diversity and tolerance

[Fist and Faith]

If you understand that heresy can be a real clear and present danger, then you can grasp that "shouting it down" might be motivated by genuine concern for both the individual and society, much as you might want to shout down demands to legalize pedophilia. It would be unreasonable of me to characterize an attempt to squash pedophilia as simply a means of gaining followers and power. There are genuine reasons why it should be suppressed, which I hope you can see. Having grasped that, it can be possible to see why people would be similarly motivated to crush heresy and be completely reasonable, generous and liberal in doing so.

Again, you are using the word "intolerance" as an unqualified evil; does not my suggestion that one ought not tolerate poisoned mushrooms put the lie to that idea? Once you grasp that intolerance of some things is a virtue, you can see that

Furthermore, you say opposition to "gay marriage" is "unsupportable". But it IS supportable - it's just that the forms of direct support that you have heard haven't convinced you. This is going to lead me back to my promise to Fist to lay out a rational argument (whether you accept it or not) that does not require religious belief to understand.

Also, you say "long histories". I say that we have definitions of "long". You seem to measure it in decades; I measure it in millenia. To the latter, nothing measured by the former standard will seem long at all - it will be quite short.

As I said, that's a fantastic loophole. Anything that does not agree with Orthodoxy can be dismissed simply because it hasn't been around as long. It need not be examined. It disagrees; its tradition is not as long-standing; it is wrong.

And that's what you're doing with gay marriage. The only reasons to be bothered by such a thing are a) because God says it's wrong, and b) homophobia.
-It's not because seeing it will turn others into homosexuals, and risk the end of the species.
-It's not because there's no way for a society to exist with homosexuals in it. If a particular type of society cannot endure homosexuals, I couldn't care less if it collapses. I think the freedom and equality that the USA is supposed to embody should rule the day. Yes, that's just the society I think is best. Could be yours, where it's not allowed, is the one you prefer. And that's fine. To each his own. My point is that your not wanting it is not a non-religious argument against it. It's just preference. Society, in general, can exist just fine with gay marriage.

[rusmeister]

If you understand that heresy can be a real clear and present danger, then you can grasp that "shouting it down" might be motivated by genuine concern for both the individual and society, much as you might want to shout down demands to legalize pedophilia. It would be unreasonable of me to characterize an attempt to squash pedophilia as simply a means of gaining followers and power. There are genuine reasons why it should be suppressed, which I hope you can see. Having grasped that, it can be possible to see why people would be similarly motivated to crush heresy and be completely reasonable, generous and liberal in doing so.

Again, you are using the word "intolerance" as an unqualified evil; does not my suggestion that one ought not tolerate poisoned mushrooms put the lie to that idea? Once you grasp that intolerance of some things is a virtue, you can see that

Furthermore, you say opposition to "gay marriage" is "unsupportable". But it IS supportable - it's just that the forms of direct support that you have heard haven't convinced you. This is going to lead me back to my promise to Fist to lay out a rational argument (whether you accept it or not) that does not require religious belief to understand.

Also, you say "long histories". I say that we have definitions of "long". You seem to measure it in decades; I measure it in millenia. To the latter, nothing measured by the former standard will seem long at all - it will be quite short.

As I said, that's a fantastic loophole. Anything that does not agree with Orthodoxy can be dismissed simply because it hasn't been around as long. It need not be examined. It disagrees; its tradition is not as long-standing; it is wrong.

And that's what you're doing with gay marriage. The only reasons to be bothered by such a thing are a) because God says it's wrong, and b) homophobia.
-It's not because seeing it will turn others into homosexuals, and risk the end of the species.
-It's not because there's no way for a society to exist with homosexuals in it. If a particular type of society cannot endure homosexuals, I couldn't care less if it collapses. I think the freedom and equality that the USA is supposed to embody should rule the day. Yes, that's just the society I think is best. Could be yours, where it's not allowed, is the one you prefer. And that's fine. To each his own. My point is that your not wanting it is not a non-religious argument against it. It's just preference. Society, in general, can exist just fine with gay marriage.

Fist, I can bust you on use of the word "homophobia", which means literally "fear of sameness" but in our time falsely implies "fear of homosexuals". There's no fear in the opposition. Using the term would be like me representing your arguments in a whiny voice. You should use terms that accurately reflect what really is, and I think the best you can do is "opposition", since "hate" and "fear" are both out (when dealing with genuine Christianity, at any rate, which includes but is not limited to Orthodoxy). Unfortunately, "opposition" makes the opposition sound, well...reasonable. And of course we can't have that.

But the objective objection is that society will break down. In terms of morality, in terms of the (traditional) family, the thing that society stands on - and mostly is unaware that it completely depends upon it. It makes the individual the prime base, rather than the family. If it feels good, do it. Decadence follows. If your preferences win, then in 100 years you will have, not a utopia, but a nightmare. Many of the arguments against divorce are valid against homosexual marriage, and for the same reasons. (But you never did finish that 30-odd page essay, did you? If you go back to it, try ch V, The Story of the Family. It's more effective to start from the beginning, but if you want to nail things right away, that would most quickly get the issues across.)
www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/divorce.txt

This triangle of truisms, of father, mother and child, cannot
be destroyed; it can only destroy those civilisations which disregard it.

The ideal for which it (the family) stands in the state is liberty.
It stands for liberty for the very simple reason with which this
rough analysis started. It is the only one of these institutions
that is at once necessary and voluntary. It is the only check on
the state that is bound to renew itself as eternally as the state,
and more naturally than the state. Every sane man recognises
that unlimited liberty is, anarchy, or rather is nonentity.
The civic idea of liberty is to give the citizen a province
of liberty; a limitation within which a citizen is a king.
This is the only way in which truth can ever find refuge from
public persecution, and the good man survive the bad government.
But the good man by himself is no match for the city.
There must be balanced against it another ideal institution,
and in that sense an immortal institution. So long as the state
is the only ideal institution the state will call on the citizen
to sacrifice himself, and therefore will not have the smallest
scruple in sacrificing the citizen. The state consists of coercion;
and must always be justified from its own point of view in extending
the bounds of coercion; as, for instance, in the case of conscription.
The only thing that can be set up to check or challenge this authority is
a voluntary law and a voluntary loyalty. That loyalty is the protection
of liberty, in the only sphere where liberty can fully dwell.
It is a principle of the constitution that the King never dies.
It is the whole principle of the family that the citizen never dies.
There must be a heraldry and heredity of freedom; a tradition of
resistance to tyranny. A man must be not only free, but free-born.

There. A rational point that is not dependent on religion. I'll add that the necessity of being able to give birth and the creation of blood-ties also matters, is indispensable.

But please dispense with the assumption of irrationality, and above all, with a term that is manifestly false ("homophobia"). I doubt there is so much as a dozen people in the entire nation that actually fear homosexuals as such, that when they see them they break into a cold sweat and seek to hide their heads, lest they be seen. And when you find them, they will be the insane exceptions that prove that nobody else does fear them.
I suppose we'll have to deal with the "hate" charge next. But I hope you already know that we teach compassion toward all, that all are sinners (including me) and that the stand here is simply one opposing the legitimization of sin into "not-sin". If you know that, then we can stop accusing rational opposition of fear and hate.

[Fist and Faith]

I can't believe we're going to do this, but okay...

So if anyone says:
1) "Soft money", we must tell them that coins are never soft, while paper money always is, and it is unacceptable to use this phrase for what they had in mind.
2) "Soft-core porn", we must tell them that, at least regarding heterosexual porn, it cannot work if it is "soft", and that the phrase they used cannot possibly mean "not fully explicit".
3) "Soft in the head", we must tell them that all this is redundant, since what is in everybody's head - the brain - is soft, and the phrase they use cannot possibly mean "foolish" or "stupid".

It is foolish to insist that we never use any word except as the roots of the word indicate it should mean.

Despite the fact that homo means "same" and phobia means "fear", homophobia does not mean "fear of sameness." It means "fear of homosexuals".

And even that is not right. Or, rather, it is not that narrow. Because its meaning is not one specific thing, but is a general attitude regarding homosexuality. It might mean "fear of homosexuals". (And many people are afraid of many things, but they do not all break into a cold sweat and seek to hide their heads every time the thing they fear comes along. Fear can be displayed in much more subtle ways. A quickening of the breath. Increased sweating. Dilating of the pupils. Sometimes, there are no visible signs. Increased heart rate, for example. And, of course, there are types of fear that do not cause physical reactions at all. I'm sure some people "fear" a breakdown of society because of increased acceptance of homosexuality. What outward signs should I look for to see people with fears of this type? Or can this not legitimately be called "fear"?) But it might also mean "hatred of homosexuals". Or "disgust of homosexuals". And it sometimes means "fear that you will be perceived to be homosexual". And other things.

Like many words, homophobia can be vague. Like pretty. Or love. Depressed. Strong. Crazy. And on and on...

So please, let's not make those kinds of demands on word usage.


As for that quote, it doesn't actually say anything. It says the state will take our freedom away, and the family is the only thing that stands for freedom. It does not say how this is accomplished. How does it resist tyranny? If it said, it might explain why no other method will work, and, if family is the only way, why it must be the traditional: father, mother, children.

The overall idea does seem to be what you were going to get to. If people must live in societies, and it seems we must, some freedoms must be sacrificed. No question about that. If all members of a society practiced absolute freedom, the society would cease to exist. So the society must limit freedoms of the individuals. But, of course, it can get carried away. The society might easily consider itself more important than the individuals, and, for the sake of making itself more secure, take away too many freedoms. We need to have a way to prevent that. You say the traditional family is the only thing that can. But that's much easier said than proven.

[Vraith]

The ideal for which it (the family) stands in the state is liberty [OBEDIENCE].
It stands for liberty [OBEDIENCE]for the very simple reason with which this
rough analysis started. It is the only one of these institutions
that is at once necessary [NATURAL] and voluntary [COERCABLE]. It is the only check on [SUBMISSION TO]
the state that is bound to renew [OSSIFY] itself as eternally as the state,
and more naturally [COERCIVELY] than the state.

Bold insertions obviously mine...I could do that forever with a piece like that one. I was going to stay out of this for a while...until you tried to "euphemize" homophobia...which by the way IS a euphemism already...it is a nice polite way of saying [in the press and such] "you hate gays because you are a stupid, prejudiced, close minded ass...and you probably were that BEFORE you found out what gays were, let alone that hating them could make you some friends!"
[and also...it's not being afraid of homos that is the point [although there is fear, which your supposed lack of cold sweats doesn't eliminate except in the narrowest possible sense], it is INTOLERANCE--which despite what you try to define it as, is not tolerating that which [unlike your poison mushrooms] will do you no damn harm.]
Really though, if being homosexual were dangerous, truly dangerous, to human beings, human families, human society, there simply wouldn't be any anymore. [or maybe their would I guess...I don't know if you're one of those who believes the world literally 6000 human years old...that might not be enough time to sort them out.]

[Avatar]

Sorry Rus, I think that if your preferences win, then in 100 years we'll have the nightmare. A nightmare of conformity and repression, all in the name of some imaginary greater good.

I would rather society and civilisation and even humanity crumble into dust than that they force a single truth, a single path, onto all people.

And as for the sacred family,

The bond that links your true family is not one of blood, but of respect and joy in each other's life.
Rarely do members of one family grow up under the same roof.

Family consists of anything that is seen and treated as such by its members. There is no law (natural or otherwise) that says a family can only be father, mother and child.

--A

[Cybrweez]

Really though, if being homosexual were dangerous, truly dangerous, to human beings, human families, human society, there simply wouldn't be any anymore.

Come on, anything that hurts humans disappears? Are you serious?

[rusmeister]

Hi guys!
My main point is not that you will agree with me, but that I have a rational basis to stand on which you just happen to not agree with. It seems to me that proponents of gay marriage have a dogmatic necessity to believe that it is unreasonable emotions which drive opposition, and that any reasonable arguments are met with fingers in ears.
For Fist, I was not trying to say that people understand "homophobia" to mean "fear of sameness" - only that that is what it literally means. For the rest, you seem to be insisting that I am full of fear and hatred? How can you possibly know that those are the emotions that I experience? How is it that you cannot see that a person can rationally oppose public approval of homosexual behavior, even though you disagree? What would it take, if neither logic, etymology or rational arguments are accepted, to convince you that we have a case, however wrong you may perceive it to be - that it is not only "because God tells me so" or because I am a mindless bigot?

The ideal for which it (the family) stands in the state is liberty [OBEDIENCE].
It stands for liberty [OBEDIENCE]for the very simple reason with which this
rough analysis started. It is the only one of these institutions
that is at once necessary [NATURAL] and voluntary [COERCABLE]. It is the only check on [SUBMISSION TO]
the state that is bound to renew [OSSIFY] itself as eternally as the state,
and more naturally [COERCIVELY] than the state.

Bold insertions obviously mine...I could do that forever with a piece like that one. I was going to stay out of this for a while...until you tried to "euphemize" homophobia...which by the way IS a euphemism already...it is a nice polite way of saying [in the press and such] "you hate gays because you are a stupid, prejudiced, close minded ass...and you probably were that BEFORE you found out what gays were, let alone that hating them could make you some friends!"
[and also...it's not being afraid of homos that is the point [although there is fear, which your supposed lack of cold sweats doesn't eliminate except in the narrowest possible sense], it is INTOLERANCE--which despite what you try to define it as, is not tolerating that which [unlike your poison mushrooms] will do you no damn harm.]
Really though, if being homosexual were dangerous, truly dangerous, to human beings, human families, human society, there simply wouldn't be any anymore. [or maybe their would I guess...I don't know if you're one of those who believes the world literally 6000 human years old...that might not be enough time to sort them out.]

On the part that I bolded - one needs to act to prevent threats before it is too late - and I don't think it a mere matter of human reproduction. A degraded society could degrade past a point of no return. Have you ever considered (carefully) the Biblical story of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah? What a society would have to degrade to before the men of the town would gather at your door upon hearing that you had guests with demands to "anally enjoy" them - and that be considered normal behavior? That's much further than anyone imagines us going, but it is not inconceivable that it could happen to a people. Such a society would be literally not worth saving. It would already have morally degraded to a point that it was doomed. If you would wait to 'see what happens' you will wait too long. The idea of Christian orthodoxy (small 'o') is that freedom requires boundaries in which we can really be free - and to go outside of those boundaries means destruction, sooner or later.

Not seeing potential harm does not mean that there is none. You operate on the assumption of a universal negative on harm. If one DOES see harm, then intolerance of that harm IS THE VIRTUE and tolerance THE EVIL that would permit it.

I reject the bait-and-switch use of the term "homophobia" - which would pretend that opposition fears and hates, when all that opposition really does is call for intolerance where intolerance is really called for. I humbly acknowledge the charge of intolerance, and see it as a virtue in this case. I deny your understanding of intolerance as an unqualified evil. I, at any rate, have the imagination to grasp that there are some things that should NOT be tolerated. I've mentioned eating poisonous mushrooms. There are any number of things I could add to that list, where intolerance suddenly becomes a virtue. If you don't grasp that, then nothing I say will make any sense. Ever.

On Chesterton's text - of course you can insert words of opposite meaning. But the question is, do you have a rational basis for doing so? I think not.
From living in a country that HAS been dominated by the State, and one of its high legends (in Soviet times) was of Pavlik (Pavel/Paul) Morozov en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavlik_Morozov , it is evident to me that the family naturally stands as an alternative loyalty to the state - and a more powerful one, generally speaking, and that therefore Chesterton is talking sense and your word insertions aren't.

[Vraith]

Really though, if being homosexual were dangerous, truly dangerous, to human beings, human families, human society, there simply wouldn't be any anymore.

Come on, anything that hurts humans disappears? Are you serious?

It didn't start with humans, if it were a species-wide threat, it would have been weeded out, instead of staying basically the same all the time, as far as we can tell.
You may think I'm overstating the case...I'm not sure I am...we're not talking a one-in-a-million thing here: We're talking basically 10% of the human population: if they were as much of a threat as what is heaped on them, yea, I think they'd be gone.

[rusmeister]

Sorry Rus, I think that if your preferences win, then in 100 years we'll have the nightmare. A nightmare of conformity and repression, all in the name of some imaginary greater good.

I would rather society and civilisation and even humanity crumble into dust than that they force a single truth, a single path, onto all people.

And as for the sacred family,

The bond that links your true family is not one of blood, but of respect and joy in each other's life.
Rarely do members of one family grow up under the same roof.

Family consists of anything that is seen and treated as such by its members. There is no law (natural or otherwise) that says a family can only be father, mother and child.

--A

The Bach quote sounds nice, but is BS. As long as nothing is at stake, you can talk like that - there are no consequences; but when life and death are on the line, blood is thicker than water.
Respect and joy, or dysfunction and bitterness, can be found in any relationship whatsoever, in or out of familial bonds. And families can - and very often DO give and get respect and joy out of each other's lives.

[rusmeister]

Really though, if being homosexual were dangerous, truly dangerous, to human beings, human families, human society, there simply wouldn't be any anymore.

Come on, anything that hurts humans disappears? Are you serious?

It didn't start with humans, if it were a species-wide threat, it would have been weeded out, instead of staying basically the same all the time, as far as we can tell.
You may think I'm overstating the case...I'm not sure I am...we're not talking a one-in-a-million thing here: We're talking basically 10% of the human population: if they were as much of a threat as what is heaped on them, yea, I think they'd be gone.

You say "10% of the human population".
1) I perceive it to be FAR less than that - less than 1%; that small number is exaggerated by activists based on wishful thinking.
2) I, at any rate, propose that the true danger will not even begin to form until after social approval is achieved (this goes for the danger from any form of immorality), and will take some time to achieve a level of degradation that you yourself would admit to be fatal, so I certainly don't think that 'they'd be (already) gone' at this point in time.

[rusmeister]

I can't believe we're going to do this, but okay...

So if anyone says:
1) "Soft money", we must tell them that coins are never soft, while paper money always is, and it is unacceptable to use this phrase for what they had in mind.
2) "Soft-core porn", we must tell them that, at least regarding heterosexual porn, it cannot work if it is "soft", and that the phrase they used cannot possibly mean "not fully explicit".
3) "Soft in the head", we must tell them that all this is redundant, since what is in everybody's head - the brain - is soft, and the phrase they use cannot possibly mean "foolish" or "stupid".

It is foolish to insist that we never use any word except as the roots of the word indicate it should mean.
Despite the fact that homo means "same" and phobia means "fear", homophobia does not mean "fear of sameness." It means "fear of homosexuals".

And even that is not right. Or, rather, it is not that narrow. Because its meaning is not one specific thing, but is a general attitude regarding homosexuality. It might mean "fear of homosexuals". (And many people are afraid of many things, but they do not all break into a cold sweat and seek to hide their heads every time the thing they fear comes along. Fear can be displayed in much more subtle ways. A quickening of the breath. Increased sweating. Dilating of the pupils. Sometimes, there are no visible signs. Increased heart rate, for example. And, of course, there are types of fear that do not cause physical reactions at all. I'm sure some people "fear" a breakdown of society because of increased acceptance of homosexuality. What outward signs should I look for to see people with fears of this type? Or can this not legitimately be called "fear"?) But it might also mean "hatred of homosexuals". Or "disgust of homosexuals". And it sometimes means "fear that you will be perceived to be homosexual". And other things.

Only I'm not saying these things.
I AM saying that we should have a clear understanding of the etymology of such words, especially when we apply them to others. They are rhetorical words, whose function is to encourage reaction WITHOUT thinking, and so it is the duty of thinking men to think and recognize such rhetorical weapons for what they are. Rational opposition to social approval of homosexual behavior is NOT based on hatred or fear of the people. Therefore, "homophobia" is an active deception and is a completely false charge. Intolerance? Yes, as I said to Vraith, and with the qualifications I ascribed thereto.

As to broader understandings of fear, then let us apply xxx-phobia to everything that we all fear. Let us speak of thanaphobia (fear of death), polemophobia (fear of conflict), thanatokiklophoratikhimaphobia (fear of death in a traffic accident) - (excuse my poor Greek).

We justly fear many things, and we do not call them phobias.

Like many words, homophobia can be vague. Like pretty. Or love. Depressed. Strong. Crazy. And on and on...

So please, let's not make those kinds of demands on word usage.

Only when we are engaged in debate on things that we perceive to be important, then the very worst thing (if we want to flatter ourselves that we defend truth) is to use vague language. We need to be as precise as we can possibly be. 'Vague' means "I take advantage of ambiguity to hold multiple meanings, and jump like a grasshopper to the one that is more convenient to me at the moment, and if I am shown to be wrong, then I jump to another meaning of the same word'. (Also known as bait-and-switch.) So I find it necessary to insist on more precision if we are to talk at all. We are not contesting the meaning of words like strong or pretty. Only 'homophobia', which is simply a lie.

As for that quote, it doesn't actually say anything. It says the state will take our freedom away, and the family is the only thing that stands for freedom. It does not say how this is accomplished. How does it resist tyranny? If it said, it might explain why no other method will work, and, if family is the only way, why it must be the traditional: father, mother, children.

The overall idea does seem to be what you were going to get to. If people must live in societies, and it seems we must, some freedoms must be sacrificed. No question about that. If all members of a society practiced absolute freedom, the society would cease to exist. So the society must limit freedoms of the individuals. But, of course, it can get carried away. The society might easily consider itself more important than the individuals, and, for the sake of making itself more secure, take away too many freedoms. We need to have a way to prevent that. You say the traditional family is the only thing that can. But that's much easier said than proven.

Agreed on the last. Only the argument is so big that there is no way that one quote can encompass everything. I've encouraged you to read through the entire work, and withhold judgement until the end. I can go back and search and post the whole thing bit by bit - when it would be SO much simpler if you would read it for yourself - which is what I've advocated from the beginning. (But then there's that pesky dogma that we should only consider the original ideas of living posters and exclude the ideas of dead people.)

In extreme short, I'd say that the family counterbalances the state. It looks like you are trying to smuggle in a state solution to prevent 'society' from taking away too many freedoms. That depends on the state to do it and leaves the family out of it. You are still submitting to the state. The family is something that the state does not create - it only recognizes it, and so has little power over it (although it does what it can to expand that power so as to be uncontested).

[Vraith]

I did what I did with that piece not just to show I can substitute words. My version of it has happened/been true in the past, and is true in various places/pockets/cultures even now.

On the percentages: a number of studies have been done on this. From memory from a text from one of my classes, @6% are strictly homosexual throughout entire lives, almost 10% more exclusively homosexual for at least a portion, something over 60% have more than one homosexual experience.

The comparison with pedophilia is bogus: the child involved is a child...incapable of consenting to sexual acts, the occurence is always a matter of coercion [if not outright violence], not choice, and demonstrably damaging to the child.

The form of your rational argument is so, until we get to the point of how do you know that any of your....worries, since we can't say fears....will come about? On what basis do you claim immorality?
It's also important to note that variations on this argument have been used to control/oppress/kill those that are different [and not just in sexual orientation] for...oh....millenia.

[Fist and Faith]

For Fist, I was not trying to say that people understand "homophobia" to mean "fear of sameness" - only that that is what it literally means. For the rest, you seem to be insisting that I am full of fear and hatred? How can you possibly know that those are the emotions that I experience?

I never said you are full of fear and hatred. I said:

The only reasons to be bothered by such a thing are a) because God says it's wrong, and b) homophobia.

That's one of the reasons people oppose homosexuality. I didn't say it's the reason you oppose homosexuality. "God says it's wrong" easily covers you. I don't have reason to suspect you suffer from homophobia.

However, you went to great lengths to dismiss homophobia. You first tried to make it seem like the word is nonsense:

Fist, I can bust you on use of the word "homophobia", which means literally "fear of sameness" but in our time falsely implies "fear of homosexuals". There's no fear in the opposition.

There are certainly those who oppose homosexuality who fear it. (Or hate it; or fear they will be thought to be homosexual.) To insist that none do is dishonest to the extreme.

Then, you tried to make the idea of fear of homosexuals seem like a laughing matter:

But please dispense with the assumption of irrationality, and above all, with a term that is manifestly false ("homophobia"). I doubt there is so much as a dozen people in the entire nation that actually fear homosexuals as such, that when they see them they break into a cold sweat and seek to hide their heads, lest they be seen. And when you find them, they will be the insane exceptions that prove that nobody else does fear them.

No sane person believes that everyone who is afraid of anything reacts that way to the thing. As I listed in my last post, there are many different ways fear can manifest, many much more subtle than that.

As Mary Tyler Moore said, methinks thou doth protest too much.

However, there are some who do react in extreme ways. Matthew Sheppard and Scott Amedure can attest to. Or, rather, they could if they hadn't been murdered by homophobes.

How is it that you cannot see that a person can rationally oppose public approval of homosexual behavior, even though you disagree? What would it take, if neither logic, etymology or rational arguments are accepted, to convince you that we have a case, however wrong you may perceive it to be - that it is not only "because God tells me so" or because I am a mindless bigot?

Again, the mindless bigot did not apply to you. To my knowledge, only the "God tells me so" part does. I don't understand what you mean by "etymological arguments" against homosexuality. Can you refresh my memory?

However, no logical or rational arguments have been presented, so they can't be accepted or rejected.

And original thoughts by living posters (Heh. Wouldn't that be something? Living posters! I'd go buy all the posters of naked women!!) are not necessary. If you have any of your own, that would be great. If you don't, then I have no problem with you telling me what Chesterton's thoughts are. I won't try to read more than a paragraph or two when you post him, because I find his style impossible to read. Yeah, could be I'm not _____ (fill in whatever is appropriate) enough to understand him. Whatever. But if he is the be-all and end-all of all your arguments, and if you want me to understand his thoughts, you're going to have to put a little effort into it.

Honestly, rus, if you can't write a sentence or two, just to get us started, after all these months... He says the traditional family is the only thing that can fight for freedom in the face of the state. How does it do this?? I'm not asking for any huge effort. If you have heard a logical and/or rational argument, and you understand it, you can tell me how it works. What's the first step?

That is, as I said, if you want me to understand his thoughts on the subject. If you don't want me to, that's fine. Just please stop posting that I have to read Chesterton if I want to understand it. I'm not going to read him.

And he cannot POSSIBLY be the only person in history who can say anything to defend your position. You could post excerpts of someone else who wrote a logical and/or rational arguments against homosexuality. I assume there are others? It hardly seems possible that, if homosexuality is the danger you claim it is, the very ruin of society, one or two people in history other than Chesterton would have written logical and/or rational reasons why.

[Avatar]

The Bach quote sounds nice, but is BS. As long as nothing is at stake, you can talk like that - there are no consequences; but when life and death are on the line, blood is thicker than water.
Respect and joy, or dysfunction and bitterness, can be found in any relationship whatsoever, in or out of familial bonds. And families can - and very often DO give and get respect and joy out of each other's lives.

So nobody has ever given their life to save somebody that they weren't related to by blood? I doubt it.

And yes, of course families can find respect and joy in each others lives. But so can people who are not biologically related. Biology is not the sole determinent of family.

Indeed, since husbands and wives are not related to each other, family is created by unrelated people. So what creates it? Why...love. So how can it matter who that love is between?

--A

[aliantha]

Indeed, since husbands and wives are not related to each other, family is created by unrelated people. So what creates it? Why...love. So how can it matter who that love is between?

--A

Great point, Av.

The adoption in your own family's past was between unrelated people, wasn't it, rus? I think most adoptions are. And yet adoption is seen as being for the greater good.

I don't think there's worth in any stance that denigrates love between any two people. Pretty sure Jesus said something about that, too.

[rusmeister]

I did what I did with that piece not just to show I can substitute words. My version of it has happened/been true in the past, and is true in various places/pockets/cultures even now.

On the percentages: a number of studies have been done on this. From memory from a text from one of my classes, @6% are strictly homosexual throughout entire lives, almost 10% more exclusively homosexual for at least a portion, something over 60% have more than one homosexual experience.

The comparison with pedophilia is bogus: the child involved is a child...incapable of consenting to sexual acts, the occurence is always a matter of coercion [if not outright violence], not choice, and demonstrably damaging to the child.

The form of your rational argument is so, until we get to the point of how do you know that any of your....worries, since we can't say fears....will come about? On what basis do you claim immorality?
It's also important to note that variations on this argument have been used to control/oppress/kill those that are different [and not just in sexual orientation] for...oh....millenia.

I should probably say that the most important thing about any study is who is conducting it, and with what general motivations. (This makes me quite skeptical about them, on the whole). I don't believe those numbers for a minute. Those percentages might be true - on Castro Street in San Francisco - but nowhere else.

The analogy with pedophilia was not to speak to the differences with homosexuality, but to show how there can be something that you would rationally object to and object to having people characterize your opposition as irrational.

[rusmeister]

For Fist, I was not trying to say that people understand "homophobia" to mean "fear of sameness" - only that that is what it literally means. For the rest, you seem to be insisting that I am full of fear and hatred? How can you possibly know that those are the emotions that I experience?

I never said you are full of fear and hatred. I said:

The only reasons to be bothered by such a thing are a) because God says it's wrong, and b) homophobia.

That's one of the reasons people oppose homosexuality. I didn't say it's the reason you oppose homosexuality. "God says it's wrong" easily covers you. I don't have reason to suspect you suffer from homophobia.

However, you went to great lengths to dismiss homophobia. You first tried to make it seem like the word is nonsense:

Fist, I can bust you on use of the word "homophobia", which means literally "fear of sameness" but in our time falsely implies "fear of homosexuals". There's no fear in the opposition.

There are certainly those who oppose homosexuality who fear it. (Or hate it; or fear they will be thought to be homosexual.) To insist that none do is dishonest to the extreme.

Then, you tried to make the idea of fear of homosexuals seem like a laughing matter:

But please dispense with the assumption of irrationality, and above all, with a term that is manifestly false ("homophobia"). I doubt there is so much as a dozen people in the entire nation that actually fear homosexuals as such, that when they see them they break into a cold sweat and seek to hide their heads, lest they be seen. And when you find them, they will be the insane exceptions that prove that nobody else does fear them.

No sane person believes that everyone who is afraid of anything reacts that way to the thing. As I listed in my last post, there are many different ways fear can manifest, many much more subtle than that.

As Mary Tyler Moore said, methinks thou doth protest too much.

However, there are some who do react in extreme ways. Matthew Sheppard and Scott Amedure can attest to. Or, rather, they could if they hadn't been murdered by homophobes.

How is it that you cannot see that a person can rationally oppose public approval of homosexual behavior, even though you disagree? What would it take, if neither logic, etymology or rational arguments are accepted, to convince you that we have a case, however wrong you may perceive it to be - that it is not only "because God tells me so" or because I am a mindless bigot?

Again, the mindless bigot did not apply to you. To my knowledge, only the "God tells me so" part does. I don't understand what you mean by "etymological arguments" against homosexuality. Can you refresh my memory?

However, no logical or rational arguments have been presented, so they can't be accepted or rejected.

And original thoughts by living posters (Heh. Wouldn't that be something? Living posters! I'd go buy all the posters of naked women!!) are not necessary. If you have any of your own, that would be great. If you don't, then I have no problem with you telling me what Chesterton's thoughts are. I won't try to read more than a paragraph or two when you post him, because I find his style impossible to read. Yeah, could be I'm not _____ (fill in whatever is appropriate) enough to understand him. Whatever. But if he is the be-all and end-all of all your arguments, and if you want me to understand his thoughts, you're going to have to put a little effort into it.

Honestly, rus, if you can't write a sentence or two, just to get us started, after all these months... He says the traditional family is the only thing that can fight for freedom in the face of the state. How does it do this?? I'm not asking for any huge effort. If you have heard a logical and/or rational argument, and you understand it, you can tell me how it works. What's the first step?

That is, as I said, if you want me to understand his thoughts on the subject. If you don't want me to, that's fine. Just please stop posting that I have to read Chesterton if I want to understand it. I'm not going to read him.

And he cannot POSSIBLY be the only person in history who can say anything to defend your position. You could post excerpts of someone else who wrote a logical and/or rational arguments against homosexuality. I assume there are others? It hardly seems possible that, if homosexuality is the danger you claim it is, the very ruin of society, one or two people in history other than Chesterton would have written logical and/or rational reasons why.

Hi Fist!
Congrats! You caught me in use of imprecise speech! (Really!)

Fist, I can bust you on use of the word "homophobia", which means literally "fear of sameness" but in our time falsely implies "fear of homosexuals". There's no fear in the opposition.

That merely underscores the need for precise speech, so that we formulate exactly what we want to communicate in a manner that will be understood the way we want it understood. So I bow my head in embarrassment, and will rephrase:

When I said "literally", I meant what the word formation means in its most literal sense - NOT "the meaning people ascribe to it today".
But my real mistake was in saying (categorically) that there's no fear in the opposition. What I actually mean is that there is no fear in the narrower sense I described above (shaking in one's boots), which is part of the bait-and-switch understanding I complain about, because THAT is the precise sense in which "phobia" is used in all other uses of the word (if there are any exceptions, I will point out that they would be the exceptions that prove the rule.) So I still reject the application of "homophobia", even in its popular understanding, to most of us. You may think I protest too much. All I have to do is apply a label to you that I think true and you think false regarding yourself to raise similar indignation. We must achieve a common consensus on terminology, and it should start with etymology - if a word is false in its etymology, then it should not be used in case of any disagreement.

There IS hate, too (referencing the cases you refer to - Matt Shepard etc - which we condemn just as much as you do) - but the percentage of those who actually hate is much smaller - and much exaggerated by the media, which are always looking for things to exaggerate. The overwhelming majority of opposition - by most Christians of most stripes, and others such as Mormons - is devoid of the hate and fear that supporters desperately need to characterize most or all of us as having. So I do, for the most part, dismiss charges of homophobia for all of the rational opposition. Those charges are false except for tiny minorities which I again insist are not the rule.

On etymology, I was referring more specifically to "homophobia", which is easily shown to be false in its etymology, and I have already done so. In no case is it actual fear of the type I described. The word is therefore false. You need to find another disparaging word, one that cannot be shown up so easily.

I'm not proposing to take on the whole homosexuality debate here - we have another thread for that, and I'm aware that your question on that is still outstanding.

One tiny step I'll take now is to say that the family creates blood ties - it is not merely a unity begun in love, it is the thing that produces the citizen, and with it, a loyalty transcending that of the state, and even that of the love of spouses. Yes there are exceptions, and they are not the rule, and there is no society that has disdained the traditional family that has ever survived. But that loyalty is the thing that enables the individual to stand against the state, because he is not completely individual (meaning "isolated").

Homosexuality was not a major social issue in Chesterton's time. He didn't address it at all. Even Lewis, a generation later, hardly ever touched on it. It only became an issue after his death. I recognized, on reading TSOD, that the most of arguments GKC raised against divorce are also applicable to same-sex marriage, because the basis of the argument is understanding what the marriage actually is.

Note that, in the interests of making quotes as short as possible, I'm leaving out the question to which he offers his answer. He is speaking in regards to divorce; but the aspects of the family are relevant to any attack on it as something sacred, that may not be redefined as anyone would wish, which includes 'same-sex marriage':

The modern rulers, who are simply the rich men, are really quite consistent in their attitude to the poor man. It is the same spirit which takes away his children under the pretence of order, which takes away his wife under the pretence of liberty. That which wishes, in the words of the comic song, to break up the happy home, is primarily anxious not to break up the much more unhappy factory.

Capitalism, of course, is at war with the family, for the same reason which has led to its being at war with the Trade Union. This indeed is the only sense in which it is true that capitalism is connected with individualism. Capitalism believes in collectivism for itself and
individualism for its enemies. It desires its victims to be individuals, or (in other words) to be atoms. For the word atom, in its clearest meaning (which is none too clear) might be translated as "individual." If there be any bond, if there be any brotherhood, if there be any class loyalty or domestic discipline, by which the poor can help the poor, these emancipators will certainly strive to loosen that bond or lift that discipline in the most liberal fashion. If there be such a brotherhood, these individualists will redistribute it in the form of individuals; or in other words smash it to atoms.

The masters of modern plutocracy know what they are about. They are making no mistake; they can be cleared of the slander of inconsistency. A very profound and precise instinct has let them to single out the human household as the chief obstacle to their inhuman progress. Without the family we are helpless before the State, which in our modern case is the Servile State. To use a military metaphor, the family is the only formation in which the charge of the rich can be repulsed. It is a force that forms twos as soldiers form fours; and, in every peasant country, has stood in the square house or the square plot of land as infantry have stood in squares against cavalry. How this force operates this, and why, I will try to explain in the last of these articles. But it is when it is most nearly ridden down by the horsemen of pride and privilege, as in Poland or Ireland, when the battle grows most desperate and the hope most dark, that men begin to understand why that wild oath in its beginnings was flung beyond the bonds of the world; and what would seem as passing as a vision is made permanent as a vow.

There's a lot of background context for this, too , some of it relating to the vow (as opposed to our modern attitude of marriage as a contract - if that were actually understood, no one would ever speak of "pre-nuptial contracts", or any other contracts related to marriage, for if marriage is a vow, and vows are something that society insists that we keep, then one needs no contract, for one fears to break the vow. But in our time, we do it at the drop of a hat, and thus the modern need for contracts - a form of social enforcement that precludes vows. But at the very least it shouldn't be too difficult to see that for people in power, who would increase the power of the state over the individual, a weak family is certainly the ticket.

But if my association of divorce with slavery seems only a far-fetched and theoretical paradox, I should have no difficulty in replacing it by
concrete and familiar picture. Let them merely remember the time when they read "Uncle Tom's Cabin," and ask themselves whether the oldest and simplest of the charges against slavery has not always been the breaking up of families.

As to others, no doubt. GKC is simply my teacher, and I have learned more from him than anyone in my whole life.
I believe I have already offered R.V. Young's essay on the false and euphemistic nature of "homosexuality". www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article. ... 8-10-036-f
It's just that such writers, as intelligent as they are, don't hold a candle to Chesterton.

[aliantha]

Rus, I gotta tell ya, I'm usually pretty good at sussing out GKC's meaning -- but after reading the first snippet in your last post, I am now more confused than ever. Is he talking about the Industrial Revolution? Is that why he says that capitalism is all about breaking up families -- because capitalists hire people away from the farm to live and work alone in the city?

And what does the government have to do with it? Is he saying the government is in league with the capitalists to tear down the family?

Is he glorifying our vaunted agrarian past, when everybody lived and worked on the farm together? Are *you* advocating that we all leave our jobs in the soulless city and go back to living off the land with our families?

And what does any of this have to do with gay marriage? Are you and GKC saying that if the government didn't encourage people to leave the farm, gay people wouldn't be attracted to each other?

As for marriage being a contract -- okay, *that* is the government's fault. When people swear out the marriage license and pay the state the fee, that's a legal contract. But couples still exchange vows before God -- that's what the church service is for.

[Fist and Faith]

rus, the fact that the roots of hompophobia mean "same" and "a persistent, irrational fear of a specific object, activity, or situation that leads to a compelling desire to avoid it" does not mean that that's what the word means now, or that it ever meant that. Words formed from Greek or Latin roots do not always mean exactly what those roots translate to. Sometimes those roots are chosen because they only have to do with the intended meaning. For example, the Icelandic word for electricity is a combination of the two words that mean "moving" and "energy."

Homophobia does have "the meaning people ascribe to it today." It was not first used centuries or millennia ago with a meaning much closer to the literal meaning that you want to dismiss*; and underwent changes (as has been seen in many hundreds or thousands of other words) until it came to have what you consider to be a wrong meaning. It first appeared in print in 1969, "in which the word was used to refer to heterosexual men's fear that others might think they are gay." (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia) That is its first meaning, and is still one that applies to how I used it. Other meanings, some of which I've given, have become a part of it.

Yes, the word can be used in a vague way, rather than stating that one of its specific meanings is intended. And the vague way was what I wanted here. The word does cover a little bit of ground, and it was in this general meaning, encompassing all irrational, negative attitudes toward homosexuals, that I meant when I said homophobia is one of the two reasons people are bothered by gay marriage. I did not want you to think I was only talking about hetero men who are afraid people will think they are gay; people who are afraid that homosexuals carry diseases more than heterosexuals; people who don't like it just because they think it's yucky; or any other specific meaning. My use was intended to encompass all of those meanings, and all the others.

*Nor would it matter if it did. Who says "soft" when they want someone to wait, or stop? Shakespeare did. Does that mean we're all using it incorrectly? Or does it mean Shakespeare did, but we, fortunately, know better? Neither. It means the meanings of words sometimes change. Even if homophobia did not still mean what it always did, the currently understood meaning could still be the correct meaning.

[rusmeister]

rus, the fact that the roots of hompophobia mean "same" and "a persistent, irrational fear of a specific object, activity, or situation that leads to a compelling desire to avoid it" does not mean that that's what the word means now, or that it ever meant that. Words formed from Greek or Latin roots do not always mean exactly what those roots translate to. Sometimes those roots are chosen because they only have to do with the intended meaning. For example, the Icelandic word for electricity is a combination of the two words that mean "moving" and "energy."

Homophobia does have "the meaning people ascribe to it today." It was not first used centuries or millennia ago with a meaning much closer to the literal meaning that you want to dismiss*; and underwent changes (as has been seen in many hundreds or thousands of other words) until it came to have what you consider to be a wrong meaning. It first appeared in print in 1969, "in which the word was used to refer to heterosexual men's fear that others might think they are gay." (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia) That is its first meaning, and is still one that applies to how I used it. Other meanings, some of which I've given, have become a part of it.

Yes, the word can be used in a vague way, rather than stating that one of its specific meanings is intended. And the vague way was what I wanted here. The word does cover a little bit of ground, and it was in this general meaning, encompassing all irrational, negative attitudes toward homosexuals, that I meant when I said homophobia is one of the two reasons people are bothered by gay marriage. I did not want you to think I was only talking about hetero men who are afraid people will think they are gay; people who are afraid that homosexuals carry diseases more than heterosexuals; people who don't like it just because they think it's yucky; or any other specific meaning. My use was intended to encompass all of those meanings, and all the others.

*Nor would it matter if it did. Who says "soft" when they want someone to wait, or stop? Shakespeare did. Does that mean we're all using it incorrectly? Or does it mean Shakespeare did, but we, fortunately, know better? Neither. It means the meanings of words sometimes change. Even if homophobia did not still mean what it always did, the currently understood meaning could still be the correct meaning.

Hi Fist,
I'll try to make it clear that I believe a word SHOULD mean what its roots imply, and that I know that usage, especially in a time like ours, varies enormously from that ideal. That other use - unclear use, the kind you want here, lead to falsehood, because they inaccurately describe whatever the concept is. If I use the root for"fire" to describe a water-based phenomenon, then obviously I am describing the phenomenon in a misleading way, to say the least. That people might eventually come to connect my "igneo-" for "acqua-" does not change the misleading origin of the term.

As to what you want, I refuse to debate if you can expand words to mean whatever you want. I say they have to mean something objective. I say that arachnophobia is NOT a vague dislike of spiders, but an actual pathology, and that applies to all other uses of "-phobia". I do not grant you an exception here, just because you "want" one. If that were accepted, I can start speaking of mass religiophobia and theophobia on this website, as well as partheniphobia, ierophobia, and itakoiophobia*, representing an irrational fear of chastity, holiness and obedience. While they might not be true, many believers would no doubt think it so, and so they would not be averse to "expanding the definition of fear" to cover it. That would be an unfair casting of your position - but if you don't care about objections to unfairly casting the position of rational, intelligent believers, why should they care about the objections of unbelievers?

Some forms of what you would attempt to describe as "phobia" are rational dislikes - logical to disapprove of and illogical to approve of. This can in no way, shape or form be cast as irrational fear. And we say that there IS an intelligent basis, that includes reason besides faith, for thinking the way we do. Again, you may disagree and say "wrong". But you may NOT say "irrational" in regards to my position, which is shared by millions of people in the US alone.

It is also true that a great many believers can not consciously form those reasons, any more than defenders of homosexuality can go beyond accusing their opponents of "hate" and "fear". They trust their leadership, and the positions of their churches - but they are not irrational for doing so. They merely subscribe to the idea of obedience to good and wise authority as a virtue, just as wise and good children do.

But in the end, you must defeat the best arguments of those you disagree with, not the worst, not the strawmen. You must take the very best positions - such as that of the Orthodox Church www.oca.org/DOCmarriage.asp?SID=12&ID=26 , and defeat THAT, and stop imagining that the basis of that position is hate and fear.
Only you can't, and I imagine you know that. That leaves you with defeating strawmen, and us at a permanent impasse. But your position in that case will certainly be no more rational than mine; rather, a good deal less.

You can attack the radicals who murder people, and we will agree with you. You can condemn beatings and violence by a tiny minority, and we will support you. But stop confusing them with us and start dealing with us instead of them!

*I do not claim to be an expert on Greek, although I am trying to teach myself a little in my spare time, which isn't much.