The fun of frustrated homophobes.

[General Ludd]

What a surprise to find that in a thread about frustrated homophobes, 1/4 of the posts are made by Ben Kenobi.

[germanos]

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Mostly lust, sloth and pride.

Those are sins? I thought that was just the basis of a good weekend.

[Provost Harrison]

No, you need gluttony too

[Mercator]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I have seen this claim made by many people here. Why shy away from this now?

I haven't. As far as I can remember, most gays here disagree with the term "gay lifestyle" for one. I don't think I've heard anyone say they define their being by their sexuality.

But I'm not denying that someone's sexuality is a fundamental part of who someone is. The fact that you love your girlfriend (or Jesus for that matter) is part of what makes you who you are now.

How are they discriminated against?

By people denying homosexuals the right to marry the person they love (or even a civil union for that matter, if you think marriage is one step too far)? By denying them the right to adopt? By being beaten up by homophobes? By trying to convert them to become heterosexual? By questioning the very sincerity of their love, which is to deny part of who they are?

In affirming the differences, you open the door to discrimination.

Why? Since when is it the victim's fault that they are discriminated? Are you saying blacks should not be proud of being black, because they might be discriminated if they do? Should you not be proud for being a Christian? Should Americans not be proud to be American?

Yes, and is this why Dr. King saw colour as meaningless?

I doubt he ever said that. He said this, though:

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.

The color of someone's skin isn't meaningless at all. It's part of what makes you who you are. But it's completely irrelevant to whether you should get a job or not. Whether you should sit in the back of the bus or not. Whether you can get married or not.

The same goes for sexuality.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


This is the second time, this argument has been brought against me.

Again, to say that this is innate, presupposes that it is part of your essence. Part, not the whole.

Then we agree -- something that is innate, is not your entire identity.

[Ben Kenobi]

Those are sins? I thought that was just the basis of a good weekend.

3 of the deadly ones. I could go on, if you really want to.

[Ben Kenobi]

Then we agree -- something that is innate, is not your entire identity.

Agreed, but I am saying that this is not something that is innate at all.

[Ben Kenobi]

What a surprise to find that in a thread about frustrated homophobes, 1/4 of the posts are made by Ben Kenobi.

[Ben Kenobi]

There are some gays out there who are not ashamed of their sexual orientation, and are happy being gay, but they still mistakenly believe it is a choice.

Maybe they are right, and you are wrong. Ever think of that?

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben gets erections when he fantasizes about Ann Coulter and Mariah Carey in hot leather strap-on lesbian action. He's more different from you than I am.

What's a strap on?

[Ben Kenobi]

They are. In the history of the Xtian religion these things have waxed and waned. The sex rules have a hell of a lot more to do with later puritanism than with anything that came out of JCs mouth.

I don't know. Paul comes pretty early into the Christian church.

I'm not a Puritan, Aggie, for wanting to wait until marriage. I know it's what is best for me, and I felt this way before I became a Christian.

[Ben Kenobi]

Yes I can. Ever heard of markers?

I've dyed my hair myself. I used to love red hair, and it looks good on me.

Doesn't change who I am, to change the colour of my hair. The same is with your sexuality. It may change, but who you are does not.

[Ben Kenobi]

No no, you don't get off that easily, supposing they can change, what does that mean for your argument?

It means that one can separate the acts from the actor.

But is it not you're implication? It seems ludicrous to go to this trouble to make a (flawed but we've covered that) point unless that entirely different question is answered accordingly. Would you care to elaborate on that question?

What does it have to do with the point at hand? The question of whether these desires are chosen or not, has no bearing on whether these actions in themselves are right or wrong.

You have to throw in other presuppositions to come to this conclusion. One of them being, what one believes about human nature. Will our natural impulses be for good or for evil?

I think it's ludicrous to claim that knowledge of homosexuality, just as the dynamic of any relationship, is harmful for children.

Where have I said that? You are coming from out of left field.

If you want a society where homosexuality is legal and tolerated as non-deconstructive and legal behaviour, and then give children no information about it, there is a contradiction there.

No, there is not. Baby making is perfectly legal, but do we give kindergarteners demonstrations on the most effective and pleasureable techniques?

With regards to sex, yes that should be kept away from young children, as should be heterosexual sex, which is why gay literature is not erotic gay literature. See the difference there?

Why should we keep knowledge of sex away from children?

Because there is a necessary difference between sleeping with a man or any consenting adult, and sleeping with someone who does not, or cannot consent.

Granted. But distinctions do not necessarily justify different treatment of each. Why do we believe that sex should only be with consenting adults?

It is not part of a gay persons nature to be gay?

Precisely.

But what do you define as essence in this context and what makes it necessarily the case that it is not a subjective and descriptive (thus emotive) statement?

I have defined essence earlier. Essence is that which cannot change without changing the identity of the person in question. There are those who have changed their preferences, ergo, preferences are not part of the essence.

Because people do not agree with your statement,

People disagree on many things. That does not mean there is no truth.

BK, you speak of "part of you" and the essence (and really any barely-competent existentialist will have you by the balls on that one ) but what gives you the ability to make a necessary claim over, what looks to me as your own value judgement (fact-value distinction, where the facts (premises) seem to be based upon your own position.

I have cited my premisses earlier.

1. Essence is that which cannot be changed of a person, without changing their identity as well.

2. People have changed their sexual preferences.

3. Of the people who changed their preferences, all retained their identity.

C: Ergo, sexual preference is not part of a person's essence, and can be changed.

[Ben Kenobi]

I haven't. As far as I can remember, most gays here disagree with the term "gay lifestyle" for one. I don't think I've heard anyone say they define their being by their sexuality.

But I'm not denying that someone's sexuality is a fundamental part of who someone is. The fact that you love your girlfriend (or Jesus for that matter) is part of what makes you who you are now.

That's the point I am trying to get across. This is the perceptive point made by the article in the opening post, that most gay people claim their sexuality is a fundamental part of themself.

You want to hear something radical? There is a way to split the former part of your statement apart from the latter half, while remaining logically consistent.

Here's how.

First of all, we start with the preposition, that the love one has for God, for your girlfriend is different from your sexuality. Now, this isn't a Christian notion, it predates the Christians, and goes back to the Greeks. This is the point that Whaleboy hit on earlier, with his question, of what do I consider an essential part of who one is.

Suppose we term such love, agape, or self-sacrificial love. This is different from eros, or sexual love.

I say then, that one can live without eros, that eros is not an essential part of who one is. Agape, we cannot live without.

By people denying homosexuals the right to marry the person they love (or even a civil union for that matter, if you think marriage is one step too far)? By denying them the right to adopt? By being beaten up by homophobes? By trying to convert them to become heterosexual? By questioning the very sincerity of their love, which is to deny part of who they are?

Okay. Many points.

1. Everyone is entitled to marry. This does not mean that one is entitled to marry whomever one wants to marry. There are restrictions placed on this by the state, even with a man and a woman who consent. Is it discrimination to bar any two particular people from marrying?

2. Children ought to have a loving home. No one is entitled to have a child. To claim that gay people are entitled to a child, is to assert a right, that no one has. No one has a right to a child, they have the privilege of adopting, should the situation offer the child what the child needs. Even the child, cannot demand a loving home from the state. Why should gay people demand a child?

3. I agree. Everyone has a right, in Canada, to the security of the person. Preferences are irrelevant to this right, and do not confer this right, nor take it away.

4. I also agree. However, those who wish to overcome their desires, ought also be permitted to do so. Their freedom, is as valuable as your own, and rests upon the same grounds. If you restrict people from freely choosing to overcome these desires, then what stops people from stopping you from expressing these desires?

5. Do I question their sincerity, when I eschew eros, and affirm agape?

Why? Since when is it the victim's fault that they are discriminated? Are you saying blacks should not be proud of being black, because they might be discriminated if they do? Should you not be proud for being a Christian? Should Americans not be proud to be American?

But to say that one ought to recieve benefits, because one is black, because one is Christian, is that not opening the door to persecution?

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.

Tell me, did MLK think they should be proud of their blackness? Or proud of their character?

The color of someone's skin isn't meaningless at all. It's part of what makes you who you are. But it's completely irrelevant to whether you should get a job or not. Whether you should sit in the back of the bus or not. Whether you can get married or not.

The same goes for sexuality.

It is already irrelevant. A gay man can get married to any woman willing to marry him.