Total Posts:70|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Self Loathing

Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2010 10:34:29 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
There are many people who don't follow the Bible (or other religious books) explicitly and yet still believe in God or practice their religion. For instance, my aunt is a devout Catholic... lesbian. However this woman is a lesbian and the daughter of liberal Harvard professors (and ACLU lawyers!) yet she has chosen to accept that her sexuality is wrong (despite having no say in her biology thus eliminating the possibility of sin). She says, "While gay sex should not be criminalized, gay men and lesbians should abstain." She is also against gay marriage.

http://www.nytimes.com...

Now, I can be against gay marriage from a political POV (because I am against legalized straight marriage too) but I would never suggest that gays should repress their sexuality and not enjoy the same rights and privileges as straight people. Gays cannot help their biology, and gay sex and relationships do not infringe upon others' rights (i.e. children) meaning these consensual acts should be embraced if not celebrated like 'straight' love. Religion continues to push self-loathing on individuals in the name of God and I think it's wrong. However ultimately it should be up to the individual to be strong and smart enough to call out BS when they see/hear it. This is me calling BS.
President of DDO
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2010 10:41:24 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
What people get confused by is this,
a) what you want to believe
b) what you do believe

A gay catholic may want to believe that his/her sexuality can be reconciled with their faith. But they don't believe that it is. They therefore have no real choice in the matter.

They can react by pretending the two can be reconciled... which is theologically bankrupt.
They can react by finding a different religion that conforms to their lifestyle, which is philosphically bankrupt.
They can react by suppressing their sexuality, which will screw them over.

We just have to hope that religions such as Catholicism will continue to die, it may sound bigoted I guess, but I can not respect self-contradictory Religions that force people to torture themselves.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2010 10:49:14 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/9/2010 10:34:29 AM, theLwerd wrote:
There are many people who don't follow the Bible (or other religious books) explicitly and yet still believe in God or practice their religion. For instance, my aunt is a devout Catholic... lesbian. However this woman is a lesbian and the daughter of liberal Harvard professors (and ACLU lawyers!) yet she has chosen to accept that her sexuality is wrong (despite having no say in her biology thus eliminating the possibility of sin). She says, "While gay sex should not be criminalized, gay men and lesbians should abstain." She is also against gay marriage.

http://www.nytimes.com...

Now, I can be against gay marriage from a political POV (because I am against legalized straight marriage too) but I would never suggest that gays should repress their sexuality and not enjoy the same rights and privileges as straight people. Gays cannot help their biology, and gay sex and relationships do not infringe upon others' rights (i.e. children) meaning these consensual acts should be embraced if not celebrated like 'straight' love. Religion continues to push self-loathing on individuals in the name of God and I think it's wrong. However ultimately it should be up to the individual to be strong and smart enough to call out BS when they see/hear it. This is me calling BS.

If you were a really strong person you wouldn't have to rely on religion as a moral crutch in the first place, but that's not the point.

The point is that if people are religious, the clerics should make it clear that homosexual sex isn't a sin and that to say otherwise is a misinterpretation of the scriptures.

Of course I realise that a Catholic priest is never going to say that so perhaps your aunt could convert to a more tolerant church?

I believe the Church of England is very open-minded when it comes to homosexual relationships. I don't know if they have any branches in New York though!

B/t/w - you have a famous aunt - cool!
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2010 11:16:33 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Why is abstaining from sex self-loathing? Are nuns self-loathing?
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2010 11:22:18 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/9/2010 11:16:33 AM, Reasoning wrote:
Why is abstaining from sex self-loathing?

Most people who abstain from sex do so because they're afraid of it, for whatever reasons, whether its because of their sexuality or because of self-esteem issues. The problem ends up being that they hate themselves for what they are.

Are nuns self-loathing?

Probably.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2010 11:22:59 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Just because it doesn't harm anybody, doesn't make it immoral. Many, many cultures view prostitution as immoral, even though it technically infringes on nobody's rights.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2010 11:23:12 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/9/2010 11:22:59 AM, mongeese wrote:
Just because it doesn't harm anybody, doesn't make it moral. Many, many cultures view prostitution as immoral, even though it technically infringes on nobody's rights.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2010 11:24:00 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/9/2010 10:49:14 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
If you were a really strong person you wouldn't have to rely on religion as a moral crutch in the first place, but that's not the point.

Haha. True.

The point is that if people are religious, the clerics should make it clear that homosexual sex isn't a sin and that to say otherwise is a misinterpretation of the scriptures.

Exactly. The documentary Outraged explains how the scripture is specifically misinterpeted to oppress gays. Askbob, a Christian, used to explain this as well. RIP.

Of course I realise that a Catholic priest is never going to say that so perhaps your aunt could convert to a more tolerant church?

I can push Utalitarian Universalism on her... they're very tolerant.

B/t/w - you have a famous aunt - cool!

She's not my aunt lol...
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2010 11:24:30 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/9/2010 11:22:59 AM, mongeese wrote:
Just because it doesn't harm anybody, doesn't make it immoral. Many, many cultures view prostitution as immoral, even though it technically infringes on nobody's rights.

Well they're wrong. And considering your political POV, you should think it's wrong too.
President of DDO
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2010 11:25:20 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/9/2010 11:23:12 AM, mongeese wrote:
At 6/9/2010 11:22:59 AM, mongeese wrote:
Just because it doesn't harm anybody, doesn't make it moral. Many, many cultures view prostitution as immoral, even though it technically infringes on nobody's rights.

When did you become a moral relativist?
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2010 11:25:49 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/9/2010 11:16:33 AM, Reasoning wrote:
Why is abstaining from sex self-loathing? Are nuns self-loathing?

Abstaining itself isn't self-loathing. The reasons behind it are. If you abstain because you think somehow you're not worthy of sex; that you are damaged, deformed, deranged or damned -- that's crazy. And self-loathing.
President of DDO
Vi_Veri
Posts: 4,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2010 11:27:10 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/9/2010 11:16:33 AM, Reasoning wrote:
Why is abstaining from sex self-loathing? Are nuns self-loathing?

Abstaining from sex because you're gay and gay sex is "wrong" is self loathing.
I could give a f about no haters as long as my ishes love me.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2010 11:27:20 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/9/2010 11:24:00 AM, theLwerd wrote:

Exactly. The documentary Outraged explains how the scripture is specifically misinterpeted to oppress gays. Askbob, a Christian, used to explain this as well. RIP.


Askbob was a Christian? What a joke.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2010 11:27:39 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/9/2010 11:25:49 AM, theLwerd wrote:
If you abstain because you think somehow you're not worthy of sex; that you are damaged, deformed, deranged or damned -- that's crazy.
Crazy in which way?
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2010 11:28:06 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/9/2010 11:25:20 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 6/9/2010 11:23:12 AM, mongeese wrote:
At 6/9/2010 11:22:59 AM, mongeese wrote:
Just because it doesn't harm anybody, doesn't make it moral. Many, many cultures view prostitution as immoral, even though it technically infringes on nobody's rights.

When did you become a moral relativist?

Lmfao. Exactly. It's absolutely hysterical watching them try to reconcile Objectivism and Christianity. Christianity teaches you to act against immoral behavior; Objectivist would say Behavior X wasn't immoral in the first place. Hilarious.
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2010 11:28:41 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/9/2010 11:27:20 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 6/9/2010 11:24:00 AM, theLwerd wrote:

Exactly. The documentary Outraged explains how the scripture is specifically misinterpeted to oppress gays. Askbob, a Christian, used to explain this as well. RIP.


Askbob was a Christian? What a joke.

Right... because we know Christians are always good people lol...
President of DDO
Vi_Veri
Posts: 4,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2010 11:29:43 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/9/2010 11:28:06 AM, theLwerd wrote:
At 6/9/2010 11:25:20 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 6/9/2010 11:23:12 AM, mongeese wrote:
At 6/9/2010 11:22:59 AM, mongeese wrote:
Just because it doesn't harm anybody, doesn't make it moral. Many, many cultures view prostitution as immoral, even though it technically infringes on nobody's rights.

When did you become a moral relativist?

Lmfao. Exactly. It's absolutely hysterical watching them try to reconcile Objectivism and Christianity. Christianity teaches you to act against immoral behavior; Objectivist would say Behavior X wasn't immoral in the first place. Hilarious

Serial Killer in the making... I can almost feel the mental snap coming on ;)
I could give a f about no haters as long as my ishes love me.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2010 11:30:02 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/9/2010 11:27:39 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 6/9/2010 11:25:49 AM, theLwerd wrote:
If you abstain because you think somehow you're not worthy of sex; that you are damaged, deformed, deranged or damned -- that's crazy.
Crazy in which way?

Because you are abstaining from normal, natural, beneficial acts for no good reason, indeed to your ultimate harm. That is surely a definition of crazy.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2010 11:30:56 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/9/2010 11:27:39 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 6/9/2010 11:25:49 AM, theLwerd wrote:
If you abstain because you think somehow you're not worthy of sex; that you are damaged, deformed, deranged or damned -- that's crazy.
Crazy in which way?

Mirza I'm not discussing this with you in the forums. It's the same back and forth banter that doesn't reconcile anything. Send me the challenge that you were supposed to with facts and stats and I'll address this.
President of DDO
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2010 11:31:18 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/9/2010 11:30:02 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Because you are abstaining from normal, natural, beneficial acts for no good reason, indeed to your ultimate harm. That is surely a definition of crazy.
That is not what I am asking about.

If you feel e.g. deformed, in which way is it "crazy" that you abstain from sex?
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2010 11:31:57 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/9/2010 11:30:56 AM, theLwerd wrote:
Mirza I'm not discussing this with you in the forums. It's the same back and forth banter that doesn't reconcile anything. Send me the challenge that you were supposed to with facts and stats and I'll address this.
When have we discussed this? Both you and Cereb apparently do not get my question.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2010 11:32:36 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/9/2010 11:30:02 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Because you are abstaining from normal, natural, beneficial acts for no good reason, indeed to your ultimate harm. That is surely a definition of crazy.

Exactly. Specifically hurting yourself (mental, emotional and physical) is considered crazy by many. If you punished yourself for having brown eyes people would think it's crazy. Similarly punishing yourself because you liked girls would be crazy. It's just dumb.
President of DDO
Vi_Veri
Posts: 4,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2010 11:32:38 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/9/2010 11:28:06 AM, theLwerd wrote:
At 6/9/2010 11:25:20 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 6/9/2010 11:23:12 AM, mongeese wrote:
At 6/9/2010 11:22:59 AM, mongeese wrote:
Just because it doesn't harm anybody, doesn't make it moral. Many, many cultures view prostitution as immoral, even though it technically infringes on nobody's rights.

When did you become a moral relativist?

Lmfao. Exactly. It's absolutely hysterical watching them try to reconcile Objectivism and Christianity. Christianity teaches you to act against immoral behavior; Objectivist would say Behavior X wasn't immoral in the first place. Hilarious.

A tiny look at Ayn Rand views on Christianity: http://www.noblesoul.com...
I could give a f about no haters as long as my ishes love me.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2010 11:33:50 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/9/2010 11:28:41 AM, theLwerd wrote:
At 6/9/2010 11:27:20 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 6/9/2010 11:24:00 AM, theLwerd wrote:

Exactly. The documentary Outraged explains how the scripture is specifically misinterpeted to oppress gays. Askbob, a Christian, used to explain this as well. RIP.


Askbob was a Christian? What a joke.

Right... because we know Christians are always good people lol...

I still have this crazy presumption that a religion founded by a pacifistic communist hippie might produce good people.... its a bit naive I know!
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Vi_Veri
Posts: 4,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2010 11:34:34 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/9/2010 11:31:18 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 6/9/2010 11:30:02 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Because you are abstaining from normal, natural, beneficial acts for no good reason, indeed to your ultimate harm. That is surely a definition of crazy.
That is not what I am asking about.

If you feel e.g. deformed, in which way is it "crazy" that you abstain from sex?

Because sexual abstinence causes mental disorders. And if she's gay, she's going to have to abstain for life - like a priest - and you can't tell me priests don't develop mental disorders ;)
I could give a f about no haters as long as my ishes love me.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2010 11:35:15 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/9/2010 11:31:18 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 6/9/2010 11:30:02 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Because you are abstaining from normal, natural, beneficial acts for no good reason, indeed to your ultimate harm. That is surely a definition of crazy.
That is not what I am asking about.

If you feel e.g. deformed, in which way is it "crazy" that you abstain from sex?

Well if you deformed but you still have the opportunity for sex, you should probably still take it.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2010 11:37:20 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/9/2010 11:34:34 AM, Vi_Veri wrote:
Because sexual abstinence causes mental disorders. And if she's gay, she's going to have to abstain for life - like a priest - and you can't tell me priests don't develop mental disorders ;)
I am not bringing homosexuality into this, actually. This is not my intention.

What I feel is that if a person feels "deformed" in a way which he feels that someone would not like to have sex with him, or have a very bad experience with him, then it is not "crazy" that he abstains from sex. He acts upon a feeling that he did not choose for himself.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2010 11:37:57 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/9/2010 11:34:34 AM, Vi_Veri wrote:
At 6/9/2010 11:31:18 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 6/9/2010 11:30:02 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Because you are abstaining from normal, natural, beneficial acts for no good reason, indeed to your ultimate harm. That is surely a definition of crazy.
That is not what I am asking about.

If you feel e.g. deformed, in which way is it "crazy" that you abstain from sex?

Because sexual abstinence causes mental disorders.

Is that a credible claim, I believe it, but then I do make sweeping judgement about life!
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2010 11:39:21 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/9/2010 11:37:20 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 6/9/2010 11:34:34 AM, Vi_Veri wrote:
Because sexual abstinence causes mental disorders. And if she's gay, she's going to have to abstain for life - like a priest - and you can't tell me priests don't develop mental disorders ;)
I am not bringing homosexuality into this, actually. This is not my intention.

What I feel is that if a person feels "deformed" in a way which he feels that someone would not like to have sex with him, or have a very bad experience with him, then it is not "crazy" that he abstains from sex. He acts upon a feeling that he did not choose for himself.

He is still crazy, because though such a view is understandable, counselling, confidence building and the right partner can resolve that issue.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.