Blogs Sep 7, 2011 at 7:30 am

Comments

101
@ 97, you DO know that your arguments are the epitome of illogic, don't you?

Oh well. Thank goodness sex isn't at the heart of marriage. If it were, this might be pertinent to the marriage debate.
102
@100

Ah. So one can be gay while having no sexual attraction to his or her gender, and by engaging in 'homosexual sex' with the opposite gender in your estimation?

Well and good. If you refuse to use the English language like according to word definitions I don't know how to disabuse you of that error.

Also, you use words like 'golden age' and 'common' interestingly. Other than the Greeks of antiquity I'm unaware of any influential society in which homosexuality was treated as benign. In most it was and has been treated as either anathema or tolerated with attitudes from amused contempt to indifference. Never common, there isn't any reason to believe that more than about 3% to 5% of any given population has been subject to this vice. Again, if you refuse to use English according to how words are actually defined, I don't know what to say.

And fyi, comparing cultures only on the basis of how they view homosexuality is just a bit suspect anthropologically or sociologically speaking. You might look up the terms correlation and causation, to start yourself off on the right track.

Or didn't you know that we differ from, say, Iran or Uganda in more than how we view that particular vice?
103
Going for the low-hanging fruit, Seattleblues? I guess that's easier than citing anything that supports assertions such as homosexuality being a mental illness.
104
If sex is natural then all sex is natural, there, you want black and white, there's black and white.
105
Other than the Greeks of antiquity I'm unaware of any influential society in which homosexuality was treated as benign.

Feudal Japan, for the most part. Then again, I'm not sure why it matters. Nearly all influential societies engaged in slavery, at one time; mankind can be collectively "wrong" as well as collectively "right" (or, to put it more accurately, can function according to widely held moral precepts that will later be found immoral as the social contract--the empirically discernible source of morality--evolves).

Never common, there isn't any reason to believe that more than about 3% to 5% of any given population has been subject to this vice.

I've pointed out the error in this before. That percentage refers only to the percentage of the population that engages primarily or exclusively in homosexual behavior (i.e., the portion that lacks notable heterosexual attractions). The percentage of any population that engages in homosexual behavior, and/or the percentage of total sexual behavior that is homosexual, is generally shown to be at least 10%, and perhaps considerably higher.

Of course, left-handed people only make up about 7% of the population. I realize that doesn't concern you, being that left-handedness doesn't strike you as a "vice," but aside from theologically derived definitions, you haven't really explained why same-sex attraction qualifies as a vice, either.
106
Oh Seattleblues, once again you come into a thread, and make an ass of yourself, having not actually read the post or links in question, simply because Dan Savage wrote it. Will you admit that your assumption that this poll was being taken by an "earnest effeminate young man clearly wanting to push 'gay rights.'" was completely erroneous and the product of your own fevered imagination? Will you forgo batting at Kittenkoder and instead address thelyamhound's posts @98 and 99?

No. Of course you won't.

This so reminds me of that time you backed yourself into the position of defending the Catholic Church and its decades long cover up of pedophelia with in the priesthood, rather than admit that Dan was right to be outraged by it. Or that time you insisted no conservatives like Ayn Rand, Or the time you denied climate change. I could go on and on.

You are a buffoon.

107
Many christians still think us left-handed people are "born of the devil". You can't use reason with fundies, they just don't learn. Luckily the majority of the US is starting to see that their rantings and ravings are nothing but insanity. Since society as a whole makes the laws here, that means they lost already, and their rantings and ravings only push more people to oppose them, sad as that is, it is working for the benefit of everyone else as their numbers and supporters fade. Seattleblues, regardless of your religious belief, whatever that may be, you have no logical ground to stand on. But keep screaming like an insane lunatic, please, it's helping other causes that you, and people I hate, seem to hate. Why do I hate fundies? Because I was one. I loved the simple "god dunnit" life for a while, but then I saw the hypocrisy of other fundies and woke up. Note, even an atheist can be a fundie really, it's more of a mentality than anything else now. Yes, even people pushing for gay rights can be fundies, but at least they aren't making up shit.
108
@85: The free exercise clause only applies to religion, not to any moral belief. And it doesn't allow people to break laws because of their religion: for instance, you are not allowed to speed, trespass, or kill people even if your religion requires it.

A lot of laws are at least somewhat based on morality. For instance, killing and stealing are wrong. It's perfectly fine for people to legislate based on morality, and it doesn't violate the free exercise clause unless they're actually preventing people from practicing their religion without a valid reason.

Seattleblues seems to think our law comes from Christian morality, but the parts of the law that agree with Christian morality are generally not specifically Christian. For instance, human societies respected private property and people's lives long before Christianity or Judaism. Religion stole from morality, not the other way around.

Seattleblues, I still don't understand how a male who gets his cock sucked by another male, or who is sexually attracted to another male, for instance, has an "inaccurate view of objective biological reality."
109
By the way, I forgot to thank Seattleblues for admitting he was wrong about homosexuality and ancient societies and that my point was correct. Of course he couldn't come right out and say it but by bringing up an irrelevant point about Socrates he made it clear that he was wrong.

And he's dropped his claim that homosexuality is a psychological illness, apparently because he's realized he doesn't know what he's talking about.
110
Starting to think Seattleblues is Dan. Every Dan-posted thread with high hit counts is sure to have at least one SB comment in it. This is all just a clever ruse to drive up page views while getting the base all enraged, informed, and articulate.

Of course, Seattleblues might also be a massive troll who, in the two years I've been on SLOG, has regurgitated only the same dozen fundie and libertarian talking points over and over again. And y'all suckers just keep on speaking to him, as if he has anything rational, cogent, or worthwhile to respond to.

Regardless, Seattleblues, you are clearly a boon to Dan's popularity. Well done, sir.
111
@108 ... actually, much of morality is based on instinct really, the protection of the species is the "do not kill without good reason" moral, the "do not steal" is more or less preservation of one's self to. But that's a whole other philosophical topic really, so meh. :P Christian tenets actually came from the state's laws at the time it was formed, but shhh .... don't tell them that, they still think the world is only 6000(?) years old and that their religion existed the whole time.
112
@110 ... perhaps that's why people keep feeding the troll. ;) More hits, more spreading of the good word, and all that. I don't agree with about half of what Dan says, but it's nice to see someone opposing an ideal of his bringing so much attention to that idea, no?
113
110

you probably are right.
there is at any given time always a (but only one- they never overlap....) troll who lures the Slog Faithful into these drawnout tedius endless exchanges; it always gets personal and the troll always poses strawman arguments that feed into Liberal stereotypes and are easy for the faithful to shoot down and boost their self esteem.
114
@93

"SB isn't trying to win any arguments. He's trying to grind us down, drain us of the will to participate and, I can only assume, of the will to vote."


This is Conservative doctrine 101. They have no ideas, morality, or desires beyond the accumulation of wealth, power, and control, and they only way they can do this is to brow beat people with the notion that they are, in fact, right, and you are, in fact, wrong. About what? About whatever it is they think will get them the most wealth, power, and control. It's a fundamentally flawed mental illness.

@110 Seattleblues is probably just some mid-20s person who just has far too much time on their hands and little to no practical life experience with people beyond his own immediately aligned cultural and religious background.
115
The free exercise clause only applies to religion, not to any moral belief.

True, as far as that goes, but to the religious (and that appears to include a not inconsiderable majority of humans) the two are essentially inseparable. That is, do I have free exercise if I cannot make my own moral determinations according to my religion? The answer is . . . well, to an extent. After all, as you point out . . .

And it doesn't allow people to break laws because of their religion: for instance, you are not allowed to speed, trespass, or kill people even if your religion requires it.

Indeed; that is why certain terms of both Levitican and Sharia law are not enforceable under the umbrella First Amendment protection. But laws against speeding and murder are demonstrably utilitarian.

For instance, killing and stealing are wrong.

I agree, but it's not because they're "wrong" that I support their being illegal. I think necrophilia is "wrong," but I don't necessarily see any utility in legally proscribing it (beyond offering next of kin all propriety rights over the remains, by which they could pursue redress is civil court against anyone who wish to defile what's left of loved ones). Laws against murder and theft represent base levels of the social contract (though I suppose we could quibble about the foundational value of property; nevertheless, since property is an enumerated value in our culture, at a base level, I'll accept its value as foundation arguendo).

It's perfectly fine for people to legislate based on morality, and it doesn't violate the free exercise clause unless they're actually preventing people from practicing their religion without a valid reason.

"Valid" meaning what? I submit that once you place a value like "rational basis" on any given law (which you appear to support in the paragraphs that follow), you're essentially doing what I'm doing--asking laws to justify themselves via a "rationale," an empirical demonstration of utility. Thus our "argument" seems to be, in essence, a semantic one.

Seattleblues seems to think our law comes from Christian morality, but the parts of the law that agree with Christian morality are generally not specifically Christian. For instance, human societies respected private property and people's lives long before Christianity or Judaism.

I fear you are, unfortunately, playing into his hands here. After all, a great many human societies also proscribed homosexuality, or at least held it in some level of moral disdain. I don't agree with that finding, but if we're going to look to historical morality for support, it must be accounted for.

Religion stole from morality, not the other way around.

Perhaps. Religion makes too many ontological and epistemological claims to be strictly defined as a moral body; it's possible that the ontological claims are ex post facto justifications for pilfered moral precepts, but that seems like a stretch. I would say, rather, that religion, morality, and law (and, by extension of law, government; by extension of religion and morality, philosophy), grew up in tandem, each attempting to address matters of utility and knowledge, and that all three spheres have, at various times became interwoven, one sphere often being mistaken for another.

Seattleblues, I still don't understand how a male who gets his cock sucked by another male, or who is sexually attracted to another male, for instance, has an "inaccurate view of objective biological reality."

Yeah, I think this is what we're all trying to figure out. It seems to me that his argument is that the inaccuracy to which he refers is so self-evident, he's not even obligated to illustrate it. And so far as he's talking about his own belief, that's true. Where illustration is required is in the spreading of that moral view or its application via legal proscription.
116
Hey as a MN let me tell you that this piece of garbage got passed was an embarrassment to most of the state. Maybe you didn't know, but our battling state couldn't pass our state budget but managed to get this done. Enough with the "defense of marriage" concept, how about the defense of jobs, defense of affordable health care, defense of safe bridges, defense of fully funding our educational system? MN has always been a hallmark of education and fairness and in the last 8 years of Governor Pawlenty we have become broke, stupider, and meaner. This amendment will not pass!!! Well except in Washington County with all of the crazy Bachman supporters. Jesus, those people are hardcore!

Check out this article about even some Republicans publicly stood up and stated that this bill was wrong http://www.minnpost.com/stories/2011/05/…
117
@113 Most of the time you irritate me, but this time you made me laugh out loud. Shine on, man. Shine on.
119
Seattleblues wrote:

"An inability to see objective reality as it is could be a fair working definition of mental illness. Or progressive thought, but that's another discussion."

If both those things are true, then progressive thought is a symptom of mental illness, and left-wingers should be hospitalised.

    Please wait...

    Comments are closed.

    Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


    Add a comment
    Preview

    By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.