Kevin's Watch

Never been a fan of the show, but I thought I'd post a general interest article here, anyway. Never knew he was Not that there's anything wrong with that . . .

Gay Star Trek Marriage

George came out about 2-3 years ago.

Usivius wrote:

My emotion when I think of Star Trek in general . . .

I can name all the TOS episodes, and quote a ton of dialog. But I didn't know he was gay. Goes to show you how much I pay attention to them off-screen.

well, in general, I like Star Trek ... but this, to me, is a non-event. I guess it is perceived as interesting since Takai (sp?) played quite a macho guy. He has a great, baratone voice. When he delivers that line as the captain of is own ship in the movie I can't recall it's title, "You got a problem with that, mister?!" lol... that's command! muy macho!

Usivius wrote: but this, to me, is a non-event.

Well, I agree, mostly. What I do find interesting about it is that someone so advanced in age as he got to do something of high emotional importance to him, as a result of the change in law there. Other than that, though, it's rather unspectacular.

Usivius wrote:well, in general, I like Star Trek ... but this, to me, is a non-event. I guess it is perceived as interesting since Takai (sp?) played quite a macho guy. He has a great, baratone voice. When he delivers that line as the captain of is own ship in the movie I can't recall it's title, "You got a problem with that, mister?!" lol... that's command! muy macho!

That was Star Trek VI: "The Undiscovered Country"

I always wished that we could see more of Sulu at that time period, commanding the Excelsior. ST:Voyager had a great episode featuring Takei as Sulu.

An issue that few think of because the recent changes in language have totally masked it is the assumptions behind the modern language of the 20th century, to wit, calling someone "gay".

To provide thought for people who have probably never questioned this...

For thousands of years, until the late 1800s, our ancestors were completely oblivious to the existence of a fundamentally distinct class of human beings. Indeed, during the long period of Greco-Roman antiquity and more than a millennium and a half of Christian civilization, man did not even have a name for this class.

Or so asserts an almost universal assumption fixed in the language almost everyone uses: that “heterosexuals” and “homosexuals” are two permanently and innately different kinds of human being, and that “sexual orientation” constitutes a difference comparable to the difference between male and female. Widespread acceptance of “homosexuality” and associated terms thus biases discussion of the subject before an argument is even formulated.

More:
www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article. ... 8-10-036-f

I agree to most of that, though it's only human nature to classify and define. I don't think it absolutely follows that merely labelling someone 'homosexual' is categorising them as an: "innately different kind of human being", though we need to be careful about our context, of course. I doubt that very many thinking people would seriously consider someone's sexual preference to make them a: "a fundamentally distinct class of human being". Minority groups can sometimes use these terms for their own empowerment.

Thanks for the link, btw.

And, just for the hell of it, a totally puerile ending to my post:

Star Wars Gay Bar

Montresor wrote:I agree to most of that, though it's only human nature to classify and define. I don't think it absolutely follows that merely labelling someone 'homosexual' is categorising them as an: "innately different kind of human being", though we need to be careful about our context, of course. I doubt that very many thinking people would seriously consider someone's sexual preference to make them a: "a fundamentally distinct class of human being". Minority groups can sometimes use these terms for their own empowerment.

Thanks for the link, btw.

And, just for the hell of it, a totally puerile ending to my post:

Star Wars Gay Bar

Thanks, Montresor.
Wouldn't you say, though, that identifying people with such desires as a minority group is defining them as a distinct class of human being? For most it is no leap at all to seeing the difference as fundamental as that between men and women.

The potential to make that leap is there, sure....and, obviously, many do (just visit Tasmania). But, it's all about the context, I think (hope ). If I'm discussing sexual preferences with a gay friend, for instance, he and I aren't going to see eye to eye. That doesn't necessarily mean I see him as something 'other' from me because of his preferences, though.

Change the context to viewing the Gay and Lesbian Sydney Mardi Gras, and it's near impossible, while you watch the broadcast, to think of the people in it as anything other than gay - however, that's the point of that kind of display, and those involved get a sense of solidarity with it.

Pidgeon-holing is popular, of course, and we could extend the idea to 'white-collar/blue-collar' workers, 'mothers/single mothers' etc.

But the history of sexuality is quite interesting. Japan makes a neat rubric - if you read some of the Samurai texts (the Hagakure and Bushido Shoshinshu both mention it), they discuss homosexuality quite frankly. Though they warn that, 'it is not good for a man to love another with the same depth as he would a woman' (paraphrasing) they do, nonetheless, see no shame or absurdity in it. Fast forward to today, and we can see popular Japanese caricatures of Gay culture, such as Razor Ramon's character, Hard Gay. Though it is admittedly funny and, at times, quite clever, it still panders to dominant stereotypes.

Anyway, I'm rambling here . . . can't sleep . . .

If the conclusions of the article are correct, then identifying someone as "gay" or even "homosexual" create false assumptions about the nature of the persons desires (preferences, as you said) and should not be used or accepted. These assumptions are widely held and universally unexamined. That's why I think things like this article are potential bombs - if people realized what this meant, they would have to change their language and how they express things. I think the emotional desire to not do that would likely trump even truth.

In Christianity (at least the faiths that try to remain traditional, such as those that contribute to that online mag), there is a term being used now that accurately descibes the state of people who experience these desires in a charitable and accurate way. It's referred to as "same-sex attraction" (SSA). Such a term was not used historically because of the place such behaviors held in most societies.

A key point of the article is that it points out the hypocrisy of treating SSA as at one moment a permanent state, and at another moment as an evolving one. The biggest point, though (imo) is the fact that the words are all 20th-century creations. There is a huge difference between attitudes held in common among humanity throughout time (which represent what is found to be true practically everywhere, by generation after generation), and attitudes quickly imposed on a people via mass education (which could be anything at all and have undergone no comparable test of time). You can teach a generation to be militant Marxist, but whether that ideology will hold up for a millenium or just a generation or two is dependent on the truth or lack thereof in that ideology.

The ideas underpinning the words "gay" and "homosexual" do not represent truth, and so (my prediction) they, or their translations, won't hold up for that test of time.

I finally got the chance to read his article. Very interesting. I agree with many of his points, although he predicatbly focusses too much on Western culture and history to make his universal assertions. However, there was definitely a very strong conservative undertone to the essay, particularly in the last two pages, which I found less than compelling. His claim that:

While men and women who are possessed by an urge to commit sodomy with others of the same sex should always be treated with justice and charity, they should not be allowed to determine the norms of moral discourse [my italics].

. . . seems a little reactionary. I don't see anywhere, really, in which people who identify with 'gay/homosexual' culture are actually determining any moral norms. Indeed, I half got the impression that the author was hoping that, if we refuse to define X as Y, then X might just one day be forgotten. This is just an impression I got from his prose, though, and I am by no means going to declare that there's any hidden agenda in his writing.

A thought-provoking piece, nonetheless. Once again, thanks for the link.

As for whether the words 'gay' or 'homosexual' will hold in the language, only time will tell, of course.

Have you ever read A History of Orgies, by Burgo Partridge? It's not quite what it sounds like (honest ), though it is a thoughtful, academic study of so-called sexual aberrance throughout Western History. Really an excellent book. His sections on the tendency of sexual subcultures to proliferate during more prudish times is quite apt, I think. Worth reading, if only for his unequivocal condemnation of Roman sexual sadism (rarely even discussed by other historians).

This probably belongs in the think-Tank by now, I suppose.

Cheers, mate for the reasoned and thought-provoking discourse.

Courtesy is like a drink from a mountain stream!

I would comment on one thing you've said:

I don't see anywhere, really, in which people who identify with 'gay/homosexual' culture are actually determining any moral norms. Indeed, I half got the impression that the author was hoping that, if we refuse to define X as Y, then X might just one day be forgotten. This is just an impression I got from his prose, though, and I am by no means going to declare that there's any hidden agenda in his writing.

I agree on what you think about the author's hopes (personally, I hope that, too, but recognize that it is not an argument). However, I don't think that invalidates his arguments. Recognizing the effects of public education (my special turf), for example, I think I can point to a serious minority pretty actively determining what teachers must express faith in and teach to children, and over a generation or so changing first the terminology and consequently the nature of public discourse.

If something is available free online, I'll give it a whirl. Buying books in English, or paying for anything from overseas, is a little difficult for me.

Well, if George is happy, no matter what his age, I say leave him alone. And Helen and Rosie and Melissa and Elton and all the rest. I don't want them bothering me because I"m hetero, so ergo...........

Rocksister wrote:Well, if George is happy, no matter what his age, I say leave him alone. And Helen and Rosie and Melissa and Elton and all the rest. I don't want them bothering me because I"m hetero, so ergo...........

This seems reasonable. But it holds as its assumption that individual happiness is the most important thing for society and that doing what one desires to do is the surest path to happiness. It also assumes that the classifications everyone has been taught to use ("heterosexual", "homosexual", etc) are correct representations of human nature.

I question those assumptions.

I do agree that his age is of little importance.

Did you read the earlier posts and links?

How in the world could it possibly matter what you call a guy who likes guys? As long as the term isn't offensive to the guy himself, its etymology is unimportant to everyone except philologists . . . or people who have their own moral agenda they are pushing, and see threats to society in certain people (like gays) but rather than attacking the gays outright, they instead use a less offensive tactic like attacking the words we use to describe gays, in an effort to pretend the terms don't actually point out distinct differences. Like being gay is merely a behavior you pick up, and not a kind of person.

Words don't make people gay. Words don't make gay people a separate, distinct "group." Their own gayness does that. This attempt to attack the language seems to me an attempt to pretend that being gay isn't a real feature of some people--the classic Christian technique of pretending it's merely a lifestyle instead of an inherent trait.

Attacking the words we use, and pointing out that we haven't used them very long, does nothing to show that being gay isn't a genetic trait. Some people are gay. So what? Why would anyone want to take that away from them? Let them be gay. It's who they are.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with saying they form a distinct minority group. I'm not saying they are essentially *different* from the rest of us--no more than old people are different from young people. But old people definitely make up a distinct group, a demographic. It doesn't demean them to make note of their distinguishing features. To not do so, in my opinion, is a rejection of them as distinct, a rejection of what makes them distinct. It's an insult, really. If people are gay, they should be able to be proud of this differentiating fact. I'm not saying we should treat them differently. But neither should we sweep their distinctive, unique nature under the rug and pretend like it's not real.

Malik23 wrote:How in the world could it possibly matter what you call a guy who likes guys? As long as the term isn't offensive to the guy himself, its etymology is unimportant to everyone except philologists . . . or people who have their own moral agenda they are pushing, and see threats to society in certain people (like gays) but rather than attacking the gays outright, they instead use a less offensive tactic like attacking the words we use to describe gays, in an effort to pretend the terms don't actually point out distinct differences. Like being gay is merely a behavior you pick up, and not a kind of person.

Words don't make people gay. Words don't make gay people a separate, distinct "group." Their own gayness does that. This attempt to attack the language seems to me an attempt to pretend that being gay isn't a real feature of some people--the classic Christian technique of pretending it's merely a lifestyle instead of an inherent trait.

Attacking the words we use, and pointing out that we haven't used them very long, does nothing to show that being gay isn't a genetic trait. Some people are gay. So what? Why would anyone want to take that away from them? Let them be gay. It's who they are.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with saying they form a distinct minority group. I'm not saying they are essentially *different* from the rest of us--no more than old people are different from young people. But old people definitely make up a distinct group, a demographic. It doesn't demean them to make note of their distinguishing features. To not do so, in my opinion, is a rejection of them as distinct, a rejection of what makes them distinct. It's an insult, really. If people are gay, they should be able to be proud of this differentiating fact. I'm not saying we should treat them differently. But neither should we sweep their distinctive, unique nature under the rug and pretend like it's not real.

Malik, have you read the article referenced above?
www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article. ... 8-10-036-f
There's no point in even talking if you don't know the nature of the objection. (I just don't see evidence that you have based on your statements.)
Discussion would be more fruitful if you read and responded to what has already been said. If you had read, you would realize that it is your first assumptions that I do not accept. Language usage (modern or traditional) merely reflects that.

Is there no such thing as abnormal and improper, or of use inconsistent with form and design? Are all states/desires normal and proper?