a high priest, to sacrifice and pray at allotted times of the day, especially if your Christ is the literal son of God?

Not really - your 'best' definition of 'sin' ignores the fact that the term is loaded. Also - while the understanding of what we do about 'sin' may have changed, the concept of sin, and what it means, is fairly consistent.

Actually all humans are Heterosexual, it is the the method of biological reproduction which defines the term.

That's an interesting idea. It's good to use your imagination ... but before stating it as fact, do go look it up in a dicitionary.

Just to avoid the appearance of ... you know ... making shit up.

Why, yes, I am Heterosexual. Metrosexual, mind you, but hetero to boot.

Yes, and no. In understanding the Levitical Law, it is important to consider the 'why'. But, in considering the question of whether or not something (even Levitical Law) exists - the 'what' is all that matters.

The Hebrew portion of the scripture is remarkably consistent. Closely examining it shows evidence that it seems to be a fairly concrete cross-section of beliefs, frozen fairly accurately at one point within the evolution of thought. What we have in terms of physical evidence, shows that there has been little change to the written form - we have a 'fossil form' of Hebrew theology... but within that fossil form we can still see traces of evolutionary evidence - the remains of polytheism, etc.

We also have our Greek scriptures, which (appear to) show a much slower accretion - itself, an example of what was happening to the 'thought' we saw snapshotted in the Hebrew scriptures, but which continued evolving even after the main body was set in stone. This forms our secod main record of thought - semi-consistent, and somewhat divergent.

The Christian schools of thought have continued to create 'traditions' to accompany their scriptures - so we still don't have a complete cessation of the thought - but we do have two key epochs of theology.

Is it 'monolithic'? Yes - to an extent. Although the Greek scripture doesn't perfectly fit the Hebrew scripture... and much of the latter tradition isn't entirely consistent with either early form. But still, we have central cores that are fairly concrete, and largely unchanging.... monolithic.

I see your point, but don't forget about the documentary of the Hebrew texts- the Priestly, Jahwist, Deuteronomist, and Elohist authorships analyses both show a a surprising amount of redaction, editing, and comilation of early myths, beliefs, and practices in the ancient Israelite state- as well as the clear Babylonian influences stemming from Nebuchadrezzar's conquest of the Levant. Hell- King Josiah ordered the Temple cleared out in a revival of the faith, found a few old books, and made them part of the Tanakh, for the simple reason of "why else would they be in the Temple?"

The Vulgate and Septuagint translations go into much murkier water that makes my head hurt. Very good points, though.

Not really - your 'best' definition of 'sin' ignores the fact that the term is loaded. Also - while the understanding of what we do about 'sin' may have changed, the concept of sin, and what it means, is fairly consistent.

True, but what is "sin" without the definitions of the people who see it as such? It's a loaded term for those people observing it. Those fearful of "sin" have a clear-cut understanding of what it is, and why it should be avoided. That's the entire point.

This leads back to the "homosexual question." Modern fundamentalist Christians and Orthodox Jews see it as a clear-cut thing: homoseuxality is sinful, because the Holiness Code specifically prohibits it. That's all they need to see. But if you go further into the text, looking at it anthropologically and historically, there are more interpreations- one particularly interesting (and convincing) one I've read is that the Leviticus prohibition against same-sex relations is related to Canaanite religious practices of temple prostitution and fertility, or rites of passage involving same-sex love.

The entire point of the Jewish law is to show who is and who isn't a Jew, to distinguish "God's people" from everyone else- it was immensely important in the ancient world to show that you belong to your community. The lists of lineage and ancestry common in the Bible were extremely important because it showed that your ancestors were "chosen" and thus you were also.

A form of pride, if you will. :D

As I've told many a friend,and relative: Personally, anything other than 'one guy, one girl' falls into the category of "don't need to know what y'all get up to in your spare time." Hell, you can have sex with Dodge Ramblers for all I care, just as long as you resist the temptation to tell me all about it.

Especially when I'm eating.

As I've told many a friend,and relative: Personally, anything other than 'one guy, one girl' falls into the category of "don't need to know what y'all get up to in your spare time." Hell, you can have sex with Dodge Ramblers for all I care, just as long as you resist the temptation to tell me all about it.

Especially when I'm eating.

What? So you want to know all about what people get up to right down to the smallest detail if it is 'one guy, one girl'? You sir, are a pervert:p

As I've told many a friend,and relative: Personally, anything other than 'one guy, one girl' falls into the category of "don't need to know what y'all get up to in your spare time." Hell, you can have sex with Dodge Ramblers for all I care, just as long as you resist the temptation to tell me all about it.

Especially when I'm eating.

Why would you want to hear about "one guy, one girl" exploits either?

Why would you want to hear about "one guy, one girl" exploits either?

I don't, as a general rule. But if people must go into detail, as they are wont to do, 'one guy, one girl' is at least something I can relate to and have some understanding of.

Still, not when I'm eating.