You read all that from my post? It looks like I'm not the only one with a comprehension problem. Where the hell did I bash incest and polygamy?
This is the quote I had responded to:
"Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, where it's sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family."
I had objected to Santorum's implication that a family that practices sodomy, polygamy or adultery (including a lifelong gay commitment) cannot be a stable, healthy family.
And Santorum's original statement clearly implied that all of these things were bad, and for this reason, the Supreme Court should not approve any privacy laws which would undermine laws banning, specifically, sodomy. This is why his statement was so harmful to the acceptance of healthy gay relationships. A celibate gay relationship, which he apparently "supports", is greatly likely to be unhealthy, just as a celibate hetero relationship would be.
So you're bashing me because of something you read in my statement of two paragraphs saying nothing about how I feel about polygamy or incest, but you're defending Rick Santorum? You're either lying or confused about your support for "tolerance".
Here is what I was responding to, it seems quite clear to me.
Quote:
Where homosexuality cannot be compared to polygamy and incest is that homosexuality is irrefutably a common, life-binding, natural trait. If you cannot see that, or if you disagree with the overwhelming evidence in support of that fact, then you are no better than an intolerant bigot in denial.
As I mentioned in my post, you said polygamy and incest are not natural traits. Well perhaps they are not in Western culture, but they are in other cultures.
What Bunge was eluding to, and what I have mentioned to Shawn is that some people here go around with high and mighty attitudes, (please feel free to consider yourself one of them) for simply drawing their circles of tolerance a little wider than someone else.
I sometimes use a smiley when I do it, but I will simply turn their argument on them (because saying you tolerate more really isn't a way to prove you are wrong or right on a matter) and proclaim to tolerate more than they do, which makes them the small minded, bigot. On this issue, I don't have to use a smiley because my tolerance on this issue IS wider than yours. I basically don't like society criminalizing sex and destroying people's (though usually men's) lives over it. I stated or at least broached the subject earlier in this thread regarding adult sex between say a father and daughter, mother and son or any combination thereof. I wouldn't criminalize those acts and from your own post it is clear you would.
In your post you proclaimed that homosexuality was natural and that polygamy and incest are not. This is an ignorant view. Polygamy occurs throughout world history. I mentioned that it even occurs in the Bible. Likewise there are cultures where what we consider to be incest is commonly practiced. There are cultures where a child's first partner is commonly their parents because they do not come from a Western or monotheistic background.
So in your claiming of being "tolerant" and proclaiming others "bigoted" you show your own cultural limitations and also intolerance.
What is funny to me is that folks like you would declare that Santorum, or pretty much anyone are "bigoted" or "ignorant," while demonstrating that trait yourself.
Now I have a nice little question/challenge for you. Find for me a society that has not legislated sexual relations. I already know what I ask is impossible. Every society does it, even primative ones. Perhaps their definitions of right and wrong don't gel with what some of or modern conventions hold, but every society does regulate sexual relations usually as a means of wealth accumulation, and insuring child birth.
In your post you proclaimed that homosexuality was natural and that polygamy and incest are not. This is an ignorant view. Polygamy occurs throughout world history. I mentioned that it even occurs in the Bible. Likewise there are cultures where what we consider to be incest is commonly practiced. There are cultures where a child's first partner is commonly their parents because they do not come from a Western or monotheistic background.
I haven't read the post in question, but there certainly is a difference between homosexuality and polygamy and incest.
Polygamy and incest are culturally-specific behaviours. Homosexuality is not. It crosses all cultures. So a predisposition to homosexuality has nothing to do with your culture at all.
Polygamy and incest are acceptable behaviours in some cultures, but cultures are made by people over many generations. Homosexuality on the other hand doesn't care where or when or to whom you were born.
You can't be born a polygamist or an incest, er, ist.
Which is why gay Jamaicans get such a hard time and gay Muslims get disowned. You can be born into the most fundamentally homophobic culture, brought up exactly like your battyman-hating siblings, and STILL be gay.
It is, therefore, not a choice you have. It is different in its nature to polygamy and incest. It is wrong to even compare the two on the same terms.
To put it another way still, you can be born into a society that says incest and polygamy are OK, move abroad and embrace another culture, and then say "these things are wrong."
They are cultural. Homosexuality is not. It is not a choice.
A culture can have a tolerance for homosexuals but that doesn't mean that that's a 'gay' culture, only a tolerant one.
Polygamy and incest are culturally-specific behaviours. Homosexuality is not. It crosses all cultures.
i would argue that at least in the case of incest, that crosses all cultures as well. it's just taboo like homosexuality is in many cultures. polygamy is a little tougher, that might be culture specific.
i know i shouldn't bother posting this without the article on hand, but i believe there is at least 1 culture that has been found with zero homosexuality in it. i'll have to dig out my old coursework to find it though. now if i can just remember what class it was from......
i know i shouldn't bother posting this without the article on hand, but i believe there is at least 1 culture that has been found with zero homosexuality in it
just give me a few days, i'll have to try and dig it up. it was either my Human Sexuality course or a random Human Psychology course. i can't remember which one.
i will look though, i promise. if i haven't gotten back to you in the next day or two, PM me to remind me. my mind is like swiss cheese lately, i keep forgetting to do stuff. (see the thread in DH about getting a PDA)
as for proving anything, it doesn't. anthropologists just found a culture where there were no homosexual adults. some unusual rituals regarding fertility as a man and felatio IIRC. i'll look it up and try to post the entire thing.
although it could just be socialization strong enough to counteract homosexual feelings.
i would argue that at least in the case of incest, that crosses all cultures as well. it's just taboo like homosexuality is in many cultures. polygamy is a little tougher, that might be culture specific.
i know i shouldn't bother posting this without the article on hand, but i believe there is at least 1 culture that has been found with zero homosexuality in it. i'll have to dig out my old coursework to find it though. now if i can just remember what class it was from......
crap. i hate that.
Thank you al, you said what I was going to type. Incest and polygamy are just as "in the closet" as homosexuality is/was in most instances.
It isn't as if you could say "Hey I love my cousin" and people would okay and be tolerant of it.
Also if you broaden your definition of polygamy a bit, I would argue that we have quite a bit of it. It is just serialized because of the nature of our law.
So a man or woman will have multiple wives or husbands (I forgot the specific name for that) but just not at the same time. If you have had 3 or more wives or husbands, I would still pretty much consider you a polygamist who has had to act within the cultural confines.
Thank you al, you said what I was going to type. Incest and polygamy are just as "in the closet" as homosexuality is/was in most instances.
Maybe so, but they're still fundamentally different things.
Homosexuals are attracted to people of their own sex and that's the way they're born. People who find their siblings sexually attractive simply have issues.
You take a homosexual person from his or her parents and siblings and take them to another country as a baby. They will grow up finding people of their own sex attractive.
There is no analogue for people who might possibly grow into someone who wants to commit incest. Take that child from their parents and siblings to another country and they won't find all the people they meet unattractive because they're not a relation. And if they were to meet one of their siblings accidentally, without knowing that they were related, they wouldn't be able to recognise the fact and then magically want to have sex with them.
Do you see? The comparison's so stupid. It's a dumb comparison. It's just... stupid.
Maybe so, but they're still fundamentally different things.
Homosexuals are attracted to people of their own sex and that's the way they're born. People who find their siblings sexually attractive simply have issues.
You take a homosexual person from his or her parents and siblings and take them to another country as a baby. They will grow up finding people of their own sex attractive.
There is no analogue for people who might possibly grow into someone who wants to commit incest. Take that child from their parents and siblings to another country and they won't find all the people they meet unattractive because they're not a relation. And if they were to meet one of their siblings accidentally, without knowing that they were related, they wouldn't be able to recognise the fact and then magically want to have sex with them.
Do you see? The comparison's so stupid. It's a dumb comparison. It's just... stupid.
Your comparision is invalid because you are saying one party will still have what they find attractive when moved and the other will not.
To make your comparision valid you would have to move the homosexual to a country where there is no one of the same gender.
Besides you are also making it too black and white. Just because someone finds their cousin attractive, maybe even has sex with him/her and then moves on to someone else doesn't invalidate the fact that they without societal pressure found their own family attractive.
Look throughout greek literature and also royal blood lines and you find tons of.... incestual relations. If we consider that in many instances these "pillars" were models for society at large, it leads to some interesting conclusions.
Within the homosexual community, there are men and women who were at one time married to the other gender. There are those who were homosexual and claim to be "cured" and now heterosexual. There are those who thought they were homosexual and now declare themselves bisexual.
It isn't so cut and dried. Even if these things are "natural" some people spend quite a long time sorting out who it is they love.
The fact that someone can't have their one true love (say it were a cousin) doesn't usually cause someone to live a solitary, chaste life. Most people move on and get by with whomever is around.(I know that sounds harsh but that is what the studies show) I say this because studies show that most people (say 80%) fall in love with someone that lives within (hazy memory) I believe it was 2 miles of their home typically. It is someone they see at the market, at church, at school, or around the neighborhood.
So your conclusion is invalid because in one instance the party has no alternatives but to go have sex with someone who is outside of who they love (not family) and in the other instance the party still has plenty of people of similar persuasion to love.
One a personal pet theory note, I do think that there is a chemical aspect to love, pheromones. I believe that when you meet someone with whom your pheromones click you get that zing that makes up the initial exciting stages of love with the flirting, excitement just to touch hands etc.
I will say that I do believe that this pheromone connectivity is much less likely to occur among family members and there may even be a natural pheromone UNCONNECTIVITY that lends us to naturally not seeing family members in a sexual fashion. That being said, much like homosexuality is not the norm statistically when compared to heterosexuality, I do believe that there is a statistically small percent of the population that are not pheromonally adverse to their family members. So I do believe it quite natural.
Likewise I do not mistake this pheromone induced love/high to be the true essense of love, though I do believe it creates the lust that can lead to a deeper relationship that comes with committment, trust and time.
I even believe that this pheromone compatibility can occur with people you are not married to after you are married. This is, I believe, the main cause for adultery and other such issues because people feel that the chemical zing and think it must be love again. Likewise I do feel that repeated exposure the same chemicals (your partner) leads to the sexual boredom so often spoken of with monogomous marriage.
Anyways a bit of an aside, but as you can see I do believe that both polygamy and also incest have natural underpinnings just as you believe homosexuality does. So I guess you are the one with the "issues."
I'll address the rest of your post after the Announcement. In the meantime:
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Anyways a bit of an aside, but as you can see I do believe that both polygamy and also incest have natural underpinnings just as you believe homosexuality does. So I guess you are the one with the "issues."
Nick
This is very irritating, mostly because it makes no sense.
It's really annoying. If you can't resist an unnecessary dig, at least make sure your logic checks out.
I'll address the rest of your post after the Announcement. In the meantime:
This is very irritating, mostly because it makes no sense.
It's really annoying. If you can't resist an unnecessary dig, at least make sure your logic checks out.
Make sense. Don't be annoying.
Makes no sense to YOU. Please make sure you finish that sentence.
My logic checks out perfectly. I states that much like how most people are naturally adverse to same sex relations, most people are adverse to family relations. I even gave a reason, chemical pheromones cause an aversion to family members.
I then stated that just as homosexuality is present naturally in a small percentage of the population, so too is a small segment of the population not chemically adverse to their own family members. It isn't as if I suggesting something impossible. If you are boy who naturally finds women attractive your sister is a woman, and if you don't have a chemical inhibiter, then you would physiologically see her as any other woman. There is nothing inconsistant about that.
The dig was because I find it humerous about how you claim to be tolerant yet have obvious issues with certain sex acts involving consenting adults. You said they had issues and I just gave it back to you.
...If you are boy who naturally finds women attractive your sister is a woman, and if you don't have a chemical inhibiter, then you would physiologically see her as any other woman.
Comments
Originally posted by tonton
You're either lying or confused about your support for "tolerance".
In his defense, I have to say I don't think he's lying. He's been misleading before, but usually with a '
Originally posted by tonton
You're either lying or confused about your support for "tolerance".
My hero.
Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce
My hero.
Sniff...sniff...
Originally posted by tonton
You read all that from my post? It looks like I'm not the only one with a comprehension problem. Where the hell did I bash incest and polygamy?
This is the quote I had responded to:
"Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, where it's sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family."
I had objected to Santorum's implication that a family that practices sodomy, polygamy or adultery (including a lifelong gay commitment) cannot be a stable, healthy family.
And Santorum's original statement clearly implied that all of these things were bad, and for this reason, the Supreme Court should not approve any privacy laws which would undermine laws banning, specifically, sodomy. This is why his statement was so harmful to the acceptance of healthy gay relationships. A celibate gay relationship, which he apparently "supports", is greatly likely to be unhealthy, just as a celibate hetero relationship would be.
So you're bashing me because of something you read in my statement of two paragraphs saying nothing about how I feel about polygamy or incest, but you're defending Rick Santorum? You're either lying or confused about your support for "tolerance".
Here is what I was responding to, it seems quite clear to me.
Where homosexuality cannot be compared to polygamy and incest is that homosexuality is irrefutably a common, life-binding, natural trait. If you cannot see that, or if you disagree with the overwhelming evidence in support of that fact, then you are no better than an intolerant bigot in denial.
As I mentioned in my post, you said polygamy and incest are not natural traits. Well perhaps they are not in Western culture, but they are in other cultures.
What Bunge was eluding to, and what I have mentioned to Shawn is that some people here go around with high and mighty attitudes, (please feel free to consider yourself one of them) for simply drawing their circles of tolerance a little wider than someone else.
I sometimes use a smiley when I do it, but I will simply turn their argument on them (because saying you tolerate more really isn't a way to prove you are wrong or right on a matter) and proclaim to tolerate more than they do, which makes them the small minded, bigot. On this issue, I don't have to use a smiley because my tolerance on this issue IS wider than yours. I basically don't like society criminalizing sex and destroying people's (though usually men's) lives over it. I stated or at least broached the subject earlier in this thread regarding adult sex between say a father and daughter, mother and son or any combination thereof. I wouldn't criminalize those acts and from your own post it is clear you would.
In your post you proclaimed that homosexuality was natural and that polygamy and incest are not. This is an ignorant view. Polygamy occurs throughout world history. I mentioned that it even occurs in the Bible. Likewise there are cultures where what we consider to be incest is commonly practiced. There are cultures where a child's first partner is commonly their parents because they do not come from a Western or monotheistic background.
So in your claiming of being "tolerant" and proclaiming others "bigoted" you show your own cultural limitations and also intolerance.
What is funny to me is that folks like you would declare that Santorum, or pretty much anyone are "bigoted" or "ignorant," while demonstrating that trait yourself.
History of Incest
Now I have a nice little question/challenge for you. Find for me a society that has not legislated sexual relations. I already know what I ask is impossible. Every society does it, even primative ones. Perhaps their definitions of right and wrong don't gel with what some of or modern conventions hold, but every society does regulate sexual relations usually as a means of wealth accumulation, and insuring child birth.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
In your post you proclaimed that homosexuality was natural and that polygamy and incest are not. This is an ignorant view. Polygamy occurs throughout world history. I mentioned that it even occurs in the Bible. Likewise there are cultures where what we consider to be incest is commonly practiced. There are cultures where a child's first partner is commonly their parents because they do not come from a Western or monotheistic background.
I haven't read the post in question, but there certainly is a difference between homosexuality and polygamy and incest.
Polygamy and incest are culturally-specific behaviours. Homosexuality is not. It crosses all cultures. So a predisposition to homosexuality has nothing to do with your culture at all.
Polygamy and incest are acceptable behaviours in some cultures, but cultures are made by people over many generations. Homosexuality on the other hand doesn't care where or when or to whom you were born.
You can't be born a polygamist or an incest, er, ist.
Which is why gay Jamaicans get such a hard time and gay Muslims get disowned. You can be born into the most fundamentally homophobic culture, brought up exactly like your battyman-hating siblings, and STILL be gay.
It is, therefore, not a choice you have. It is different in its nature to polygamy and incest. It is wrong to even compare the two on the same terms.
To put it another way still, you can be born into a society that says incest and polygamy are OK, move abroad and embrace another culture, and then say "these things are wrong."
They are cultural. Homosexuality is not. It is not a choice.
A culture can have a tolerance for homosexuals but that doesn't mean that that's a 'gay' culture, only a tolerant one.
"Oh, son, it's all my fault!"
"No, no! It's not! It's just... the way I am. I've tried so hard... but I am what I am."
"Your dad's going to be heartbroken."
Polygamy and incest are culturally-specific behaviours. Homosexuality is not. It crosses all cultures.
i would argue that at least in the case of incest, that crosses all cultures as well. it's just taboo like homosexuality is in many cultures. polygamy is a little tougher, that might be culture specific.
i know i shouldn't bother posting this without the article on hand, but i believe there is at least 1 culture that has been found with zero homosexuality in it. i'll have to dig out my old coursework to find it though. now if i can just remember what class it was from......
crap. i hate that.
I knew it!
Originally posted by alcimedes
i know i shouldn't bother posting this without the article on hand, but i believe there is at least 1 culture that has been found with zero homosexuality in it
If I may Hassan?
I hereby call you on that.
Let's hear about this please.
Originally posted by Harald
If I may Hassan?
I hereby call you on that.
Let's hear about this please.
No, no, no, Harald, be my guest. I, too, would be eager to hear about the culture that proves that homosexuality is an exclusively social construct.
Man, they must be doubly pissed!
(Hassan)
Wow.
Three incestual gay polygamy convictions in california could get you a bazillion years in prison!
Ain't she SOMETHING? Eh? Fellers?
I'd be the filling in a sandwhich between her and another attractive "babe" like her!
I wonder if she has a friend?
just give me a few days, i'll have to try and dig it up. it was either my Human Sexuality course or a random Human Psychology course. i can't remember which one.
i will look though, i promise. if i haven't gotten back to you in the next day or two, PM me to remind me. my mind is like swiss cheese lately, i keep forgetting to do stuff. (see the thread in DH about getting a PDA)
as for proving anything, it doesn't. anthropologists just found a culture where there were no homosexual adults. some unusual rituals regarding fertility as a man and felatio IIRC. i'll look it up and try to post the entire thing.
although it could just be socialization strong enough to counteract homosexual feelings.
Originally posted by alcimedes
i would argue that at least in the case of incest, that crosses all cultures as well. it's just taboo like homosexuality is in many cultures. polygamy is a little tougher, that might be culture specific.
i know i shouldn't bother posting this without the article on hand, but i believe there is at least 1 culture that has been found with zero homosexuality in it. i'll have to dig out my old coursework to find it though. now if i can just remember what class it was from......
crap. i hate that.
Thank you al, you said what I was going to type. Incest and polygamy are just as "in the closet" as homosexuality is/was in most instances.
It isn't as if you could say "Hey I love my cousin" and people would okay and be tolerant of it.
Also if you broaden your definition of polygamy a bit, I would argue that we have quite a bit of it. It is just serialized because of the nature of our law.
So a man or woman will have multiple wives or husbands (I forgot the specific name for that) but just not at the same time. If you have had 3 or more wives or husbands, I would still pretty much consider you a polygamist who has had to act within the cultural confines.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Thank you al, you said what I was going to type. Incest and polygamy are just as "in the closet" as homosexuality is/was in most instances.
Maybe so, but they're still fundamentally different things.
Homosexuals are attracted to people of their own sex and that's the way they're born. People who find their siblings sexually attractive simply have issues.
You take a homosexual person from his or her parents and siblings and take them to another country as a baby. They will grow up finding people of their own sex attractive.
There is no analogue for people who might possibly grow into someone who wants to commit incest. Take that child from their parents and siblings to another country and they won't find all the people they meet unattractive because they're not a relation. And if they were to meet one of their siblings accidentally, without knowing that they were related, they wouldn't be able to recognise the fact and then magically want to have sex with them.
Do you see? The comparison's so stupid. It's a dumb comparison. It's just... stupid.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Maybe so, but they're still fundamentally different things.
Homosexuals are attracted to people of their own sex and that's the way they're born. People who find their siblings sexually attractive simply have issues.
You take a homosexual person from his or her parents and siblings and take them to another country as a baby. They will grow up finding people of their own sex attractive.
There is no analogue for people who might possibly grow into someone who wants to commit incest. Take that child from their parents and siblings to another country and they won't find all the people they meet unattractive because they're not a relation. And if they were to meet one of their siblings accidentally, without knowing that they were related, they wouldn't be able to recognise the fact and then magically want to have sex with them.
Do you see? The comparison's so stupid. It's a dumb comparison. It's just... stupid.
Your comparision is invalid because you are saying one party will still have what they find attractive when moved and the other will not.
To make your comparision valid you would have to move the homosexual to a country where there is no one of the same gender.
Besides you are also making it too black and white. Just because someone finds their cousin attractive, maybe even has sex with him/her and then moves on to someone else doesn't invalidate the fact that they without societal pressure found their own family attractive.
Look throughout greek literature and also royal blood lines and you find tons of.... incestual relations. If we consider that in many instances these "pillars" were models for society at large, it leads to some interesting conclusions.
Within the homosexual community, there are men and women who were at one time married to the other gender. There are those who were homosexual and claim to be "cured" and now heterosexual. There are those who thought they were homosexual and now declare themselves bisexual.
It isn't so cut and dried. Even if these things are "natural" some people spend quite a long time sorting out who it is they love.
The fact that someone can't have their one true love (say it were a cousin) doesn't usually cause someone to live a solitary, chaste life. Most people move on and get by with whomever is around.(I know that sounds harsh but that is what the studies show) I say this because studies show that most people (say 80%) fall in love with someone that lives within (hazy memory) I believe it was 2 miles of their home typically. It is someone they see at the market, at church, at school, or around the neighborhood.
So your conclusion is invalid because in one instance the party has no alternatives but to go have sex with someone who is outside of who they love (not family) and in the other instance the party still has plenty of people of similar persuasion to love.
One a personal pet theory note, I do think that there is a chemical aspect to love, pheromones. I believe that when you meet someone with whom your pheromones click you get that zing that makes up the initial exciting stages of love with the flirting, excitement just to touch hands etc.
I will say that I do believe that this pheromone connectivity is much less likely to occur among family members and there may even be a natural pheromone UNCONNECTIVITY that lends us to naturally not seeing family members in a sexual fashion. That being said, much like homosexuality is not the norm statistically when compared to heterosexuality, I do believe that there is a statistically small percent of the population that are not pheromonally adverse to their family members. So I do believe it quite natural.
Likewise I do not mistake this pheromone induced love/high to be the true essense of love, though I do believe it creates the lust that can lead to a deeper relationship that comes with committment, trust and time.
I even believe that this pheromone compatibility can occur with people you are not married to after you are married. This is, I believe, the main cause for adultery and other such issues because people feel that the chemical zing and think it must be love again. Likewise I do feel that repeated exposure the same chemicals (your partner) leads to the sexual boredom so often spoken of with monogomous marriage.
Anyways a bit of an aside, but as you can see I do believe that both polygamy and also incest have natural underpinnings just as you believe homosexuality does. So I guess you are the one with the "issues."
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Anyways a bit of an aside, but as you can see I do believe that both polygamy and also incest have natural underpinnings just as you believe homosexuality does. So I guess you are the one with the "issues."
Nick
This is very irritating, mostly because it makes no sense.
It's really annoying. If you can't resist an unnecessary dig, at least make sure your logic checks out.
Make sense. Don't be annoying.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
I'll address the rest of your post after the Announcement. In the meantime:
This is very irritating, mostly because it makes no sense.
It's really annoying. If you can't resist an unnecessary dig, at least make sure your logic checks out.
Make sense. Don't be annoying.
Makes no sense to YOU. Please make sure you finish that sentence.
My logic checks out perfectly. I states that much like how most people are naturally adverse to same sex relations, most people are adverse to family relations. I even gave a reason, chemical pheromones cause an aversion to family members.
I then stated that just as homosexuality is present naturally in a small percentage of the population, so too is a small segment of the population not chemically adverse to their own family members. It isn't as if I suggesting something impossible. If you are boy who naturally finds women attractive your sister is a woman, and if you don't have a chemical inhibiter, then you would physiologically see her as any other woman. There is nothing inconsistant about that.
The dig was because I find it humerous about how you claim to be tolerant yet have obvious issues with certain sex acts involving consenting adults. You said they had issues and I just gave it back to you.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
...If you are boy who naturally finds women attractive your sister is a woman, and if you don't have a chemical inhibiter, then you would physiologically see her as any other woman.
Let 'em have at it, sick as it may be.