What should be done about LGBT restrooms?
I believe that as a citizen of a liberal democracy, we should try to accommodate all perspectives. Persecution, segregation, isolation, and abuse of those who are different is wrong.
Actually, only the persecution, segregation, isolation, and abuse of those who are benevolently or neutrally different is wrong. But it is not bigotry to P, S, I, and A those who are malignantly different, such as psychopaths or rapists.
Therefore, I believe that we can only accommodate LGBT people so far. In the past, LGBT people have been systemically oppressed, but I think we are beginning to see the end of this de jure oppression of LGBT people. I believe that for some, their LGBT difference is an entitlement to special treatment. Being a liberal democracy means we must treat everyone equally, and this means that the LGBT community does not deserve special treatment (hence why I generally don't like gay pride events in areas that aren't really against the LGBT community).
Because of this, I believe that in regards to the restroom controversy, nothing needs to be changed. We do not need to make new restrooms for transgender or homosexual individuals just because they may feel uncomfortable. First, the cost of creating these bathrooms would be enormous. Second, if we allow transgenders to enter the bathroom of the opposite sex, what we gain in apparent equality of genders and sexual identity, we lose in public safety. Public safety is more important. A man may pretend to be transgender, enter a women's restroom, and then rape one of them.
So I think that to ignore the public safety hazard of rape and assault in favor of gender and sexual orientation equality is to specifically treat LGBT people specially, and give them more attention than they need. Are some people going to be uncomfortable by going into a restroom that they don't identify in gender with? Yes. Is this a necessary evil to help prevent rape? Yes.
If anything needs to be changed, it is the labeling of these restrooms. Instead of calling them men's and women's rooms, call them male's and female's rooms, since gender is not identical to sex.
Actually, only the persecution, segregation, isolation, and abuse of those who are benevolently or neutrally different is wrong. But it is not bigotry to P, S, I, and A those who are malignantly different, such as psychopaths or rapists.
Therefore, I believe that we can only accommodate LGBT people so far. In the past, LGBT people have been systemically oppressed, but I think we are beginning to see the end of this de jure oppression of LGBT people. I believe that for some, their LGBT difference is an entitlement to special treatment. Being a liberal democracy means we must treat everyone equally, and this means that the LGBT community does not deserve special treatment (hence why I generally don't like gay pride events in areas that aren't really against the LGBT community).
Because of this, I believe that in regards to the restroom controversy, nothing needs to be changed. We do not need to make new restrooms for transgender or homosexual individuals just because they may feel uncomfortable. First, the cost of creating these bathrooms would be enormous. Second, if we allow transgenders to enter the bathroom of the opposite sex, what we gain in apparent equality of genders and sexual identity, we lose in public safety. Public safety is more important. A man may pretend to be transgender, enter a women's restroom, and then rape one of them.
So I think that to ignore the public safety hazard of rape and assault in favor of gender and sexual orientation equality is to specifically treat LGBT people specially, and give them more attention than they need. Are some people going to be uncomfortable by going into a restroom that they don't identify in gender with? Yes. Is this a necessary evil to help prevent rape? Yes.
If anything needs to be changed, it is the labeling of these restrooms. Instead of calling them men's and women's rooms, call them male's and female's rooms, since gender is not identical to sex.
Comments (135)
I'm not against gay pride events, I just don't particularly like them nor find them to be necessary. They tend to be over-the-top and make the LGBT community filled with special snowflakes.
Quoting csalisbury
Isn't the very reason we have separation of sexes is because of the possibility of rape or something similar?
Can you explain in concrete terms what you mean by 'separation of the sexes'? Or are you referring to bathrooms alone? I kind of doubt fear of rape was the primary reason for having a mens room and a women's room. Maybe I'm wrong. It certainly doesn't strike me as the obvious common sense explanation for the segregation though.
Do you think we should have men and women's elevators? Why or why not?
I'd think that if someone was willing to rape someone else then they'd also be willing to just walk into the opposite gender's bathroom.
Let's just have restrooms, as you guys call them, unmarked by gender, and let there be someone keeping an eye on them at all times, a restroom-concierge.
Let's not separate the 'we' who decide the important things from the 'lgbt', or any other group of people we want to name who are different from 'us'.
I am against the spread of hypersexualisation, be this gay movements, anti-slut shaming movements, etc. Patriotism is spreading a value - love and respect of one's country and ancestors. That is important. Not shaming sluts? Give me a break - they shouldn't be sluts if they care so much what others think of them. On another note, one's sexual orientation is a private NOT public affair, unlike patriotism.
Right - that's where our money needs to go.
Quoting mcdoodle
I think LGBT have separated themselves from everyone else by calling themselves LGBT and organising themselves in groups. Raising the dust and then crying that they cannot see is an all too common progressive strategy :D
That is alright - but they shouldn't be forced to do this. If you want, invite them in your home, make them pay an entrance fee, and let the show begin! ;)
But why would I - or anyone - care at all whether you're for or against hypersexualization? (Plus, I think everyone on here is already well aware you got a thing about sex) All your post is is a loud declaration of your stance. The idea is to make arguments. Sorry Agustino, but you're not interesting enough for your opinions to be inherently interesting.
Why do you assume this? What part of my writing states that I think someone should spend their time shaming sluts, etc.?
Quoting csalisbury
Maybe because 1. it answers your question regarding gay parades, and 2. also shows how the analogy with patriotism is a false analogy?
Quoting csalisbury
That is an argument, but it seems you wouldn't know one if you saw one. It's an argument showing that the analogy you made is false, and therefore misses the point. I can spell it out in premises and conclusion if you need that :)
Things that affirm LGBT values are bad
LGBT parades affirm LGBT values.
Therefore LGBT parades are bad.
lol
Stating that one deals with private matters and one deals with public matters is simply to state, once more, that you don't like LGBT values. LGBT values, as I'm sure you aware, include being able to express one's sexual identity publically without fear of recrimination. That's like the core value.
So, again, I'm not sure what the substance of your post is other that you don't like gay parades and people who have the gall to not want to be shamed for wearing short dresses. You're certainly free to have that opinion, but if you want to persuade others to share it, you have to do more than simply express it.
No I'm not against LGBT "values". I'm for maintaining social order and a healthy morality. That particular person X is lesbian, homosexual, transexual, etc. is not a problem to society, it's their freedom to be as they wish. It only becomes a problem when this seeks to become a social NORM or STANDARD. My issue is to ensure that this is contained as a minority position, and not allowed to spread through society, something that I claim is harmful.
Quoting csalisbury
Ok you finally discovered that arguments cannot help us choose the right/correct premises (and by the way, this wouldn't be the way I'd state the argument, it's a strawman of my position but regardless), and some other practice is needed. This is good, but all I'll say for now is that it equally applies to your position!
Quoting csalisbury
No, it absolutely is not. That sex is a private matter (and hence doesn't belong in the public sphere) is a separate issue from LGBT values. It's a premise for an argument against gay parades (among other things - it's also an argument against many forms of advertising for example). You may disagree with the premise, which is fine, but then you need to put forward an argument or reasons for disagreement.
Quoting csalisbury
That's a position that applies across the board to progressives regarding sexual matters, not just LGBT. It is one of the core progressive "values" to be able to express PUBLICLY your sexual identity - something that I think is nonsense. Sex ought to be a private, not a public affair, simply because over-sexualisation, and sexual obsession are socially and personally harmful.
Quoting csalisbury
The substance of my post has nothing to do with whether I like or I don't like gay parades or anti slut-shaming parades. The substance of my post has to do with the fact that I think both of those are social evils that should not occur. This combines with my belief that every particular person should be free to do as they wish regarding their sexual behaviour BUT nevertheless, there are social norms that should be maintained.
Quoting csalisbury
Persuading others has little to do with argument and reason in this case, and a lot with moving their emotions and wills - why? Because as you have identified, we are disagreeing over how to choose our premises...
But they also aren't worth worrying about, nor is sexual orientation or gender preference in themselves. I think we're unduly concerned with sex here in our Great Republic. I don't care how adults choose to disport themselves sexually, or with whom they do so, provided their frolic is consensual. Neither do I wish to hear of it or see it, however.
Happily, one can always turn away from parades or take pains to avoid them. If people feel compelled to express their pride in their sexual orientation, I don't think they should be prohibited from doing so, except in certain non-parade circumstances, I suppose.
As to the great public bathroom controversy, I'm reached the age where the need to urinate is sometimes--too often--urgent. So I have no concern about being uncomfortable if there should be anyone of any kind around when I have to relieve myself. I must do so and most certainly will. Others, of course, may be uncomfortable and in more than this way.
The question, it seems to me, is to what extent our comfort should determine access to public bathrooms. it would seem that if comfort is the determining factor, the comfort of most should have priority. I don't think there is such a thing as a right to urinate or defecate in comfortable circumstances.
So, the legal basis for these laws escapes me at this time; I haven't looked into it.
Whether instances of rape or assault or molestation will increase if certain people are allowed to use certain bathrooms cannot be determined before the fact. Maybe one could be for use by children and those who are taking care of them and one for use by adults. Maybe we can in the future apportion public bathrooms into various areas, one for Xs, one for those who identify as Xs, one for those who are Ys, etc. That may be costly, but perhaps cheap partitions can be used. It all seems a bit silly, but we can do such things if need be.
I suppose I must check the law. Sigh. I can't think of any legal basis on which to prohibit access to public bathrooms, though.
What position? Darth put forth the argument that allowing transgendered individuals to use bathrooms historically designated for those who were born as the opposite sex would create physical danger for the latter. He also put forth an implicit argument that gay parades are only justified instrumentally, as ways to combat existing prejudice. That's what I was responding to.
Of course you can infer that I'm probably pro gay-parade (which I am, though I personally don't enjoy parades, because they manage to be loud and boring at the same time) but my position has nothing to do with the arguments, which I'm approaching on their own terms. As to the bad argument equally applying to a pro-gay parade position - well, obviously. Any position has the potential to be poorly defended with bad arguments of that type. That's why I don't make those kinds of arguments to defend my positions.
Now, your problem with gay pride parades appears to be two-part. First, in some yet-to-be-explained way, they contribute to a burgeoning social evil that threatens social order. Second, they're part of a concerted campaign to make cisgendered heterosexuality a minority position. Can you expand on these fears in more concrete terms?
[quote=agustino]Sex ought to be a private, not a public affair, simply because over-sexualisation, and sexual obsession are socially and personally harmful.[/quote]
Yeah, 'obsession' over anything is harmful.& I've never met anyone as obsessed with sexual mores as you :P
No. You fail to realise that the so called poor argument I put forward is sound - there's nothing poor about it, even in the uninformative way you wrote it out.
Quoting csalisbury
Obviously.
Quoting csalisbury
Sexual promiscuity, including parades involving sex-related promotion, is a social evil because 1. it confuses individuals about the means and purposes of sexual activity, 2. it promotes conflict, jealousies, and so forth among people, 3. it threatens the stability of committed relationships and encourages people to treat each other as means to an end, instead of as ends in themselves, 4. it destroys intimacy by making it public. And I could go on.
Quoting csalisbury
No, they're just encouraging a minority position to become more widespread, and thus threaten social stability and sexual morality.
Quoting csalisbury
Obsession with justice, truth, virtue, etc. is called love. Obsession has a negative connotation, and it refers to the situation where someone loves or is attached to something that does not deserve that love and/or attachment. Morality deserves love and attachment. Desire for sex in and of itself, if by that we understand the physical act, is an obsession because sex in and of itself does not deserve that attachement and/or love.
Then you don't care about the well-being of others, pure and simple. Consent is not sufficient to make something moral/virtuous/ethical - in fact it has no necessary tie to morality at all. For example, if I gain someone's consent to kill them, does it follow that I should? Clearly not.
First of all, I want to make an-always-unpopular distinction between "transgender" and "gay": G, L, B, and T share the same quadratic set of initials, but each letter represents fairly separate and different experiences. They both concern genitals and they both concern gender, but they often have radically different etiology.
a. Some transgender people are genitally ambiguous at birth. Their sex organs are not clearly male or female.
b. Some transgender people become genitally ambiguous (usually soon after birth) when something like a circumcision gone wrong leaving an otherwise unambiguous male without the essential penis.
c. Some transgender people are genetically ambiguous at the level of the chromosome, and this may have obvious and sometimes fairly odd physical manifestations.
d. Most transgender people are genitally unambiguous and may feel (at some point in their lives) that their gender or sex is the opposite of their very clear genital set up.
Gayness does not manifest ambiguous genitalia, ambiguous chromosomes, or feelings of being in the wrong body. Gay people are sexually attracted to members of their own sex (and some can function sexually with the opposite sex) and their sexual performance is unimpeded by missing or non-functioning parts.
The regulations concern more than toilets. They also concern showers, changing rooms, and the like. This is where the whole thing becomes especially contentious -- even more so than on the battleship USS Toilet. d
What do you think happens to the male or female who undresses in the 7th-12th grade locker room to shower, and reveals to all present that "he" has a vagina? Or "she" has a penis? Who in the shower room do you think will be most discomfited: the 999 out of 1000 more or less anatomically normal children, or the 1 out of 1000 anatomically abnormal child? The smart money is 100 to 1 on the abnormal child being made (not just sort of feeling) very uncomfortable.
Everyone does not have to shower together. Some children need a more private space, or they need at least a less public space to adjust to community showers. (Children are not politically correct and sensitive to others feelings: they tend to savage the weakest and/or most vulnerable members of the herd. Sometimes this continues into adulthood.)
Transsexual adults have been attacked in public toilets -- by women who were angry that a male was in the sacrosanct female space. Males would probably not be quite so appalled by finding a female-to[male transsexual in a men's toilet. A competent, practiced transsexual probably won't be detected at all.
The public toilet is mostly a non-issue, as far as I can tell. Get over it. The question of transsexual children in elementary and high schools is where there is room for debate.
For my part, I think any parents who allow a young child to decide and act on what gender he or she really is need their heads examined by a competent psychiatrist, and their child needs to be carefully assessed and counseled. Teen agers? different ball game, but no teenager should be allowed to act on what are clear feelings of "wrong body, right gender" WITHOUT competent counseling, advice, and support. Adults? If you're ready to take on this situation, then grit your teeth and work your way through it.
Cross dressing gays, or cross dressing straights, are not transgendered. They are engaging in fetish activities. You may like it or not, but it isn't an issue of transsexuality or gender identity. Children (and sometimes adults) get confused about whether they sexual feelings are normal, gay, or transgender. There are counseling and medical procedures that can clarify what the person is feeling.
Of course Ciceronianus cares about the well being of others, in the same way that Mrs. Campbell did:
At a time, Agustino, when there were many horses on the street, "frightening the horses" could have dire consequences. It was in the sense of not wanting to cause a stampede of angst-ridden horses that Ciceronianus was speaking.
Just imagine, two men kissing on Broadway in 1910, watched by a pair of stallions pulling a fancy coach, and the two large studs taking off to find some place to do horse-likewise, and igniting a stampede down the Great White Way. Why, hundreds of important people attending the theater might be hurt!
Since I referenced sexual conduct specifically, your comment makes sense only if equate sexual activity to well being. It may contribute to a person's well being, but to I suggest that sexual conduct is well being is to have a peculiarly exaggerated regard for it. You should broaden your horizons, I think. Really, there's more to life than sex.
Quoting Agustino
LOL - not a bad explanation ;)
Look, if two people are in a washroom, and one takes offense at the other and says so, there would be no third party to confirm that such a thing had happened.
In western industrialized countries it is probably the case that gay people are no longer oppressed through legislation. Many gay people might be free of de facto oppression as well, but certainly not every gay person is. The kind of bad experiences that some young gay people experience, like getting kicked out of the house at 16, for instance, and as a consequence dropping out of school, are decidedly oppressive.
Quoting darthbarracuda
Do you think there is such a thing as the "GLBT community"? From an "insider" viewpoint, it has never been clear what, exactly, the alleged GLBT community consists of. There are affinity groups of all kinds in every existing or nonexistent "community"; is that what you mean? As long as the affinity groups can exist without breaking laws, disturbing public order, and so on, they don't need and probably aren't receiving "special treatment" or entitlement.
There are all kinds of community sponsored events in many cities, one of which is a gay pride festival and/or march. All of these quasi-official summer events are pretty much alike: the public at large swamps the event (which vendors like), there are ethnic or cultural doodads all over the place, bad food is sold, there is loud music, overstimulated dogs and children, etc. The sponsors of the events are lucky to not spend a good share of the next year settling debts and contract disputes.
I don't have much patience with gay pride -- haven't for at least 25 years, mostly because the agenda of these events has been vigorously assimilationist -- "Hey, we're just like everybody else." Sure enough, the simulated gay community is pretty much like everybody else.
What I hope for from liberal democracy is that the people are able to associate with their preferred affinity groups, and engage in activities that satisfy their social and personal aspirations, as long as the activities are more or less legal, peaceful, compatible with other people's needs and wants, and so on.
;)
Along BitterCrank's distinctions between gays and transgenders, there is also a fairly profound distinction among many in the transgender community. The narrative we are told is that the typical transgender boy is a girl born in boy's body. As the story goes, he displays female traits early on, plays with the other girls, migrates towards dolls and teacups, prefers dresses and girls' clothing, avoids rough-housing and cops and robbers, and eventually moves on to developing crushes on the little boys. These people certainly exist as do their female counterparts who were men born in women bodies. In fact, these types of people (MtF and FtM) exist in roughly equal numbers, yet they are quite rare.
The truth is that the overwhelming bulk of MtF are men who grew up as typical little boys, playing among the boys, rough housing, avoiding tea parties and girl's dresses. They also developed crushes on little girls. At some point (often much later in life in their 30s or 40s), they began to fetishize about women, wanting to act as and appear as women, first in private and then later in public. The thrill of wearing women's clothing, walking and talking as women, and doing typical women activities eventually escalated into hormone injections and body modifications. Having sex with men is yet another part of the fetish of acting as a woman, but often they are quite heterosexual. There is also often a masochistic side to these folks, with a sexual satisfaction derived from the humiliation of being cast as the weaker sex and performing sexual acts on men. The term describing this type of transsexual is "gynophelia," a lover of women.
I do know that this distinction is controversial within the transsexual community, but there's no denying a substantial difference between homosexual and heterosexual transsexuals.
The point here is that in our fervor to hug everyone and accept them regardless, maybe we should look a bit deeper and figure out if there's a better way to respond than to simply accommodate their peculiarities. Maybe there is something better that we can say and do for Caitlan than telling her she is the best no matter what and building her out her own stall.
But I do care about sex; obviously, we all do. I merely don't care about it in the remarkable manner you do. I don't feel it to be taboo, as it seems you do. You seem to think it's something to be avoided in all but certain, limited circumstances, rather as the Catholic Church and other institutions did and perhaps still do. You think It's something sacred (as opposed to accursed; you appear to think it's permissible in some cases). Are you a priest, by the way?
Most of us desire sex. This is something that shouldn't surprise you, but perhaps it does. The mere existence of desire hardly constitutes an obsession, however.
I personally feel that love is something distinct from sexual activity. The people I love are, for the most part, people I haven't had sex with and would not have sex with. I don't think it's necessary to have sex with someone in order to love him/her. Neither do I think it's necessary to love someone in order to have sex. One is not a prerequisite of the other. For me, love has very little to do with sex.
Though sexual activity isn't a prerequisite to love or the equivalent of it, it is a matter of responsibility, as are other things which don't require the involvement of love. I don't presume to condemn others' sexual conduct, let alone maintain it should be regulated by the state, unless it is irresponsible, which usually means that it is not consensual and so would cause harm. I don't think having sex in and of itself causes harm, nor do I think having sex is harmful even though if it offends your sensibilities. You, though, obviously do condemn others' sexual conduct. I don't think that by doing so you evidence a concern for well being, and not simply because I don't think it's necessary to have sex in order to be well. I think you're just being sanctimonious, Pharisee.
I didn't mention sex (an activity) but rather sexual conduct which refers to the way and manner in which the activity, sex, is conducted. Thanks for the additional information though.
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
What is remarkable about it?
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
No, I think it's something that is aimed at fulfilling a two purposes, 1. reproduction, 2. intimacy (one physical, and one spiritual), and failure to fulfil at least one of the two purposes is a misuse of sex, just like, for example, chewing food, and then spitting it out without swallowing it so that you only feel the pleasurable taste is a moral abomination.
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
If by sacred you mean that I think it ALSO has a spiritual purpose next to its physical purpose, then I agree.
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
No, and in my religion priests are allowed to marry by the way ;)
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
I disagree. However confusedly, most of us desire intimacy, and our desire for sex is just one of its many manifestations, being probably the highest intimacy achievable between two human beings.
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
Exaggerated desire for something that doesn't deserve that desire is an obsession. In this case, people who desire sex, and are not able to identify that what they really desire through having sex is intimacy, they are obsessed.
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
Yeah, neighbourly love (caritas) :) . Eros is a different shade of love though, which presupposes caritas but is something more.
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
Sure, in order to love (caritas) him, no sex is required, nor can sex be a reflection of such a love.
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
Here is an equivocation. Caritas is not the only form of love. Eros is also a spiritual thirst and love for someone else - a desire for intimacy and union with another. Eros is what gives birth to the desire for sex, along with the desire for reproduction - although Eros is always the stronger.
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
Right, sexual activity is merely its effect :)
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
Where have I suggested it should be regulated by the state? :-s
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
Sex can cause harm even if it is consensual, the same way that killing someone does cause harm even if it is consensual.
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
It is harmful in-so-far as it prevents human flourishing.
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
More like I'm against a certain culture rather than against any individual person.
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
Here you are most wrong. I am concerned about sexual activity because many people have destroyed their own well-being through it, and many have been made to despair by it. I am just illustrating a way in which sex can contribute to well-being rather than destroy it, and in-so doing I am concerned about people's well being, in some cases, more than they themselves are, even though they may not realise it.
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
Very interesting that you call me a Pharisee, using Jesus' own language. How Jesus would find this - that you try to keep his wine bottles, but replace the wine. What a sly snake you are. Please cite to me the passage of the Bible where Jesus thinks that so long as sexual activity is consensual it is right, and the only moral question in sex is consent. Then we will see who the fucking Pharisee is. Go on. Common. I'm waiting. Let's hear it. Bring it. Bring it.
"Men do not despise a thief, if he steal to satisfy his soul when he is hungry; But if he be found, he shall restore sevenfold; he shall give all the substance of his house. But whoso committeth adultery with a woman lacketh understanding: he that doeth it destroyeth his own soul." - Proverbs 6:30-32.
"The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery" Matthew 19:3-9
Truth is you simply do not care about the millions and hundreds of millions of people who had their trust broken, who have decieved themselves about sex and have misused it and are now left alone, never having known true intimacy, who have used sex to hurt others and themselves, etc. You simply don't. For you, this is how life is, and you think it should be that way. Their suffering doesn't matter to you. Fine. But these people, as well as all other suffering people, do matter to me, and I will do my best to take care of them.
Then you'll have to explain (1) what the lesbian, homosexual, transsexual, etc. values are, (2) why they are harmful, and (3) how you intend to contain their harmful values. Obviously if your cure (#3) is worse than the disease (#1), then you might want to just allow their values to flourish.
Implicit in your position is also the troublesome idea that gays, lesbians, and transsexuals are the products of environment as opposed to genetics. It would seem that if their behavior were caused by genetics, it would hardly matter what societal norms might dictate. My eyes will remain blue even should the societal norm be brown. By the same token, if we declare gays the norm, I'm pretty sure I'll remain straight, which means I really couldn't care any less what society says because it would have no meaningful impact. I mean, the gays, lesbians, and transsexuals all seemed to persevere when society vehemently condemned them.
At least admit to your actual position, which is that you find lesbians, homosexuals, transsexuals and the etcetera morally wrong and you want a society that considers them as such. However, you also realize you've lost that battle and so you're content in allowing society to just absorb their nonsense as long as it doesn't affect you. You believe it does affect you once it reaches the point where you can't point your finger and call them bad without ostracism, so you want to still be able to do that in peace, thus your nuanced position.
That is, you want to sit in your grandpa chair cursing the new fangled world in peace damn it.
You are such a caring and loving soul, committed to consoling the broken hearted and nursing them back to health while properly chastising the wicked who lack your compassion.
It's hard to take you seriously. At least present your indignation in a credible way.
They are not the same "values", lesbian, homosexual, and transsexual. Transexualism is a moral abomination and is most definitely wrong. I'm not sure if homosexuality and lesbianism are wrong, although I do lean towards thinking they are morally wrong. Although, if they are, they are tiny vices, so long as promiscuity (the real vice) is not involved. Why is transexualism wrong? Simply because one does a harm to one's own nature by attempting to alter their own biology - the very desire is evidence of mental illness. A being strives for its self-preservation and flourishing - transsexualism is turning against one's own nature, thus it is equivalent to a moral abomination of high degree. And by this, I do not refer to the DESIRE or CURIOSITY to be the other sex - this in many cases is normal. What is abnormal is when one takes actual, real steps towards this.
Quoting Hanover
Because they are against one's own nature.
Because they encourage a culture of hypersexualisation
Quoting Hanover
Disallow chaotic, and disorganised protests and parades. Prevent publicity of sex-related issues, apart for educational purposes.
Quoting Hanover
They are ALSO the product of environment, as well as of genetics. Nowhere in my position do I deny the role of genetics. Although, even if they are the product of genetics, that doesn't mean that their actions are not therefore immoral. A pyschopath is, according to many, the product of genetics. Does that mean that his actions are morally excuseable? Absolutely not. He has a harder road to climb than others - it is more difficult for him to be moral, but not impossible. He must be helped to become moral, rather than facilitated in his immorality and told that there is nothing wrong with what he does.
Quoting Hanover
This is not an excuse in and of itself. More is required. In the case of your eyes, there is nothing immoral about eye color, since eye color involves nothing of a moral nature in it.
Quoting Hanover
What if your son decided to be gay after he saw that this was what was required to be "the cool kid"? Or what if your daughter came to you "daddy, daddy I think I really am a guy, my spirit is that of a man..." because she was pressured into it by her friends?
Quoting Hanover
Not THEM, but rather their actions. And again, remove lesbian/homosexual from that.
Quoting Hanover
No I don't actually. I think I, and the other good people, will win the battle in the next 50 years.
Quoting Hanover
No one should point a finger and call people bad, only their actions.
Quoting Hanover
Nope. I want a society with a strong culture, which encourages people towards the virtues, and makes the virtues respected and desired. Such a culture is the only culture which guides people towards the flourishing of human nature.
Quoting Hanover
:s
"The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican." Luke 18:11. KIng James version.
This was, as you'll recall, a parable Jesus told to those who held themselves righteous and others in contempt for their failings. It seems a pertinent parable in these circumstances.
It's interesting that according to the Gospels Jesus speaks merely of divorce and adultery. He says nothing about sexual conduct--the act of having sex. He says nothing about homosexuality, even. There is of course that bit about lusting in the heart being adultery, but even that doesn't address physical sexual conduct. And as to adultery, let's not forget the woman caught in it, and his statement that those without sin should throw the first stone.
The concern about divorce and adultery seem a bit odd given the statement that those who leave their families and follow him will be rewarded. Apparently, abandonment is appropriate at least in some instances, although adultery and divorce generally are not.
Regardless, it would seem Jesus didn't share your fascination with sexual activity and wasn't so eager to lecture those listening to him on its ills as you are to lecture us. He had no occasion to address sexual assault or rape, as far as we can know, and so the concept of consent to sex didn't arise, also as far as we can tell. I think he may have had other things in mind beyond the sexual habits of humanity, which he considered more important. Sadly, many calling themselves Christians think of those sexual habits almost exclusively.
I think the problems you refer to and so nobly promise to do your best to banish from the earth are caused by many things, not merely by the act of having sex. Some people may have sex only to reproduce and in order to have physical and spiritual intimacy and yet still be untrustworthy, jealous, vindictive, intolerant, cruel, confused, irresponsible, and even self-righteous. All these can cause a relationship or marriage to go sour, and many other things which don't involve sexual conduct. We hurt each other for many reasons.
I do recall the parable; fortunately it is part of the Gospel of Luke, which I've read, took notes on every page and read many commentaries on in my self-study about 6-7 years ago (I've read the other Gospels apart from Mark too, but not in such detail). In that story, from memory, the Pharisee in question is contrasted to the outwardly sinful man, who sits far away from the altar, towards the entrance of the temple, and on his knees prays "Lord, forgive me my sins". The man is outwardly sinful, but his heart is pure because it thirsts for the Lord and regrets his sins, while the Pharisee, while outwardly clean, is inwardly sinful, because he does not perceive his need of God, nor does he regret his sins, rather he only takes pride in his righteousness. This relates to the other parable Jesus gave, of the cup which is outwardly clean, but inwardly dirty.
What the meaning of this parable is, is that inward sin (pride) is more dangerous than outward sin because one generally remains blind to it and hence cannot repent. That is why, paraphrasing, the prostitutes will enter the Kingdom before you, the Pharisees. In the culture of that time, outward sin was heavily punished, and everyone knew it was wrong. There was no question about the terribleness of adultery for example. But there was a risk - because often the people who had been immoral outwardly would be punished and disconsidered forever - given no chance to repent. Jesus encouraged them to repent, and showed that repenting will enable them to be forgiven through parables such as these. He also showed that it was wrong for others to demonise them, and not forgive them for their sins if and when they repented. This is not the case in today's world. In today's world, the problem is different - people do not know that adultery, etc. are wrong. Many see it as totally fine, so long as there is consent. These people are sinners, and they would be treated just as the Pharisee in the story, because their moral blindness prevents them from repenting.
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
It was a warning to those who were proud for being superior to others, and were not interested in helping others become righteous as well. At the same time it was praise and encouragement for the man who has sinned, that he can and will find forgiveness so long as he repents.
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
Yes he does - numerous times about adultery, lusting, fornication, etc.
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
Yes it does - it says that even if you avoid the physical sexual misconduct, you will still sin if you commit it in your mind (lust).
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
Jewish law states that both the woman and the man have to be stoned. Just the woman was brought to Jesus by the Pharisees (ask yourself why!). So the Pharisees tried to tempt Jesus because if he had said "kill her", he would have broken the law and been like them, partial and discriminating between the man and the woman, and if he had said "let her live", he would have licensed her behaviour. Instead what Jesus did was admit that what she did was wrong: "let them who have no sin throw the first stone" - but the stone had to be thrown. And he said let them who have no sin throw the first stone because in the act of bringing only HER the Pharisees had sinned - because they disrespected the law and treated the man and the woman differently. That's why he said they who have no sin - ie look at yourselves, you say that she has sinned? But what have you done when you attempt to punish her only?! Seeing that she regretted what she had done, he forgive her, and told her to go and sin no more (ie, DONT commit adultery again). Jesus in this way taught his disciples that by forgiving one's sins when they honestly and truly repent, they will learn to be better persons.
EDIT: I admit the explanation of this parable is complex (although it strikes as so clear once you find it!), and the parable at first made me meditate on it for long hours, not understanding the words of Jesus. But then I studied the Torah in this context, and realised how the Pharisees were actually tempting Jesus, and provoking him to break the law, and now Jesus's reaction makes perfect sense! It is amazing how complicated Scripture can sometimes be, people just don't realise. But try taking notes on every page and really understanding every sentence that is being said - it's just so rich!
EDIT2: Refer to Leviticus 20:10 for the Torah's law regarding adultery + punishments! :)
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
No it's not odd at all. Leaving their family for the sake of God is right, because without God, nothing, not even their families, wives, children - nothing has any value. That's why "seek ye first the Kingdom of Heaven, and ALL else shall be added unto you". I often replace God with virtue, and say that, virtue being that in virtue of which everything else is good for man (as Socrates said in Plato's Apologia) is first in line as a priority. Namely, if I have to sacrifice virtue in order to be with the woman I love, I cannot do that, for if I sacrifice virtue, than the woman I love herself will be worth nothing. So the only way to hold her value is to hold fast unto virtue, or God.
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
Priority of values.
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
Yes he was - through the New Testament he took multiple occasions to teach about it, teaching against promiscuity, adultery, fornication and lust.
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
Yes of course he did. Sex isn't the only important thing in morality, BUT in today's world, it is SURELY the most neglected. We have become very good with the soft virtues - acceptance, tolerance, etc. and very bad with the hard virtue: courage, loyalty, integrity, etc.
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
I don't disagree, but sexual misconduct is a major cause, and it is only becoming larger.
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
Indeed. Then they will lose, in this life, all the rewards that their good sexual behaviour could have provided - although I doubt they could be intimate if they do not also trust, if they are not also caring, etc.
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
Agreed.
John 8:3-12
The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst They said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?" This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground. But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him.
Jesus stood up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.”
Again Jesus spoke to them, saying, [...as I was saying, before these sex-obsessed scribes and Pharisees rudely interrupted me] “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”
You have used this term many times; I have in my mind several definitions of "intimate" or "intimacy". A sitting room can be "intimate" and intimacy can mean" sharing privileged information" or "sharing deep feelings." Of course it can also mean sex and/or love. I presume you mean something along the lines of sex, love, and tender nurturing". But... maybe not.
Different topic:
I presume you are a product of one of the Orthodox branches of Christianity. Greek, Russian, Serbian... whatever. I was raised in a Protestant milieu, but am casually familiar with some Roman Catholic doctrine. A lot of what you say about sex does sound very Roman Catholic to my ears. Yours and the RC's formulations seem similar. I'm not raising that as a criticism; just noting it. (I'll raise it as a criticism at such time as you're being got ready to burn at the stake.)
Another topic:
Quoting Agustino
The hermaphrodite (a quaint old term for one kind of transsexual) is born with incomplete, or contradictory biology. Nature here is the guilty party. There is no normal body to violate. Changing the body (procedures not performed prior to WWII, as far as I know) is an effort to undo nature's error. The hermaphrodite isn't a woman trapped in a man's body, he/she is a mix of male and female body forms.
I don't know for sure (100%) whether most transsexuals are one gender trapped in the body of the opposite gender, or whether they are suffering from a complex delusion. If people say they hear voices, or see people who aren't there, Believe them. If people say they have to count all the tiles on the floor of a bathroom, I believe them. If somebody says "I am a man trapped in a woman's body" why should I not believe them?***
Transsexualism, hermaphroditism, and other forms of corporeal dysphoria, are very challenging conditions. Challenging, because it is first difficult to tell whether all their claims are genuine.
Are you opposed to breast and buttocks augmentation? Liposuction? Face lifts? Nose jobs? Organ transplants? Facial transplants? Very obese people who lose a lot of weight often wish to be "re-upholstered" afterwards, because they have so much extra skin. All bad?
***Jack (2005) and John (1980) both claimed to be women in men's bodies. Dora (1976) claimed to be a man in a woman's body. Each of these people completed transsexual therapy (including hormones, counseling, and surgery). They all seemed to benefit from the experience. Jack was a tall, large-framed man who had very strong masculine features (heavy brow, for instance). John and Dora were both on the petite side, and for both of them, the desired appearance was relatively achievable before they began therapy, and was more convincing afterwards.
If each of them were successful in obtaining an authentic body-spirit combo, it is also true that all of them were at least somewhat neurotic, quite apart from gender issues. Their "case histories' were all very different.
If one could buy the necessary hormone therapy over the counter, skip the counseling, and of course, do without gender reassignment surgery, there would be a much stronger case for these people being complicated lunatics. But none of that is the case. Gender reassignment programs are run by psychotherapists, sexologists, and surgeons. They are subject to institutional overview. It seems highly unlikely that Joe Blow, who was equipped with enough money to pay for reassignment services, could get them just by walking through the door and signing up. He probably wouldn't make it through screening, even if he had worked up a good cover story.
That's your presumption, which is clearly not the likely interpretation of the story given the rest of the Bible and teachings of Jesus and the context in which it happened. Sin is sin, whether sexual or otherwise - thus Jesus combatted all forms of sin, including the sexual. There is no "bigger fish to fry".
The challenge for Jesus in the passage, is that the Pharisees, as at other points in the Gospels, tried to catch him out - to show that he (1) does not know the Law, and (2) does not uphold the Law. As I have explained, they thought that there was no sensible answer that Jesus could give when put in that situation, and thus any answer he would give would disqualify himself and show that he isn't the Ha-Mashiach - something that they could use against him. If Jesus said "Let's stone her" he would break the law of Moses by showing partiality and justifying stoning just the woman, and not also the man involved in the adultery. If he had said "let her go", he would have licensed her sin, and thus also broken the Law of Moses. But Jesus outsmarted them, in a way that, with one stone, he hit multiple targets. First, he shames the Pharisees with his knowledge of the Law, and shows that they have sinned first by bringing only the woman to be judged, and are merely tempting him - they should also be judged if they want to judge her, because in trying to judge her, they too have sinned. Thus he avoids the first horn of the apparent dilemma "Neither do I condemn thee [to be stoned]". Second, he avoids the second horn of the dilemma through the next words: "and from now on sin no more", which acknowledges that adultery was a SIN and must not be repeated - the necessity of repentance. Third, he teaches all the people that repentance can and will result in forgiveness regardless of the gravity of the sin. Fourth, he shows how forgiveness can be used as a way to change someone forever. That woman was forever changed because in an impossible situation, she was forgiven. In truth, her FAITH saved her - she was alike Kierkegaard's knight of faith, who believed that she would be saved, despite KNOWING that she had sinned and deserved death. Fifth, he uses this as an opportunity to show people that "I am the light of the world [I am the guidance of the world - I am that which dispels the darkness [the confusion that the Pharisees tried to place him in]. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but have the light of life [even sinners like this woman]".
The problem with interpretations like yours, and most modern interpretations of Jesus, is that they discard parts of who Jesus was, mutilate him, and preferentially accept only a certain part. I've said we have become very good at the soft virtues - tolerance, forgiveness, etc. We all praise the Jesus who turns the other cheek. But what about the Jesus who took the whip and turned the tables on the money changers in the temple and drove them out in anger and by force? What about the Jesus who came not to bring peace on Earth, but a sword? What about the Jesus who came to divide father and son, etc? What about the Jesus who comes in glory during the Revelation crushing, and utterly destroying the forces of evil and immorality? That Jesus we don't like - we pretend he doesn't exist, and interpret him through our favorite prejudices - we are Pharisees. The point of Scripture, and the way truth is achieved in Scripture is by finding the most coherent interpretation, which can account for most of the facts. Not interpretations which require eliminating facts.
Only Marxists are products of systems ;)
Quoting Bitter Crank
:D go ahead, immortalise me! ;)
Quoting Bitter Crank
Most transexuals are not hermaphrodites, so this is a falsification of facts.
http://www.differencebetween.info/difference-between-transgender-and-hermaphrodite
Quoting Bitter Crank
Yes but this is NOT the case for transexuals. A hermaphrodite is NOT a transexual, nor does a hermaphrodite become a transexual by surgery.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Fortunately many doctors do know.
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/06/15145/
Quoting Bitter Crank
Yes, when there's this young girl wanting a breast augmentation surgery because she thinks men don't fuck her because she has small breasts or some stupid reason like this, absolutely opposed (why would I not be opposed, does it seem to you that I want to license promiscuity and facilitate it? ;) ). When it is someone who has suffered an accident, etc. that's different.
Quoting Bitter Crank
BINGO! They are suffering of mental illness. They need treatment, not accomodation and praise for being who they are.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Maybe in the US ;) .
I don't think it's any more likely that a young woman gets new breasts, a new nose, or liposuction because she's not getting enough sex as it is that she wears certain clothes or make-up to get more sex. It's obvious that women want to look nice (as do men) and that one reason for that is to be attractive to the opposite sex, but that is but one reason.
The point that you've refused to address is why you believe that modification of appearance is a moral wrong, considering it occurs on all sorts of levels, from sexual reassignment surgery to mascara on one's eye lashes. Instead, you answered the question of whether you were opposed to young women who wanted larger breasts only in order to get fucked more often. To that, you were opposed, but that wasn't the question.
Do you oppose women wearing dresses, high heels, make up, and coloring their hair? If not, why? Suppose a man does the same thing? Are you opposed to people modifying their appearance generally, or are you really just opposed to men modifying their appearance to appear as women? I suspect it's really the latter, meaning your opposition is in the blurring of arbitrary societal norms. You don't want it to be acceptable for men to wear skirts, unless it's a Scottish guy in a kilt, because that's a societal norm already, right?
The "bigger fish to fry" is pointed up in the terms of the Judgement in Matthew: I was hungry and you fed me, I was naked and you clothed me... I am sure you know the passage in the 25th chapter of Matthew. Jesus didn't say that entrance into the Kingdom was based on "a clean police record" so to speak.
At least in the Calvinist tradition, the condition of sin is a given: nobody avoids being mired in sin, and sin is sin, as you say. The only way we do not end up in the great deep fat fryer of hell is the entirely undeserved gift of grace.
Yes, the Pharisees were trying to catch Jesus in the sin-trap. I don't think Jesus demonstrated brilliance in the legal department; rather, his approach transcended the legalistic approach.
Quoting Agustino
Dodging, dodging, dodging. Is there some reason you don't want to confess your religious background?
I can't think of any way that a religion IS NOT a system. This is special pleading. Marxists, Baptists, Jews, Roman Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans et al are all products of a system of thinking.
Quoting Agustino
I didn't claim that most transsexuals were hermaphroditic. What I said was hermaphroditism is one form of actual "trans sexualism". Trans sexualism is a crowded box of postmodern sexual fluidity.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Quoting Agustino
Well, according to Freud, we are all at least somewhat neurotic, even me and thee, and especially thee... well, let's not get started.
Repentance is an important part of this discussion, but I now have to go to a Lutheran Social Service meeting on homeless youth (my arm was twisted to go to this meeting) so I will say more later.
I would say, instead, that the problem is sexual conduct has become preeminent in today's world. It is accorded a value exceeding its significance (which is nonetheless great). It is too important to too many.
This is reflected not only in prevalence of the depiction of sexual conduct and desire in all media and the importance ascribed to being sexually active, but in the efforts made to condemn it (or rather certain kinds of sexual conduct) and prohibit or restrict it in law. It should not be a concern of the law except in limited circumstances. In my opinion, it should not be condemned in and of itself. There's nothing inherently or a priori morally objectionable about adults having sex even if not for reproduction or physical and spiritual "intimacy" (it isn't clear to me what is meant by that). The consequences of it (the harm caused by it) may render it reprehensible. If there is behind it an intent to harm, that intent may render a person reprehensible.
As a result, I don't think sexual acts are wrong unless they're engaged in for a particular purpose. You seem to think they are wrong unless engaged in for reproduction and (or is it "or"?) physical and spiritual "intimacy."
Sexual urges can make fools or worse of all or most of us, but where no harm results from them it seems unreasonable to condemn them.
There comes a point where standards of morality become so absolute, so detached from what is sensible and just, as to render those who uphold them irrational in their application. Take the case of Cardinal Newman, who in his Apologia Pro Vita Sua repeated, with great satisfaction, the following statement he'd made earlier:
"The Catholic Church holds it better for the sun and moon to drop from heaven, for the earth to fail, and for all the many millions on it to die of starvation in extremest agony, as far as temporal affliction goes, than that one soul, I will not say, should be lost, but should commit one single venial sin, should tell one wilful untruth, or should steal one poor farthing without excuse."
It's not always wrong, it depends on what motivates it. I thought I was quite clear about it. If this is motivated by immoral desires, then yes, it is wrong. Same as sex - depends how and when it is done. Everything has its place.
Quoting Hanover
It's one thing to want to look decent, and be an attractive/beautiful person, and a completely different thing to want to be an object of sexual desire. The former is normal, the latter is wrong.
Quoting Hanover
Yes, and I've also added that I'm not opposed to surgery in the case of accidents, etc. I thought the two examples would clarify when I am opposed to them, and when I'm not.
Quoting Hanover
Depends for what occasion, whether it is vulgar (because sometimes it can be!), etc. But most of the time I don't, because dressing is quite often motivated by fashion trends (culture) rather than moral or immoral desires, and does not contribute to either morality or immorality. Although some of those girls going to Western nightclubs do in many cases dress so for the wrong reasons.
Quoting Hanover
The latter, because that is motivated by a perverse desire. If I dress in a woman for Halloween for example, nothing wrong - because that isn't motivated by a perverse desire that is contrary to my nature, but rather by a cultural desire.
Quoting Hanover
It depends on what motivates them to wear skirts. If they do so just for cultural reasons (the Scottish guy, or even a guy who admires Scotland), no problem. If they do it because they want to become women - bad.
Quoting Bitter Crank
This is TOTALLY not the case, even in Catholicism, but especially in Orthodox tradition. In Orthodox tradition man is inherently good - the Orthodox are actually quite lenient with sin, more lenient than is my liking. You can see this from Father Zossima's speeches in Brothers Karamazov!
Quoting Bitter Crank
Entrance into the Kingdom was certainly though not based on living in sin, including sexual sin. It is based on repentance, faith, coming to a life in Christ, love and grace. The instructions and parables reviewed in Matthew 25 cover ground which is summarised under love of neighbour and love of God, which are the two fundamental rules that Jesus gave earlier in Matthew 22. Sexual sin is against love of neighbour and love of God.
Quoting Bitter Crank
The irony of it, I think, is that Jesus did not only transcend the legalistic approach, he even beat the Pharisees at their own game.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Not really, but what does this have to do with it?
Quoting Bitter Crank
I haven't said it's not a system. Rather that I am not the product of it. My family as I grew up has been largely not religious - it's rather that I insisted to pray, (I used to pray daily), but I've never seen my parents pray for example, until very late (I was 18+ already when I saw my mother pray or go to Church). We never went to Church, except for Easter, when it was tradition to go. The only thing vaguely religious that I remember was that when I was small my mother gave me a Bible for children with nice pictures, but that was all. God, apart from prayer, which I insisted to do myself, did not play a daily role in my life, or in my life within the community. I grew up in a largely secular culture as well, where sexual promiscuity and the like were givens for most people I have known. Most people, even my family, treat sexual promiscuity relatively lightly.
Funny story... At school, we had 1 hour of religion class a week. That was the first subject I was good at - I was initially terrible at everything else. My teacher at that time told my parents, I remember, that I have a very good natural moral intuition, that was lacking in other children, and that I knew what was the right thing even when I did the wrong (and in fact I quite often did the wrong ;) ). I was often used as an example for the other kids in class, and choosing what was wrong and what was right came easily to me. I remember my mother making fun of me "you're good at religion, but that is useless! What matters is mathematics, literature, history... these subjects" and I would, perhaps naively, answer "yes, but in Heaven that is the only thing that matters"
Quoting Bitter Crank
Very well, then I was not referring to hermaphrodites in my speeches (which are both sexes, rather than switching from their biological sex to another).
Quoting Bitter Crank
Where's the eye rolling emoticon please? >:O
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
Agreed.
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
Yes.
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
Really? Historically promiscuity has always been condemned to a certain degree or another no? Today, I feel that it is not condemned at all, but rather encouraged. Look at all ancient law codes - most of them had punishments for adultery for example. Do you think adultery should be legally punished? Why or why not? (I know you're a lawyer (are you not?) and so I'm curious what you think!)
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
I don't think there's anything wrong with sex itself as it exists. Some of the ways it's used though, are harmful, and hence reprehensible as you say. I don't think sex in-itself should ever be condemned by law (not speaking of adultery here, on which I'm unsure, but leaning towards condemning it).
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
I said two purposes, one physical, one spiritual. The spiritual one is intimacy. The physical one is reproduction. (the way I wrote it though, I understand your misunderstanding). I said failing to fulfil either one (in other words AT LEAST one) is guaranteed to be wrong and harmful. I gave the example of chewing food for the pleasure of it and then spitting it out instead of swallowing it. But of course, merely meeting the purposes of the activity does not guarantee it is moral (for example, once can meet the demand of reproduction through rape).
Hey, the Lutheran Social Service lunch and meeting on homeless youth was quite good. They pried loose a donation I intended to not make.
Anyone who commits a sin once (everybody) will commit a sin again. From a Christian perspective, there is no escape from sinning. We may not commit the same cardinal sin (like murder) more than once, but your average venial and mortal sins are the bread and butter of the confessional.
In secular terms, people can not avoid sin because the definition of sin overlaps the core characteristics of human nature: pride, greed, lust, envy, gluttony, wrath, and sloth. The normal personality is always on the verge of veering into the territory of these sins, in an exaggerated fashion, The normal personality is capable of consistently demonstrating the cardinal virtues -- prudence, justice, temperance, fortitude, faith, hope, and love -- with about the same consistency that it can avoid the major sins.
We are not masters of our own houses, as Sigmund Freud cogently observed. Insisting that we can, we shall, we will, and we must avoid your favorite sin, especially the one which is the uranium in the reactor of the human personality, is a wretched form of comfort. It's a gratuitously grim sort of damnation.
Perhaps we should repent of the whole business of sin, confession, damnation, etc. As far as I can tell, believers (Christian, Jews, Moslems) behave pretty much the same way that cradle and adult-converted atheists behave. Not better, not worse. Why is that? It is so because all human personalities are held together by the same flimsy ad hoc adaptations of our animal natures to our higher aspirations.
Regardless of what the church preaches, a stiff prick still has abysmal moral standards, and 2000 years of preaching, confession, absolution, threatened damnation and fear of hell, never made much of a difference.
The well regulated human has always recognized his and her needs, and has sought to satisfy them in a reasonable way, regardless of what the church preached (or they ended up miserable). Did some people pursue a thoroughly unreasonable way of satisfying needs? Absolutely! The well regulated human has also recognized that he or she is part of a larger, complex milieu and that solutions have to be found within that milieu. It's all pretty messy.
Periodically, the grip of the church has slipped and people have felt freer to behave as they wished. The last major slippage was not yesterday, and slippage has expanded into outright erosion of religious standards and control. In Europe and North America, maybe 200 to 500 million people have repented of their allegiance to Christian standards of behavior. Leaving behind the Christian model did not make them into barbarian heathens. They altered the milieu in which they live and have been able to find more human resolutions to their conflicts.
Hence: homosexuals are not candidates for burning at the stake; transexuals are not branded as abominations (your post excepted); women who are found in adultery no longer need fear stoning (except in certain barbarian regions like the Arabian Peninsula, in the lunatic Taliban controlled areas of Afghanistan, ISIS, etc.); divorced women do not become pariahs, and so on.
Disagreed. There is no necessity in this, even if you can treat it like a STATISTICAL law.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Then Jesus came for nothing. Can you believe that while still calling yourself a Christian?
Quoting Bitter Crank
Because of your hardness of heart, as Jesus said, not because this must be so.
Quoting Bitter Crank
I, the depreciating and nihilistic Christian who thinks everyone is evil and corrupt, do not think these are core characteristics of human nature ;)
Quoting Bitter Crank
I disagree with Freud because it is simply not the case. There are many people, especially in history, if we exclude this age, for which sex was not the uranium in the reactor of the human personality...
Quoting Bitter Crank
You know why? ;) Because they live in the same God-damn corrupt culture, that's why, and culture plays a more important role than beliefs one remembers every Sunday.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Right, but he's not master of my house, is he master of yours? :p
Quoting Bitter Crank
I don't think you quite understand what a need is. A need is something without which one simply cannot live, regardless of their will to live. Things such as air, food, sleep, excretion, etc. Can one live without sex? Yes. I can easily grant you that this is very very very difficult if you so desire (although I don't think it is). Thus sex is not a need, end of story. Also, do you think Saints (for one) were miserable?
Quoting Bitter Crank
Are you sure? As I said, they're very good at the soft virtues, but nothing else. They may not be barbarians which take a bat and smash your head with it. But they are barbarians in all other ways.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Oh really? That's why every night outside a nightclub there is some guy wanting to break a girl's head? Is that why? Is that also why the rate of divorce has gone up? Is that why the rate of depression and suicide is bigger in the US than in Nigeria?
Quoting Bitter Crank
They weren't except for some dark periods of the Middle Ages and Victorian ages. In Ancient Greece and Rome homos were quite cool people :) . We can conclude that for a large share of history homosexuals were NOT candidates for burning at the stake.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Well their actions certainly should be, because that's what they are, so this is unfortunate that in today's world we cannot even see how wrong trying to change your sex is.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Right, women who commit adultery today go like "Oh yeah but you ignored me for so long, I didn't feel loved anymore!!" (and then they wonder why the man broke their head :s ) They don't even see it is wrong. This is absolutely terrible, absolutely! At least in the past, because they feared it, they knew it was wrong. Now they don't. Many act as if it's their RIGHT to commit adultery if they don't like it anymore. That's just insane (not to mention uncaring, selfish, and virtually all the other vices). There's very few things more reprehensible than such an answer, and it deserves the same kind of punishment that a psychopath who kills and rapes a young girl, and then mercilessly feels proud and unapologetic of it in front of her family in court deserves. Such people deserve torture, and gnashing of teeth until they beg for mercy (in other words until they repent and feel sorry for what they have done). Same category of sin - the murdering rapist and the self-righteous adulterer. (actually this psychopath punishment thing - a good subject for a new thread, I'll open that soon - I'm curious what lawyers and people with law experience would think about torture being a punishment for such people).
Quoting Bitter Crank
I agree with Robert Pirsig (author of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance) when he said that the Taliban is correct in-so-far as they punish women for adultery, but they are wrong in-so-far as they don't permit moral mistakes ;) (and the possibility of moral excellence is more important and can't be sacrificed just to ensure no one gets hurt (from adultery in this case)).
Jesus didn't come to eliminate sin; he came to bring salvation from sin. Sin remains, but salvation was created to conquer sin. That's the story, isn't it?
I was raised as a Christian in a devout Christian home (Methodist). I have taken Christianity seriously for many years. I take it seriously, the same way I take the constitution seriously, but I do not now claim to be a Christian because I just don't believe god exists. I think Jesus was a real person, but I don't think he was the son of god.
Quoting Agustino
Well of course personality theory doesn't list the seven deadly sins as human features, but in small doses, all of these are essential. Our animal natures (as opposed to our "human" features") are not all that nice. If people weren't somewhat acquisitive (greed), if they didn't have somewhat healthy egos (pride), if they didn't have somewhat of a sex drive (lust), if they didn't somewhat aspire to match their betters (envy), if they didn't somewhat enjoy good food (gluttony), if they couldn't work up somewhat of a head of steam to defend themselves (wrath), and if they couldn't let it rest somewhat (sloth) where would we be? Nowhere.
Extreme features are often a problem in human personality, which is why you are running into so much flak about your views on sexuality. Most people do not embrace the extremity of your views. Maybe you're not crazy for holding such views (neuroticism is not the same thing as crazy), but when turned into policy such extreme views can cause a great deal of misery and harm. (And yes, they have been policy at various times--including within my time and place).
Nobody thinks anarchic irresponsibility and a complete indifference to consequences for sexual behavior is a good idea. And relatively few, merciful god, are as focussed on the alleged harm of sexual behavior as you are.
In what sense has salvation conquered sin if sin remains? The whole purpose of Jesus's coming, which finishes with the Last Judgement at the Revelation is the destruction of sin and death.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Alright understood :)
Quoting Bitter Crank
I don't think being acquisitive is greed. Greed is being acquisitive more than what is required for your well-being.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Self-esteem is not the same thing as pride. Pride, like the other sins, is an excess of something that is inherently good according to Catholic, Orthodox Christianities and Aristotelianism.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Lust is again an excess. I won't mention the other sins you mention, because these simply qualify as excesses of things which are naturally good.
Quoting Bitter Crank
My views are actually not extreme compared to most periods in history, they actually do lean on the lenient side. If I was say a monarch, you would not be punished for being homosexual and for wanting to live with another man instead of a woman. Nor would transgender people be punished for seeking to change their sex. They would be provided counselling and therapy instead (Homosexuals, lesbians and so forth will probably be left alone - if a man wants to live with a man instead of a woman, nothing inherently wrong with that so long as it's done with decency, love and respect). Promiscuity would be discouraged (advertising which involves sexual references banned) and looked down upon, but not outlawed - no legal punishment would be entailed to promiscuous people (as this would probably lead to more suffering and confusion than anything else). Sex education in schools would also discourage promiscuity, and encourage long-term relationships. I would create state supported institutions to help people form and be in long-term relationships (some people really do have problems forming and sustaining long-term relationships, and they need help - and others get very sexually frustrated because getting married or getting into a long-term relationship can be complicated). Adultery would probably be outlawed, and treated with the same seriousness as murder - but again depends on the severity of it. Just as there can be more serious forms of murder, so there can be more serious forms of adultery. I think most people would be happier than they are now. Many, I would hope, would also be more decent human beings.
Oh yes, and I would put an end to Tinder, and the like :D
(also Ashley Madison... but I would leave the porn sites free though - which by the way BC most "extremists" would not ;) )
Why would you think such is extreme? Do you think expecting people to be decent and caring human beings is extreme?
Quoting Bitter Crank
Yes, currently. In 50 years, this will probably change as the harm that unconstrained sex is causing is only growing and becoming more and more apparent.
What kinds of porn are allowed in your republic?
Are porn stars in your republic allowed to be married?
Ever been cheated on?
All of them?
Quoting csalisbury
Not as long as they are active in their porn career.
Quoting csalisbury
Not really, just deceived, which came close to cheating though. Actual, proper cheating? Thank God, no.
How'd the deception affect the relationship?
Yes, for good or ill, or perhaps for both, I'm a lawyer.
Adultery according to Merriam-Webster Online is (I paraphrase) voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and someone who is not his/her spouse. Adultery is still "on the books" as a crime in many states here in the U.S.A., though these laws are very seldom enforced. My guess is that if they were the courts would be significantly more busy then they are even now, which is very busy indeed.
I don't think adultery should be a crime. Marriage is treated as a kind of partnership in the law in most states by my understanding; it certainly is where I practice. Those partnerships may be dissolved for most any reason, now, just as other partnerships. It used to be the case that adultery or some other conduct would have to be established as a prerequisite for a divorce. In those days, people wanting to be divorced would have to resort to manufacturing evidence of adultery. For example, the husband would arrange to have his photograph taken while he was in bed with a woman not his wife. They could be doing nothing at all but laying in the bed, wearing pajamas, and could be complete strangers meeting just for the purpose of having their picture taken while in bed, but that was deemed adequate by sympathetic courts.
Eventually, it seems a policy decision was made to allow people miserable with each other to part ways without the need to establish or fabricate heinous conduct, and the law focused exclusively on allocating the property of the marriage-partnership and arranging for custody and protection of minor children of the marriage. That is a difficult enough task in many cases. I, personally, don't practice divorce law, thankfully; but this is my informed understanding.
As marriage can now be dissolved in the law without established immorality or fault (though those factors may impact property division and custody of children), imposing criminal penalties for the failure to honor marriage related sexual commitments strikes me as unreasonable. But I don't think the law should impose criminal penalties for adultery in any case. It may cause pain or harm to a spouse or children, but I don't think it's the kind of pain or harm that merits the imposition of criminal penalties. It is, as you might say, a question of priorities. Law enforcement resources are more usefully devoted to punishing other kinds of conduct. Civil remedies may be appropriate, however.
Marriage in the law is something different from marriage in religion. A religious institution may insist that marriage cannot be dissolved, that divorce is not allowed and except in limited circumstances and adultery a sin requiring punishment, but the law is no longer in the service of religious institutions. I think that's a good thing.
Well, damned if I know. According to the Agnus Dei, the "Lamb of god, takes away the sins of the world; have mercy on us". If there was no sin, mercy would not be called for. Baptized, shriven Christians sin. Who thinks they do not? Conquering sin didn't eliminate it. If sin is separation from God, and Christ's atonement for the sins of the world reconciled man to god, then the effect of sin -- alienation from god -- is kaput.
As for the Last Judgement, that hasn't happened yet, presumably. Once the Kingdom of God is inaugurated, and though we've been dead 10,000 years, we can get together and compare notes at that time.
I prefer to think that man is essentially good, but quite flawed owing to his provenance, which interferes with the "better angels of his nature" God didn't create us by fiat; we descended from other species, and retain features of species long before us.
I never did like the book of Revelations much. Along with some of the epistles, it should have been dropped into the shredder.
Quoting Agustino
It seems like I made the same point, somewhere along the line.
Quoting Agustino
In 50 years we'll all be busy filling sandbags to hold back the rising oceans, and doing this at night because it will be too hot in the daytime. It will be too hot to be screwing around, with no air conditioning because all our energy will be devoted to carbon sequestration and running ER rooms to treat people for heat stroke.
I anticipate that global warming and it's attendant problems will resolve all of our moral issues, except the one of making the earth a pest hole.
By any chance, have you ever looked at a woman with carnal thoughts, possibly, just a little bit, just enough to incur divine wrath? Hmmmmm? Just the teensiest bit of lust in your heart? NO? Oh, come on! Even Jimmy Carter admitted to lusting in his heart.
It was a nice touch, I thought.
Of course, this was in a semi-private establishment (bar) which chose to do such, which changes things from when you're talking about policy and law.
I have no idea what controversy you're talking about, though. To be honest, I've only heard this kind of moral haranguing from conservative politicians wanting to beat out their opponent on the conserv-o-meter and show their constituents they bleed red-white-blue and believe in traditional values.
But, I accept that my experiences are conditioned by what is a rather conservative state.
Depends how they are organised. Organised the way many are today, probably not.
Quoting csalisbury
I broke up with her, although probably, looking back, or rather if I could live again, I wouldn't have. It was too harsh, and that's one of the things I regret. People have to be honest to themselves, and I'm not ashamed for having done wrong. Better to admit having done wrong than to deceive oneself ;)
Quoting Bitter Crank
I didn't claim to be a saint BC. There's a lot of differences between a saint and myself, and I'm nowhere close to being a saint. I merely claimed to be a decent human being. So yes, I have looked at, in fact, many women, with carnal thoughts and/or lust. I have probably not done this while I had a girlfriend though. I would generally avert my gaze from other women at those times. Is this sinful nevertheless? Yes! Should I not do this? Yes! Is it less sinful than outright adultery? Yes - because in the latter not only do you hurt yourself, you also hurt others. In the former, you only hurt yourself and your own mind. I would probably not do this if I lived among religious and saintly people - but I live surrounded by a culture which encourages lust and carnal thoughts, to the point it becomes almost an automatic reaction.
@Ciceronianus the White
Thanks for your informative response. A few questions/comments if you don't mind:
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
Hmmm this depends though on the terms on which a partnership was founded. I'm not a lawyer, but having run my own business in the past, I know that many times it's not easy to terminate an existing contract. Would you not agree that the terms on which the partnership, in this case marriage, are founded, must determine when and in what conditions it can be dissolved?
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
How does one legally differentiate the kind of pain that merits criminal penalties and the one that doesn't?
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
What civil remedies are you thinking of when you state this?
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
What if those are terms explicitly stated in the marriage agreement and agreed by both parties at the time of the marriage?
Yes if there was no sin Jesus would never have died on the Cross.
Quoting Bitter Crank
A man cannot be reconciled with God unless they LIVE a life IN Christ. This means someone cannot go on sinning and living a life in Christ at the same time, lest at Judgement Jesus will tell them that he knew them not even if they come saying Lord Lord ;) . But the Christian life requires the community. It is only in the Church that the Christian can live in Christ and avoid sin. That is why, Christianity is inevitably tied to politics. A Christian requires a Christian society. The tools of the world - in this case peer pressure and social forms of pressure - need to be mobilised for Christian ends. At the moment they are still mobilised - but they are mobilised against the Christian, for the transexual, etc.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Look forward to it :)
Quoting Bitter Crank
I don't think of any animals as having the capacity for evil. Why do you think animals have the capacity for evil?
Quoting Bitter Crank
That was the first book I've read from the Bible. I think the Book of Revelations is essential - it's the only book where Jesus returns triumphant to banish and destroy all evil, and when Justice finally triumphs and reigns supreme, showing its full glory and power.
Quoting Bitter Crank
I think the environmental issues won't be the problem - I don't really think we (YET) have the capacity to unbalance the Earth to that degree. The Earth has its own mechanisms, just like a living body, to adjust and safeguard itself. I think the moral issues are the more pressing and serious concern.
Yes, I agree with you here. The Christian life requires a community, (and a real community, not the larger diluted "Christiandom"). Actually, man can not live alone and remain human, no matter what he is -- Hindu, radical atheist anarchist, communist, Donald Trumpist, gay, straight, etc. We require community.
Quoting Agustino
Your statement puts us on the horns of a dilemma.
On the one hand, certain skeins within the long Christian tradition have found excellent expression in political movements to establish social justice, old age security, disability insurance, mutual assistance, and all that good stuff. Of course, these goods don't require a Christian tradition, but in the west, some of our better social ideas have found support there.
The healthiest, least violence-ridden, most orderly states in the US (those across the northern tier from New England to Washington and Oregon) were most strongly influenced by the descendants of the flinty calvinist Puritan philosophy which viewed society as a divine institution, a 'city on a hill'.
On the other hand, some of our worst social programs have picked up on other skeins. Over the last century, conservative Christians have fought for and achieved in numerous places, the inclusion in public school science textbooks of divine creation (the 6 day kind) or the more elaborate "intelligent design" version (very much present tense). It is in the most strongly conservative Christian school districts that one will find the most intense opposition to sex education -- and by sex education I am not referencing any sort of pro-transgender, pro-promiscuity, pro-gay, pro-etc. curriculum. These curricula have focused on issues of critical personal relevance to "middle class" newly pubescent, heterosexual youth. They are not "sexual activity promotion" programs.
Slavery, and later harsh racial discrimination has been buttressed by scriptural references. The Ku Klux Klan (something of a precursor of the Nazi) was a pro-Protestant, pro-white, pro-nativist, anti-black, anti-Catholic, anti-Jewish, terrorist organization who had a long and disastrous role in American politics. The KKK is pretty much dead now (thanks to the concerted efforts of the capable and sometimes crooked, repressive, sometimes right-wing Federal Bureau of Investigation).
This is part of "the American Experience" -- you may not have experienced anything similar to this. I don't know. But here, combining "Christian" and "Politics" has not always worked out well.
An agreement isn't required to establish a partnership. When there is no agreement, the law governs disassociation. In that case, a partner by his/her "express will" may cease to be a partner, and may also cease to be one under other circumstances. Also in that case, the law addresses what results from the disassociation.
A partnership agreement may indicate how disassociation may take place and address the results of disassociation. If it does not, the law will control (I'm referring to the Uniform Partnership Act). However, partnership agreements may alter the statutory law only in certain respects. The scope of partnership agreements is limited by the law.
Marriage where I practice is a partnership which is governed in large part by the law, not by agreement. It's considered to be a civil contract, formed by the issuance of a marriage license and declarations to be husband and wife made before an authorized person. The law sets forth how it can be dissolved, and I know of nothing which allows the married couple to vary the law in that respect.
Marital property agreements may be made and entered into, characterizing particular property as belonging to one spouse or the other, and also addressing division of property on divorce.
The common law action for breach of promise was abolished where I practice quite some time ago, and I think that's the case with many other states. I don't know how many states still recognize such a claim or how often it's made.
Quoting Agustino
Pain and harm. By legislative act, practically speaking. Legislatures must determine what is or is not criminal conduct. A policy decision must be made--should or should not sexual infidelity be criminalized? Is it desirable to assign to law enforcement, the court system and jails the task of monitoring the sexual activity of those married and, if they are sexually active with those outside the marriage, arrest and prosecute and on conviction incarcerate them or assess a criminal penalty? I would say no.
As to civil remedies, I had in mind the impact on court decisions related to property division and custody. Where breach of promise actions are allowed, it's my understanding that compensatory damages (financial damages for losses incurred and personal damages to reputation and injury to feelings and health) are allowed.
Funny you say this. I was motivated to make this thread because I was talking to an acquaintance who happens to be fairly conservative.
Then again, there are People's Republics of [insert city here] spread across the world that are dominated by the far left and the progressive ideology and are advocating for these kinds of things.
Quoting Moliere
The only problem I find with this is that it would require a tremendous amount of money and bureaucracy.
It just depends on what sort of priorities we'd like to set for society.
For my money, I'd say it's worth it when I consider what else we spend money on. If the budget weren't as silly as it already is then I might see a point, but this actually helps people feel included in a society which is a lot better than a lot of what we spend money on :D
Or more likely, some ADA office. We inspect buildings and encourage, or force, building owners to make all sorts of changes that are just as expensive (or more so) than adding a bathroom. Like, requiring an elevator in an old building; requiring an old elevator in an old building to be brought up to code (that can cost $50,000, easy); put ramps in where only stairs are available (outside usually, and involving only a few steps); enlarge doorways so that wheelchairs can easily negotiate; install handicapped accessible toilets and sinks; provide more exits where they are needed for rapid egress; change sink levels; provide push-bar exit doors, and so on and so forth. Cities spend a lot of money making curb cuts at corners so that wheelchairs can cross the street conveniently.
When the ADA legislation first passed (back in the 70s) a lot of people thought it was just incredibly stupid to make old buildings usable by people with mobility problems. UNTIL, of course, a lot of the scoffers got old and developed mobility problems of their own. Then they began to appreciate the elevator in the old building, the ramp, the curb cut, the higher ADA toilet, the lever taps on the sinks, the mechanically opening door, and all that expensive waste of money.
Lots of men's room have panels between the urinals to provide privacy to the guys standing there who would like to take a piss, but can't because they are pee shy and somebody might be watching them, so they can't make it happen. I have to be in a hurry and have a full bladder to be able to step in between two other guys and urinate readily (or have had a few beers).
All that said, I still think the toilet controversy is much ado for a rather small number of people who are betwixt and between.
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
Well compensatory damages should be allowed because one party may be hurt by the divorce, and it's just not fair to ask them to deal with it, while the other party is free to do as they please with little or no consequence. Justice just has to be done.
Yes, these are internal problems to religion and they must be fought against. And I think it's religious people first and foremost, not atheists, who must do this fighting and ensure that those of the same religion as them have reasonable and moral demands.
Cudos to Trump, contra Cruz, for his position on this. Credit where credit's due.
They should be cleaned regularly, and leaks should be fixed.
Transsexuals and other more open-minded people don't use the word exclusively in that narrow and simplistic way in which you obviously approve.
That's the common usage, and meaning is use. They can't redefine words as they please. They have to speak the same language as all the rest of us do.
Actually they can. Who's going to stop them? The language police? :D
How do you think language evolves and gains new or additional meaning?
Quoting Sapientia
I don't know to be honest. But I will not assume that this is how. The reason is likely very complex, and I have spent no time studying this, so I cannot claim knowledge. Sorry.
And they have a right to call you ignorant and behind with the times, and such.
Quoting Agustino
Well, obviously, a word gets coined, or used in a new context, and this usage gains popularity, until, in some cases, at some point, it eventually becomes common usage. You don't need to do extensive research to gain that knowledge. It happened with the words "gay" and "queer" and many, many others.
So if I decide that "red" means "gay sex", then I have the right to call people who disagree with my usage ignorant and behind the times? :s
I am not a linguist and would not like to pretend I am one. I really am sorry, but I just don't have knowledge to converse about this. Nor do I think I can just know by thinking about it 10mins for the first time in my life.
That's a false analogy because "red" hasn't evolved to gain such a meaning amongst a large community.
You don't have to be a linguist, either. Just as I don't need to be a scientist to know why we don't simply float off into space.
If you recall, I referred to transsexuals and other more open-minded people.
Yes - you have studied this, probably in school, why you don't float into space. I haven't studied how words evolve through time, and I have literarily spent no time thinking about this. I have studied the historical origin of some words, but that's all.
Sure, sure. Or, you're feigning ignorance because it throws a spanner into the works.
I was honest, but if that interpretation pleases you lol :D - go for it!
You might not think so, but they do. They don't outright reject the concept of gender identity being determined by means other than what you're born with. We are living in the 2010's, not the 1950's.
Ok, if you're going to be pendantic, then they accept it.
Moving the goal posts :)
Or, to be more precise, out of those people who don't outright reject it, a smaller, but still significant and relatively large number of people accept it; and, as we seem to be progressing towards a more open-minded and accepting society with regards to sexual identity and transgender-related issues, this group may well grow in number, and may well be growing in number as we speak.
I mean, it wasn't that long ago that gay sex was illegal in the UK and classed as a sexual perversion of the same sort as child sexual abuse.
I hope not. I'm certainly trying to convince people to accept nature as it is instead of try to fulfil crazy and unnatural desires. But we'll see :)
Well, you shouldn't be trying to do so in those cases where it'll prevent them from living a better life, because you'll be doing more harm than good. And for the millionth time, it merely [i]seems[/I] crazy from your little, narrow perspective. A little modesty wouldn't go amiss. Especially from someone who so frequently rabbits on about virtue. :)
I don't think it will prevent them for living a better life. Quite a lot of research shows that people who do successful change sex do have serious psychological issues and continue to suffer. So I think not changing sex, not giving in to an unnatural desire, is the first step to a cure.
It's unnatural. No other living being but man has and acts on this desire.
Now there's a surprise. Well, maybe you should actually meet some of these people. I assure you, there are plenty of them who are indeed living a better life, but carry on believing otherwise if it makes you feel better.
Lol. What other being is capable of doing so?
Not according to statistical research published. No doubt there are some people, just not the majority of them.
I thought you'd ask this. No other being even attempts to. Even men hasn't attempted to for a large share of his history. Again - I simply don't think it is good. It goes against our biology, it goes against who we are, and is therefore MOST LIKELY to be harmful. I think there's better ways to deal with the desire for changing your sex than actually acting on it.
I've not looked into it, but I trust you conducted your research impartially with no hidden agenda.
I've just researched it out of curiosity (so no agenda). I've decided against it before that though. People can decieve themselves that they are happy too, as Aristotle showed.
Hilarious! You've got me there. I know from first hand experience, because, as part of a study, I've been observing the behaviour of sharks, and for years now, I've seen no sign of them attempting to get gender reassignment surgery.
Have you seen signs of them being unhappy with their gender? :D
He's committed statistic sorcery by catergoy error. Here he is treating transition (biological) as if it were THE answer to all of a person's dissatisfactions and fears, as if it were going to turn them in people who were bouncing off the walls at how great their live now. But that's never been the case. Transition (biological) has only ever been less than perfect measure against disphoria. It never been a "Magic Pill" which is meant to make someone utterly content with their lives or a solution to all their problems.
It's all sort of beside the point with respect to the specific topic of the thread though, as that's about transition (social), not biology. Hormones and surgery aren't needed for someone to be valued as part of the gender or sex the identify. That takes no alteration of biology at all.
It's laughable because it's a blatant category error. You can't compare the occurence of such a phenomenon to species insufficiently advanced for it to have arisen. If sharks and other creatures were to evolve to our level, and develop to where we are in history, then you could make such a comparison.
The more important fact is that such species do not display a desire to change their sex. They accept their nature as it is. Man is the only animal that sometimes tries to deny his nature.
People are no doubt born with biology, with a body with specific parts, but this is not the language we use to talk about them. We are free talk about anyone as part of any catergory, all while niether being ignorant of their biology or pretending it is something else.
Again, this is laughably fallacious. They don't display a desire to become armchair philosophers either.
Yes, that sort of thing is largely speculation, but I reckon he's right about other species lacking the desire to change sex. But even if so, he's still wrong on another level, because his inference about what this means is fallacious.
This is such crass nonsense I won't even bother to address it. It just shows how insane progressivism has become.
No - desire can exist even if they don't have the capacity for making it actual.
A pitiful response.
You are factually wrong here. Someone's body is not language used to talk to them. A baby being born is not a statement of their sex. The existence of states hormones, organs and chromosomes is never such speech. Any talk about the body is a separate and distinct state, which has no impact upon it.
If someone doesn't use the category of sex, they have no sex to change. Even someone who thought they ought to have a different body would, rather than identifying with another sex category, just express a desire for a bodily states.
Agustino's approach here is damning of his argument. The fact animals lack denial of their nature (we are assuming) shows that "nature" is not found in the presence of specific biological states, but rather in the language. In such circumstances, animals to not even have a concept of "nature" to deny. It's a feature of language found in highly-self aware species concerned with organising society into specific categories.
Yes, but my point was that some components of complex desires are incapable of being comprehended by other, less advanced species, so such desires cannot arise in those species, and this seems to be one of them. The absence of such a desire can be explained in more plausible ways which have nothing to do with the ridiculous argument that you're making, which commits a category error. You're looking for something where it can't be found, like assessing a banana for levels of consciousness. You're then using this as a means to justify your prejudice against transgendered people.
Exactly.
You know what the other lions probably aren't doing though? Engaging in prejudiced righteous indignation, attacks on competence or sanity and delionization.
More importantly, there are no dogmas, or tenets which tie transgender people together. I've come across a a number of very different theories, explanations, positions. No theoretical, linguistic theories ties trans people together. No surprise, but post-modernism is just as poorly understood, and ridiculed in the trans community as anywhere else people reject engaging with things they'd need more than a cursory understanding of.
There is no universal beliefs. Plenty of trans people will not go as far as to claim themselves to be women, like natal women are women, but since they aren't trying to eat anyone's babies, what's the big deal with letting people live their lives as they want?
For ordinary discourse by the vast majority of people, the meaning of words can change, and often does change, generally over a fair amount of time.
In 1850 guys who liked sex with other men were referenced with the term "sodomy" -- a term which still has a fairly stable meaning. "Homosexual" was first coined in German in the 1860s. The first known use of "homosexual" in English was in Charles Gilbert Chaddock's 1892 translation of Richard von Krafft-Ebing's Psychopathia Sexualis, a study on sexual practices. "Homosexual" became the preferred "official" term for guys who liked sex with other men (there were lots of other, slang / slur terms in use of course--queer, faggot, cocksucker, etc).
Homosexual and sodomy haven't changed their meanings very much. "Gay" has not always referenced "guys who like sex with other men". It's not an undisputed term now.
Take "crippled". A space ship that is hit by a little rock is "crippled". Older people note that so and so is crippled up with arthritis, and it isn't an insult. People who were paralyzed by polio were "crippled". For some reason this became a "bad term". Activists who were "crippled" wanted a different term: They are "physically handicapped"; "Physically challenged"; "Mobility impaired"; "Differently abled"; or "crippled". They don't like the term "able bodied" even though that is presumably a very good thing. Is one visually impaired or half blind? Hearing impaired or can't hear a thing? People in wheel chairs complain that people treat them like non-entities. Calling a wheelchair a "mobility device" isn't going to enhance the passenger.
First there were "transsexuals" (back in the 1960-1980s) then there were "transgendered". "Gender, gendered, gendering, transgendered" and so on reflect post-modernism which views sexual behavior as socially constructed and fluid. Post-modernists like turgid language which obscures more than reveals. Post-modernist thinkers don't see an essentially binary set up in nature (roosters and hens are just engaging in pointless performances, apparently). They see a continuum which ranges from god-knows-what on one end to archaic, oppressive, colonialist, all-powerful White Males on the other end (he said, sarcastically).
The self-esteem and individualist tendencies blended with post-modern gendering and produced people who decide for themselves and declare what they are, and if you don't like it, that is your closed minded problem, not theirs--even if it is nonsensical.
I believe there are, indeed, people whose self-identity is at odds with the physical body in which they find themselves packaged. I have found on a number of occasions that my self-identity doesn't match my body either. There are people with whom I'd like to have a winning fist fight, for instance, but when I look in the mirror, I find that it is highly unlikely I would get past the first punch. There are people to whom I would like to be irresistible, but for some reason, they are able to not even notice me. I would like to win bicycle races but I don't have Lance Armstrong's body, mind, or supply of drugs.
Many people have abnormal bodies which don't match the self image of the occupant. People who are blind, deaf, epileptic, schizophrenic; have diseases such as multiple sclerosis, muscular dystrophy, congenital deformities, and so forth, all have to make daily compromises with the physical/mental variances that shape their lives.
One of the things I dislike about "transgenderism" is that it projects that deviation from the 'norm' onto everyone. Everyone is someplace on a wide spectrum, continuum, of sexuality. Well, some are, but it seems like an awful lot of people do not find their sexuality scattered across the graph. A similar phenomena occurs among some gay activists: "Every man has at least a little desire for sex with another man. Sure, some more or less straight men do. But most straight men don't seem to have any such desire.
Projecting individual wishes onto everyone is generally not thought to be a sensible intellectual procedure.
In some cases it's pretty clear that an animal is displaying a desire. I would guess that in mammals, at least, there is some range of innate sexual responsiveness. But what would a horse desiring to change that innate sexual response look like? Don't know.
If one spent one's first 20 years being deeply conflicted about their sexual identity (am I male or female?) it would not be surprising if these conflicts would cause long-lasting personality issues. People who have merely ordinary physical handicaps such as very poor vision or deafness very often develop long-term personality problems, or distortions, owning to their experience of disability. If the child is lucky, he or she will grow up normally, but that depends on getting good breaks along the way.
That would be even more true for persons with difficult complex sexual problems. (Look at the long-term damage that child sexual abuse does.)
A transsexual is someone that has, or is in the process of medical transition, whereas transgender is internal identity.
You have no more scientific props for yours than I have for mine. The facts are that there are just some things that you want, and have probably always wanted, and you can either be a sinful, unnatural, insane person for that, or it can be okay. No scientific anything convinced people that homosexuality maybe isn't such a big deal, lack of actual significant consequences, and yes, the idea that freedom for you, is freedom for me, is what did that. People only start coming up with the science stuff after they've already become sympathetic, and open. They just weren't looking for it, didn't interpret things that way, didn't look for alternatives besides mental health, or satan. People that support conversion therapy, and claim to have prevented trangenderism in children make this claim on the notion of the escalation of perversion, by imagining homosexuality, and trangenderism to be a scale of perversion, and when the kids grow up to be gay, they at least prevented the worst of it. Win!
It's funny how, you also suggest that it is both unreasonable to live your life in a way that is nonsensical to others, and also it is unreasonable to project your dispositions, attitudes, and feelings "that deviation from the norm on to everyone." (and there being a spectrum somehow implies that everyone exists at every single point on the spectrum, so that if there is spectrum of sexuality, that means that everyone is actually bisexual, and at least somewhat attracted to everything that it is possible for anyone to be attracted to...), but that's precisely how we understand each other. We have no other options, when people are too different, we simply can't understand them. Wittgenstein's English speaking lion.
If you alone decide that, you have no right to expect everybody to agree with your usage. If a thousand people say red means gay sex, they don't have a right to expect agreement. If a million people use red to mean gay sex, then... maybe.
"Gay" was not a respectable term for a long time. The New York Times did not agreed to accept "gay" meaning "homosexual" until long after it became the preferred term in most media.
"New words" are borrowed from other languages ("salsa," "pizza"), coined by cobbling together ancient words (Latin 'jur' + 'dictio' = English "jurisdiction, by way of Old French), coined out of thin air ("OK"), or an old word is given a new meaning ("gay", "bread", "dope"). There is no formula which predicts which word will become standard. "dope" just recently became an adjective meaning "really good"; "bread" has been a term among some people meaning money for maybe 50 years.
Preferred descriptors get changed by professionals who like to tweak phrases. Public Health people decided that "venereal disease" was not a good term and so "sexually transmitted diseases" was used in its place. That wasn't good enough either, so now we have "sexually transmitted infections".
VD ---> STD ---> STI---> god knows what is next. This all within about 45 years.
People elect euphemisms for words that describe unpleasant conditions:
"passing" for dying is an example. "indigestion" for vomit; "Pelvic exam" for vaginal/cervix exam (doctors are not examining the pelvis). "gas" for fart. "feces" for shit. "bathroom" for toilet (or "restroom" or "ladies room" etc).
All sorts for interests come into play and change language: class, profession, religion, science, economic interests, and more.
Out-groups (like inner city blacks) often develop a patois that is mined by in-groups (suburban whites) for its outré value.
Linguistic "leaders" try to model the most "correct language", in the same way that people who want to be au currant latch on to concepts like "cultural appropriation". White people singing blues music is "cultural appropriation". Wearing a totally fake feathered headdress for halloween is "cultural appropriation".
How long "cultural appropriation" as a linguistic cultural sin will last is anybody's guess. I'd give it 5 years at the most.
End of discussion. I wonder why you even posted the thread?
But other folks find the story debatable and by no means ended by your pontification.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_and_gender_distinction
It seems to me that a philosopher who wishes to consider such matters would do well to trouble to understand that other thoughtful people make a distinction between sex and gender and find it useful. Then one could make an argument that this distinction is unhelpful or unsustainable, instead of claiming that it it is an abuse of language confined to a small group of misfits.
So it turns out that men can breastfeed. One has to conclude that this nurturing behaviour is not, as it appears to be, part of the sexual dimorphism which is supposed to be so clear. Well it might be convenient to say that is is not part of the biological sexual distinction, but is culturally strongly gendered. It does rather make one wonder though why man-boobs are perfectly acceptable for public display, but woman boobs are not?
So, lactating males are as useful as tits on a boar after all.
Granted: all mammalian fetuses begin development using a common template. Offspring with xy chromosomes emphasize some parts of the template; children with xx chromosomes emphasize other parts. Our biological systems are very similar, whether male or female.
Our biological systems are extremely similar whether one belongs to the black, red, white, yellow, or mixed race. Norwegians, Navahos, Nigerians and Nepalese are extremely similar.
Individuals vary considerably, but still bear the clear stamp of the template which we are all derived from. But some people delight in parsing out all our minute differences (lauding and honoring difference itself) while others find it more sensible to merge as many of our commonalities as possible.
That would seem to be the best solution overall to a new problem that really should not be a problem in the first place. Or so it would seem.
If I agree to mow your lawn for $20 and I don't do it, the court will not require me to mow your lawn. You would be entitled to the additional costs you have to pay to get your lawn cut. If you could find someone else to cut you lawn for $20, you'd get nothing because you weren't damaged.
What does this have to do with your question? Assuming marriages were actual contracts governed only by contract law (which they are not), you still could not require someone to do what they said they were going to do in the marriage and you could not keep two people married any more than you could keep two business partners remaining as business partners. The typical remedy for a contractual violation is determining the financial damage caused by the breach and giving that to the damaged party, not in imprisoning or otherwise forcing the violator to do what he contracted to do.
Why is it ok for a guy to go into the women's room because he wants to have a cooter but not ok if he just likes to look at cooter? As I shower my naked body next to some random naked woman in the women's locker room, if I say "I want one of them things like what you got down yonder," should I avoid prosecution?