It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Gay Rights Fanaticism

page: 2
8
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


Christianity´s unhealthy view of homosexuality comes from Judaism. When we think back when Judaism was small religion among others and they tried to populate the country. How the laws were formed in Judaism.
As they did not have the knowledge of eggs or ovulation, the common belief was that men´s semen contained the whole child and woman was a incubating space where baby grows. To them every semen which was wasted was same as murdering a child and a member of their religious family.

Now we know better but are still chained in old beliefs by the church.




posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 





But being called out as intolerent for having an intolerent view isn't really that suprising is it?


You realize the same thing can be thrown back at you. You are 'intolerant' of my view.




But the government doesn't have the right to discriminate aganist once citizen vs another


And I did mention that. My problem isn't with their right (although, philosophically I oppose; politically, I concede) to marriage, but rather the use of the media, sports leagues, etc to enforce the views of one perspective as the 'moral' one.

Do you know what it means to be a liberal? Liberal doesn't just mean "I tolerate gays etc", but means, I tolerate all views, even those which contradict my own.

There's a tacit relativism in that perspective, insomuch as its taken as a 'fact' of reality that people tend to see things differently.

I can recognize - though I certainly do not accept - this metaphysical proclivity towards total moral relativity, which implies, usually (and the hippie generation is chiefly responsible for introducing this element) a belief that this dimension of reality is not real, but illusory.



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 

Yes, there's a word like "heterosexist" in many dictionaries: en.wikipedia.org...

Why should it be anyone else's business who is yin or yang in a relationship between people (and I quoted this from a published book, with details, so if you find it irrational don't blame accepted religious studies on me).
The fact is that gender is a construct and a performance that can vary according to circumstance.
So pride parades are gross (yuck, the whistles and the "inappropriate" groping), but yet people want to stick their curiosity into the lives and relationships of others?

Why single out gay parades?
Do Americans no longer grope at Spring Break? Has MTV shut down? Do Paris Hilton and the Kardashians no longer bump and grind?

And then the whole HPV, Herpes mention - these viruses are very common.
The tragedy is all the women who get cervical cancer from straight men via HPV.

But the worst is the ignorance on HIV and AIDS.
With attitudes like that it's no wonder it's increasing in the US, while it's decreased in other developed nations.


The vast majority of new HIV infections worldwide - 92.5 percent - were heterosexually contracted. Of these, 78.6 percent were infected in the developing world, most in Southern and Eastern Africa.

HIV/AIDS: A very short introduction. Alan Whiteside, Oxford University Press, 2008. P. 14.

I don't think one needs to look down on any body else if monogamy for life between a male and a female is all you want to preach.

I'm not sure where all these strange "facts" are suddenly coming from.

Where does the sudden statement come from that monogamy between a man and woman is best, because it sure hasn't worked for a lot of heterosexuals?
I'd like to encourage monogamy for gay couples too as an ideal, but why only for a man and a woman?

What is this concept based on?

In SA we have a polygamist President, and people regard that as moral and traditional.
www.telegraph.co.uk...



edit on 17-10-2012 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 02:46 PM
link   


Isn't your argument a bit frivolous as you have stated the other side's is?


The converse of gay right fanaticism is fundamentalist campaigning against gay rights. Have I even suggested that I supported that? No, as I've made clear.

Government should be NEUTRAL in regards to this question; they should protect their right - but not succumb to pandering to that perspective, as they've been doing.

Now, the issue becomes even more complicated when sports leagues, major media, etc, begin promoting this view as the only 'moral' one. Especially when this view doesn't need any more support then it already has; or that the supporters of this view, are hardly 'suffering' by being denied the social and moral support for their life choice.




There's no actual logical reason to oppose gay marriage other than as you stated an intellecual, personal and emotional reason.


lol. My intellectual, or metaphysical perspective is likewise 'opposed' by your own metaphysical perspective. My personal life experiences are likewise 'opposed' by your personal life experiences. And If my dislike of homosexual marriage is 'emotional' so is your 'liking' homosexual marriage 'emotional'. We are balanced on both sides.

Emotions tend to condition our personal stance, and if we ever develop intellectually, our intellectual perspectives as well.




But don't hide behind the morality of the family unit, which has long been defunct and then claim your argument is intellectually tied to metaphysics is intellectually dishonest.


It really isn't.

There seems to be a connection between a societies metaphysics, and how it's members think and feel.

For instance, if the society in question harbors a definitive universalist perspective, this perspective derives from the metaphysical notion of the universal, or collective, over the particular.

There are three different fronts in which the 'universal' or moral relativistic perspective is imposing itself on contemporary society:

Gay Rights Fanaticism
Increased vulgarity in major media
And an attack on the concept of the nation-state.

I've already mentioned the first. The second, is amply demonstrated in the new season of Family Guy, American Dad, and Cleveland Show - Seth Mcfarlenes brain children. If you've watched this season, there has been a DRAMATIC and very obvious increase in total nihilism. It's almost hard to believe sometimes what were seeing on TV these days. It's an all out onslaught on objective morals. EVERYTHING is attacked. There is no thing (aside from gay rights, of course) outside his purview. This is the elimination of a 'particular' objective and enduring value. What's it replaced by? A moral relativism that isolates each situation by itself; the holocaust was bad. But making fun of the holocaust is something totally unrelated to the facticity of the holocaust. It's a separate context: it's to make jokes, to laugh, to enjoy ourselves, and in such a context, in the words of south parks trey parker "its either all OK, or nothings ok". Everything is subject to the rules of universalist morality, which see's everything in terms of a radical 'context'.

This is, you could say, the imposition of the undifferentiated Godhead, or void, in metaphysical parlance, upon the world. Nothing is 'fixed' as a particular value. Only one universal value reigns "freedom", which paradoxically means, freedom from morals which are supposed to promote existential freedom.

Next, you have the nation state. I wont go into it, but Europes intelligentsia, and more and more american intellectuals believe the 'nationality' idea has run it's course. It's now time to 'universalize' human identity. This is most explicit in the stance Europe and leftist intellectuals have taken towards Israel.

Eventually, the family unit will not be safe from this universalist agenda. It too will be subject to scrutiny.

Don't think Noam Chomsky's libertarian socialism, what he confidently refers to as the 'government of the future', is a pipe dream. His libertarian socialism is the fructification of the universalism in human society; free love eliminates marriage, and so the traditional family construct.
edit on 17-10-2012 by dontreally because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by dollukka
 





Christianity´s unhealthy view of homosexuality comes from Judaism.


You misread what I wrote. I said Christianities attitude towards SEXUALITY - not homosexuality - is unhealthy.

Judaism's perspective, conversely, is pretty straightforward. The Hebrews looked at nature and saw a male-female dynamic as part of natural law - of what the Creator intended for mankind to follow by basing it's society upon it.

One of the practical, straight forward laws was proscribing sex between members of the same gender. They saw it as leading to other aberrations.

The Hebrews, in short, deduced that there is a fundamental organic sympathy between the order present in the outer, external world, and human society. If a society shirks the natural laws in the outer order, it's society is on the path to its eventual disintegration.

Chaos, leads to chaos. Order, to order.




To them every semen which was wasted was same as murdering a child and a member of their religious family.


That's only one of many biblical ideas.

In any case, masturbation in itself is not a generally healthy practice. It's good for tension release, but at the same time, it contributes to future difficulties in connecting with another person on a truly spiritual level.

Hence, there's a 'trade off'; you stunt yourself by objectifying the object of your fantasy when you masturbate, but at the same time, it has an immediate benefit of restoring 'homeostasis'.

Many psychologists frown upon how masturbation has been promoted to the degree that it has been, contributing to the highly devalued state of marriage and love in society.
edit on 17-10-2012 by dontreally because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by halfoldman
 





(and I quoted this from a published book, with details, so if you find it irrational don't blame accepted religious studies on me).


I mean it is far less forward then my claim.




The fact is that gender is a construct


So my having a penis, and male organs, is a "construct"?? A construct of nature, I agree. A human construct. No.




Do Americans no longer grope at Spring Break? Has MTV shut down? Do Paris Hilton and the Kardashians no longer bump and grind?


No, I see all these things as problematical. But on can't help seeing homosexuality as concomitant to the overall problem.




Where does the sudden statement come from that monogamy between a man and woman is best, because it sure hasn't worked for a lot heterosexuals?


As said, the so-called "sexual revolution", has been more of a sexual devolution. We went from complete restriction and suppression, under Christian puritanism, to a state of superficial debauchery in the modern secular era, and hence, the disastrous state of marriage.

It's as if this society can't understand the idea of a "mean".

Sex is good, but it should be understood as a means towards an end: towards love. Sex therefore is most respected when it is seen as a physical expression of spiritual love, between people - and not types. Sex which seeks to 'use' another person, is the farthest thing imaginable from inculcating love; instead, it fosters infatuation with 'types' - good looking girls, blondes, redheads, big breasts, small breasts, etc, each example of a 'type' can be replaced by another example of a type. It is not love between people i.e. with personalities, but simple depraved physical sexuality which emphasizes the release of tension upon another object, rather than as the expression of something more meaningful.

But, I suppose my view is also too 'puritan' for your liking, since gays in speedos walking through public streets blowing whistles and touching each other in lascivious ways, is not 'bad'.

It's strange.




I'd like to encourage monogamy for gay couples too as an ideal, but why only for a man and a woman? What is this concept based on


First, as to what its based on: natural law. The obvious fact that nature prefers a complementarity between male and female. The aberrations people point out in nature, where animals engage in homosexuality, doesn't apply to a creature - man - invested with the power of conceptualization, which means, the power to look, recognize, and RESPOND.

Animals cannot change their original condition. Man can. Both are 'natural'.
edit on 17-10-2012 by dontreally because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 

No, what sex you are and the biological body is mostly male or female.
Gender on the other hand is a cultural construct.
Notions of masculinity and femininity change over time, for example.

I don't have a problem with any men marching with speedos and whistles.
I'm not quite sure what kind of touching is inferred, but I have a whole thread with the world's best Pride Parades, and up to now I haven't seen anything grossly objectionable.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
But hey, if I want to see men touching in all kinds of places I'll just watch some rugby or football.

You keep mentioning "nature".
According to nature a good model of a heterosexual male will impregnate many women, and not just one.

But that's pretty much what happened when one race had power over female slaves, or in the colonies concubinage was so widespread that entire new subgroups originated.
The poor colonizing woman had to pretend to know nothing, and the poor colonized woman was abused and raped.

The golden age of heterosexuality?
No, more like the golden age of patriarchy.

Nobody owns the family unit.
To me allowing gays to marry extends the family unit.




edit on 17-10-2012 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by halfoldman
 





Gender on the other hand is a cultural construct.


I don't understand. How is 'gender' different from sex?




Notions of masculinity and femininity change over time, for example.


There are eternals in masculinity and femininity; for example: men are taller, on average, while women are shorter, on average. Men are stronger, on average, woman are weaker, on average; men tend to be more abstract oriented, and so less emotional, while women tend to be emotional (this being an effect of the menstrual cycle). These 'eternal' qualities have much to say about the idea of male and female.

For instance, we could never flip it around, and say woman are stronger; nor could we make consonant the idea of strength with passivity, or weakness with activity - hence the traditional metaphysical dictum of: masculine = activity, feminine = passivity. What is weaker, is passive, necessarily so; conversely, what is stronger is active.




I don't have a problem with any men marching with speedos and whistles.


You have a demented way of looking at things. Such images are not good for healthy emotional and sexual development.

It seems to me that any 'constraint' to you just hits you in the wrong way. This seems to be the malaise of our modern era.

Thank God, I have the freedom and mental maturity to free myself from the strain of popular opinion.




I'm not quite sure what kind of touching is inferred, but I have a whole thread with the world's best Pride Parades, and up to now I haven't seen anything grossly objectionable.


One of the largest gay pride parades in the world is in Toronto's Church & Jarvis. I've seen it a few times, and each time I am perturbed by the sheer decadence of it.

I gotta say, I am very much impressed with gay people who have the integrity to admit that such parades do not do service to their interests.



But hey, if I want to see men touching in all kinds of places I'll just watch some rugby or football.


That is another reductionism. You like to engage in that practice, don't you?

What is the purpose of rugby or football? It's a game, it's sport, It's competition. Absent from the 'touching in all kinds of places' are lewd thoughts which derive some sexual enjoyment from the touching.

In any case, I doubt I will get past your hedonist prejudices.



You keep mentioning "nature". According to nature a good model of a heterosexual male will impregnate many women, and not just one.


Can you not differentiate the concept of a general principle - male and female complementarity - from the irrational residue you just pointed out??

Humans are naturally different from animals. What matters to us is not how they 'impregnate' many different females. What matters is the complementarity that animates their relationship. What's of great emphasis then, is complementarity in terms of relationship.

Thus, we 'extract' generalized abstract notions from natures dynamics, and not particular idiosyncrasies that may appears amongst various species.




"Both read the Bible day and night but you read black where I read white!" - William Blake.


Lets just leave our conversation at that.

Where I see white, you see black, and vice verca.



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 

For more on gender as a cultural construct (as distinct from biological sex) see: www.trinity.edu...

I'm a gay man speaking from my vantage point, and I've been celibate for a long time.
I was never attracted to female bodies, and in my youth homosexuality was still illegal in SA.

I'm also living with HIV, but so are 5.7 million people in SA (and the rates go up daily), and most of them are heterosexual.

While women are disproportionately affected (60 percent), gender roles have much to do with the virus.
Men think it's manly to sleep around from a young age, and that using a condom is somehow uncool.
Some women need money for food or luxuries, or someone to pay for their studies.
So they will have transactional sex with older men.

The warrior and mining culture makes men stoically uncaring of the future, because they feel their lives are short anyway.

So notions of gender can have good and bad effects.

Empowering women can be very good, but if it leaves the men unemployed and feeling powerless in their traditional gender roles as breadwinners, it can cause bitterness and violence.

It sounds like you are a man who will respect a complementary female partner.
In that sense I think what you are saying about monogamous relationships is good.

But I think the gay minority can also benefit from monogamy to make a healthier society for all.

Ultimately I think that a world-view can be personal, but the actions are what matters.
I can celebrate my sexuality just like anybody else, but that doesn't make me a bad person.

You know, one can get preachers who say all the right things, and then come the scandals.

That's not how I operate.

You might see my acceptance of people letting their hair down as a lack of restraint.
But I'd think in my context a lot of people would also see that as trivial on your part, or even cult-like.

PS. Just a question, but why would you watch a gay parade a "few times" if you find it so offensive?

Anyway, if you're done for the evening that's also fine.

I enjoyed the exchange very much, and all the best.

edit on 17-10-2012 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by dontreally
I find that were living in an age where free speech and free opinion is being challenged with regard to 'what your views' are on homosexuals getting married. Suffice to say, the level of concern this society devotes to whether gays can get wedded is bizarre, and almost monomaniacal.

Don't get me wrong. I am FOR any ones right to do what they want in their free time. If gays want to get married, I don't see how the state can interfere without implicitly challenging a basic fundamental right of citizenship. What worries, and disturbs me, however, is the fanaticism with gay marriage. That somehow, there is emerging only 'one' right way to look at it, and this way is increasingly infecting all people left, right and center.

It's fully ok, to use a TV show, such as every other TV show on TV (modern family and the new sitcom, 'couples' sticks out) but if anyone were to express some personal view - which, of course, might be short on the details, say, the person has a metaphysical philosophy which sees homosexuality as aberration of natural law, and, because human beings possess the unique capacity to perceive instances of natural law, they are morally obligated by that knowledge to act accordingly, this person is somehow 'immoral'.

This philosophical perception is perfectly valid, and fully understandable, and yet, I feel like increasingly people look upon this assessment as somehow 'not right'. Why? Because society is inundating us with one general perception? Because collective conditioning makes free thought to constrained to really be free??

Underlying societies attitudes towards homosexuality is a metaphysical 'gnosticism' which abrogates all traditional metaphysical systems which respects, and seeks to imitate fundamental dynamics seen in nature. However, Since science has proven so successful, our social thinkers are applying their 'scientific method' to philosophy, which, is a sort of Promethean flight from all respect for traditional metaphysical insights, which may have enduring validity.

In any case, this is a social issue so I'll stick to the social implications of this prejudice. It is justified - INTELLECTUALLY - for someone, such as myself, for example, to find something awry in a society which advocates and pushes to the degree that this society is pushing it, for the full integration of gays into society as 'equals' in the partnership of marriage.

I'm here to point out that the other perspective is not "based" in "bigotry". Such a notion is blatant lie. True, most people who oppose gay marriage don't know how to properly phrase their opposition, so they come off looking stupid. But for the student of philosophy, what I bring up about metaphysical principles that underlie universal relations - a yin and a yang, a male and a female dynamic - it is FARR from absurd to look at this and see in it a superior wisdom, which, may be advisable for human beings to imitate, not only because it seems to be an underlying order, but because a departure from such an order might lead to the eventual stagnation and eventual disintegration of values which western society has held dear for thousands of years.

Gay marriage seems to me to be a natural corollary to an attack on traditional family constructs, i.e. a husband, wife, and children. I see a society which abandons the idea of attributing importance to particular differences i.e in sex, will in due time go fully in the direction of Plato's republic, or more probably, Huxleys Brave New World, and abandon ideas like family "units", which could be interpreted as "bigoted" and a type of discrimination between oneself and ones own, and other people.

In short, this fanaticism - and it is complete and total fanaticism to be as hung up as people are about, amidst a failing economy, the possibility of a serious war in Iran, etc - for this to be one of the single biggest concerns in our modern era. And it serves to undermine true liberty, which is a persons right to oppose something he has not only a basic right to oppose, but intellectual justification as well (if its worded in a philosophical manner, as I just did; but most people who oppose gay marriage tacitly recognize a principle of an ideal male-female complementarity).

Is there place for those who oppose a gays right to marriage, without being vilified and treated as the most immoral creature to ever walk the earth? Can someone not still 'like gays' as individuals, but disapprove of their lifestyle choice, without being all around condemned as unworthy?
edit on 17-10-2012 by dontreally because: (no reason given)


where was this fanaticism during the debates? Was it brought up even once? There is no place for obstruction of others rights, if it does not conflict with your available rights.

Its a civil rights issue.



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 06:55 PM
link   
The first two and last paragraph were enough to get your point across. What's with all the superflous aggregation of frat boy terminologic nomenclature? Sorry, couldn't help myself.



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 07:23 PM
link   
The thing that has always puzzled me about the extremist opposition to gays getting married is the reasoning for it. They say "being gay is wrong because they run from one partner to another and sleep around so much" then they turn around and say "they aren't allowed to be married, that's only for us heterosexuals". Ok, so you don't want them sleeping around, changing partners all the time, and you also don't want them making a monogamous commitment to one person. I just don't get it. There's no way they can win under those conditions.

They say "but it's not natural", yet we see it in all areas of nature. The number of animal species that display homosexual behavior is continually growing as people are paying more attention to it. If it isn't natural, then why would animals be doing it in nature?

Then they say "well, it's a choice", no, it isn't. They no more wake up one day and decide to love other men than I woke up one day and said "hmmm, I think I'll be attracted to women". That's not how it works. It's not a choice, it's who they are. It's inborn. They are attracted to other men. Did you make a choice to be heterosexual? If so, that means you must have had some latent gay tendencies doesn't it? I mean, if you made a choice, there had to be something to choose from. That isn't the case is it? It's not the case with them either.

When we take away all the other possibilities, the only thing left must be the answer. Just ask Sherlock Holmes. When all possible reasons for opposition are taken away, the only thing left is homophobia and hatred. Since those are the only things left, then they must be the reason for the opposition. There really aren't any other answers.

Saying that opposition is a perfectly acceptable stance is the same thing as saying support of African American slavery is acceptable. That was based on hatred and a feeling of superiority. People enslaved other human beings, it was wrong, there were no real justifications for it other than hatred, superiority and greed. The opposition to gay marriage is the same, it's due to negative stances on basic issues. There is no rightful justification for it.

The extreme right goes on and on about how the state shouldn't interfere in their lives, yet they want the state to interfere in the lives of others and prevent gays from being able to marry. They want the state to step in when it benefits them and step out when it doesn't benefit them. It's hypocrisy at it's best and there's just no excuse for it.



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


You have to understand the level at which homosexuals infiltrated society, and how close nit they are/ helping other homosexuals advance beyond their own ability because they are gay.

Look at all the homosexuals in the media and entertainment industries. They are over represented, and it isn't earned as the gay controlled msm is floundering as more heteroesexouals tune out. They are faking that gay rights is human rights in the hopes that people will be stupid enough to believe them. Look at what homosexual friendly outlets are trying to say now about pedophia, that it is a sexual orientation. It is no different then when homosexual teachers in the UK tried to advance Greek "boy love" in the 1800's(something which was used as a justification for female teachers).



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by dontreally

I'm here to point out that the other perspective is not "based" in "bigotry". Such a notion is blatant lie. True, most people who oppose gay marriage don't know how to properly phrase their opposition, so they come off looking stupid. But for the student of philosophy, what I bring up about metaphysical principles that underlie universal relations - a yin and a yang, a male and a female dynamic - it is FARR from absurd to look at this and see in it a superior wisdom, which, may be advisable for human beings to imitate, not only because it seems to be an underlying order, but because a departure from such an order might lead to the eventual stagnation and eventual disintegration of values which western society has held dear for thousands of years.

Gay marriage seems to me to be a natural corollary to an attack on traditional family constructs, i.e. a husband, wife, and children. I see a society which abandons the idea of attributing importance to particular differences i.e in sex, will in due time go fully in the direction of Plato's republic, or more probably, Huxleys Brave New World, and abandon ideas like family "units", which could be interpreted as "bigoted" and a type of discrimination between oneself and ones own, and other people.


You began well, but then you stated the above. This is where you lose me. This call to tradition and some unspecified "superior wisdom... underlying order" based argument.

In retort I could use the same rhetoric to argue that computers, cars, blue jeans, the rights of a woman to vote, Slurpees, and tennis shoes are all equally as applicable to "a departure from such an order might lead to the eventual stagnation and eventual disintegration of values which western society has held dear for thousands of years." as is the subject of gay marriage.

It's an elaborate and emotionally compelling premise, but it falls short of making a cogent argument.

~Heff
edit on 10/17/12 by Hefficide because: clarity



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 11:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 





This call to tradition and some unspecified "superior wisdom... underlying order" based argument.


So the idea of male-female complementarity as a metaphysical basis of universal order, is akin to deriving meaning from "computers, cars, blue jeans, the rights of a woman to vote, Slurpees, and tennis shoes" ?

edit on 17-10-2012 by dontreally because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 11:12 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


In specific it is the supposition that the male female dynamic is requisite for anything other than procreation and that marriage is a social contrivance and really only exists as a contract. Giving it power by an appeal to tradition is no more valid than it is for me to say that the Internet is evil - as it could be construed as:


an attack on traditional family constructs, i.e. a husband, wife, and children. I see a society which abandons the idea of attributing importance to particular differences i.e in sex, will in due time go fully in the direction of Plato's republic, or more probably, Huxleys Brave New World, and abandon ideas like family "units", which could be interpreted as "bigoted" and a type of discrimination between oneself and ones own, and other people.

From your OP

I believe that, currently, it would be much easier to find an "Internet" related divorce than any due to gay marriage.

Additionally, this notion of "family 'units'", in the traditional sense, is a fairly modern development. Until the industrial age family "units" were probably more appropriately referred to as "households" and more often than not would include extended family, servants, slaves, etc.

All in all, Plato was a brilliant thinker, beyond doubt. But I believe he had a bit of the social anxiety in him. When it comes to sociology? Plato falls short.

~Heff
edit on 10/17/12 by Hefficide because: bb tag nightmare



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by NoJoker13
reply to post by dontreally
 


The problem is that in 2012 we shouldn't be still discussing equality. That's the problem here and this country needs to have equality for all, that's what our forefathers wanted, that's why they came here, that's why they had a separation of church and state included in the constitution.


Homosexuals have equality in our societies. People make it sound as thought they have been treated like Afrcian American slaves. Maybe they should just stop whining like little girls and get on with things, marriage or no marriage.



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 11:25 PM
link   
good thread, thank you.

Been reading all of it and appreciate all responses. S+F



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 11:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 





In specific it is the supposition that the male female dynamic is requisite for anything other than procreation and that marriage is a social contrivance and really only exists as a contract.


Ok, back up.

You're already working from your own suppositions.

My point is, there is nothing illogical in perceiving a principle of complementarity between male and female. It is in fact a natural human instinct to abstract from nature to discover deeper meaning in the fabric of reality.

Who's to say this is any less justified from the skeptic approach which see's the world and assumes nothing? The scientific method - although it has served us very well - can really make no claim towards handling an issue like existence, which has the uncanny property of preceding all questions of existence, and so, should be approached from a different angle.

The different 'angle' is the objective presence of nature. Not only can we learn through understanding cause and effect, but more essentially, and more 'mystically', we should also take into regard the presence of fundamental metaphysical dynamics in natures processes. Here, we note the dualistic structure of existence; and we see the male-female relationship as primordial principles present in every interaction. All relationship - and this is an important aspect of Hebrew thinking (since the Judeo-Christian ethic derives from the Hebrew Scripture) is built of these two properties.

There is an intellectual justification for thinking differently, and so for seeing the male-female union as being ideal, because it is based upon a standard alluded to in nature.



Additionally, this notion of "family 'units'", in the traditional sense, is a fairly modern development.


By family units I mean the ideal of Husband, Wife, and Children.

Of course, I'm not talking about the ancient roman world, but rather, how the family construct has evolved over the last 2 millenia. From the middle ages onwards, we have a pretty consistent growth towards full monogamy amongst Christians and Jews, both of which prohibited the practice of polygamy.

In short, there is something very natural about the idea of one woman falling in love with one man, and then having kids. This is a 'unit', which is a natural ideal.



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by dontreally

In short, there is something very natural about the idea of one woman falling in love with one man, and then having kids. This is a 'unit', which is a natural ideal.


It may be a romanticized ideal. It may be a modern, religious ideal. But it is not a natural ideal at all. In fact it is contrary to nature.. It's even not in keeping with Judaism, as the Pentateuch - or Old Testament, is rife with non-traditional mating, including concubines, incest, polygamy, etc.

If religion were cast totally aside, and the world were to suddenly go back to a non industrial state, through some sort of disaster... the natural state would not be to pair off, male and female, and to go forth to spawn. People would gather in small to moderate groups and who was being intimate with who would be the least of their concerns.

This notion of family is acceptable to me. But it is not a natural state at all. In fact any religious authority will happily tell you that marriages only work if both parties are strong enough to shake away their natural urges.

Applying this as a means of arguing against gay marriage simply doesn't make sense to me I guess.

~Heff



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join