Homosexuality...

[Unwardil]

Of course it's cringe worthy when taken out of context with the rest of what I was saying.

 

[monitoradiation]

When I say that the primary goal of life is to survive, I mean it is the most fundamental one. Essentially everything else will require this goal to be constantly fulfilled, no?

Homosexuality, does not take away a organisms ability to defend or educate offspring. But does it not make it unlikely for the organism in question to pass its own genetic information to the next generation?

The question here is whether or not you consider homosexuality to be a choice. But either way, you'll be forced to consider how some other people live as not fulfilling the primary goal of survival.

If homosexuality is a choice, then you're saying that the capacity for them to reproduce is still there but they choose not to. You run into a similar argument with couples who choose not to have children. Would their relationships also violate your rule of survival?

If it is not a choice, then the capacity for the homosexual individuals to reproduce their own offspring is eliminated. However, does that make their existence FUTILE? You run into a similar argument with infertile couples who cannot conceive. Would their relationships also violate your rule of survival?

 

[JustBusiness17]

Hmm, I am not sure whether my position was unstable or whether I simply said it in a fashion which is incoherent... I like to think it was a little of both.

I learned early on that you have to be careful how you conduct yourself in a forum full of rationalists... I haven't perfected the art, but it's a part of the process.

My point is that the primary goal of life is to survive. Personal survival involves staying alive so that you can produce offspring and then raise them.

Words like goal and purpose are rather meaningless to reality when you remove subjectivity from the equation. Yes, it seems that survival of the species could be classified as a goal by our own standards, but as someone pointed out early on, the phenomenon of life is working on borrowed time. At some point, the Earth will be destroyed along with everything that calls it home.

Consider this: Maybe life (in particular -human life) is "destined" to escape the confines of its birthplace and in turn its impending destruction. Is it not possible that homosexuality could play a vital role in that process? What if these types of social phenomenon are required as a catalyst to help humanity overcome prejudice in order to work together as a species?

That may be a long shot, but you can't deny that the diversity of the human mind was an evolutionary requirement for our existence today. Its nearly impossible to imagine the mutations required for a single celled organism to evolve into a species capable of honing fire, let alone colonizing the diverse habitats of our planet. To say that homosexuality "is pointless" as you phrased it in your opening to this thread seems a little short sighted to me (and many other people from the looks of things). When I hear comments like that, all I see is the insecurity of a lone organism struggling to make sense of life. I apologize if that doesn't apply to you.

Ensuring the preservation of a species is a collective goal of all of the members of that species. It is more then just constantly mating, it is making sure you keep your environment hospitable. Hence if you over spawn, resources are depleted rapidly and your species risks extinction.

Which is something that ties into a post made earlier regarding changing psychological behavior based on the scarcity of recourses. I don't like talking about it because I know it's not the entire story and it tends to trivialize human behaviour, but I learned about the overpopulation experiment 11 years ago in high school and have never forgot about it since. I even considered posting it prior to the other user, but opted not to in order to avoid the controversial nature of the subject. Whether we like to admit it or not, things like murder, rape, cannibalism, and homosexuality may be physiological responses to our environment. If that were the case, homosexuality could in fact play a vital role in the preservation of the species as we approach the limit of our ability to acquire resources...

(I hope I said that eloquently enough to bypass the controversial nature of the topic)

Homosexuality, does not take away a organisms ability to defend or educate offspring. But does it not make it unlikely for the organism in question to pass its own genetic information to the next generation?

In the broader spectrum of life, the genes of a species are just as important as the genes of an individual. Pecking order perfectly demonstrates that certain individuals are better equipped for maneuvering the complex nature of social structures. Now, that doesn't mean that certain genes aren't better than the ones selected for by social structures, it just means that society in itself is has evolved to become an evolutionary pressure. That could be good and/or bad depending on the long term outcome. In terms of modern day economic society and the push for capitalism, I personally believe it is bad. With regards to homosexuality, I really have no opinion. What I do know is that people like Stephen Hawking or individuals faced with autism have made incredible contributions to humanity despite possessing genes that would seem completely useless in the absence of modern day society. It would be ignorant of me to discount any individual based on their inability to integrate with what we know of as society...


(I'm ready for some heat after this post :? )

 

[JustBusiness17]

If homosexuality is a choice, then you're saying that the capacity for them to reproduce is still there but they choose not to. You run into a similar argument with couples who choose not to have children. Would their relationships also violate your rule of survival?

If it is not a choice, then the capacity for the homosexual individuals to reproduce their own offspring is eliminated. However, does that make their existence FUTILE? You run into a similar argument with infertile couples who cannot conceive. Would their relationships also violate your rule of survival?

This is what I refer to as CTT... Can't top that!

Excellent points.

 

[borrofburi]

First, I'm not stupid. I know what the word is intending to convey. What I'm saying is that the reason why that word is an insult in the first place is because of its connotations (gay is inferior because it's not heterosexual because it's not manly enough). That should be reason enough to exclude it from one's vocabulary and is just as bigoted as using a racist or misogynist term.

This, and Aught3's youtube clip...

Is it bad to mindlessly perpetuate racial bigotry by one's language? Yes. Did I ever deny that fact? I appeal to the intelligence of the readers. Did I say that mindlessly perpetuating something was not on the same level of bad as actively encouraging it? Yes, and if people want to debate me on why that is not the case, then I'd be pleased as punch to oblige, less all the accusations that I am myself a bigoted, white supremacist homophobe, thank you very much.

Ok, well then we can probably wrap this all up. Do you agree that calling someone gay has its origins in, and perpetuates, prejudice against homosexuals (as being inferior)?

 

[borrofburi]

Here's a hint: if you use "gay" as an insult, you are 100% saying that being gay is a negative thing, and it make you a bigot. If you call anyone a "nigger" as an insult, you are saying that being black is a negative thing.

@Justbusiness as well (this is meant to address both Joe and JB):
I disagree, but my disagreement is subtle. I agree that "gay" as an insult has its origins in considering homosexuality to be a negative thing (I mean, my posts up to this point show that). I don't agree that a person who uses it necessarily means to do that, or is necessarily prejudiced.

I used it for a bit, it crept into my vocabulary via video gaming. Someone pointed out the prejudicial origins of the word as an insult, and it took me a little bit to understand (a few days? I don't remember, I didn't get it right away, though this process allowed me to get various female insults' prejudicial origins that I encountered later very quickly and easily), and a little bit longer to properly remove it from my vocabulary.

Sometimes people just don't get it. I tend to think people are more bumbling than evil.

Well, he's certainly decided to cling to the silly position. Most folks don't realize that there's a big benefit to saying "I was wrong, sorry, I'm going to stop now."

Yes... but... it takes time for people to change, for a number of perfectly valid reasons.

 

[borrofburi]

When I say that the primary goal of life is to survive, I mean it is the most fundamental one. Essentially everything else will require this goal to be constantly fulfilled, no?

Yes... and no... I can't be happy if I'm not alive, so I very much want to survive; so I guess you can say the primary goal of my life is to survive. But, how precisely does that tie into reproduction?

 

[JustBusiness17]

Here's a hint: if you use "gay" as an insult, you are 100% saying that being gay is a negative thing, and it make you a bigot. If you call anyone a "nigger" as an insult, you are saying that being black is a negative thing.

@Justbusiness as well (this is meant to address both Joe and JB):
I disagree, but my disagreement is subtle. I agree that "gay" as an insult has its origins in considering homosexuality to be a negative thing (I mean, my posts up to this point show that). I don't agree that a person who uses it necessarily means to do that, or is necessarily prejudiced.

I used it for a bit, it crept into my vocabulary via video gaming. Someone pointed out the prejudicial origins of the word as an insult, and it took me a little bit to understand (a few days? I don't remember, I didn't get it right away, though this process allowed me to get various female insults' prejudicial origins that I encountered later very quickly and easily), and a little bit longer to properly remove it from my vocabulary.

Sometimes people just don't get it. I tend to think people are more bumbling than evil.

I completely agree. In fact, on page 3, I said:

@Boro

No, there is a massive difference.

Bigotry stems from the fallacy that a persons appearance necessarily informs their actions,

Or so you think...

big,·ot   /ˈbɪgÉ™t/ Show Spelled[big-uht] Show IPA
-noun
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

As borro pointed out (and why I took objection in the first place), the issue isn't even so much about the context that the word is being used in - It's about discrimination and segregation of an entire class of people for something that (to the best of my knowledge) is completely out of their control. Beyond that, it doesn't seem like something that many openly gay people care to control (unlike their homophobic closeted counterparts).

The fact that you and a few others on the forum find it acceptable to fling bigoted remarks around without much concern for the people that it oppresses probably comes down to ignorance. After all, the only other alternative is hate.

I probably should have been a little more generalized with my comment, but that's irrelevant to the matter. I agree that ignorance of the bigotry probably applies to the majority of cases where people use the term flippantly.

Just like you, I wasn't born with an instinctual opposition to bigotry. Beyond the word 'gay', there was a period where 'Jew' was a regular part of my vocab. Both of these things were driven by ignorance and I'm ashamed that I conducted myself like that. It's probably why I'm so outspoken against bigoted comments now, regardless of the intent...

 

[Unwardil]

So after all the name calling and accusations of my being some callous insensitive racist homophobe... You both turn around and openly admit that not only is it possible for the words to be employed without having any real bigoted malice behind them, but simply because they are in popular usage at the time and everyone else is doing it.

That, coupled with the fact that simply using those words because everyone else around you does is not AS bad as actually believing in bigoted ideas and there should be a nice distinction to be made there was my whole point in the first place. I think I stated it in such clear terms that you'd have to be hyper reactionary not to see the point I was making.

 

[JustBusiness17]

So after all the name calling and accusations of my being some callous insensitive racist homophobe... You both turn around and openly admit that not only is it possible for the words to be employed without having any real bigoted malice behind them, but simply because they are in popular usage at the time and everyone else is doing it.

That, coupled with the fact that simply using those words because everyone else around you does is not AS bad as actually believing in bigoted ideas and there should be a nice distinction to be made there was my whole point in the first place. I think I stated it in such clear terms that you'd have to be hyper reactionary not to see the point I was making.

Quit trying to justify your position. Ignorantia juris non excusat :!: I don't care if people realize that what they're saying is wrong or not - It's still wrong. Besides that point, it should be blatantly obvious that the word 'gay' is entirely derogatory when used pejoratively.

Your position is weak!

 

[Unwardil]

Why is it you can't grasp the fact of two things being not equally wrong. The comment was made that calling someone gay for any negative reason amounts to the same thing as racial bigotry. I said that it doesn't, not always, here's an example of how that can be true, one in which you fully admitted to be guilty of falling into.

Notice at this point that I am not at this point going to point out that the reason for your hyper sensitivity of this subject probably has to do with your own guilt and shame at falling into that very trap. No, that would be a low blow and I'm being purely intellectual about this.

The reason it is wrong to simply use words such as Jew or Fag or Queer as a derogatory term in the second, less bad context of simply employing a word that is in popular use, is because it a) gives tacit admission of acceptability to the actual bigots and b) because it can be misinterpreted as actual bigotry which is harmful to those who become the target of it, however, blindly and ignorantly perpetuating the evils of society are not the same as instigating them in the first place, AND they're not as bad.

What is completely acceptable however, is calling someone an arrogant fuckwad when they so keenly deserve it.

 

[JustBusiness17]

Why is it you can't grasp the fact of two things being not equally wrong.

Equally wrong and still quite wrong are in the same playing field. Nemo censetur ignorare legem :geek:

The comment was made that calling someone gay for any negative reason amounts to the same thing as racial bigotry.

Racial bigotry may have been used to illuminate the conversation, but it's not the topic at hand. If you want to fight strawmen, have at it Hoss. It doesn't change my opinion on the subject of bigotry against homosexuality.

Notice at this point that I am not at this point going to point out that the reason for your hyper sensitivity of this subject probably has to do with your own guilt and shame at falling into that very trap. No, that would be a low blow and I'm being purely intellectual about this.

Intellectual? More like another feeble attempt at justification! My hypersensitivity comes as a result of your hyposensitivity. I happen to be empathetic and unfortunately, it seems to take a little more convincing to penetrate the skulls of certain people. I don't expect to change your mind on the topic anytime soon, but a couple days, months, years, etc, hopefully you'll understand the point that I'm making. And hopefully you'll understand that the point isn't exclusive to sexuality or race and that it applies to all forms of bigotry!

The reason it is wrong to simply use words such as Jew or Fag or Queer as a derogatory term in the second, less bad context of simply employing a word that is in popular use, is because it a) gives tacit admission of acceptability to the actual bigots and b) because it can be misinterpreted as actual bigotry which is harmful to those who become the target of it, however, blindly and ignorantly perpetuating the evils of society are not the same as instigating them in the first place, AND they're not as bad.

Do less evil... Great philosophy :roll:

The fact that derogatory words are even able to become "popular" is rather sad and pathetic in and of itself :geek:

What is completely acceptable however, is calling someone an arrogant fuckwad when they so keenly deserve it.

Your implied insults mean nothing to me. My opinion of you right now is so low that I really don't care what you think of anything.

 

[Unwardil]

Everything is evil. If everybody strived to do as little evil as possible, the world would be a very boring place indeed. It is, infact, the core of most philosophy to "do less evil" so way to be unwittingly brilliant only to sabotage it with your own sarcasm.

Antibiotics... Nice scientific discovery :roll:


Now then, if you'd emphatically pull your head out of your ass and read the whole of my posts BEFORE your involvement from whence I was perpetually forced to conduct a rear guard action against your ignorant attacks on my character, you'll see what I was attempting to conduct was an unbiased exploration of just precisely WHY IT IS that words become popular usage. You said yourself you had employed Jew and Gay as insults when you didn't mean them in the bigoted context... Or maybe you are a reformed antisemitic homophobe, in which case well done, but regardless, it's pointless to say YOU CAN'T USE THESE WORDS! THESE WORDS ARE EVIL! Because words are theoretical constructs. They mean what people think they mean.

I was attempting to explore one instance where the term gay and indeed the very idea of homosexuality in general has been employed as a metaphor for a totally unrelated type of behavior and was attempting to explore how that could have happened so that it could be CHANGED! How can you possibly expect to make positive change if you don't understand the reasons it came to be in the first place?! I gave an example of a substitute word I employ in that context as I wish to communicate in that context, so that people could perhaps think about alternative words they could use when they want to call someone a cheap bastard that wont have any bigoted racial implications attached to it. That... Was... My whole... Fucking... Point!

You're like an environmentalist who hears the words oil and automatically screams PLANET KILLER! even when the context of the conversation has to do with the places where oil can be removed as a power source and it's impossible for me to hold a reasoned debate and exchange relevant ideas when there's some loud petulant twit constantly calling me a racist and a homophobe in the background.

 

[fenyx]

Im gay.

any questions?

just thought id throw that out there.

 

[JustBusiness17]

I was attempting to explore one instance where the term gay and indeed the very idea of homosexuality in general has been employed as a metaphor for a totally unrelated type of behavior and was attempting to explore how that could have happened so that it could be CHANGED! How can you possibly expect to make positive change if you don't understand the reasons it came to be in the first place?!

All bigoted remarks are metaphors... What's your point? It's pretty obvious (to me at least) that the only way to change our environment of hate is to take a hard line against it. Your entire shtick in this thread has been an attempt to make "exceptions to a rule". I'm sorry to inform you, but there are no exceptions and the more that idea spreads, the better our society will become :!:

PS: Your strawman about my environmental philosophies is completely besides the point

 

[JustBusiness17]

Im gay.

any questions?

just thought id throw that out there.

Not that you represent the entire gay population or anything, but I'd love to hear your opinions on the discussion.

 

[Unwardil]

@Fenyx

Yes actually, how do you feel when the word Queer or Fag or something like that gets used to describe a negative quality that is completely unrelated to sexuality? If, (purely hypothetical here) the word gay in popular usage were to come to mean thief and that the meaning of homosexual were to become a little more vestigial, would you take offense at the word being employed to describe thieves as repugnant.

Example: A corner store owner yelling at a retreating shoplifter "Get the hell back here you filthy Gay!"

Would that offend you and would it be an example of bigotry on the part of the shopkeeper.


@justbuisness

When has taking a hard line against anything ever worked in practice? You can't tell people not to say certain words. Fuck knows that doesn't fucking work other wise I wouldn't use the word fuck so fucking much. The fucking fact is, it's just such a fucking versatile word.

Gay is another such word, it's simple, concise and has a myriad meanings. It's three fucking letters and one syllable, it's memetic staying power is huge. I'm not trying to make excuses, I'm stating facts. Short, simple words are more common than big ones BECAUSE THEY'RE SIMPLE. Understanding that fact is key to changing it. Instead of taking a hardline against a word, which won't work, introduce a superior word, or better, subvert the given meaning. A shock word in popular usage loses it's shock value the more it gets used. Use gay to describe EVERYTHING and it will cease to have ANY meaning.

Simply saying "Don't say the word!" Is being the knights of Nigh!

Also, that wasn't a strawman I was attacking, I was comparing your actions in this thread with another theoretical situation, wherein someone with a hyper reactionary mindset and a loud voice makes it impossible for legitimate ideas to even be brought forward for discussion because of their inane ramblings and baseless accusations. A better example would have been parliament, where the peanut gallery just starts making random noise the instant the opposing party stands up to say anything, completely derailing the entire parliamentary process until the speaker of the house bangs his gavel and tells them to GTFO, by which time, the entire session is all but wasted.

 

[fenyx]

Im gay.

any questions?

just thought id throw that out there.

Not that you represent the entire gay population or anything, but I'd love to hear your opinions on the discussion.

i wasnt claiming to represent the entire population. I can give you my perspective and i can give you a little bit of the kinds of discussion my LGBT group gets into on the subject though.

the term gay. for me personally, meh..words are simply words. the bigotry comes in with the psychological and often physical torture that some individuals see fit to put people like myself through. i have been beaten up for my sexuality. Ive also been threatened. THAT is more of a big deal than anything else though i can tell you that i am a minority in that respect(at least amongst my local LGBT community). the reason i think many have issues with heteros(and cis..which is a whole 'nother thread) using certain language is due to a sort of..we'll call it a defensive reaction born of the threat of physical and psychological torture.

In my community, both sexuality and gender are viewed as a series of spectrums, with various individuals at different points along each spectrum rather than being simply man or woman, gay or straight. all of us feel that this more accurately describes the nature of human sexuality than the tradional binary model.


ill finish with a question..

do you think, in the face of social retribution, the threat of physical violence, the reality of physical violence and the very real possibility of death..that anyone would conciously choose to be homosexual? i know that i did not. i would give anything to be straight.

 

[fenyx]

i thought i should add one little thing.

its a general consensus amongst those that i know who are different in respect to sexuality and gender that the most offensive term is "homosexual".

because according to our perceptions of both gender and sexuality, the term is woefully inadequate to describe the reality.

 

[borrofburi]

Why is it you can't grasp the fact of two things being not equally wrong. The comment was made that calling someone gay for any negative reason amounts to the same thing as racial bigotry. I said that it doesn't, not always, here's an example of how that can be true, one in which you fully admitted to be guilty of falling into.

Notice at this point that I am not at this point going to point out that the reason for your hyper sensitivity of this subject probably has to do with your own guilt and shame at falling into that very trap. No, that would be a low blow and I'm being purely intellectual about this.

The reason it is wrong to simply use words such as Jew or Fag or Queer as a derogatory term in the second, less bad context of simply employing a word that is in popular use, is because it a) gives tacit admission of acceptability to the actual bigots and b) because it can be misinterpreted as actual bigotry which is harmful to those who become the target of it, however, blindly and ignorantly perpetuating the evils of society are not the same as instigating them in the first place, AND they're not as bad.

I agree... and disagree. The reason it is wrong to use words such as jew, fag, queer, nigger, spic, etc. in the context of "anything generally bad" is wrong is because it associates those groups of people with the concept of "bad". Even from your own example, Unwardil, the guy who says "stop being such a camp-fag", your metaphor of "it just means 'not the way as intended'" may be right, but there's still a strong connotation that it is undesirable to be "gay", that you should feel shame and guilt for being a "camp-fag", that you should repent of your sins of 'not as intended', that it is *wrong* to be a "fag",. I never said it's "the same" or "just as bad" to blindly and ignorantly use the words; I have said that using words like "gay" to mean "bad" has its roots in bigotry and prejudice and that anyone who continues to do that helps perpetuate the prejudice, unwittingly or not, and that therefore we should stop.

All bigoted remarks are metaphors...

I think this is a very valid point.... ish. All biogted language in the terms we are talking stem from the idea that is bad, undesirable, and wrong to be a "gay", "spic", "homosexual", "fag", "nigger", "jew", female, "yellow skinned", "camel rider", etc. (sorry about the last two, I can't remember the actual terms, these are approximations of some things I've heard in the past but since forgotten) and using *any* of them to insult someone simultaneously insults the entire group by implying that they are a lesser category that you don't want to be a part of and that the person being insulted shouldn't want to be, and indeed should even feel guilty and defensive at the mere accusation of being a part of this lesser undesirable group of human beings.

This is particularly wrong when it involves a group that is not a choice or is a significant part of personal identity, especially when these groups are not necessarily associated with doing anything wrong (e.g. I don't object to a suggestion that someone is like bigots as an insult, because it isn't a direct piece of personal identity and it *is* bad to be a bigot under my moral system (you could argue I am prejudiced or a bigot towards bigots, but you'd be pedantic to do so)). And that's the thing: the true bigots can't see anything wrong with "that's gay" as an insult because they really do believe that being gay is something that is undesirable, wrong, and shameful.