The whole Mormon thing - prop 8 in CA

[Gold Winger 9]

My problem with the whole idea of homosexual marriage is that I have known zero monogamous male homosexuals. Even if they were in a "committed relationship," they'd still pick up some strange if they could.

[Lisabob 13]

Wow is that insulting GW. Maybe it says something about the social circles you are in.

[GaHillBilly 10]

Lisabob, one of the problems with modern intellectual discourse is that certain ideas cannot be voiced because they are politically incorrect (aka "insulting"). This approach eliminates the need to address the facts, since any facts found to be "insulting" can simply be ignored.

 

While I'm definitely not in GW's fan club, when he recounts his own personal observations of facts you may legitimately:

+ question whether his memory or observations were accurate. (Given some past statements by GW, a reasonable challenge.)

+ question whether his observations are representative, even if true. (I have no idea on this one, since I don't know what sort of contact he has with homosexuals.)

+ question whether he's telling the truth.

 

What is not legitimate, at least in terms of rational discourse, is to dismiss his observations, simply because they are "insulting". If they are true and correct, then they are facts to be reckoned with, whether you like them or not. If you think GW is incorrect, say so, and say why. If you think he's a liar, say THAT!

 

But if you do not think he's either mistaken or lying, then the problem lies with you. In that case, you are reacting like the parents my wife has to deal with, who when they are told their children have lice, refuse to listen to instructions about treatment, because they find the facts "insulting"!

 

Many, many facts relevant to education, science, politics, . . . even Scouting are ignored not because they are mistakes or lies, but because they are "insulting". Personally, I find THAT "insulting". Perhaps more to the point here is that such a reaction is not "trustworthy".

 

Regarding G-W's observation, I will add that my observations have been the same. I know of some very long term lesbian couples, but no young or middle-aged long term male homosexual couples. Some so-called 'couples' are actually communal living arrangements, but hardly a monogamous couple! I did know of an OLD 'long term' couple, but they only became a couple after they were old enough to be in poor health and 'floppy'! I also have knowledge of some statistics that suggest that these observations (mine & GW's) are representive of the homosexual community at large.

 

But this whole issue -- of setting aside certain kinds of statements as "too insulting to be true" makes my blood boil -- especially when I see it taking place in communities that claim to be "trustworthy", such as the evangelical churches I've been in, or among Scouts.

 

If you are trustworthy . . . facts are facts, and are to be dealt with, no matter how much you dislike them!

 

 

GaHillBilly

 

 

 

PS. If you really want to get into the issue of homosexuality, it's not hard, rationally.

 

In the US, there are, broadly speaking, two major moral frameworks which are operative.

 

The first is traditionalist, and based on orthodox Judeo-Christian principles, and rooted in an authoritative revealed text (either the Bible or the Torah). Under these principles, homosexuality is morally wrong, simply because God said so. Everything else is gloss.

 

The second is modern naturalistic rationalism, which recognizes no revelation, but accepts only discovery, preferably scientific discovery. Under these principles, morality is a artifact of the evolution of homo sapiens as a social animal. As such, once it has been self-consciously observed, morality has no more "moral force" than the 'practice' of breathing or eating, and it has MUCH less instinctual force. As self-preserving animals, we may choose to act according to social or legal norms, as a matter of self-protection. And, we may do so, out of habit, even when it's not protective. But we have far LESS obligation to be "moral" than we have to "breath" or "sleep".

 

Now, it might sound like I'm saying that, under modern naturalistic rationalism, homosexuality is not morally wrong. Well, under those terms it is not 'wrong', but it is non-functional and that IS my point. Homosexuality is generally non-productive in terms of preserving and protecting the species, and so a social grouping would be entirely prudent to reduce or eliminate the effects of such non-functional (genetically speaking!) members of the species. Outlawing them, or even exterminating them, is entirely reasonable, in terms of modern naturalistic or scientific rationalism!

 

 

The social confusion we are experiencing in America does not result because this is an intellectually 'hard' issue, or one that requires 'deep thought'. Rather, the confusion is entirely a result of people abandoning the first position, but not really thinking through what it means to reject it, and accept the second position. So, they float around in a fluffy intellectual la-la land, where facts can be "insulting" rather than correct or incorrect!

 

But, it is simply fact that, once you embrace modern naturalistic rationalism there is no more reason whatsoever to treat homosexuals with greater privilege than ants or bees do with their non-functional drones or workers!

 

Christianity is often thought of as the source of homosexual persecution. But, this is naive in the extreme, to the point of childishness. The FACTS -- no matter how offensive you find them -- that all (or almost all) of the political systems which explicitly embraced modern naturalistic rationalism (Communism AND Nazi fascism) BOTH treated homosexuality far more punitively than nominally Christian societies ever have! There is no reason whatever, to assume that once the US casts off (in a couple more generations) the vestiges of Judeo-Christian ethics -- which assign eternal value to the lives of even wicked men! -- that we will fail to restrict or eliminate homosexuals!

 

 

 

[Lisabob 13]

I'm not questioning GW's personal experience although, as I suggested, perhaps that points to a need for him to consider finding a different social circle to be part of, if (as he says) it is problematic for him.

 

On the other hand I guess I am suggesting that maybe it isn't a good idea to draw conclusions about a whole group of people based on one's personal, limited, probably biased, experience. That would be like me saying all scouters are bigoted jerks because I've met some who are.

 

That's not PC. PC would be to argue that one must accept homosexuals despite one's moral or religious views which might be to the contrary. I'm not arguing that at all. I'm recommending that we don't promote ridiculous stereotypes (all gay men are NOT promiscuous, yet that's the implication of what GW wrote).

 

If you find it problematic that I think GW's comments were insulting - and frankly, probably intended to be insulting, given the fact that he frequently uses provocative and hyperbolic language rather than engaging in thoughtful discourse - too bad. I stand behind what I said.(This message has been edited by lisabob)

[gwd-scouter 11]

Yes, of course, Packsaddle. Once again something I wrote that can be open to interpretation. [wish I knew how to add those winking smiley faces]

[captainron14 11]

Tell me something,

Why the outrage over the Mormon's support of Prop 8 and not a word about all the other churches and groups who did the same and more.

From what I can tell, the Mormon Church did nothing more than the Catholic Church and dozens of other Churches did.

So why the focus on the Mormons?

I saw a protest march at the Mormon temple in LA, but no march to a Catholic Cathedral there?

And then we have this thread "the whole Mormon thing...".

I think if you were to substitute "the Orthodox Jews" for "Mormons", you would have an outrage about being anti-Semite.

What gives?

[GaHillBilly 10]

Lisabob wrote,

"If you find it problematic that I think GW's comments were insulting - and frankly, probably intended to be insulting, given the fact that he frequently uses provocative and hyperbolic language rather than engaging in thoughtful discourse - too bad. I stand behind what I said."

 

You may stand behind it, but that says more about you than GW.

 

Granted, GW has often said provocative things . . . and I've been told by others, that he doesn't really mean it. I don't know that, since I don't really know him, or you. I only know what he wrote.

 

And there's the problem: what he wrote is a statement of his OBSERVATIONS; the things he has SEEN or KNOWN OF. Now observations may be bogus, they maybe misinterpreted, reports of observations may even be lies. But, by their very nature, they are not "insulting" . . . unless you KNOW that he was deliberately lying or distorting, simply to provoke or insult.

 

I don't know that, and I suspect you don't either.

 

Let me say again, more generally: written statements describing a person's OBSERVATIONS are, by their very nature, incapable of being "insulting". To insult requires, at a minimum, some sort of intention. This is made clear by the common phrase, "unintentionally insulting". This phrase exists precisely because, in the normal case, an insult IS intentional. Consequently, when we refer to the case where someone delivers an 'accidental' insult, perhaps because they are not speaking their native language and use a word with a meaning they do not intend . . . we feel obligated to explain how insult could have been taken, when it was not intended!

 

Before you can legitimately claim that GW's statements were insulting, you have to know much more about them then is visible here, or then you have claimed.

 

Again, this is statement about logic, language and linguistics, more than it is about homosexuals or GW. The problem is, you used a speech form that is irrational, but which has become accepted in left-leaning intellectual circles as a snooty and condescending way of opting out of arguments!

 

It's a style of anti-intellectual dismissal I'm very familiar with, having grown up in the Bible Belt, though the form it takes in right wing religious circles is rather different.

 

Either way -- left or right wing -- that sort of dismissal is dishonest and untrustworthy. It assumes a position of superiority which you have not earned by rational argument but rather by your position from within the 'accepted circle'. From this high stance, you then condescend to speak to the one who has putatively 'insulted' you. I've watched this sort of thing take place dozens of times, in a different style, among evangelicals as they address those who disagree with them. Currently, my older son experiences this same sort of anti-rational dismissal in his college classes, taught by a variety of proselytizing atheists, agnostics and Wiccans!

 

And if may I say it, it is your posture which is actually and truly rather INSULTING in its dismissal of the original speaker!

 

GaHillBilly

[packsaddle 753]

If they're insulting to her then they're insulting. Turgid expositions notwithstanding, she's entitled to feel whatever she feels as well. I'm sure GW's skin is thick enough to take it. Assuming he hasn't shed it recently, tee hee.

[Gold Winger 9]

"+ question whether his memory or observations were accurate. (Given some past statements by GW, a reasonable challenge.)"

 

Hmmmm . . . so you're call me both senile and blind? Sheesh!

 

As for the insults, you can only be insulted by something if it applies to you. For example, I don't find Italian jokes insulting because I'm not Italian. I may thing that they are insulting to Italians but I can't be insulted by them.

 

Maybe Lisabob knows a better class of homosexual than HillBilly and I do. Most of the homosexuals that I've known were well educated professionals. Nice people, good hosts, generous but not monogamous.

[GaHillBilly 10]

"If they're insulting to her then they're insulting."

 

Packsaddle, you need to pay attention to what Lisabob actually said, which was that the "remarks" were "insulting", not that SHE was insulted! Your response would have been relevant if she'd said, "I was insulted by . . .", but that's not what she said.

 

Instead, she deployed the nowadays standard leftist ploy of claiming that an argument is too "insulting" (or "red state" or "uneducated" or "right wing" or "fundamentalist" or even "ridiculous), thus relieving herself of the obligation to respond to G-W's claimed statement of fact.

 

This sort of response is fundamentally dishonest and irrational.

 

GaHillBilly

[NJCubScouter 1389]

What I think is that GW and GaHillBilly need to hang out with a better -- or at least a more representative -- class of gay people. And by the way, there are monogamous and non-monogamous "straight" people as well. Maybe the percentage breakdown isn't the same, but there are no "zeros" in any category.

[Lisabob 13]

He he, pack I apologize for "turgid expositions"...

 

GA, I won't apologize for my meaning though. You need not agree and it is clear you do not. That's your right. Mine is to say what I think too. You'll note I didn't say that GW cannot say those types of things - I am not generally a fan of censorship as I believe that people are quite capable of judging for themselves who they wish to spend time with and who they wish to avoid. But that doesn't mean I can't say what I think about his remarks, either.

 

If you find that "dishonest and irrational" or "anti-intellectual" then that's unfortunate. I disagree, but frankly, debating PC is not how I intend to use my Sunday morning and I don't feel a need to prove my intellectual bona fides on a scouting discussion board. So, I wish you a good day.

[Gold Winger 9]

HillBilly, you been dissed by an intellectual. I wouldn't worry about it too much, academics and intellectuals are like the lillies of the field, they toil not and neither do they reap.

[packsaddle 753]

OK, case in point. I'm still curious as to why Gold Winger's reply just now has a different thread title from this thread. It seems to happen consistently. And I haven't noticed it for other posters.

[evmori 11]

What's the problem with Prop 8?