A Christian Who (Almost) Gets It October 23, 2010

A Christian Who (Almost) Gets It

By Guest Contributor
October 23, 2010

I’ve written a few times about how frustrated I get when Christians apologize for other Christians’ treatment of the LGBT community. Apologies are nice, but they don’t go all the way.

Jim Wallis, the leader of the “Religious Left,” says something I wish I heard Christians say more often in regards to the bullying of gays and lesbians:

… to paraphrase Christ, if you oppose bullying, what reward will you get? Isn’t everybody against it? If all you do is say that you shouldn’t harass someone until they kill themselves, are you really doing more than others?

The fact that bullies target gay and lesbian people should mean that Christians give extra attention to protecting and standing up for them. The fact that any community or group of people is regularly the target of harassment and hate means Christians should be on the front line of defense against any who would attack.

Nice.

Then again, this is the same Wallis who said this about gay marriage in 2008:

I don’t think the sacrament of marriage should be changed. Some people say that Jesus didn’t talk about homosexuality, and that’s technically true. But marriage is all through the Bible, and it’s not gender-neutral.

I have never done a blessing for a same-sex couple. I’ve never been asked to do one. I’m not sure that I would…

*sigh*

And he’s supposed to be one of the liberal Christians…?

Just ditch the Bible already and listen to common sense.

There’s no good, non-religious reason to deny gay people the right to marry. You would think a “progressive” Christian would understand that.

Previous Post
Atheist City Council Candidate Is Subject of Attempted Smear Campaign
Next Post
Cross-Branding Science Teacher Drops Lawsuit Without a Settlement
Browse Our Archives
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Steve

    The gay community doesn’t even want to change the sacrement of marriage. Relatively few of them would like to get married in a church.

    All they want is civil marriage. But distinguishing civil from religious marriage is a general problem with Christians.

  • J. J. Ramsey

    “And he’s supposed to be one of the liberal Christians…?”

    No, actually. Politically, yes, he’s liberal, but theologically, Jim Wallis is an evangelical Christian. It’s just that he’s a part of the Religious Left rather than the Religious Right.

  • Fett101

    I don’t think the sacrament of marriage should be changed.

    Technically, I agree with him in regards to how he wants to run his church. If he doesn’t want to change the sacrament of marriage in his church, whatever. But if he wants to block gay marraige in other churches or the state, then screw him. (which he does in that he wants “separate but equal” “civil unions”)

    (being pedantic is fun!)

  • Erp

    Wallis is a liberal evangelical which would tend to put him on the conservative side of the progressive Christian spectrum (though note he didn’t say he wouldn’t).

    Carlton Pearson might be an example of a more inclusive Christian. And also an example of what happens to ministers of conservative churches who become openly more inclusive.

  • Steve

    Fett, if you’re going to be pedantic, it’s marriage :-)As far as I’m concerned if two gay men or gay women want to marry, no problem, don’t think we’re that quite advanced in the UK.

  • Matto the Hun

    But marriage is all through the Bible, and it’s not gender-neutral.

    It’s also polygamous and women are property.

    Also, Fuck the Bible. People in other cultures do get married. They don’t run to a completely different religion to figure out how they should do it.

    Just like the Bible is not a copyright on morality, neither is it a deed of ownership on marriage.

    In fact, fuck Jim Wallis. His pretty words stand for nothing so longs as he still remains a bigot towards GLBT.

  • Ryan

    There are ‘progressive’ Christians who do understand that. I count myself among them.

    Whether or not a church wants to perform the sacrament is a separate subject for me. What’s important is getting rights for all citizens in all cases. As Americans, we’re supposed to be guaranteed life, liberty, and happiness. For me, pursuing happiness includes sharing and receiving love, and marriage (for many people) is the highest form of expressing that love.

    Maybe a church or mosque or synagogue won’t want to acknowledge it, but the state and the nation should. What will (hopefully) happen is that as time progresses, more and more of the religious will start realizing how petty of an argument against gay marriage is, and maybe some more progressive churches will support and conduct gay marriages (holding out a lot of hope here, but anything’s possible – fifty to sixty years ago, I’m sure a lot of people doubted an interracial marriage could happen in a church.)

    Regardless, I don’t need a qualifier to explain my position. I’m a Christian and I’m for LGBTQ rights, I have Christian friends who are vocal in their communities about LGBTQ rights, and we will continue to be out about our support for the LGBTQ community.

    (Edit: Long-time reader, first-time commenter. Hopefully this doesn’t come across as trolling.)

  • The Real Steve

    @Steve

    don’t think we’re that quite advanced in the UK.

    Civil partnerships in the UK are 99% identical to marriage. That’s more advanced than many other countries in Europe that have civil unions or something similar. Many of them fall short as far as rights are concerned.

    So it wouldn’t really be a huge leap to upgrade them to full marriages.

  • I’m surprised more Christians don’t advocate for the Solomonic model of marriage. It would fit right in with their misogyny and Solomon was the wisest of all God’s people.

    It is simply astonishing to me that so many cling to this ridiculos notion that somehow marriage is this eternal, unchanging social institution. Do they simply not understand that marriage has been redefined innumerable times througout history?

  • Neon Genesis

    Jim Wallis isn’t a liberal Christian. Jim Wallis is an evangelical Christian. He has conservative religious belief but moderate political beliefs, but he isn’t a religious progressive. I’ve never even heard of Wallis before this post, so is he really a “leader”?

  • I think this is a big step for even a liberal Christian. An even bigger step for a conservative in liberal clothing. Just the fact that he says he doesn’t know how he would handle it, says he’s still torn. The jury isn’t out.

  • Heidi

    Actually, Ryan, that was the opposite of trolling. 🙂 Welcome aboard.

  • VorJack

    I’ve never even heard of Wallis before this post, so is he really a “leader”?

    Wallis has made a long career out of proclaiming himself the leader of the Religious Left. He’s also made a career out of proclaiming the collapse of the Religious Right. I don’t think either claim has much basis in fact.

  • To be fair (and I’ve also never heard of Wallis) he might have changed his mind since 2008.

    As for UK’s civil unions being nearly the same as marriage I wonder if they are the same then why don’t they have the same name and why can’t straight couples have a civil union? They should be the same and I look forward to the day that they are. There is no reason to prevent this relatively small change from happening.

  • Sean

    I feel like a lot of the statements made regarding gay marriage stem from a kind of ignorance of same-sex couples, not too different from how creationism seems to require ignorance of evolution and history.

    If you understand that gay relationships are not really different from straight relationships, it becomes a whole lot less tenable that there’s some spiritual aspect that only accrues to one of the two, or that one set is somehow vaguely more holy. I think that once someone understands that, they will almost certainly accept equality, whether by disregarding the Biblical passages on the subject, or by papering them over with apologetics. (Think “theistic evolution”.)

    The problem is that a lot of religious folks are unwilling to buy the idea that gays really are just like them. Much like with evolution, they are uncomfortable with conflicts between the Bible and empirically perceived reality, and so they invent their own set of facts and their own set of rationalizations to deal with that.

    I think even Wallis has to be doing this, on some level. I find it extremely unlikely that he thinks his God is opposed to gay marriage for no reason. So in some sense he’s got to think that gay relationships are different from straight ones in some fundamental way. It’s a form of prejudice, albeit papered over with an endorsement of tolerance.

    It’s about the difference between mere tolerance (I’ll put up with X), real tolerance (I won’t treat X as being bad), and acceptance (I think X should be just as acceptable as the alternatives). Wallis is in the middle category, which is better than nothing but still quite compatible with prejudice.

  • L.Long

    All these xtians go on & on about the sacred marriage. This is pure BS as look at all the civil marriage that gets done with no mention of g0d at ALL!!!
    What the xtians and a few others are saying is —we HATE gays–pluck the gay—and if we had the balls of those others across the pond we’d kill them too.
    They are just pure undiluted bigots. As are most religidiots.
    Want to see these religidiots scream….Take ALL marriage benefits away from EVERYONE, all legal standing must be thru contracts. And watch them scream about the lose of all their SECULAR benefits from their g0dly marriage.

  • JB Tait

    There must be a separation of church and state issue that could be challenged when the Christians try to impose their biblical definition of marriage on the civil contract also called marriage.

    Though they have the same name, the sacrament and the government paperwork are two different transactions.

  • muggle

    I thought Ryan’s comment above was the Christian who should get the praise, not Wallis.

    And I’m with Matto? Who gives a flying fuck what’s in the buybull? That book doesn’t pertain to me and shouldn’t pertain to our laws.

    And we’ve a local politician now runing for office (probably based on this crazy sort of argument) going one step further and defining marriage as a religious union. So guess Atheists are the next he’d deny marriage. (Sent you an e-mail link, Hemant!) Guess who’s not going to get my vote?

  • thordaddy

    Of course there is a non-religious reason to oppose homosexual “marriage.” This self-refuting “entity” is an entirely irrelevant and irrational social construct based wholly on the idea of an all-accepting indiscriminancy as highest principle.

  • Sean

    @thordaddy

    You’re fairly confusing. Between putting the word “entity” in quotes and saying “all-accepting indiscriminancy”, I can’t tell what you mean at all.

  • Anna

    You’re fairly confusing. Between putting the word “entity” in quotes and saying “all-accepting indiscriminancy”, I can’t tell what you mean at all.

    I think he’s saying that same-sex marriages are irrelevant and irrational, which seems like a strange argument for an atheist to make. How is it irrational for gay and lesbian couples to want the government to recognize their unions and accord them the same rights and responsibilities as other couples? What could be irrelevant about gay and lesbian people trying to make sure their spouses and children are protected under the law?

  • Actually I think he’s saying that all marriage is irrelevant and irrational because it is based on archaic social mores inherited from a patriarchal social hegemony where one party was equivalent to the property of the other party based on only gender. Ergo marriage is stupid and gay people should have more sense.

    Never mind that they might actually want to get married just like their straight friends can. Or perhaps they may simply desire the same right to marry but decide not to because it is an “entirely irrelevant and irrational social construct”. Or something.

  • thordaddy

    First, all homosexuals are not equal. But the true homosexual nature is a radically autonomous one. True homosexuals are self-sexualizers, i.e., sexually attracted to the self out of a sexual aversion to females. A homosexual “union” is the nearly complete rejection of homosexuality except for the act itself with someone who is like the self. He’s called the same.

    This phony construct (homosexual “marriage”) that virtually erases any notion of a homosexual nature is an indication that most “homosexuals” are radical autonomists CHOOSING homosexuality for its perceived benefits in our increasingly liberal environment.

  • Sean

    I think thordaddy is making my point that ignorance of gays is the source of opposition to gay marriage. What a ridiculous psychological model of homosexuality.

  • muggle

    Sean, I think you’re right. I read that and thought wtf? And this from someone who calls himself a father of a famous god.

  • thordaddy

    Sean,

    No Sean, you are in denial concerning the nature of the homosexual. Or, are you denying a homosexual nature as I suspect? Are you conceding that most “homosexuals” are really radical autonomists with no inherent nature to speak of? Is it really “homosexual” to mimic heterosexuality with marriage and adopting children? Then I say “homosexual” is nothing but a perceived advantageous social construct. No more “real” than the flying spaghetti monster.

  • Sean

    thordaddy,

    True homosexuals are self-sexualizers, i.e., sexually attracted to the self out of a sexual aversion to females.

    First off, that makes no sense at all when applied to lesbians. But even limiting discussion to gay men, why do you believe this? As far as I can tell, this is not only unsupported by evidence, but blatantly untrue about many gay people I know.

    I know some gay men who really can’t imagine enjoying sex with a woman, and some that can see a superficial appeal but think that men are way more attractive. And then there are people like me who just don’t rule out partners based on their biological sex.

    Or are you suggesting that by definition “homosexual” refers to people who are attracted to themselves? If so, you are simply wrong. It doesn’t matter what you think the etymology is; the word has come to mean people who are attracted to the same sex. Not people who look like themselves, just people of the same sex.

    most “homosexuals” are radical autonomists CHOOSING homosexuality for its perceived benefits in our increasingly liberal environment

    Bullshit. This belief is not even remotely plausible to someone who has made an effort to actually understand gay people.

    As a bisexual and someone who has exchanged coming-out stories a few dozen times, I’m quite certain that the vast majority of gay people go through a stage where they really, really hope they aren’t gay. Eventually it just becomes undeniable; there’s no sudden decision that homosexuality would be a good idea. It’s a discovery, often one made reluctantly, not a choice.

    I mean, honestly, straight women are attracted to men and gay men are attracted to men, straight men are attracted to women and lesbians are attracted to women, and bisexuals are attracted to both… Why is it so hard to believe that the attractions have the same nature in every case?

  • thordaddy

    First, all homosexuals are not equal.

    Why not? If we grant everyone equal rights and expect equal responsibility from them then are they not equal?

    But the true homosexual nature is a radically autonomous one.

    I’ve never heard of this “true homosexual nature”. Can you explain what it is. As far as I know “homosexual” refers to people who are attracted to people of the same sex. It is a broad term that doesn’t exclude people of different degrees so I’m at a loss to understand what you mean.

    True homosexuals are self-sexualizers

    Not necessarily. Unless you have a very different meaning to “self-sexual” as it means is that they are attracted to their own bodies. I’m pretty sure that this includes some straight people too and I’m pretty sure that it excludes some gay people.

    This phony construct (homosexual “marriage”) that virtually erases any notion of a homosexual nature is an indication that most “homosexuals” are radical autonomists CHOOSING homosexuality for its perceived benefits in our increasingly liberal environment.

    Shouldn’t marriage be neutral with regard to sexual preference. It is a union between people on the grounds of love after all and not some game where the rules are important.

    As for gay folk choosing homosexuality, sorry CHOOSING, who gives a crap. Whether or not people make a choice to be gay (or straight for that matter and I’m curious if you chose to be straight) is entirely irrelevant. It is either their choice to make in which case it is none of your business or it is a natural phenomena in which case you should just accept it.

    Some people are gay, get over it.

  • thordaddy

    Before we venture off into other avenues, let’s read Mehta’s ASSERTION again…

    “There’s no good, non-religious reason to deny gay people the right to marry.”

    When one really takes the time to absorb the radical liberal absolutism of such a statement, what is one to think?

    Is it rational to treat two different unions as though they are the same thing? Is there some sort of self-evident reason to treat a marriage union “equal” to a homosexual coupling? Why…? Other than sheepish conformity to liberalism, i.e., a program of all-accepting indiscriminancy.

    So the first good reason to deny marriage to homosexual couplings is that there is no reason to treat them the same or as “equals” unless one is completely beholden to radical liberal ideology.

    Because Mehta cannot think non-liberal thoughts, he simply sees everything as “equal.” Many of us can’t get with this lie because reality and experience tell us that the homosexual and heterosexual natures are radically different and treating them “equally” is NOTHING MORE than the act of a radical liberal, i.e., a radical autonomist.

  • thordaddy

    Sean and hoverfrog,

    Please give your working definition of a homosexual and it need not be limited to the one forced-fed to us by liberal orthodoxy.

    And can homosexuality really be rooted in attraction with no inherent aversion?

    Is aversion to Man not an aspect of devout dyke nature?

    It seems to me that neither one of you has really studied your subject all that thoroughly.

    It’s as though you simply want something that someone else has and expect to get for no good reason at all. Unless that good reason is the hallow appeal to liberalism… Tolerance (all-accepting) and nondiscrimination (indiscriminancy)… That’s how we will be “equal.”

    We will all be radical autonomists wearing an ever increasing and ambiguous array of public and private masks.

  • Neil

    Thordaddy, I am a homosexual. Hello.

    I do not feel an aversion to women. My sexuality was something I discovered after some years of denial. That was when I was a teenager and the notion that liberal ideology had something to do with the realisation of my sexuality is, to say the least, extraordinary.

    Your assertion about the definition of homosexuality is a fallacy of presumption. By shifting the meaning of the word homosexual to suit your own idea, everyone else’s understanding will be found incorrect.

    The definition of the word homosexual can be found in the dictionary. It works quite well and it matches the experiences of homosexuals.

    If the sexuality of a person requires an understanding it obtains not only attraction to one gender but also aversion to the other, this necessarily applies to heterosexuals and homosexuals alike. The presumption breaks down when degrees of bisexuality are factored in.

    As for marriage equality. Same and opposite sex marriage are not exactly alike. That’s not the point. No marriage is exactly like any other. The point is that society and the institution of marriage have evolved to the point where it no longer makes sense to exclude same-sex couples from the institution. The two types of couple are similar enough that it is necessary both be covered by the same legal recognition. That is what the campaign for law reform is about, not the advance of some radical notion of uniformity.

  • Anna

    I suspect it’s pointless to converse with Thordaddy. Ironic name, by the way. Considering his apparent dislike of homosexuality, it’s funny that his moniker would not sound out of place in a bear or leather bar.

    Is aversion to Man not an aspect of devout dyke nature?

    That would come as quite a shock to my lesbian parents, who happen to have wonderful relationships with their son, brothers, and other male relatives and friends. It’s strange that you consider not experiencing sexual attraction to a particular person the same thing as having an aversion to that person.

  • thordaddy

    Neil,

    I haven’t shifted “my” definition of homosexuality. I don’t even have “my” definition for homosexuality. What we have, quite ironically, are liberal ideologues pushing a very conservative and sugar-coated notion of homosexuality.

    But attraction does not make homosexuality and there is no reason to believe that homosexuality is some kind of phenomenon that mirrors heterosexuality. The idea that these things must arise in “equal” manner is just another orthodox liberal deception.

    If you have no SEXUAL aversion to females then you aren’t really homosexual, biologically-speaking. And if you desire marriage and children, again, you really don’t possess a homosexual nature.

    Now, you will inevitably attempt to redefine homosexuality in a myriad of different fashions. This will only prove that the homosexual nature is a radically autonomous one and sexual autonomy is highly valued.

  • thordaddy

    Anna,

    You seem totally unaware of your homocentric mindset. If thordaddy sounds “normal” amongst a homosexual setting then who is being assimiliated and having their identity erased…? Me or the homosexual?
    People see me and think, “that’s thordaddy.” Why would you look at a homosexual and see the same thing…? Because you’ve been homosexualized and you can’t even see it. But now you can and so a sense of embarrassment for your line of retort would be totally normal.

  • p.s.

    If you have no SEXUAL aversion to females then you aren’t really homosexual, biologically-speaking. And if you desire marriage and children, again, you really don’t possess a homosexual nature.

    What an absolutely beautiful example of the no-true-scotsman fallacy. By that definition I could be a lesbian (attracted to females) and not-a-lesbian (wants to eventually adopt a kid and get married) at the same time! I think you’ve just discovered heisenberg’s lesbian 😀

    Just out of curiosity, what do you think about people who are bisexual? Can same sex bisexual couples get married and have kids and all that fun stuff in your strange and twisted perception of sexuality?

  • thordaddy

    “There’s no good, non-religious reason to deny gay people the right to marry.”

    When one really takes the time to absorb the radical liberal absolutism of such a statement, what is one to think?

    One is to think that there is no good reason to deny gay people the equal right to marry. It it exactly what it says on the tin.

    Is it rational to treat two different unions as though they are the same thing?

    What makes them different unions? In my woolly headed liberal mind they are the very same thing. Two people with to be recognised as being united in marriage. I really don’t care of those two people are male or female or one of each. They aren’t causing harm to others or themselves. Let them marry.

    Is there some sort of self-evident reason to treat a marriage union “equal” to a homosexual coupling? Why…? Other than sheepish conformity to liberalism

    Is there some sort of self-evident reason to treat a marriage union “different” to a heterosexual coupling? Why…? Other than sheepish conformity to tradition and conservatism.

    Please give your working definition of a homosexual and it need not be limited to the one forced-fed to us by liberal orthodoxy.

    Look it up in a dictionary.

    And can homosexuality really be rooted in attraction with no inherent aversion?

    Yes. Honestly this is such a ridiculous question that you must feel embarrassed asking it. Can heterosexuality be rooted in attraction with no inherent aversion to the same sex? Can you be a straight man without feeling revulsion towards other men? Well you could just feel nothing about other men or you could not really care about other men.

    It seems to me that neither one of you has really studied your subject all that thoroughly.

    Which subject? Politics, sociology, psychology, history, theology? Well I’m not claiming to be an expert in those fields. Are you?

    It’s as though you simply want something that someone else has and expect to get for no good reason at all.

    Here is a good reason for you: There is no good reason to deny equal treatment to gay people.

    Tolerance (all-accepting) and nondiscrimination (indiscriminancy)… That’s how we will be “equal.”

    Sounds like a plan. Let’s go with that and see how it pans out.

    We will all be radical autonomists wearing an ever increasing and ambiguous array of public and private masks.

    How you choose to dress in the privacy of your own home is nobody’s business but yours.

  • Sean

    @Anna

    Yeah, thordaddy seems to be spewing unjustified nonsense that came from some deep recess of his brain disconnected from reality. He doesn’t even try to present empirical evidence, and I don’t think he could possibly have reliable evidence because what he says directly contradicts years of my daily experience.

    It’s like having someone tell you that the sky is green, and that you’ve been brainwashed into thinking it’s blue. Either he doesn’t really mean it, or he’s psychotic, or he’s a conspiracy theorist living in an underground bunker. In either case, there’s not much you can argue. You just have to hope he either gets back on his meds or starts getting some fresh air one day.

  • Anna

    You seem totally unaware of your homocentric mindset. If thordaddy sounds “normal” amongst a homosexual setting then who is being assimiliated and having their identity erased…? Me or the homosexual?

    “Homocentric mindset.” That’s a new one on me! I’m not the one posting bizarre comments about homosexuality with a name like “Thordaddy.” Don’t blame me if you aren’t aware of the connotations. Perhaps you need to get out more.

    People see me and think, “that’s thordaddy.” Why would you look at a homosexual and see the same thing…? Because you’ve been homosexualized and you can’t even see it.

    Do you have any idea how bizarre you sound? What on earth does that mean? I’ve been “homosexualized” because I don’t live under a rock?

    But now you can and so a sense of embarrassment for your line of retort would be totally normal.

    Uh-huh. I hate to disappoint you, but I’m not in the least embarrassed by my comment. My statement was perfectly accurate. Your name would not sound out of place at a bear or leather bar, making it ironic that you happen to have adopted it as your moniker.

    I suspected it would be pointless to converse with you, and it looks like I was right. It’s unfortunate, but you can’t educate people who don’t want to be educated. I’ll just take my “homocentric mindset” and mosey along now.

  • thordaddy

    Sean, Anna and hoverfrog,

    None of you have provided any evidence that a homosexual nature even exists, let alone what it would actually look like.

    I, on the other hand, have provided just that and your obfuscating is just further anecdotal evidence.

    The non-heterosexual nature IS A RADICALLY LIBERAL ONE. One that places great value on sexual autonomy. This sexual autonomy is enveloped by a greater value, namely, a blanket radical autonomy.

    The atheist, the homosexual, the bisexual, the devout dyke, etc., are all radical autonomists seeking final liberation, i.e., self-annihilation.

    Now, this is a general analysis as we know that most homosexuals have no desire for marriage or children. That is, afterall, a telling aspect of homosexuality.

  • Anna

    Either he doesn’t really mean it, or he’s psychotic, or he’s a conspiracy theorist living in an underground bunker. In either case, there’s not much you can argue. You just have to hope he either gets back on his meds or starts getting some fresh air one day.

    Sean, I vote for meds. 😉

  • thordaddy

    Anna,

    Thor… Nordic god and my middle name.

    Daddy… A father, a man who creates and raises children.

    Thordaddy… Me.

    Now, in your homo-centric non-medicated mind, you see “gayness.” Is that your sick sense?

    Lol… Now, how absurdly inexplicable is that?

    You don’t see it though. You don’t even know what it means to be homosexualized.

  • Anna

    You appear to be deeply insecure, Thordaddy, if a simple joke about the irony of your name has gotten you in this much of a tizzy. Perhaps you should question why it seems to bother you so much.

    Yes, I suppose it’s “absurdly inexplicable” unless you take into account your extremely bizarre comments about homosexuality. Perhaps you might want to use a different moniker while gay bashing if you can’t stand how it might be interpreted.

    Apparently, “homosexualized” means being aware of the connotations of your screen name. If that’s the case, then millions of people have somehow been “homosexualized” even while you deny that there are any actual homosexuals in the world at all.

    Oh, well. Whatever is going on your mind doesn’t bother me. I’m proud to be “homosexualized” and “homocentric” if you insist. Personally, I would just call it supporting equality and being aware of the world around me.

  • thordaddy

    Anna,

    You go on and follow that script like a good lil’ female.

    If YOU see “gayness” where there is NO “gayness” then you have a sick sense.

    But you still don’t get it.

    It’s not thordaddy who is trying to be “gay,” but homosexuals trying to deceive YOU into believing they are like thordaddy.

    Homosexuals being assimilated and ill-defined, i.e., not Homosexual.

  • Sean

    Please please tell me that this is not why he has “thor” in his name.

  • Anna

    I guess we can add sexism to the list. “Good lil’ female,” indeed. 😉

    If YOU see “gayness” where there is NO “gayness” then you have a sick sense.

    Yes, I must have magically invented the part where you initiated the conversation by making bizarre comments about “gayness.”

    This is really not much of a discussion, certainly not a productive one. Normally I avoid getting into sparring matches, but what the heck. I don’t think anyone here can make heads or tails of what you’re saying, so why not have a little fun with it?

  • thordaddy

    Anna,

    If you step outside your comfort zone, you will better understand what I am saying.

    The homosexual IS radically autonomous.

    To dispute this is to argue that the homosexual possesses a particular nature. To have a particular nature is to be limited in one’s autonomy.

    But this particular homosexual nature IS increasingly to have no nature at all… To be radically autonomous.

    That is what it means to have no particular nature.

    So???

    Do real homosexuals exist or not? And what is the homosexual’s particular nature?

  • Neil

    Thordaddy, As P.S. says above:

    What an absolutely beautiful example of the no-true-scotsman fallacy.

    This is what I’m getting at with your fallacy of presumption. You have changed the, not your, definition of the word homosexual. Anyone who identifies as homosexual, fits the dictionary definition but not yours will find themselves under your way of thinking as not a true homosexual.

    The presentation of homosexuals such as I whom fail to fit your definition deftly undermine your reasoning. In order to side step this you simply exclude them from the category of homosexual and goal posts shifted you can carry on with your game, prejudices intact.

    What you seem to want to argue is that heterosexuality occurs naturally and anything else entails a liberal political development into something you call radical autonomy. That is to say, as I understand your reasoning, you would regard me as a heterosexual who’s chosen some perceived advantage of homosexuality if it weren’t for the fact that I don’t fit your designation of attraction and aversion. Apparently I am not a true homosexual but some other category. Your analysis will always trump any other contradictory examples to your definition in the same way. Thus your definition stands apart from real world, unaffected by its phenomena.

    This reordering of categories of sexual orientation from the dictionary standard appears not to have much worthwhile application in the real world other than for you to order it according to the political categories you wish to assign.

    The ‘no true Scotsman’ fallacy you’re committing in your reasoning is only the most obvious of them.

  • thordaddy

    Neil,

    I’m sorry, but the Scotsman fallacy is irrelevant in a society that places all-accepting indiscriminancy as its highest principle.

    It doesn’t matter how or why you came to embrace homosexuality. It only matters in regard to what you actually think that means?

    What does it mean to you to be a homosexual?

    The perception is that it means nothing. Or if it means anything, it means sexual attraction to the same/self. Period.

    The reality is that one’s embrace of homosexuality is neither meaningless nor a simple sexual attraction to the self/same. It is much more than that.

    That you haven’t fully contemplated what it means to embrace homosexuality absolutely, you appear to be in a quasi-traditional state desirous of marriage and children. You are subconciously rejecting homosexuality on a spiritual and intellectual basis while still enjoying it physically.

    You will not be able to remain in this ambiguous state forever.

  • Sean

    The reality is

    The reality that you understand through empirical study of the world around you, including an extensive interaction with actual gay people? Or the “reality” that you’ve arrived at by baselessly speculating inside your own brain about something that initially confused you?

    that one’s embrace of homosexuality

    I figured out that I was bisexual after falling for my best friend as a teenager. I recall a lot of denial about my attachment to him, followed by a long period of the awkward sadness that comes with having to see an unrequited love every day. It was a very selfless and yet very depressing sensation, one that struck me with a feeling of profound helplessness. The only thing I had control over was not burdening him too much with knowledge about what I was going through. But oh, silly me, I must have actually “embraced” bisexuality, because it sounded like such a fun time.

    is neither meaningless nor a simple sexual attraction to the self/same.

    I don’t think that anyone but you has asserted either of these things. We don’t think it’s meaningless or an attraction to the self. We think it’s an attraction to the same sex. Period. Not an attraction to the self. Not a political or metaphysical position. Not “meaningless”. It’s an attraction to the same sex. That’s the definition of the word. Duh.

    You’re the one who decided that homosexuality meant more than that, and then failed to explain why you thought that. Why do you posit that the “nature” of homosexuality means anything more than choosing someone of the same sex as a romantic/sexual partner rather than someone of the opposite sex? What justifies this extra baggage you’re throwing into a term that has such a simple meaning to everyone else?

    It is much more than that.

    Like what? Tell me, oh great and powerful bigot, what sort of arcane information on homosexuality you’ve obtained by meditating on the manner.

    You will not be able to remain in this ambiguous state forever.

    I’ll be sure to tell that to two of my closest friends, a gay couple who have been in a monogamous relationship for 11 years and had a lovely wedding two weeks ago. Or one of the hundreds of thousands of gay people raising children in the U.S., who generally don’t have any more of a problem with that than straight couples.

    To counter that you have, what, your intuition? A hunch? An elaborate theory of sexuality that makes perfect sense to you in your crazy little head but is not based on objective empirical/scientific study of real people?

  • thordaddy

    Sean,

    Sexual autonomy (rooted in liberationist philosophy) is all-pervasive. That this sexual autonomy has a largely homosexual and devout dyke face is not surprising.

    That you have consciously or subconsciously turned away from bisexuality at the intellectual and spiritual level in favor of assimilating into more traditional culture says WHAT about your physical attraction to both male and female and the need for the government to sanction your homosexual coupling as “marriage?”

  • thordaddy

    Sean,

    If homosexuals don’t have a sexual aversion to females then how does that make them any different than a bisexual?

    Does it require a sexual attraction to both male and female to qualify one as bisexual?

    And if so, why has Sean decided to live outside the created order when he could have just as easily lived within it? Why did Sean choose his homosexuality over his heterosexuality? Obviously, one had better consequences.

  • Sean

    I haven’t turned away bisexuality on “an intellectual and spiritual level”. There is no intellectual level to sexual orientation; it’s more or less instinctual (and I don’t believe in the “spiritual” at all). There is an intellectual level to how you manage relationships, but there’s no reason I see that there should be one way to have a same-sex relationship. What, do you think every straight relationship is the same?

    Bisexuality doesn’t mean you can’t have a monogamous relationship, and fitting into mainstream culture isn’t the only reason to want such a thing. Sometimes people just want to actually commit to each other totally and permanently, without anyone or anything else coming between them, and the social and financial trappings of marriage are the best way to do that. You know, because they love each other that much. Have you experienced that, or do you seriously believe that people only want to get married because the culture wants them to? Please.

    By the way, you haven’t actually provided evidence that your ideas about the “nature” of homosexuality have any bearing on the real world. If you can’t explain how you know what “true” homosexuality is, in terms of actual observations of the real world, you are by definition pulling all of this out of your ass. (Natural law theology doesn’t count, by the way; it’s just speculating about what the Creator really wants, which is worthless since no such being seems to exist.) You can’t claim that something is the objective truth about reality unless someone can go out and see a clear demonstration that it is true. If they have to buy into some weird set of definitions that makes random guesses about what homosexuality “really” is, that’s worthless.

  • Sean

    “If homosexuals don’t have a sexual aversion to females then how does that make them any different than a bisexual?”

    An “aversion” implies some kind of disgust or dislike. Some gay people don’t feel disgusted by the idea of sex with the opposite sex, but aren’t aroused by it either. Ergo, they only have sex with the same sex.

    In contrast, I find some women arousing too, so I’m bi. Simple, right?

    “Does it require a sexual attraction to both male and female to qualify one as bisexual?”

    Yes. Dictionaries are your friend. They help you understand and communicate. You don’t have to be afraid of them.

    “why has Sean decided to live outside the created order”

    There’s no such thing as “the created order”. That was easy.

    By the way, why did you address me in the third person instead of just saying “you”? Are you sure you aren’t a little crazy?

    “Why did Sean choose his homosexuality over his heterosexuality?”

    Um, I didn’t? I call myself bisexual because it’s accurate; I feel an attraction to both sexes and I’ve dated both. I might settle down with a woman. I would still call myself bisexual. I might settle down with a man. I would still call myself bisexual. I don’t intend to chose a side.

    “Obviously, one had better consequences.”

    My life would be easier if I only dated women and acted straight. I can say that with 100% confidence; labeling myself as bisexual has, in my memory, never won me any favors at all (not even with gay people).

    I don’t call myself bisexual to win “benefits” or favors, I do it because I have principles and want to be honest.

  • thordaddy

    Sean,

    This is too self-centric for you. You can’t see a bigger picture that transcends you. You are attempting to devoid of meaning one’s sexual orientation so as to undercut heterosexuality and pathologize the state’s acknowledgement and nuturing of its most spiritual representation as wholly and inexplicably irrational.

    Even your conception of marriage is weak. To you, it is merely state sanction. That is ALL the zealots are fighting for. The idea of a spiritual aspect, even to you, is verboten. A fight with no spiritual aspect seems almost nonexistent. And yet you fight for “state sanction” devoid of any spiritual motivation.

    Radical autonomist… Consciously robotic… Absolutely averse to the idea of God-ordained free will.

    But he not see his oh-so threatening nature.

  • thordaddy

    Wow Sean,

    It sounds like you value your sexual autonomy with great zeal. Is this a reason to sanction homosexual couplings as “marriage?”

    Do you think the state should be sanctioning sexual autonomy and its seemingly infinite array of outcomes?

  • Sean

    This is too self-centric for you.

    It’s more human-centric; I care a good deal about treatment of GLBTs in general, but I actually haven’t had any legal issues myself. I’m still single.

    You are attempting to devoid of meaning one’s sexual orientation

    No, you’re attempting to add extra meaning that has nothing to do with sexual orientation.

    The idea of a spiritual aspect, even to you, is verboten.

    No, I just don’t think there is such a thing. Saying that Bigfoot and the aliens hate gay marriage is not “verboten” to me, it’s just ridiculously silly. I feel the same way about the idea that there’s a magical person who ordered the world and gets mad if I love someone who has a penis.

    It’s not ideological, I just actually believe that things like souls and God don’t really exist.

    A fight with no spiritual aspect seems almost nonexistent.

    What does that even mean? Of course you can have a non-spiritual fight. Are you one of those people who thinks that you can only find meaning in your life if it’s “spiritual”? Are you aware that you’re talking to a living counterexample?

    I have awe at the universe, and I have a code of ethics, and I am driven by purpose. I just don’t have a God doing all the planning for me. I have myself and the guidance of other people instead.

    Absolutely averse to the idea of God-ordained free will.

    And you wonder why we don’t think there’s a non-religious argument against gay marriage.

    Also, what are you talking about? I’m all for freedom and letting people make choices. But you don’t get to make up the reality you live in. You can’t choose to just flap your arms and fly away.

    It sounds like you value your sexual autonomy with great zeal.

    If you’re referring to me not thinking that anyone else has ownership of my genitals, you’re correct. If you’re referring to the Marxist ideology, you’re completely wrong (I have no interest in Marxism at all).

    Is this a reason to sanction homosexual couplings as “marriage?”

    No, but there are good reasons. Gay people who want to visit their partners in the hospital? Gay couples raising children, who want both partners to be legal parents? Insurance and tax benefits? Being able to immigrate to another country to be with one’s partner? The simple joy of having a wedding and knowing that the state isn’t judging you for being not as good as other couples? Those are all great reasons for gays to want marriage, and the state doesn’t have a good reason to deny it (for that it would need a reason that doesn’t ultimately require the idea of “God”).

    Do you think the state should be sanctioning sexual autonomy and its seemingly infinite array of outcomes?

    No, I think it should allow same-sex marriage though. I still don’t know what you mean by “sexual autonomy”; it seems to be something that you say I’m supporting, but I’d never use that phrase personally.

    By the way, you still haven’t provided any evidence for your comments about the “nature” of sexuality or of marriage, which is the only thing that you could have done this whole time to make me really take you seriously. But if it’s going to come down to “this is what God wants”, or “this is the spiritual nature of things”, I can save you the effort; unless you know some kind of strange evidence that 99.9% of Christians (or Muslims) have never heard of, you probably don’t have anything I haven’t heard before; I know all the common arguments for the supernatural and I obviously don’t find them very convincing.

    (Note to anyone who finds this interminable and boring; yeah, I know, I just have a lot of time on my hands because I’ve been waiting and watching for batches of simulations to end all night.)

  • thordaddy

    Sean,

    Willful denial is a powerful tool in the radical autonomist’s arsenal.

    How else to explain your complete blindness to the logic and rationality of the state exalting the ideal heterosexual union of man/woman?

    How else to explain the assertion that there are no good, non-religious arguments against homosexual “marriage” other than to say that we know there are no good liberal arguments against homosexual “marriage” except the best liberal argument. The “married” homosexuals will be less free. But there are certainly good religious, logical and reasoned arguments for the exaltation of the man/woman union that are completely exclusive from any prejudice towards homosexuality. That you can’t see this is more evidence of your radical autonomy.

  • thordaddyNone of you have provided any evidence that a homosexual nature even exists, let alone what it would actually look like.It looks like rainbows. What do you think? Honestly you seem to be spouting gibberish. It is really simple: some people are gay. Some gay people want to marry one another. They want the legal and cultural benefits of marriage.

    I, on the other hand, have provided just that and your obfuscating is just further anecdotal evidence.

    You’ve provided a string of gibberish unsupported by any evidence whatsoever. What is it that you are even trying to demonstrate?

  • Neil

    I’m sorry, but the Scotsman fallacy is irrelevant in a society that places all-accepting indiscriminancy as its highest principle.

    Thordaddy, this sentence doesn’t make sense. The ‘no true Scotsman’ fallacy is demonstrated in your words. It is a fallacy of presumption. Here is your presumption:

    That you haven’t fully contemplated what it means to embrace homosexuality absolutely, you appear to be in a quasi-traditional state desirous of marriage and children. You are subconciously rejecting homosexuality on a spiritual and intellectual basis while still enjoying it physically.

    In order to make sense of your reasoning you have decided to describe me thus. You presume that if I fail to meet your novel definition of homosexuality then I must be rejecting homosexuality in some way. I’m therefore, in your terms, not a true homosexual. My knowledge and experience of myself can be cast aside because it falls outside the parameters of your definition.

    So the true homosexual is the one that fits with your ideological reasoning. I am apparently yet to come to terms with this intellectual and spiritual basis for my sexuality that you posit I must embrace to be known by you as a true homosexual.

    It rather looks like it is you, Thordaddy, you has the intellectual and spiritual basis for homosexuality sorted out. You’re welcome to it. I’m not actually sure what it could mean to have a sexuality that requires an intellectual basis. I have a feeling heterosexuals get a pass on this requirement in your understanding of a natural order.

    The fallacious nature of your argument is independent of society whether

    it places all-accepting indiscriminancy as its highest principle

    as you say, or not.

  • Anna

    That you haven’t fully contemplated what it means to embrace homosexuality absolutely, you appear to be in a quasi-traditional state desirous of marriage and children. You are subconciously rejecting homosexuality on a spiritual and intellectual basis while still enjoying it physically. You will not be able to remain in this ambiguous state forever.

    I’ll be sure to mention that to my parents, who are in their mid 60s and have been together for over 30 years. They’d be interested to learn that they aren’t real lesbians. Pray tell, when is their “ambiguous state” going to end?

  • Sean

    radical autonomist

    What does this phrase mean, and why do you think it applies to me? You seem to be making up meanings that have nothing to do with the words themselves (for example, “autonomist” refers to a socialist movement that lost popularity decades ago).

    How else to explain your complete blindness to the logic and rationality of the state exalting the ideal heterosexual union of man/woman?

    Uh, how can I explain your blindness to the fact that you haven’t used logic or rationality to back up anything you’ve said? You keep replying to me without actually answering how you know all these things you claim to know. If it’s clear and rational and obvious, you should find it easy to explain.

    Do I really need to make another joke about you being schizophrenic? It’s becoming more and more plausible and I’m not sure I’m comfortable making fun of someone who’s actually too psychotic to function.

  • thordaddy

    Again, we read of the ambiguous nature of the sexually autonomous. We have individuals all residing on some kind of scale of sexual autonomy, each defining their own sexually autonomous nature. Cool. Whatever gets you through… If you are a “homosexual” without sexual aversion to females then you ARE NOT quite the same kind of homosexual that is sexually averse to females. If you’re a bisexual that has a strong preference for homosexuality then you aren’t like the bisexual who has a strong preference for females. Ok… The point still stands. Your sexually autonomous nature is still evidence of one’s radical autonomy.

    Besides, not a single one of you has confronted the initial fallacious assertion that homosexuals shouldn’t be denied a “state-sanctioned” marriage.

    Each of you seem to think you can carve out your own little sexual niche and apply your anecdotal experience to the whole. Sorry, your supposed exceptions to the rules (I’m a homosexual NOT sexually averse to females… I’m a bisexual that prefers homosexuality) just aren’t that convincing in the face of the sexual waywardness proliferating in the media and entertainment.

  • thordaddy

    Sean,

    A radical autonomist is one who attempts — always unsuccessfully, I might add — to live outside the created order without consequence.

    You want to live “freely” as a bisexual which in reality means the world must bend to your sexual proclivities. You haven’t provided a shred of substantive argument to make your case. You SIMPLY assert the “righteousness” of radical liberalism. Radical liberalism taken to its logical extreme is radical autonomy.

    Of course, like a devout atheist, you will deny a created order. In this manner you are able to pathologize the state’s exaltation and nurturing of this created order. You can be totally blind to the logic and rationality of exalting the heterosexual union above all other unions while appearing to have a grand vision. Pure ego is what sees for you.

  • thordaddy

    Just so we are all clear…

    Sean, Anna, Neil, hoverfrog…

    This is YOUR COLLECTIVE ASSERTION…

    The state has NO logical, rational or commonsense reason to exalt heterosexual unions above all other unions.

    To put this assertion more simplistically, the state should treat ALL unions “equally.”

    Is this the collective stand?

  • Sean

    No. My stance is that there’s no good reason to treat relationships between two adult men or two adult women differently from relationships between an adult man and an adult woman, because on a psychological level gay relationships are not all that different from straight relationships, and because no tangible benefit accrues to anyone when gay people are denied the right to marry. That is, people who are in every relevant respect in the same situation, should be treated the same (equally).

    Your suggestion that “the state should treat ALL unions “equally.”” is not relevant; no one has said that.

  • thordaddy

    Sean,

    You are starting to be purposely obtuse. Let us go back to the fundamental assertion.

    There is “no good, nonreligious reason” for the state to deny homosexual couplings the marriage sanction.

    Translation:

    There is NO GOOD LIBERAL REASON for the state to deny homosexual couplings the marriage sanction.

    We ALREADY KNOW THIS.

    It is radical liberal orthodoxy THAT MANDATES IT.

    But the question for you STILL HASN’T BEEN ANSWERED.

    Is it your stance that the state has no good, nonreligious rationale, justification, interest in exalting and nurturing the ideal heterosexual union?

    Answer that question and show us your allegiance to liberal ideology. Marriage is a means to an end, strictly-speaking, to the faithless and spiritually devoid.

  • Sean

    You are starting to be purposely obtuse.

    The irony is delicious.

    Is it your stance that the state has no good, nonreligious rationale, justification, interest in exalting and nurturing the ideal heterosexual union?

    Irrelevant, because prohibiting gays from marriage doesn’t accomplish that anyway. (And what the hell is “the ideal heterosexual union”? I think that you define “ideal” in terms of what God wants; there’s obviously no secular interest in promoting a purely religious ideal.)

    show us your allegiance to liberal ideology

    You’re the only one disagreeing with me so far. Why are you referring to yourself as “us”?

  • thordaddy

    Is it your stance that the state has no good, nonreligious rationale, justification, interest in exalting and nurturing the ideal heterosexual union?

    Before answering this rather silly question you must first make the case that there is an “ideal heterosexual union”. The state administers public policy. In a democratic republic it is the people, through their representatives in government, who decide what the state stands for. We decide, in a roundabout way, what the state says about marriage and what it means to be married.

    In a nation like the USA, Australia, Norway, Germany or France where there exists a distinct separation between church and state there is a reason for the state to take a stance either to make no provision for marriage and leave it up to religious institutions or to ensure that marriages are administered by the state. Where marriage has legal repercussions it falls to the state to define what these are and how they will operate. This is all fairly straightforward and obvious.

    Now the state operates slowly in making public policy and sorting out where it stands on certain issues. For a long time even being gay was considered a crime so there was no reason to even ask if gay marriage should be permitted. This has now changed and the question has been raised.

    My response, and the response of a great deal of other people, is that I have no interest in how other people conduct themselves as long as they do no harm to society or to its members. As I see no harm in gay marriage I have no objections to allowing it. I do see harm in a public policy that is discriminatory, that treats one group as different for no good reason.

    Of course, there may be a “good reason” that I have not considered. I have considered the “argument from tradition” that you seem to be putting forward. The one that says that marriage is between a man and a woman because it has been for the last few hundred years and because only a man and a woman can naturally produce children. I find it lacking and fallacious. Not just because it is a fallacious and circular argument (the classic appeal to tradition) but because marriage and the natural production of children bear little connection. If you don’t know it isn’t necessary to get married in order to have children nor are children a requirement of marriage.

    I do hope that this is clear (if not concise). Do let me now if you have any questions.

  • thordaddy

    Ok… I think we’ve pretty much worn this discussion out.

    Sean…

    The facts on the ground, America circa 2010, tell us that the sexually autonomous (those who define themselves sexually fluid) have MULTIPLE avenues in which to secure the bounty of the state through a “marriage” sanction. With this in mind, we are summoned to examine your real motivation for making meaningless the concept of marriage as you strip from it any coherent or spiritual characteristic and in its place resides nothing more meaningful than a coupling of two adults.

    Yes Sean, excuse me if I don’t perceive any real depth for the Western marriage tradition coming out of you. A means to end. Nothing more for the faithless and spiritually devoid.

    hoverfrog,

    If you are unsatified with an appeal to tradition, imagine my satisfaction at your appeal to MODERN liberal orthodoxy, i.e., all-accepting indiscriminancy… The road to self-annihilation.

  • thordaddy

    Ok… I think we’ve pretty much worn this discussion out.

    A conversation is an exchange of views. Often they include clarification of important points, give and take, etc. You have repeatedly been asked to clarify different points, particularly related to your strange use of particular phrases like “sexually autonomous”. You’ve left us to guess your meaning.

    the sexually autonomous (those who define themselves sexually fluid) have MULTIPLE avenues in which to secure the bounty of the state through a “marriage” sanction.

    Sexual fluid now? Really, what are you trying to say here?

    With this in mind, we are summoned to examine your real motivation for making meaningless the concept of marriage as you strip from it any coherent or spiritual characteristic and in its place resides nothing more meaningful than a coupling of two adults.

    Nobody is trying to make marriage meaningless. You are implying that changing the meaning of marriage to include gay couples is to destroy marriage. The same argument was made not so long ago when marriage was changed to include interracial couples. A view that was as bigoted then as your view is now.

    If you are unsatified with an appeal to tradition, imagine my satisfaction at your appeal to MODERN liberal orthodoxy

    If I’d made such an appeal I’m sure you would be very satisfied with it.

    all-accepting indiscriminancy… The road to self-annihilation.

    You are going to have to explain this dubious phrase. Why is not discriminating the cause of self annihilation?

  • thordaddy

    hoverfrog,

    If it is your stance that neither the homosexual nor the devout dyke have a sexual aversion to females and males, respectively, then such individuals are practically bisexual. A bisexual is one with no sexual aversions. He is sexually fluid and has no repulsion to sexual waywardness. He also has MULTIPLE avenues in which to obtain the state “marriage” booty in America 2010.

    The big lie is that homosexuals can’t get “married.” The fact that you could carry on a debate where your fundamental grievance is FALSE shows us the power of liberal orthodoxy.

    Radical homosexuals aren’t changing the meaning of marriage to include homosexuals. There are simply dispensing with marriage’s most important demarcation and rendering the notion of “marriage” NOTHING MORE than a coupling of individual adults. There isn’t even the slightest suggestion that such base couplings benefit society as a whole one iota.

    It’s very simple hoverfrog. You have been taught to exalt tolerance and nondiscrimination as your highest principles. In this you are conforming to the wishes of a “default elite” that has convinced you that such an ethical order makes you “free,” i.e., radically autonomous. The reality though is that in this orthodox liberal drive to convince us ALL to be radically autonomous so as to reach societal-wide “equality,” we MUST EXIST in a state of all-accepting indiscriminancy. We must accept (tolerate) your indiscriminate manner (your nondiscrimination) less we be accused of being enemies of “equality.” In return, we are to be tolerated for our indiscriminate behavior. But because we KNOW that living in a state of absolute indiscriminancy is the surest path to self-annihilation, we have no desire for liberal “equality.” Radical autonomists that seek to take their autonomy (freedom) to its logical extreme, self-annihilate. They seek final liberation.

    The “default elite” adores the self-annihilator.

  • Steve

    Why are you guys feeding this troll? He doesn’t even make the slightest shred of sense. You could program a computer to give these responses. Seriously, there are websites that string together rants that make more sense.

  • thordaddy

    Steve,

    Just ask a question if you don’t understand?

    I use simple words to say simple things.

    Like, it is rational, justified and just plain commonsense for the state to financially unburden or subsidize the man/woman marriage and elevate that union above all others.

    Now, you will undoubtedly disagree. But so what? You’re a radical liberal with absolutely no use for tradition as you gleefully exist in a state of all-accepting indiscriminancy.

    Your enemies are those that refuse to exist indiscriminately with you. So totalitarian?

  • thordaddy

    If it is your stance that neither the homosexual nor the devout dyke have a sexual aversion to females and males, respectively, then such individuals are practically bisexual.

    Bollocks. Just because someone fancies a the same sex does not mean that they are averse to the opposite sex. You keep claiming this but have cited no evidence to support you. Opponents of your assertion who are themselves gay have told you that this is not the case yet still you cling to it. I repeat my earlier questions regarding this: Can heterosexuality be rooted in attraction with no inherent aversion to the same sex? Can you be a straight man without feeling revulsion towards other men?

    Please answer.

    A bisexual is one with no sexual aversions.

    Do you own a dictionary? A bisexual is one who is attracted to members of both sexes. That says nothing regarding any kind of aversion that they might feel.

    He also has MULTIPLE avenues in which to obtain the state “marriage” booty in America 2010.

    No he doesn’t. At the moment the only way he can attain the booty of marriage is to marry someone of the opposite sex. He can get his booty elsewhere though. As any sailor or pirate can tell you: “Any port in a storm”.;)

    The big lie is that homosexuals can’t get “married.”

    They could for a time in California and some other states. They can in some European countries that have shaken off the yoke of religious dogma. Google it, you might learn something.

    The fact that you could carry on a debate where your fundamental grievance is FALSE shows us the power of liberal orthodoxy.

    With regard to this topic to “fundamental grievance” is that gay people are denied the equal right to marry that is enjoyed by straight people. This is considered unfair. Perhaps you think that there is some other “fundamental grievance” here. If so please provide details.

    Radical homosexuals aren’t changing the meaning of marriage to include homosexuals.

    No, it is mainstream society that is making steps towards changing the meaning of marriage to be more inclusive. Gay people haven’t become a majority, they remain a minority group who seeks equal rights under the law. This is similar to the case of interracial marriage laws that were deemed unconstitutional in 1967.

    There are simply dispensing with marriage’s most important demarcation and rendering the notion of “marriage” NOTHING MORE than a coupling of individual adults.

    Bingo.

    There isn’t even the slightest suggestion that such base couplings benefit society as a whole one iota.

    Really? How about the revenue generated by all those extra marriages and, in some cases, divorces? How about making society more equal and removing discrimination from the statute books? How about reducing the harmful talk of gay people being less than straight people in some way and thereby reducing the harm that often comes from a society that sees a demarcation between straight and gay. It doesn’t matter which sex you are attracted to, you should have the same rights under the law. That has a knock on effect regarding the mental health of gays as well. If they are treated equally then they won’t be as bullied..

    It’s very simple hoverfrog. You have been taught to exalt tolerance and nondiscrimination as your highest principles.

    No. i made up my mind all on my own.

    We must accept (tolerate) your indiscriminate manner (your nondiscrimination) less we be accused of being enemies of “equality.”

    Indeed. If you are intolerant of a group for no good reason then you are a bigot. You are allowed to be a bigot of course, you just aren’t allowed to discriminate.

    we KNOW that living in a state of absolute indiscriminancy is the surest path to self-annihilation

    You haven’t demonstrated this. In fact I mocked you for it earlier as nonsensical. Please stop making assertions that have no grounding in reality that have been addressed. It makes you look stupid.

    we have no desire for liberal “equality.”

    Fine, you don’t have to be equal. Don’t marry a man if you don’t like the idea. It is your choice.

    The “default elite” adores the self-annihilator.

    I used to love Elite but I really don’t remember a self destruct option.

  • thordaddy

    hoverfrog,

    What’s next? Are you going to tell us your atheism isn’t really rooted in an aversion to God, but rather, is rooted in an attraction to nothing?

    One who lives in a state of all-accepting indiscriminancy AND believes he should be unburdened by any consequence IS a radical autonomist. For these primitive actors the notion of God-ordained free will and the sacrifice required to experience TRUE FREE WILL in a knowable created order is fairy tale. And they take as gospel the idea that one can exist indiscriminately without consequence. Insanity.

    Your twisted “liberated” logic think it unfair that I follow the created order in order to avoid the consequences of attempting to live outside that order.

    Of course, you don’t believe in a created order OTHER THAN the one YOU CREATE. But since such an “order” is a totally indiscriminate one, it is intelligently and rationally rejected by those who understand that existing indiscriminately IS THE SUREST PATH TO SELF-ANNIHILATION.

  • Neil

    Is it your stance that the state has no good, nonreligious rationale, justification, interest in exalting and nurturing the ideal heterosexual union?

    Since the demise of church authorised absolute monarchy in Western political systems the idea that the state has a role in promoting social ideals has been replaced by the notion of universal suffrage and democratic participation. The conservative monarchists who opposed liberalism and democracy saw themselves as defenders of traditional values and the natural order of things. This lead to the privileging of a singular religious authority. Divergence of opinion was regarded as both heresy and treason.

    This repressive notion of government was replaced by the idea of constitutionally guaranteed equality before a system of laws. These laws would have to withstand the scrutiny of reason and public debate within a system of checks and balances.

    Appeals to tradition and a natural order and the requirement that a minority group show benefit to the state before gaining access to rights equal to others are not sustainable against reason and constituted equality before the law. The political basis for your rationale is rooted in 18th Century conservatism. It seems you would prefer despotism over democracy.

  • thordaddy

    Neil,

    That all sounds good, but in California let me expound on the number of ways the sexually autonomous individual (one with no sexual aversions) may get married or receive the “booty” from a state-sanctioned “marriage.”

    1. He may marry in the traditionally understood manner — taking a woman’s hand and making an oath to God in a church — as there is no sexual aversion to negate this possibility.

    2. He, along with his lady, may contract with the state to receive a marriage license as there is no sexual aversion to negate this possibility.

    3. He may, with his homosexual partner, contract with the state to secure a “civil union” that provides all the equal benefits and contractual obligations to be found in a heterosexual marriage contract.

    4. Or, he may, if he is really in love and committed to his homosexual partner, find a liberal church in order to make an oath to God to be married as though he were at least attempting to follow some kind of order.

    Now, what are we REALLY arguing about?

    Why be so coy about the real intentions of the radical autonomists even if Neil is trying to be an irrelevant homosexual?

  • thordaddy

    What’s next? Are you going to tell us your atheism isn’t really rooted in an aversion to God, but rather, is rooted in an attraction to nothing?

    You really need to get that dictionary. Atheism is a lack of belief in gods. No aversion or attraction is necessary.

    Don’t think that your dodging of my questions hasn’t been noticed. You are refusing to engage in conversation, refusing to respond to reasonable requests to clarify your comments and refusing to answer reasonable questions. You aren’t refuting any points offered or putting forward new ideas. All you are doing is restating the same points over and over again occasionally in block capitals.

    Classic troll.

  • Neil

    but in California let me expound on the number of ways the sexually autonomous individual (one with no sexual aversions) may get married or receive the “booty” from a state-sanctioned “marriage.”

    1. He may marry in the traditionally understood manner — taking a woman’s hand and making an oath to God in a church — as there is no sexual aversion to negate this possibility.

    You insult both your intelligence and mine with this attempt at reason. A lack of aversion is not the same thing as attraction. Do you really think people marry just because they happen not to be averse to each other?

    Ditto with point 2.

    Point 3 overlooks the problem of different but supposedly equal institutions.

    Point 4 misses the point about the campaign for marriage equality entirely. It is the status conferred by the state that’s significant.

    …even if Neil is trying to be an irrelevant homosexual?

    You haven’t moved past the ‘no true Scotsman’ fallacy. Your argument is linguistically derived and not related to real world examples. It’s driven by a political bias that re-badges civil rights campaigning as some sort of ultra radical liberalism. From your perspective of 18th Century conservatism I can understand how things might look that way to you. It’s unfortunate for you that most of us appear to be about three centuries ahead of you.

    Please try harder to adapt to the times in which you live.