When did same-gender relations become "wrong"?

[loki09789]

Testify, brother.

1. I teach at the college level...


2. The differences seem to lie in the perspectives, the feelings about how much others should accept/tolerate/?? people with a different "lifestyle" as their own.

1. I KNOW! I helped my MA instructor at the college where he teaches a self defense course and as the years went by students demonstrated a serious decline in personal initiative, effort and work ethic from year to year... I sympathize with the rant.

2. And your focus on how people are 'pushing' their 'feelings' about what other people should or should not be doing is what interests me too. Especially when it is occuring in a discussion about a groups right to seen as equal regardless of the differences in 'feelings' about them.

 

[Makalakumu]

Thats an avid avoiding of the true issue. You dont have to negate lines and labels to accept a person either. Labels are ways of communicating, not (neccessarily) only ways to generalize and "lump behavior together". You have a much darker and bleaker outlook on the world than I do I guess. A label in no way means people "must behave the same". I guess "Native American" is a label, right? In that case for me to call myself Native American, do I have to become an alcoholic and gamble my little income away in a casino? Do I have to run around naked and wear feathers in my hair? Your assuming that a label is bad, many times labels can be good, to help us communicate. For example: We are all dying. "We are food for worms". In the Sylvia Plath sense of the word, everyone on this board is dying. However, dont we still use the "label" "dying" to describe a certain group? If we are all dying then who are those people being sent home to hospice? Aren't they truly dying? That example shows what labels can be good for...communicating. Its also as thin as your statements about everyone being gay and straight at the same time and being on a sliding scale of straightness.

I think you are confusing the issue. Extending my POV to take into account all labeling is far beyond the point I am trying to make. My point has always been our language to describe our sexuality is too limited to take into account the diversity that actually exists. The labels "gay" or "straight" or "bisexual" have an attached sub-set of meaning but most people do not fall into those buckets. Our sexuality is not so easily pegged. It is very grey and we share many sexual preferences with others in other "groups". And I think that it is very important that we realize this.

Except the "label" of the word "love", and "sleeping". You see, you yourself are using labels to talk, lets not get on a semantic argument, the point is that the word "Gay" or "bisexual" has a definition and we must come to a common deffinition in order to truly discuss it.

With some labels we have a much clearer understanding. With others, the understanding resembles mud. Taxonomy is a part of being human. It is how our brain works. It allows us to organize information. My point is that the way our information is organized into the labels of "gay" or "straight" or "bisexual" does not reflect reality. In reality, this is a common discussion in the human experience. We are redefining the subsets (and in many ways the titles) of the files we carry about in our minds regarding reality based on new information as it presents itself.

Are we saying "gay" means havin sex with a same sex partner? Being attracted to, loving, sleeping with, looking at, talking to, where does it end? What your saying includes all of this and I understand your point, but its self defeating. All it does is circumvent the issue and allow you to ease your conscience about accepting people different from you. "We are all gay to a point, so lets all get along". That isn't acceptence or tolerance, because there is nothing to accept or tolerate, everyone is the same in your scenario to a point.

It is not self defeating. It is self empowering when one finds commonalities with another person. It allows a person to fellowship with that person and it forms a rapport that truly makes that other person more human in your eyes. Realizing that I can share sexual preferences with another allows me to form a basis from which I can accept our differences more easily and it in no way demands that they must be exactly like me. What you call an "easing of the conscience" is the process of acceptance. It is something that we all do naturally, unless we have been educated differently...as is the case with homosexuality in our society.

Who said the answers for sexuality are found in christianity? I surely didn't. I did say acceptance, and I'm not sure what you mean by the analogy you gave or your statement about accepting "all of you".

Like Paul said, there needs to be acceptance even across from your own beliefs. Someone who is not gay, who believes being gay is wrong, should still be able to accept a gay person. Thats acceptance, not blurring the lines enough to include yourself so you can then accept them. If your a "christian" and believe being gay is wrong and anabomination against God, you should still be able to accept a gay person, because isn't speeding also wrong? I guess those people never speed either?

I took this to mean that you implied that some people found answers for sexuality in Christian teachings. I thought the message was clear, but I apologize if I took it wrong. My point with the analogy is that you cannot separate the sin from the sinner in this case. The sin is part of who I am as a person and I have no choice in the matter. Therefore, in order to accept me for who I am, one must accept all of me. They cannot just shop around for the items they agree with.

I thought there was no "gay". See, there has to be a definition or the conclusion is that there are no differences, and the truth is simply that there is many differences, and those differences are what make us beautiful. Dont be so quick to take our differences away, true acceptance or tolerance isn't the doing away with differences, but knowing, understanding, and enjoyig our differences.

Our language is insufficiant to describe our sexuality. Finding a new way to talk about it does not squash difference. Neither does discovering that we share many sexual preferences with a variety of people. We need to be frank in our appraisal of ourselves, not fearful. We need to be truthful about our sexual preferences in order to knock down the barriers that have been strung up between us. I have no problem admitting that I share some sexual preferences with a person directly involved in a homosexual relationship and this doesn't make me anything other then who I already was in the first place.

 

[loki09789]

I don't have to define it. I'm saying that you may be who you are. Our language does not describe reality and I think that understanding the "homo" or "hetero" in us all really gets to the heart of who we are as individuals. We are beautiful beings who love a variety of different things. Why bind that beauty with a label?

That was the quote that I was saying contradicted, at least IMO comments such as this:

"Science means knowledge. True knowledge. Real knowledge. In a scientist's mind, a real world exists and we believe that we can know that world through observation. You can't just "teach it as you see fit" because then you are not addressing the real world. You are not teaching science."

In one you say you don't have to define a thing in order to discuss it. In the other you talk about science meaning true and real knowledge through observation. That would require some labelling/categorizing as standard practice for a scientific examination of anything.

Science can observe HOW people define beauty and HOW people define 'love' and what affects it has on biology, culture, interactions and such, but beyond that it is like trying to tell someone about Jazz...it isn't as 'real' as being there.

 

[loki09789]

1. You may not have "loved" every woman you've slept with, but there probably was a pretty good reason you ended up in bed together. Those reasons are part of loving another person.

2. I realize that some people have "sex" out of very negative feelings. Perhaps they want to dominate a person because of something they feel inside. Who knows, it doesn't matter. This type of behavior isn't about sex or love and does not determine "homo" or "hetero".

1. I would say there was a 'powerful' reason for why I TRIED to end up in bed with those past women because I wasn't always successful . In hindsight, I would say that 'romance/love/intimacy' were not my prime mover in most cases...chalk it up to good old lust/labido/youthful exuberance in most cases. "love" may have been the rationale, but it wasn't the real reason.

Honestly, I am not sure if you are using the euphemistic form of 'love' for 'sex' in this case or not.

2. Why would 'lust' or 'mutual attraction' or the 'chemical/biological drive to reproduce' necessarily mean 'negative feelings?' Got the population of the human race to where it could progress to the quality of life we enjoy now more than 'love' did IMO. There is a chimp population that uses 'sexual politics' as a form of negotiation, alliances, reconcilliation, consulation, apology....all motives for sex that humans (who share quite a bit of DNA with those damn dirty Chimps) can relate to...at least to themselves after the fact and I would say that as long as both/all parties involved were consenting and not conned into it, to each his/her own....

To assume/push the idea that 'sex' must or mostly will be because of love is not a supportable or evidential observation and nothing more than an opinion.

Your beloved scientists generally agree that there are biochemical reactions in the body that create a euphoric state that 'feels like love' but can not say what 'love' really is beyond that....

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I had a thought...somewhat scary...."MartialTalk, the board thats really 'out' there."
I need to cut back on my caffine I think. :wavey:

 

[Makalakumu]

That was the quote that I was saying contradicted, at least IMO comments such as this:

"Science means knowledge. True knowledge. Real knowledge. In a scientist's mind, a real world exists and we believe that we can know that world through observation. You can't just "teach it as you see fit" because then you are not addressing the real world. You are not teaching science."

In one you say you don't have to define a thing in order to discuss it. In the other you talk about science meaning true and real knowledge through observation. That would require some labelling/categorizing as standard practice for a scientific examination of anything.

Science can observe HOW people define beauty and HOW people define 'love' and what affects it has on biology, culture, interactions and such, but beyond that it is like trying to tell someone about Jazz...it isn't as 'real' as being there.

Science uses language and labels to understand nature. This is a reflection of the abstraction processes at work in our mind. When we place a label on something, we are attaching a certain sub-set of information. These labels change when new information presents itself and the change when we discover that we totally screwed up with the information we were given in the first place.

As it stands now, our language is insufficiant to describe our sexuality. The labels "gay" or "straight" or "bisexual" aren't telling us much about observed reality. They are useless in a scientific sense. Perhaps a better way to say the above is that we can't use our current terms to describe human sexuality. My effort to not define it in those terms is an effort to more correctly define it in other terms.

 

[Cruentus]

UpNorth,

I see some misconceptions that I think need to be addressed here.

I'll talk about one, then I have to run to the store.

Labeling: In order to have a coherent discussion, or arguement for that matter, parties involved have to have agreed upon terms or "labels." I have friends both here and elseware who like to make logical arguements based off of "labels" that I haven't agreed with, thus leading to, in my mind, incorrect conclusions.

Now, this is not the same as "framing." A frame is a conceptual structure used in thinking. What many conservatives have done (not picking on conservatives, just using them as an example because they are very good at 'framing') is evoked frames around words that may not truthfully fit the word, and they use those frames to invoke a particular view, otherwise known by most as 'spin.' This is best described through example. A negative frame was put in place around the term "trial Lawyer." The term envokes, in many people, images of ambulance chasing, oily, money grubbing, immoral beaurucrates. This does not fit the discription of most/many trial lawyers, yet, that is the "frame" that has been put around the term. With the frame in place, all conservatives had to do was call Sen. John Edwards a "trial Lawyer" in order to invoke negative and insulting images. Unethical use of framing is usually the antithesis to a logical discussion, because often it invokes untrue images and emotions around terms.

This is related to my little "homosexual lifestyle" term. Many people have illogically framed the words "homosexual lifestyle" to mean "Orgies, child rape, drugs, and hedonistic behavior." This frame is untrue, as it certianly doesn't fit many homosexual peoples lifestyles. Framing words as such is the antithesis for logical discourse on this subject.

However, the idea that we are all really multi-sexual beings or are only gay or not gay to certian degrees, and therefore we shouldn't use 'labels' like "homosexual or "hetrosexual" is also the antithesis of logical discourse here. Whether your 'multi-sexualism' theory is true or not, we still need terms or 'labels' in order to have a coherent conversation about anything. So we need to talk in terms of "hetrosexual" meaning "desires the opposite sex" and "homosexual" meaning "desires the same sex" and "hetrosexual behavior" as "the persuance of opposite sex intimate relationships" and "homosexual behavior" as "the persuance of same sex intimate relationships," etc. etc. etc.

Bottom line: I agree that unethical use of framing is the antithesis of a good discussion. However, so is refusing to agree on terms or 'labels' for the purpose of discussing the issue's. I think that you may be falling into the trap of the later.

Paul

 

[loki09789]

Science uses language and labels to understand nature. This is a reflection of the abstraction processes at work in our mind. When we place a label on something, we are attaching a certain sub-set of information. These labels change when new information presents itself and the change when we discover that we totally screwed up with the information we were given in the first place.

As it stands now, our language is insufficiant to describe our sexuality. The labels "gay" or "straight" or "bisexual" aren't telling us much about observed reality. They are useless in a scientific sense. Perhaps a better way to say the above is that we can't use our current terms to describe human sexuality. My effort to not define it in those terms is an effort to more correctly define it in other terms.

If I am talking to a guy/girl and she says straight out (no pun intended) that he/she prefers intimate relations with members of the same gender, that admission is evidence that can be combined with any observable behaviors that support that statement (kissing his boyfriend, holding hands, expressions of romantic affection/commitment)... as 'proof' that he/she is 'gay' by direct observation.

I think that is very telling about observed reality because there are people out there that would observe that reality and be so offended by it that they would commit hate crimes.

I would say that a check in that one box of sexual preference in no way defines a person as "good" or "bad" all by itself. There are probably 'dogs/players/cheaters/abusers/users' in the gay community just like there are in the straight. Sexual preference alone is NO indicator of character IMO.

 

[Tgace]

IMHO, you are never going to mandate "acceptance".There are probably just as many racist bigots today as there were in the 60's. We didnt make people "accept" other races, we just removed institutionalized practices.

 

[Makalakumu]

I would say there was a 'powerful' reason for why I TRIED to end up in bed with those past women because I wasn't always successful . In hindsight, I would say that 'romance/love/intimacy' were not my prime mover in most cases...chalk it up to good old lust/labido/youthful exuberance in most cases. "love" may have been the rationale, but it wasn't the real reason.

I would say that those motivations are wrapped up in the package that most people would call "love". I know that every woman I've had sex with I've cared about in some way shape or form...

Perhaps there are different gradations of "love".

Why would 'lust' or 'mutual attraction' or the 'chemical/biological drive to reproduce' necessarily mean 'negative feelings?' Got the population of the human race to where it could progress to the quality of life we enjoy now more than 'love' did IMO. There is a chimp population that uses 'sexual politics' as a form of negotiation, alliances, reconcilliation, consulation, apology....all motives for sex that humans (who share quite a bit of DNA with those damn dirty Chimps) can relate to...at least to themselves after the fact and I would say that as long as both/all parties involved were consenting and not conned into it, to each his/her own.

I was trying to make the distinction between love/sex and violence/sex. Our species uses "love" to pair bond allowing groups of individuals (families) to be tighter nit and more successful.

To assume/push the idea that 'sex' must or mostly will be because of love is not a supportable or evidential observation and nothing more than an opinion.

That depends on what your definition of "love" is. I believe that in this case our language is limited again...but that is another thread.

Your beloved scientists generally agree that there are biochemical reactions in the body that create a euphoric state that 'feels like love' but can not say what 'love' really is beyond that....

And I would say that you and your cunning linguists have yet to come up with a real sub-set of information that falls under the label love.

Perhaps we are both at fault... :idunno:

 

[7starmantis]

Extending my POV to take into account all labeling is far beyond the point I am trying to make.

So some labeling is ok and accepted, but certain specific labeling is bad and wrong? That creates an inconsistency within your own POV.

I would say that those motivations are wrapped up in the package that most people would call "love". I know that every woman I've had sex with I've cared about in some way shape or form...

If that is love, what do you mean when you tell your wife (I thought I recalled you saying you are married) "I love you"? Do you have to define it first, what you are meaning by saying that? See, there has to be a common base of understanding, otherwise discussions and communication gets nowhere. Right now you are refusing to accept any kind of common understanding of labels. Labels only carry a stigma in your head.

7sm

 

[Makalakumu]

However, the idea that we are all really multi-sexual beings or are only gay or not gay to certian degrees, and therefore we shouldn't use 'labels' like "homosexual or "hetrosexual" is also the antithesis of logical discourse here. Whether your 'multi-sexualism' theory is true or not, we still need terms or 'labels' in order to have a coherent conversation about anything. So we need to talk in terms of "hetrosexual" meaning "desires the opposite sex" and "homosexual" meaning "desires the same sex" and "hetrosexual behavior" as "the persuance of opposite sex intimate relationships" and "homosexual behavior" as "the persuance of same sex intimate relationships," etc. etc. etc.

Good point about framing.

Paul, what I want people to recognize are all the little steps involved in words like "persuance". There are a lot of steps involved before you end up in bed with someone...For instance, hanging a poster of an oiled up body builder on the wall while I bench press may seem like "innocent" yet there lies within me a desire to emulate. Any motivation inspired by that poster is clearly because of my attraction to that image. Does this make me "gay"? We don't have words to describe this...yet I happen to share this with someone who might happen to be "gay" according to sociatal standards. Why is this different from hanging a playboy calander by my phone? In my own way, I am attracted to both. So what am I?

Regarding this debate, since when did same sex relationships become wrong, I don't think they have ever been wrong. All of us display affection towards the opposite and the same sex to a different degree. I realize that this might hit people square in the semanticles, yet I think that it is something that people need to address in order to be truly honest with themselves.

upnorthkyosa

 

[Makalakumu]

If I am talking to a guy/girl and she says straight out (no pun intended) that he/she prefers intimate relations with members of the same gender, that admission is evidence that can be combined with any observable behaviors that support that statement (kissing his boyfriend, holding hands, expressions of romantic affection/commitment)... as 'proof' that he/she is 'gay' by direct observation.

Paul, you can construct a parable to the current cultural definition quite easily. I imagine that you could construct a parable that defies definition by the current cultural definition just as easily. More easily because the combinations of details are endless...

Think about it...

 

[Makalakumu]

So some labeling is ok and accepted, but certain specific labeling is bad and wrong? That creates an inconsistency within your own POV.

I don't think this is inconsistant. Labeling that does not take into account a good representation of reality is in need of revision. Our view of sexual roles is grossly simplified and in no way takes into account the wide range of sexual preferences within us all.

If that is love, what do you mean when you tell your wife (I thought I recalled you saying you are married) "I love you"? Do you have to define it first, what you are meaning by saying that? See, there has to be a common base of understanding, otherwise discussions and communication gets nowhere.

Yes. When you are married you DO need to define what LOVE means. Both people involved need to be on the same page regarding this very abstract concept. Times change and love evolves, communication with my spouse is the only way we are able to stay married. So, I hope you see that there is a common base of understand, yet this understanding is very individualized...would you agree with everything that my wife and I do...probably not. See what I mean?

Right now you are refusing to accept any kind of common understanding of labels. Labels only carry a stigma in your head.

I hope that you can see that this is obviously not the case. Labels are important to us all as long as they are applied correctly. In the case of human sexuality, I think they are grossly misapplied.

 

[Cruentus]

But the concept is simple. You have to agree on terms to have a basis for a discussion.

It depends on we have to define "wrong" for a basis of this discussion.

We also have to agree on definitions (or 'labels') of terms like "homosexual" and "lifestyle" and so on. These can be defined, as I did above, broadly and agreeably enough to have logical discourse.

What you are doing is what I call "the fox news strategy." I call it this because this is a strategy frequently employed by Fox news personalities. The strategy is to basically cloud the arguement so much that people question their sensabilities, and the original arguement evaporates in thin air. Fox News does this to prevent having to have logical discourse or arguements, when the results of those discussions may not favor their worldview.

Example:

Newscaster: "Senator, Explain how you voted for the war, and now your against it?"
Guest: "I didn't vote for the war. We voted to give the President the power to decide based on the evidence if we should go to war or not. He decided to go to war based on insuffecient evidence."
Newscaster: "So you voted for the war, and now your against the war... how can you expect the American people to trust the Democrates to make decisions with all this flip-flopping!"

You see, in the above example, the conversation gets twisted into a discussion about whether or not the Democrates are "flip floppers" and whether or not they can be trusted with decision making. No logical discourse can occur on what the original vote was about, and why the guest doesn't support the war, and what evidence was insuffecient, and so on.

Well, that is sort of what your doing in this conversation. Instead of being able to agree on very simple terms so we can discuss the idea of homosexuality being considered "wrong" or not, etc., the conversation is twisted into a discussion about human sexuality and the psychology of how gay it would be to put a poster of a body builder in front of the bench press, and so on. All of this seems to be an attempt to get people to question their own sexuality and degree of "gayness," to fit your worldview of "everyone is gay, but just to different degrees." This way, if everyone is gay, then I guess there can be nothing wrong with being gay.

The problem with this is that although it twists the discussion into your worldview, it doesn't really address the topic. I don't mean to put you on the spot, but this is just what is occuring here.

It would be better if we simply decided what we meant by "wrong," went with some simple yet agreeable and reasonable definitions for terms like "homosexual behavior," and had logical discourse on when and where homosexuality was considered "wrong," and why that was, and so on. This would be more prudent to the topic, I think.

Paul

 

[Cruentus]

But the concept is simple. You have to agree on terms to have a basis for a discussion.

It depends on we have to define "wrong" for a basis of this discussion.

We also have to agree on definitions (or 'labels') of terms like "homosexual" and "lifestyle" and so on. These can be defined, as I did above, broadly and agreeably enough to have logical discourse.

What you are doing is what I call "the fox news strategy." I call it this because this is a strategy frequently employed by Fox news personalities. The strategy is to basically cloud the arguement so much that people question their sensabilities, and the original arguement evaporates in thin air. Fox News does this to prevent having to have logical discourse or arguements, when the results of those discussions may not favor their worldview.

Example:

Newscaster: "Senator, Explain how you voted for the war, and now your against it?"
Guest: "I didn't vote for the war. We voted to give the President the power to decide based on the evidence if we should go to war or not. He decided to go to war based on insuffecient evidence."
Newscaster: "So you voted for the war, and now your against the war... how can you expect the American people to trust the Democrates to make decisions with all this flip-flopping!"

You see, in the above example, the conversation gets twisted into a discussion about whether or not the Democrates are "flip floppers" and whether or not they can be trusted with decision making. No logical discourse can occur on what the original vote was about, and why the guest doesn't support the war, and what evidence was insuffecient, and so on.

Well, that is sort of what your doing in this conversation. Instead of being able to agree on very simple terms so we can discuss the idea of homosexuality being considered "wrong" or not, etc., the conversation is twisted into a discussion about human sexuality and the psychology of how gay it would be to put a poster of a body builder in front of the bench press, and so on. All of this seems to be an attempt to get people to question their own sexuality and degree of "gayness," to fit your worldview of "everyone is gay, but just to different degrees." This way, if everyone is gay, then I guess there can be nothing wrong with being gay.

The problem with this is that although it twists the discussion into your worldview, it doesn't really address the topic. I don't mean to put you on the spot, but this is just what is occuring here.

It would be better if we simply decided what we meant by "wrong," went with some simple yet agreeable and reasonable definitions for terms like "homosexual behavior," and had logical discourse on when and where homosexuality was considered "wrong," and why that was, and so on. This would be more prudent to the topic, I think.

Paul

 

[Makalakumu]

But the concept is simple. You have to agree on terms to have a basis for a discussion.

If the terms are inadequate to discuss the topic, how can we agree? If you called a dog a cat and I called it something else, we will end up being more confused. Where is Carolus Linnaeus you you need him?

We also have to agree on definitions (or 'labels') of terms like "homosexual" and "lifestyle" and so on. These can be defined, as I did above, broadly and agreeably enough to have logical discourse.

Your definitions were in fact very narrow. There are many steps and gradations that need to be taken in to account.

What you are doing is what I call "the fox news strategy." I call it this because this is a strategy frequently employed by Fox news personalities. The strategy is to basically cloud the arguement so much that people question their sensabilities, and the original arguement evaporates in thin air. Fox News does this to prevent having to have logical discourse or arguements, when the results of those discussions may not favor their worldview.

Come on now...this is not an attempt to obfuscate, this is an attempt to clarify and to bring to light more detail then has been addressed. In your example you describing a complex position becoming so simple that it no longer describes reality. In this situation we are taking a simple position that has little bearing on reality and expanding it to fit a larger pool of data.

You see, in the above example, the conversation gets twisted into a discussion about whether or not the Democrates are "flip floppers" and whether or not they can be trusted with decision making. No logical discourse can occur on what the original vote was about, and why the guest doesn't support the war, and what evidence was insuffecient, and so on.

Logical discourse cannot occur if people do not have a clear picture of what we are talking about. The discussion about when same-sex relationships became wrong is far broader then when it became wrong to sleep with a member of the same sex. That is nothing but a cultural definition of psuedo-religious belief and it doesn't take into account the steps we all take...some more then others.

Well, that is sort of what your doing in this conversation. Instead of being able to agree on very simple terms so we can discuss the idea of homosexuality being considered "wrong" or not, etc., the conversation is twisted into a discussion about human sexuality and the psychology of how gay it would be to put a poster of a body builder in front of the bench press, and so on.

Paul, sometimes there are no simple terms to discuss issues. The particle/wave duality suddenly pops to mind...students in physics first examine this with a one dimensional equation called the Schroedinger Equation but we are always told that it actually is more complex.

All of this seems to be an attempt to get people to question their own sexuality and degree of "gayness," to fit your worldview of "everyone is gay, but just to different degrees." This way, if everyone is gay, then I guess there can be nothing wrong with being gay.

This IS an attempt to get people to question their own sexuality. This IS an attempt to encourage self knowledge. So many people shy away from this type of thing because they are afraid of the answer, because they intrinsically know what I am talking about. Am I really enforcing my worldview on people or are people thinking more honestly about "homosexual" and "heterosexual" behavior? Again, how can you discuss whether something is wrong without knowing what IS wrong?

The problem with this is that although it twists the discussion into your worldview, it doesn't really address the topic. I don't mean to put you on the spot, but this is just what is occuring here.

Go ahead, put me on the spot. I think that I've put a lot of people on the spot in this discussion. I think there has been a lot of rationalization and a lot of hmmmm moments. Good.

It would be better if we simply decided what we meant by "wrong," went with some simple yet agreeable and reasonable definitions for terms like "homosexual behavior," and had logical discourse on when and where homosexuality was considered "wrong," and why that was, and so on. This would be more prudent to the topic, I think.

The lines will always be artificial. They will always be based upon current cultural beleif and may have little to do with what might actually exist in reality unless this discussion is carried to fruition. "Homosexual behavior" is more then what it currently has been defined. The same goes for "Heterosexual behavior". The topic of this thread is discussing the drawing of a line between acceptable and unacceptable homo/hetero behavior. I am trying to point out that the line is artificial. When was that line drawn? Why? Knowing that the line IS artificial is a KEY peice of information in this discussion.

 

[Cruentus]

O.K....well, Upnorth, I still say your obfuscating the issues in an attempt to get people to question themselves enough until they agree with your "everyone is multisexual" worldview, so you can then argue "you see, if everyone is gay to varied degrees, then how could homosexuality be 'wrong'." You've practically admitted it:

This IS an attempt to get people to question their own sexuality. This IS an attempt to encourage self knowledge. So many people shy away from this type of thing because they are afraid of the answer, because they intrinsically know what I am talking about.

Unfortunatily, as I said, this isn't really promoting a logical discussion, only an agenda.

The terms, in the broad sense, are not difficult to agree on. But, if you want to keep using fox-news tactics, then I guess that is your decision and I won't stop you....just so long as you and everyone else knows exactly what your trying to do.

Again, don't mean to sound harsh. I am not mad at ya, but this is just how I see it.

Paul :supcool:

 

[7starmantis]

I completely agree with Paul's post. The nature of your argument, upnorth, obfuscates the logical discussion. In fact, its pretty frustrating and anoying. It seems your resting on the fact that others will become so tired of your faulty argument that they will stop posting and you "win". You said yourself that "Logical discourse cannot occur if people do not have a clear picture of what we are talking about." However, you refuse to set an agreed upon "label" or "term" for what we are talking about.

7sm

 

[Makalakumu]

In historical terms, somehow a line was drawn in the sand of human sexuality and everything south of that line became immoral. People are focusing on the line and forgetting to see the sandbox. I'm attempting to point out the sandbox and the artificial nature of the line. In the nature of this thread's discussion this is a KEY point. This is because, as Kaith orginally pointed out, the entire sandbox of human sexuality was once accepted in a much different way. Why did the line get draw where it did? When?

There really is no other agenda other then that. I'm not arguing to win anything. In the clearest sense of the word, this is not obfuscation. It is clarification. The sandbox point of view starts by pointing out the continuum of sexuality. It starts by making links across that artificial line. It starts with a little self-examination. And suddenly the bigger picture comes into view. Don't be so hasty to jump to the simplest definition. You may be focusing on the finger and missing the moon in which it happens to be pointing.

I once had a professor who said that people who engage in arguing the definition of a word are engaging in a semanticle. He then went on to point out, much later after class over a few beers, that semanticles were like testicles, the more you kick them around, the more it starts to hurt.

I think this has run its course...