I was wondering if anyone who considers homosexuality a sin, could tell me what is wrong with it.
I'm talking in the sense of utilitarian morals. How does homosexual intercourse, or homosexual marriage, increase the suffering in the world?
Homosexuality
Moderator: Moderators
Post #131
In the following, I use references to the following book:
Hidden from history: reclaiming the gay and lesbian past (1989)
Duberman, Vicinus and Chauncey Jr.
Which includes several essays, one of which is "Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality" (Boswell, 1980).
The book brings up what I see to be an important distinction, first, that I doubt many of us appreciate. The authors repeatedly use the terms "social constructionism" and "essentialism" to differentiate between two possible views on the issue of homosexuality. Effectively, the question is "is it who you are, or what you do".
Social Constructionism:
(Chauncey et al, p.6)
(Boswell, via Chauncey et al, p.19)
(Boswell, via Chauncey et al, p.34-35)
Further back in history, though homosexuality may have existed, it really wasn't the same thing it is today. The notion is very culturally and historically relative.
(Halperin, via Chauncey et al, p.59)
So where do we stand at the start of the 1990's? Back on page 6, we see that the authors essentially say, "so what if it's a social construction? you still can't help it."
(Chauncey et al, p.6)
In my limited experience, this is where any reasonable leftist stands today. I have a close friend whose opinion would at least corroborate a "non-essentialist" view. Homosexuality is seen not as a biological identity, or the "essence" of a person, but as an attribute that any person could possess, in varying degrees. The causes are not well understood, but, at least according to these authors, it's not some sort of innate quality.
I think many right-wingers would actually readily agree that it's not "who you are", that it's "what you do".
So, *within* the constructionist premise, I can see the following logic tree developing:
The left would continue to use terms like "sexual identity" anyway. Despite the fact that it's a construction and not an essence, it "cannot be readily changed", nor does it "need to be". So, for all intents and purposes, it's still a part of who you are. Perhaps they mean that it's an identity the same way a religiously-raised person has a religious identity, or how an adopted child still has a family identity. I can see a few possible takes on the issue, of which one or more may be held by any given liberal:
One might argue that the homosexuality is a beneficial way for society to adapt to an ever-increasing population.
One might argue that homosexuality, like art, adds color to society, or brings pleasure to individuals.
One might argue that homosexuality affects society not at all.
One might argue that homosexuality, though icky or gross, is nonetheless victimless.
One might argue that society should actively encourage homosexual behavior.
One might argue that society should passively allow homosexual behavior.
A social conservative may hold the constructionist premise, but still deny one or both of the others: 1.) that it cannot be readily changed, and 2.) that it does not need to be changed. I can see many arguments branching off here, within the conservative faction; one or more of the following might be held by any one of them:
One might argue that social constructions, unlike genetics, are up to society to affect. That they can be changed, and need to be directed towards heterosexual family units.
One might argue that *individuals* have a responsibility to strive for a pragmatic heterosexual relationship, regardless of what pleases them.
One might argue that individuals have no choice in the matter, but that *society* has a collective responsibility to direct itself towards a heterosexual norm.
One might argue that society should actively prohibit homosexual behavior.
One might argue that society should passively discourage homosexual behavior.
As for whether the conservatives have an argument, I'll have to continue this study next week... looking into family values, the difference between short-term pleasure and long-term satisfaction, and whether "rampant" homosexuality can, as the Chinese Qing dynasty supposed (Vivien W. Ng via Chauncey et al, p. 76) be harmful to society.
Hidden from history: reclaiming the gay and lesbian past (1989)
Duberman, Vicinus and Chauncey Jr.
Which includes several essays, one of which is "Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality" (Boswell, 1980).
The book brings up what I see to be an important distinction, first, that I doubt many of us appreciate. The authors repeatedly use the terms "social constructionism" and "essentialism" to differentiate between two possible views on the issue of homosexuality. Effectively, the question is "is it who you are, or what you do".
Social Constructionism:
(Chauncey et al, p.6)
(Boswell, via Chauncey et al, p.19)Carole Vance, in a lecture given at a 1987 international gay studies conference held in Amsterdam, "Homosexuality, Which Homosexuality?"...
[T]o the extent that social construction theory grants that sexual acts, identities, and even desire are meditated by cultural and historical factors, the object of study -- sexuality -- ... threatens to disappear. ... Is there an "it" to study?
Essentialism:[Nominalists, Social constructionists] ... aver that categories of sexual preference and behavior are created by humans and human societies.... People consider themselves "homosexual" or "heterosexual" because they are induced to believe that humans are either "homosexual" or "heterosexual".
(Boswell, via Chauncey et al, p.19)
While Boswell seems to initially say that most people think somewhere in between the two views (p.19 "Neither of these positions is usually held absolutely..."), he writes a postscript 5 years later, in which he states:[Realists, Essentialists] hold that this is not the case. Humans are, they insist, differentiated sexually. Many categories might be devised to characterize human sexual taxonomy, some more or less apt than others, but the accuracy of human perceptions does not affect reality. The heterosexual/homosexual dichotomy exists in speech and thought because it exists in reality: It was not invented by sexual taxonomists, but observed by them.
(Boswell, via Chauncey et al, p.34-35)
So, at least, there is enough evidence out there to make one guy (supported by various other scholars, who all got published, cited their work, and ended up in the public library) change his mind about the issue, and say that homosexuality is indubitably a social construction, and not a fundamental identity.I would no longer characterize the constructionist-essentialist controversy as a "debate" in any strict sense.... no one involved in it actually identifies him- or herself as an "essentialist".... It was the supposition of [Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality] that ["gay persons"] have been widely and identifiably present in Western society at least since Greco-Roman times.... I would now define "gay persons" more simply as those whose erotic interest is predominantly directed toward their own gender (i.e. regardless of how conscious they are of this as a distinguishing characteristic).
Further back in history, though homosexuality may have existed, it really wasn't the same thing it is today. The notion is very culturally and historically relative.
(Halperin, via Chauncey et al, p.59)
We speak, for example, of homosexuals and heterosexuals as distinct categories of people, each with its sexual essence and personal behavioral characteristics.... Freud... and other psychologists have demonstrated that the boundaries between the two groups in our own society are fluid and difficult to define....
The categories in fact take what are no more than a group of more or less closely related acts ("homosexual", "heterosexual" behavior) and convert them into case studies of people ("homosexuals", "heterosexuals"). This conversion... cannot be said to have been accomplished before at least the seventeenth century, and, as a firm belief... the late nineteenth century.
[The Greeks].... "Homosexuals" and "heterosexuals" in the modern sense did not exist in their world, and to speak, as is common, of the Greeks, as "bisexual" is illegitimate as well, since that merely adds a new, intermediate category, whereas it was precisely the categories themselves which had no meaning in antiquity.
So where do we stand at the start of the 1990's? Back on page 6, we see that the authors essentially say, "so what if it's a social construction? you still can't help it."
(Chauncey et al, p.6)
Many social constructionists would argue that this is precisely the point: that the constitution of "sexuality" and of identity itself must be the subject of inquiry. But most would also agree that even if our sexual identities are socially constructed, they cannot be readily changed, nor, indeed, do they need to be, as right-wing religious and political groups have insisted.
In my limited experience, this is where any reasonable leftist stands today. I have a close friend whose opinion would at least corroborate a "non-essentialist" view. Homosexuality is seen not as a biological identity, or the "essence" of a person, but as an attribute that any person could possess, in varying degrees. The causes are not well understood, but, at least according to these authors, it's not some sort of innate quality.
I think many right-wingers would actually readily agree that it's not "who you are", that it's "what you do".
So, *within* the constructionist premise, I can see the following logic tree developing:
The left would continue to use terms like "sexual identity" anyway. Despite the fact that it's a construction and not an essence, it "cannot be readily changed", nor does it "need to be". So, for all intents and purposes, it's still a part of who you are. Perhaps they mean that it's an identity the same way a religiously-raised person has a religious identity, or how an adopted child still has a family identity. I can see a few possible takes on the issue, of which one or more may be held by any given liberal:
One might argue that the homosexuality is a beneficial way for society to adapt to an ever-increasing population.
One might argue that homosexuality, like art, adds color to society, or brings pleasure to individuals.
One might argue that homosexuality affects society not at all.
One might argue that homosexuality, though icky or gross, is nonetheless victimless.
One might argue that society should actively encourage homosexual behavior.
One might argue that society should passively allow homosexual behavior.
A social conservative may hold the constructionist premise, but still deny one or both of the others: 1.) that it cannot be readily changed, and 2.) that it does not need to be changed. I can see many arguments branching off here, within the conservative faction; one or more of the following might be held by any one of them:
One might argue that social constructions, unlike genetics, are up to society to affect. That they can be changed, and need to be directed towards heterosexual family units.
One might argue that *individuals* have a responsibility to strive for a pragmatic heterosexual relationship, regardless of what pleases them.
One might argue that individuals have no choice in the matter, but that *society* has a collective responsibility to direct itself towards a heterosexual norm.
One might argue that society should actively prohibit homosexual behavior.
One might argue that society should passively discourage homosexual behavior.
As for whether the conservatives have an argument, I'll have to continue this study next week... looking into family values, the difference between short-term pleasure and long-term satisfaction, and whether "rampant" homosexuality can, as the Chinese Qing dynasty supposed (Vivien W. Ng via Chauncey et al, p. 76) be harmful to society.
-
DanieltheDragon
- Savant
- Posts: 6224
- Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2013 1:37 pm
- Location: Charlotte
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re: Homosexuality
Post #132Well if I take you at face value
exterminate :
to destroy or kill (a group of animals, people, etc.) completely
so how does this make you rhetoric different from Hitler or Lennon?
please feel free to give us context or indeed affirm the observation if you believe killing or exterminating homosexuals is a benefit to society?
Re: Homosexuality
Post #133DanieltheDragon wrote:
Well if I take you at face value
exterminate :
to destroy or kill (a group of animals, people, etc.) completely
so how does this make you rhetoric different from Hitler or Lennon?
please feel free to give us context or indeed affirm the observation if you believe killing or exterminating homosexuals is a benefit to society?
You are free to draw what ever false conclusion you wish. If you will be honest, you will admit, I never used the words exterminate and kill. There could be nothing further from my mind.
-
DanieltheDragon
- Savant
- Posts: 6224
- Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2013 1:37 pm
- Location: Charlotte
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re: Homosexuality
Post #134s
I also was stating one possible view one could interpret from your words. You could easily dispel frivolous assumptions by merely stating your position. I don't see why on an anonymous forum it needs to be secret.
sorry I get words mixed up sometimes eradicate not exterminate and kill was derived from exterminate, still vanquish and eradicate are rather aggressive if not violent terms. They are used generally in a context of war killing death etc.Sonofason wrote:DanieltheDragon wrote:
Well if I take you at face value
exterminate :
to destroy or kill (a group of animals, people, etc.) completely
so how does this make you rhetoric different from Hitler or Lennon?
please feel free to give us context or indeed affirm the observation if you believe killing or exterminating homosexuals is a benefit to society?
You are free to draw what ever false conclusion you wish. If you will be honest, you will admit, I never used the words exterminate and kill. There could be nothing further from my mind.
I also was stating one possible view one could interpret from your words. You could easily dispel frivolous assumptions by merely stating your position. I don't see why on an anonymous forum it needs to be secret.
Re: Homosexuality
Post #135You should also note, that when I used the word eradicate, it was in reference to homosexuality, not homosexuals. When I used the word vanquish, I was referring to homosexual behavior, not homosexuals. When I used the word extinguish, I was speaking of homosexuality, not homosexuals. Your post seems most in-genuine. I will give you another opportunity to apologize.DanieltheDragon wrote: ssorry I get words mixed up sometimes eradicate not exterminate and kill was derived from exterminate, still vanquish and eradicate are rather aggressive if not violent terms. They are used generally in a context of war killing death etc.Sonofason wrote:DanieltheDragon wrote:
Well if I take you at face value
exterminate :
to destroy or kill (a group of animals, people, etc.) completely
so how does this make you rhetoric different from Hitler or Lennon?
please feel free to give us context or indeed affirm the observation if you believe killing or exterminating homosexuals is a benefit to society?
You are free to draw what ever false conclusion you wish. If you will be honest, you will admit, I never used the words exterminate and kill. There could be nothing further from my mind.
I also was stating one possible view one could interpret from your words. You could easily dispel frivolous assumptions by merely stating your position. I don't see why on an anonymous forum it needs to be secret.
-
DanieltheDragon
- Savant
- Posts: 6224
- Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2013 1:37 pm
- Location: Charlotte
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re: Homosexuality
Post #136[Replying to post 134 by Sonofason]
look there are multiple ways to accomplish your goal
1. Kill all homosexuals
2. To quarantine homosexuals and their families while simultaneously preventing reproduction
3.Investing billions of dollars in research to locate sexual orientation genes and investing billions more in gene switch technology and mandating all new births undergo such treatment
each step must be repeated as necessary and be global in its reach and would take many generations to succeed in any meaningful way. THERE ARE NO OTHER means to achieve your goal.
so if you have a mysterious secret 4th option share it.
You see I did notice you were targeting sexuality as separate from a person, but you can't achieve your goals without addressing the persons involved.
So if you want a retraction what is your 4th option
PS what am I apologizing for, I already apologized for the misquote what else should I apologize for?
look there are multiple ways to accomplish your goal
1. Kill all homosexuals
2. To quarantine homosexuals and their families while simultaneously preventing reproduction
3.Investing billions of dollars in research to locate sexual orientation genes and investing billions more in gene switch technology and mandating all new births undergo such treatment
each step must be repeated as necessary and be global in its reach and would take many generations to succeed in any meaningful way. THERE ARE NO OTHER means to achieve your goal.
so if you have a mysterious secret 4th option share it.
You see I did notice you were targeting sexuality as separate from a person, but you can't achieve your goals without addressing the persons involved.
So if you want a retraction what is your 4th option
PS what am I apologizing for, I already apologized for the misquote what else should I apologize for?
-
DanieltheDragon
- Savant
- Posts: 6224
- Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2013 1:37 pm
- Location: Charlotte
- Been thanked: 1 time
Post #137
[Replying to post 130 by Wissing]
That is a good book. just be careful about confusing sexual identity and sexual orientation. Sexual identity could be a social construct but orientation is most certainly biological. Again this goes back to my example of a scale, not everything is so black and white sexually.
That is a good book. just be careful about confusing sexual identity and sexual orientation. Sexual identity could be a social construct but orientation is most certainly biological. Again this goes back to my example of a scale, not everything is so black and white sexually.
Re: Homosexuality
Post #138DanieltheDragon wrote: [Replying to post 134 by Sonofason]
look there are multiple ways to accomplish your goal
1. Kill all homosexuals
2. To quarantine homosexuals and their families while simultaneously preventing reproduction
3.Investing billions of dollars in research to locate sexual orientation genes and investing billions more in gene switch technology and mandating all new births undergo such treatment
each step must be repeated as necessary and be global in its reach and would take many generations to succeed in any meaningful way. THERE ARE NO OTHER means to achieve your goal.
so if you have a mysterious secret 4th option share it.
You see I did notice you were targeting sexuality as separate from a person, but you can't achieve your goals without addressing the persons involved.
So if you want a retraction what is your 4th option
PS what am I apologizing for, I already apologized for the misquote what else should I apologize for?
I have no cause to retract anything I've said, and I see no advantage of divulging that which I consider a secret.
I have not accepted your first apology, and so you remain in an un-forgiven state. If it is truly forgiveness that you seek, then apologize again.
-
DanieltheDragon
- Savant
- Posts: 6224
- Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2013 1:37 pm
- Location: Charlotte
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re: Homosexuality
Post #139[Replying to Sonofason]
lol that's on you then. I made a mistake addressed it, re-examined the issue and moved forward I don't owe you anything. I refuse to grovel at your feet that is absurd.
lol that's on you then. I made a mistake addressed it, re-examined the issue and moved forward I don't owe you anything. I refuse to grovel at your feet that is absurd.
Re: Homosexuality
Post #140I see. Well, even though it appears to me that you do not deserve my forgiveness, I will forgive you anyway. You see, we do not deserve to be forgiven by others when we do them wrong. An apology is not a payment of a debt. It is a request for mercy. We do not deserve God's mercy. But by His grace, we can be saved.DanieltheDragon wrote: [Replying to Sonofason]
lol that's on you then. I made a mistake addressed it, re-examined the issue and moved forward I don't owe you anything. I refuse to grovel at your feet that is absurd.
apology - An acknowledgment expressing regret or asking pardon for a fault or offense
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/apology
