Total Posts:46|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

What's better for society stigma or equality?

theworldhasgonemad
Posts: 633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2016 10:29:16 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/31/2016 4:53:20 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 1/31/2016 12:24:37 PM, theworldhasgonemad wrote:
I'll go with stigma:
http://www.city-journal.org...

Racist.

Is skin colour or culture even mentioned in the article? Maybe you should have read it first?
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2016 12:11:59 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/31/2016 12:24:37 PM, theworldhasgonemad wrote:
I'll go with stigma:
http://www.city-journal.org...

I liked this author's work, and I read some more of it. I do agree that stigma has a place in life. It is just often abused; the point of 'The Scarlet Letter' isn't that stigma is bad, but that it often finds the wrong target while the guilty walk about blameless.

Promiscuity is, I agree, bad. Love should be founded in some real, deep emotional attachment. The author, however, seems caught up in a Christian worldview. I was reading another work of his on beauty, and he was going over how beauty could be found in the setting of a table, or in the faces of two people who are in love:

"Here is another example: it is a special occasion, when the family unites for a ceremonial dinner. You set the table with a clean embroidered cloth, arranging plates, glasses, bread in a basket, and some carafes of water and wine. You do this lovingly, delighting in the appearance, striving for an effect of cleanliness, simplicity, symmetry, and warmth. The table has become a symbol of homecoming, of the extended arms of the universal mother, inviting her children in. And all this abundance of meaning and good cheer is somehow contained in the appearance of the table. This, too, is an experience of beauty, one that we encounter, in some version or other, every day. We are needy creatures, and our greatest need is for home"the place where we are, where we find protection and love. We achieve this home through representations of our own belonging, not alone but in conjunction with others. All our attempts to make our surroundings look right"through decorating, arranging, creating"are attempts to extend a welcome to ourselves and to those whom we love."

"The presence of a transcendental claim startles us out of our day-to-day preoccupations on other occasions, too. In particular, there is the experience of falling in love. This, too, is a human universal, and it is an experience of the strangest kind. The face and body of the beloved are imbued with the intensest life. But in one crucial respect, they are like the body of someone dead: they seem not to belong in the empirical world. The beloved looks on the lover as Beatrice looked on Dante, from a point outside the flow of temporal things. The beloved object demands that we cherish it, that we approach it with almost ritualistic reverence. And there radiates from those eyes and limbs and words a kind of fullness of spirit that makes everything anew."

Yet, in other places, the author rails against homosexuality and polygamy. The first instance, the sense of home and love, applies just as much to historically polygamous households in non-Western areas as it does to monogamy. And the latter, the two people in love, is the exact sentiment that I associate with love.

I think that those who support these sorts of 'old values' are, essentially, committing political suicide by refusing to budge on any point. Given a choice between a 'shameless' society and the complete readoption of traditional values, without taking into account whether those values are vestigial or contribute actual social utility, most people will err on the side of shamelessness. Old orders, old methods of social censure and cultural regulation, could be instated anew. They just couldn't be perfectly reconstituted, and driving to do so despite that fact will just ensure that more and more erosion occurs. I mean, gay marriage is a drive towards a more domestic, regulated life. It is, in many respects, a flight from wanton abandon and meaningless promiscuity. Polygamy, classically understood, is also not promiscuous; there were strict societal rules in place in those societies in which it was practiced. Just as Rome had to adjust its mores after becoming Christianized to regulate itself in different ways, the West will have to do so after being de-Christianized. It will need to abandon things like an animus against homosexuality, which was informed mostly by religion.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
theworldhasgonemad
Posts: 633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2016 1:24:59 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
I mean, gay marriage is a drive towards a more domestic, regulated life. It is, in many respects, a flight from wanton abandon and meaningless promiscuity.

The thing with homosexual relationships though is that they are self-indulgent by nature. So normalising homosexuality, is promoting the kind of shameless society that should be avoided.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2016 1:30:14 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/1/2016 1:24:59 AM, theworldhasgonemad wrote:
I mean, gay marriage is a drive towards a more domestic, regulated life. It is, in many respects, a flight from wanton abandon and meaningless promiscuity.

The thing with homosexual relationships though is that they are self-indulgent by nature. So normalising homosexuality, is promoting the kind of shameless society that should be avoided.

Lol, that's absurd. To me, any sort of romantic relationship is a redirection of my normal self-interest to another person. It is about taking care of someone else, making them happy, to feel responsible for another being's happiness in a way which is consummate. It's the opposite of self-indulgence; single life is incredibly more self-indulgent.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2016 1:31:15 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/1/2016 1:30:14 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/1/2016 1:24:59 AM, theworldhasgonemad wrote:
I mean, gay marriage is a drive towards a more domestic, regulated life. It is, in many respects, a flight from wanton abandon and meaningless promiscuity.

The thing with homosexual relationships though is that they are self-indulgent by nature. So normalising homosexuality, is promoting the kind of shameless society that should be avoided.

Lol, that's absurd. To me, any sort of romantic relationship is a redirection of my normal self-interest to another person. It is about taking care of someone else, making them happy, to feel responsible for another being's happiness in a way which is consummate. It's the opposite of self-indulgence; single life is incredibly more self-indulgent.

I still don't see how indulgence is that big of an issue, so long as it doesn't hurt others.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
theworldhasgonemad
Posts: 633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2016 1:34:38 AM
Posted: 10 months ago

I still don't see how indulgence is that big of an issue, so long as it doesn't hurt others.

Then you need to read the article again. As it explains, the thing is it does hurt others. Society is screaming in pain because of the hurt caused.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2016 1:35:49 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/1/2016 1:31:15 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 2/1/2016 1:30:14 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/1/2016 1:24:59 AM, theworldhasgonemad wrote:
I mean, gay marriage is a drive towards a more domestic, regulated life. It is, in many respects, a flight from wanton abandon and meaningless promiscuity.

The thing with homosexual relationships though is that they are self-indulgent by nature. So normalising homosexuality, is promoting the kind of shameless society that should be avoided.

Lol, that's absurd. To me, any sort of romantic relationship is a redirection of my normal self-interest to another person. It is about taking care of someone else, making them happy, to feel responsible for another being's happiness in a way which is consummate. It's the opposite of self-indulgence; single life is incredibly more self-indulgent.

I still don't see how indulgence is that big of an issue, so long as it doesn't hurt others.

It's self-injurious. A cold, empty way to shuffle through life. Humans are defined by how we relate to one another; we are, fundamentally, a social animal.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
theworldhasgonemad
Posts: 633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2016 1:39:40 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
Lol, that's absurd. To me, any sort of romantic relationship is a redirection of my normal self-interest to another person. It is about taking care of someone else, making them happy, to feel responsible for another being's happiness in a way which is consummate. It's the opposite of self-indulgence; single life is incredibly more self-indulgent.

I'm sorry but I don't believe you. IIt is your sex drive that is dictating your choices, which is purely self-indulgent.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2016 1:48:18 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/1/2016 1:39:40 AM, theworldhasgonemad wrote:
Lol, that's absurd. To me, any sort of romantic relationship is a redirection of my normal self-interest to another person. It is about taking care of someone else, making them happy, to feel responsible for another being's happiness in a way which is consummate. It's the opposite of self-indulgence; single life is incredibly more self-indulgent.

I'm sorry but I don't believe you. IIt is your sex drive that is dictating your choices, which is purely self-indulgent.

If my sex drive was dictating my choices I wouldn't be single right now. Gay sex, in this time and age, is literally as easy to get as downloading a phone app. I don't want random meaningless sex, and a lot of gay people feel the same way. It's why, ironically enough, these gay people could be allies of moral traditionalists, because they want to apply standards of chastity and loyalty to gay relationships. But because you literally don't believe that we exist when we are, in a manner of speaking, standing right in front of you, you are denying yourself powerful allies.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
theworldhasgonemad
Posts: 633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2016 2:00:23 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
If my sex drive was dictating my choices I wouldn't be single right now. Gay sex, in this time and age, is literally as easy to get as downloading a phone app. I don't want random meaningless sex, and a lot of gay people feel the same way. It's why, ironically enough, these gay people could be allies of moral traditionalists, because they want to apply standards of chastity and loyalty to gay relationships. But because you literally don't believe that we exist when we are, in a manner of speaking, standing right in front of you, you are denying yourself powerful allies.

If what you really cared about was looking after someone, then you wouldn't necessarily be choosing men - the fact that you are shows that your sex drive is still dictating your choice in relationship, which will always be a perception that is dangerous for society.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2016 2:12:03 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/1/2016 2:00:23 AM, theworldhasgonemad wrote:
If my sex drive was dictating my choices I wouldn't be single right now. Gay sex, in this time and age, is literally as easy to get as downloading a phone app. I don't want random meaningless sex, and a lot of gay people feel the same way. It's why, ironically enough, these gay people could be allies of moral traditionalists, because they want to apply standards of chastity and loyalty to gay relationships. But because you literally don't believe that we exist when we are, in a manner of speaking, standing right in front of you, you are denying yourself powerful allies.

If what you really cared about was looking after someone, then you wouldn't necessarily be choosing men - the fact that you are shows that your sex drive is still dictating your choice in relationship, which will always be a perception that is dangerous for society.

So it would be less self-centered of me to trap a woman in a marriage devoid of sexual satisfaction in order to garner societal 'kudos' for myself? Have you ever listened to a woman who was married to a gay man? It didn't make them happy or satisfied; it made them feel deceived, hurt, exploited, betrayed, and flawed in some way. Women deserve men who can give them everything which they need in a relationship. Forcing two people into a relationship who cannot satisfy one another when there are available alternatives which would make all participants feel fully loved and valued is grotesque, not kind.

And sex drive is always an issue in marriage. It always has been, even the most traditional of traditional marriages; to deny that is just willful blindness. If gay love is 'dangerous' to society because it involves sexual attraction, then all love is dangerous to society, and we should all just draw lots to pair up in case the sexual drive which marriage, as an institution, was meant to 'tame' play a role in, well, marriage.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
theworldhasgonemad
Posts: 633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2016 2:26:53 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
So it would be less self-centered of me to trap a woman in a marriage devoid of sexual satisfaction in order to garner societal 'kudos' for myself? Have you ever listened to a woman who was married to a gay man? It didn't make them happy or satisfied; it made them feel deceived, hurt, exploited, betrayed, and flawed in some way. Women deserve men who can give them everything which they need in a relationship. Forcing two people into a relationship who cannot satisfy one another when there are available alternatives which would make all participants feel fully loved and valued is grotesque, not kind.

No I'm sorry but you've got it all wrong. The only reason this happens is because men lie about their sexuality in said relationships.

Gay men and women can and do get married, have satisfactory sex lives, and more fulfilled lives in general. The same goes for pedophiles, there are many that get 'treatment' to manage their urges, and have fulfilled lives with their heterosexual partner. The key is that they don't pretend they are something that they are not. They are very open about it, but they have the strength to reject any perverse sex.


And sex drive is always an issue in marriage. It always has been, even the most traditional of traditional marriages; to deny that is just willful blindness. If gay love is 'dangerous' to society because it involves sexual attraction, then all love is dangerous to society, and we should all just draw lots to pair up in case the sexual drive which marriage, as an institution, was meant to 'tame' play a role in, well, marriage.

Gay love is dangerous to society because by its nature it promotes perverse sex. Which is something you can't say about heterosexuality. So I'm sorry, but no, all love is not dangerous to society. There is a very distinct difference between homo and hetero relationships.
theworldhasgonemad
Posts: 633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2016 2:35:02 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
By the way, I am not necessarily advocating that homosexual sex should be criminalised.

I am merely pointing out that it shouldn't be normalised.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2016 2:47:24 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/1/2016 2:26:53 AM, theworldhasgonemad wrote:
So it would be less self-centered of me to trap a woman in a marriage devoid of sexual satisfaction in order to garner societal 'kudos' for myself? Have you ever listened to a woman who was married to a gay man? It didn't make them happy or satisfied; it made them feel deceived, hurt, exploited, betrayed, and flawed in some way. Women deserve men who can give them everything which they need in a relationship. Forcing two people into a relationship who cannot satisfy one another when there are available alternatives which would make all participants feel fully loved and valued is grotesque, not kind.

No I'm sorry but you've got it all wrong. The only reason this happens is because men lie about their sexuality in said relationships.

Gay men and women can and do get married, have satisfactory sex lives, and more fulfilled lives in general. The same goes for pedophiles, there are many that get 'treatment' to manage their urges, and have fulfilled lives with their heterosexual partner. The key is that they don't pretend they are something that they are not. They are very open about it, but they have the strength to reject any perverse sex.

'Hey, I'll never find you sexually attractive, but let's forge a bond which, for life, obligates you to have sex only with me'. Any woman who says 'yes' to that has profound self-esteem issues, to the point that taking advantage of her state borders on abuse. She will never feel fully loved in her life. The man gains 'respectability' for the sacrifice of sexual fulfillment; what does she gain? I have no respect for a man who agrees to that, it's abhorrent and, ironically enough, incredibly self-indulgent. Like sleeping with a drunk girl, or taking advantage of someone who is grieving, but even more permanent and damaging.

With modern divorce laws as they are, it's also a horrible relationship to bring children into. If either party finds the chore of having sex with one another to be too much to bear, the children will have to deal with the fallout when Mommy and/or Daddy start sleeping around.

And sex drive is always an issue in marriage. It always has been, even the most traditional of traditional marriages; to deny that is just willful blindness. If gay love is 'dangerous' to society because it involves sexual attraction, then all love is dangerous to society, and we should all just draw lots to pair up in case the sexual drive which marriage, as an institution, was meant to 'tame' play a role in, well, marriage.

Gay love is dangerous to society because by its nature it promotes perverse sex.

How do you define 'perverse sex'?

Are handstands immoral?

Which is something you can't say about heterosexuality. So I'm sorry, but no, all love is not dangerous to society. There is a very distinct difference between homo and hetero relationships.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
theworldhasgonemad
Posts: 633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2016 3:11:49 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
'Hey, I'll never find you sexually attractive, but let's forge a bond which, for life, obligates you to have sex only with me'. Any woman who says 'yes' to that has profound self-esteem issues, to the point that taking advantage of her state borders on abuse. She will never feel fully loved in her life. The man gains 'respectability' for the sacrifice of sexual fulfillment; what does she gain? I have no respect for a man who agrees to that, it's abhorrent and, ironically enough, incredibly self-indulgent. Like sleeping with a drunk girl, or taking advantage of someone who is grieving, but even more permanent and damaging.


With modern divorce laws as they are, it's also a horrible relationship to bring children into. If either party finds the chore of having sex with one another to be too much to bear, the children will have to deal with the fallout when Mommy and/or Daddy start sleeping around.

I'm glad you've said all that, because it's a perfect illustration of why your thinking is so bad and why the original article I posted has pinpointed how the lack of stigma produces such a shameless and self-destructive society.

Read over all that you've said, and see how everything bad you are saying happens is because people are slaves to their sex drive.

Now read an article like this, which shows what happens when people are not slaves to their sex drive.
http://www.salon.com...

People's bodies change with age. The person you were possibly sexually attracted to when you got married is never going to be the same as the person you are married to 5 or 10 years later. As you've pointed out, this is the reason that people sleep around, families become ruined, children's lives become lost - becuase they are slaves to their sexual desires. That's why we shouldn't promote self-indulgent behaviours.

Do you understand my point now?

How do you define 'perverse sex'?


Non reproductive.

Are handstands immoral?

I think you are missing the point, which is that people make decisions about doing things or not, based on societies perceptions. Bring back stigma, without it we become a shameless society with disastrous consequences.

Here's another interesting read for your pleasure
http://www.newstatesman.com...
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2016 1:47:47 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
I've read the first quarter or so before realising that it was a tad long. I'll finish it when I have the time; it is quite interesting. So far, I agree with most of it, minus the religion and the empiricist view of the guilt/shame dichotomy.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2016 2:59:47 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/1/2016 3:11:49 AM, theworldhasgonemad wrote:
'Hey, I'll never find you sexually attractive, but let's forge a bond which, for life, obligates you to have sex only with me'. Any woman who says 'yes' to that has profound self-esteem issues, to the point that taking advantage of her state borders on abuse. She will never feel fully loved in her life. The man gains 'respectability' for the sacrifice of sexual fulfillment; what does she gain? I have no respect for a man who agrees to that, it's abhorrent and, ironically enough, incredibly self-indulgent. Like sleeping with a drunk girl, or taking advantage of someone who is grieving, but even more permanent and damaging.


With modern divorce laws as they are, it's also a horrible relationship to bring children into. If either party finds the chore of having sex with one another to be too much to bear, the children will have to deal with the fallout when Mommy and/or Daddy start sleeping around.

I'm glad you've said all that, because it's a perfect illustration of why your thinking is so bad and why the original article I posted has pinpointed how the lack of stigma produces such a shameless and self-destructive society.

Read over all that you've said, and see how everything bad you are saying happens is because people are slaves to their sex drive.

Now read an article like this, which shows what happens when people are not slaves to their sex drive.
http://www.salon.com...

Lol, they reference a sex drive in the article. The only reason these marriages exists in the first place is because of religious pressure, not because the people engaged in them are utterly bereft of libido. It's also completely anecdotal, and all people involved have a huge incentive to lie.

People's bodies change with age. The person you were possibly sexually attracted to when you got married is never going to be the same as the person you are married to 5 or 10 years later. As you've pointed out, this is the reason that people sleep around, families become ruined, children's lives become lost - becuase they are slaves to their sexual desires. That's why we shouldn't promote self-indulgent behaviours.

Do you understand my point now?

No, because a gay man will *never* be attracted to a straight female. It's not that he may lose that sexual attraction, but it will never be there to begin with. The idea that human sexuality has suddenly burst onto the scene is also, frankly, the height of delusion. Sexual attraction has always played a role in marriage, it just wasn't prime. The idea that it's only now becoming a consideration is absurd when you take a cursory glance at history. You also fail to understand that a gay man marrying a straight woman is supremely self-indulgent. He gets all of the benefit in the relationship, and can only ignore the incredible damage done to the woman and children by whitewashing human nature and completely ignoring its sexual dimension. I can see advocating celibacy for religious reasons, but crippling other people's happiness so that a gay person can gain respectability is just heinous.

How do you define 'perverse sex'?


Non reproductive.

LOL. How could you possible defend that moral prescription without invoking religion?

Are handstands immoral?

I think you are missing the point, which is that people make decisions about doing things or not, based on societies perceptions. Bring back stigma, without it we become a shameless society with disastrous consequences.

Here's another interesting read for your pleasure
http://www.newstatesman.com...

In case you missed the rest of the conversation, agree with stigma having a role to play, I just find your application of it to gay relationships to be indefensible. You're arguing against a straw man; I'm for committed, monogamous same-sex relationships, with the same standards of shame applied to them which are applied to heterosexual couples. Your problem is with homosexuality, and you're trying desperately to qualify it, and all you've come up with so far is 'non-reproductive sex is bad'.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
theworldhasgonemad
Posts: 633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2016 1:01:34 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
Lol, they reference a sex drive in the article. The only reason these marriages exists in the first place is because of religious pressure, not because the people engaged in them are utterly bereft of libido. It's also completely anecdotal, and all people involved have a huge incentive to lie.

No it's not only because of religious pressure, it's also becuase they want to 'feel normal', and raise their own biological family.

Why are they checking out other men with their wives if they are bereft of libido?

No, because a gay man will *never* be attracted to a straight female. It's not that he may lose that sexual attraction, but it will never be there to begin with.

Well according to that article you are wrong. One man did become attracted to his wife, and he said she would be the only woman he would ever be attracted to. Are you calling him a liar?

The idea that human sexuality has suddenly burst onto the scene is also, frankly, the height of delusion. Sexual attraction has always played a role in marriage, it just wasn't prime. The idea that it's only now becoming a consideration is absurd when you take a cursory glance at history. You also fail to understand that a gay man marrying a straight woman is supremely self-indulgent. He gets all of the benefit in the relationship, and can only ignore the incredible damage done to the woman and children by whitewashing human nature and completely ignoring its sexual dimension. I can see advocating celibacy for religious reasons, but crippling other people's happiness so that a gay person can gain respectability is just heinous.

No this is only a reflection of your awful thinking. This is because you are a slave to your sex drive, and expect everyone else to be a slave to their sex drive. There is a lot more to a relationship than sexual attraction. Straight people do become sexually involved with the same sex even though they are not gay. There is no reason for gay people not to do the same. Sexual attraction is not the only motivation for sex and relationships, which is why your thinking is fundamentally flawed.

How do you define 'perverse sex'?


Non reproductive.

LOL. How could you possible defend that moral prescription without invoking religion?

Because perverse means something along the lines of 'anything other than its original form or use'. Just refer to your Biology text book as to what sex organs the human body has. If you can find two sex organs that two men or two women can have sexual intercourse with, then please let me know. Otherwise, their sex is perverse.


Are handstands immoral?

I think you are missing the point, which is that people make decisions about doing things or not, based on societies perceptions. Bring back stigma, without it we become a shameless society with disastrous consequences.

In case you missed the rest of the conversation, agree with stigma having a role to play, I just find your application of it to gay relationships to be indefensible. You're arguing against a straw man; I'm for committed, monogamous same-sex relationships, with the same standards of shame applied to them which are applied to heterosexual couples. Your problem is with homosexuality, and you're trying desperately to qualify it, and all you've come up with so far is 'non-reproductive sex is bad'.

No, my argument is that homosexual relationships are bad, not that gay sex is bad. There are overwhelming health issues faced by homosexuals. The National Institute of Health has shown in a detailed study that mental health issues persist even in inclusive societies. Studies in Australia have shown that the major cause of mental health issues in gays is relationships problems, which are persisting even though family acceptance has become more widespread. Apart from the mental health issues, there's also the physical health issues such as risk of anal cancer, the mutilation of their organs, and the spread of disease due to the nature of their relationships and nature of their intercourse.

Because we don't know how homosexual attraction develops, it is not fair to change society's perception that 'being gay is okay'. Because confused people mistakenly have gay sex with horrible repercussions, it is not fair to lie to society that 'being gay is 'okay'.
theworldhasgonemad
Posts: 633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2016 1:09:48 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
Actually I lost the context of the original post because it's been a few days.

My argument in this thread isn't necessarily that it's unhealthy or bad.

The article is suggesting that the more unusual behaviours we promote, the more unusual behaviours we will get. Without stigma, we become a shameless society, leading to more and more unacceptable behaviours with disastrous consequences, like not being able to walk down the street and feel safe.

Stigma creates a society where people don't want to do the wrong thing, and if they can't help themselves (eg homosexuality), then they remain in the closet so to speak. Yes it's not very nice for the individual, but have a look around at the world you live in and tell me what's better, looking after the individual, or looking after society?
Midnight1131
Posts: 1,643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2016 3:37:24 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/31/2016 12:24:37 PM, theworldhasgonemad wrote:
I'll go with stigma:
http://www.city-journal.org...

Didn't expect that as a response, lol.

But the article talks about non-conformity like it's a bad thing. It even says that the customs and morals of a society are safe if dissenters or anyone who doesn't subscribe to them is stigmatized, putting social pressure on them to change their views. This is all fine until you start to wonder which customs and morals are good? Was stigma against people opposed to oppressive rulers justified just because it defended the "customs and morals" of that society?

Even if you go down deeper into the article it talks about sexual immorality, children born out of wedlock, and people with a criminal record. While I do agree and disagree with the author on some of these issues, they're writing as if their ideas, or every traditional idea/custom of every society is the best way to go. And that people who try to change that should be shunned.

Social stigma, in the sense that the author is suggesting, really discourages the free sharing of ideas or any change at all.
#GaryJohnson2016
#TaxationisTheft
#TheftisTaxation
Midnight1131
Posts: 1,643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2016 3:40:57 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/5/2016 1:09:48 PM, theworldhasgonemad wrote:
Stigma creates a society where people don't want to do the wrong thing
It also creates a society where the wrong and right things are determined by society and the state. It doesn't really prevent "wrong things," only what that society thinks is wrong. There is stigma in Muslim majority countries of women that show any sense of independence. By your argument women being allowed to leave the house unaccompanied is "wrong" because the society dictates that's wrong. And social stigma is the reason that notion is taking so long to change.

Yes it's not very nice for the individual, but have a look around at the world you live in and tell me what's better, looking after the individual, or looking after society?
It's not really looking after the individual, more like letting the individual do what they want with their own life instead of letting everyone else dictate it for them.
#GaryJohnson2016
#TaxationisTheft
#TheftisTaxation
theworldhasgonemad
Posts: 633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2016 5:38:31 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
Yes it's not very nice for the individual, but have a look around at the world you live in and tell me what's better, looking after the individual, or looking after society?
It's not really looking after the individual, more like letting the individual do what they want with their own life instead of letting everyone else dictate it for them.

And that is exactly what the problem is. Everyone has a sense of entitlement.
Midnight1131
Posts: 1,643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2016 10:17:03 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/10/2016 5:38:31 AM, theworldhasgonemad wrote:
Yes it's not very nice for the individual, but have a look around at the world you live in and tell me what's better, looking after the individual, or looking after society?
It's not really looking after the individual, more like letting the individual do what they want with their own life instead of letting everyone else dictate it for them.

And that is exactly what the problem is. Everyone has a sense of entitlement.

Asking other people to not interfere with your personal life isn't what I'd call entitlement.
#GaryJohnson2016
#TaxationisTheft
#TheftisTaxation
Jovian
Posts: 1,719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2016 10:52:16 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/5/2016 1:01:34 PM, theworldhasgonemad wrote:
Because perverse means something along the lines of 'anything other than its original form or use'. Just refer to your Biology text book as to what sex organs the human body has. If you can find two sex organs that two men or two women can have sexual intercourse with, then please let me know. Otherwise, their sex is perverse.

I've countered the "against its original use" argument in a thread in the religion forum. Read it if you want http://www.debate.org...
Jovian
Posts: 1,719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2016 10:57:09 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/5/2016 1:09:48 PM, theworldhasgonemad wrote:
The article is suggesting that the more unusual behaviours we promote, the more unusual behaviours we will get. Without stigma, we become a shameless society, leading to more and more unacceptable behaviours with disastrous consequences, like not being able to walk down the street and feel safe.

Why would tolerating samegendered relationships lead to people taking freedoms to kill, assault and rape? Those things probably happens more in anti-homosexual countries.
theworldhasgonemad
Posts: 633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2016 11:30:41 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/10/2016 10:52:16 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 2/5/2016 1:01:34 PM, theworldhasgonemad wrote:
Because perverse means something along the lines of 'anything other than its original form or use'. Just refer to your Biology text book as to what sex organs the human body has. If you can find two sex organs that two men or two women can have sexual intercourse with, then please let me know. Otherwise, their sex is perverse.

I've countered the "against its original use" argument in a thread in the religion forum. Read it if you want http://www.debate.org...

LOL. What a great counter.

(by the way I was being sarcatstic)
theworldhasgonemad
Posts: 633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2016 11:32:12 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/10/2016 10:17:03 PM, Midnight1131 wrote:
At 2/10/2016 5:38:31 AM, theworldhasgonemad wrote:
Yes it's not very nice for the individual, but have a look around at the world you live in and tell me what's better, looking after the individual, or looking after society?
It's not really looking after the individual, more like letting the individual do what they want with their own life instead of letting everyone else dictate it for them.

And that is exactly what the problem is. Everyone has a sense of entitlement.

Asking other people to not interfere with your personal life isn't what I'd call entitlement.

But that's the thing isn't it, they don't want to keep it private.

It is very much a sense of entitlement.
theworldhasgonemad
Posts: 633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2016 11:33:30 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/10/2016 10:57:09 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 2/5/2016 1:09:48 PM, theworldhasgonemad wrote:
The article is suggesting that the more unusual behaviours we promote, the more unusual behaviours we will get. Without stigma, we become a shameless society, leading to more and more unacceptable behaviours with disastrous consequences, like not being able to walk down the street and feel safe.

Why would tolerating samegendered relationships lead to people taking freedoms to kill, assault and rape? Those things probably happens more in anti-homosexual countries.

Because people have no shame in what they do.

Yes it happens everywhere. Same sh*t, different smell.