The alt-right, PC speech and Islamic extremism

OK, so it's an attitude: is there an argument to back it up? Why does sexual intimacy only matter when heterosexual couples are trying to procreate?
If you mean by resort to logical enquiry alone, no. The church sees entertainment sex as disrespectful of the other because each are sacred beings, not biological robots in need of a hit. The terms used are comfort and procreation, or words to that effect, not comfort or procreation. Do people fail in that ideal? Of course, which is one of the reasons confession is available. However confession means a sincere resolve not to commit the same errors. If you go into a confessional without sorrow and regret for your sins, knowing you'll do the same thing at the first opportunity, absolution is not available. This isn't an exclusively homosexual thing, anyone living outside matrimony in a sexual relationship has to resolve to at least try not to continue their lifestyle. Unless you're a Catholic, these questions are irrelevant.

Let's stick with the basics: loving intimacy of the "traditional" variety, involving sweet talk, caresses, holding, kissing gently (or passionately), etc etc, nothing that a conservative person might term "perverted" (other than, potentially, the homosexual varieties of this type of intimacy). Why would this be valid for heterosexual couples seeking to procreate, but invalid for homosexual couples seeking to nurture and bring their love to fruition?
As the church doesn't see homosexuality as sinful, any act that falls short of intentional arousal isn't an occasion for sin. You could live in a homosexual commune (a monastery?) or as a life couple and it would be no more sinful than living with your sister, so long as you don't shag either. If you can't keep your hands off each others bits a priest might recommend living together was too much of a temptation, and if you're sincere about your faith living separately is a good idea. Again, only a problem for Catholics.

These things are easily researched and have evolved from a particular view about the nature of reality and the human condition. They are completely consistent with that world view, but are certainly strange to modern liberal views honed in physicalist enlightenment values. Discussing them on a forum in which they are only remotely relevant is something I find tedious, but ennui at the state of the forum and the challenging nature of some podcasts towards Christianity, means I'm asked to "justify" those views or I'm provoked into posting by clear misrepresentations of either my position, or the Catholic one. Which is why posting on the forum isn't nearly so much fun as when it was about table turning, precognition or the nature of consciousness.
 
As the church doesn't see homosexuality as sinful, any act that falls short of intentional arousal isn't an occasion for sin. You could live in a homosexual commune (a monastery?) or as a life couple and it would be no more sinful than living with your sister, so long as you don't shag either. If you can't keep your hands off each others bits a priest might recommend living together was too much of a temptation, and if you're sincere about your faith living separately is a good idea. Again, only a problem for Catholics.
These are basically radical ideas at this point, that only a tiny percentage of Catholics would adhere to. (Including the broader idea that sex needs to be some kind of godly act of purity.) Really it is akin to yogic restrictions, but at least hinduism seems more sensible in its approach by designating life stages--householder, practitioner, etc.
 
These are basically radical ideas at this point, that only a tiny percentage of Catholics would adhere to. (Including the broader idea that sex needs to be some kind of godly act of purity.) Really it is akin to yogic restrictions, but at least hinduism seems more sensible in its approach by designating life stages--householder, practitioner, etc.
Well that's cultural conditioning. If some dude forsakes food and sex and lives on a Himalayan hillside in all weathers, westerners assume he's on the path to enlightenment. If the Catholics next door resolve not to fuck one another, they're po-faced medievalists who need to get with the programme.

I don't see anything too great about the state of secular society that makes either stance particularly weird, even from a pragmatic point of view, and quite a lot to commend both as a window on human experience. When the mass slaughter of unborn humans in a world where we don't understand the nature of consciousness, is seen as the price for sexual fulfilment and personal freedom, there's a lot wackier and more distasteful things than sexual abstinence.
 
Well that's cultural conditioning. If some dude forsakes food and sex and lives on a Himalayan hillside in all weathers, westerners assume he's on the path to enlightenment. If the Catholics next door resolve not to fuck one another, they're po-faced medievalists who need to get with the programme.

I don't see anything too great about the state of secular society that makes either stance particularly weird, even from a pragmatic point of view, and quite a lot to commend both as a window on human experience. When the mass slaughter of unborn humans in a world where we don't understand the nature of consciousness, is seen as the price for sexual fulfilment and personal freedom, there's a lot wackier and more distasteful things than sexual abstinence.
I can see that point.
 
I'm prepared to bet I have more gay friends and acquaintances than anyone on this forum who isn't themselves gay, based on the areas I've worked in.

I think you would lose that bet, and it's clear from your comments that you know nothing about the gay community. Yes, we gay and bisexual men have a community, where we talk amongst ourselves.

So the claim I'm divorced from "queer" reality doesn't wash. Without getting into unfalsifiable cause and effect chains, I do think a lot of homosexual men (I have many fewer lesbian associates) have a range of environmental/social profiles that suggest same sex attraction is not exclusively biological.

Like I said, I don't think it is exclusively biological, but I also don't think it matters. And some of us are old-school enough to have a problem with being called "queer," since that was used as a SLUR. But the new generation is intent on "reclaiming" that slur, even though it is still used as one.

Some actively gay men are only attracted to straight men, who they identify with completely, and fail to see why they don't see the attraction. They clearly don't think homosexuality as a closed biological arena but an experiential one.

There is a word in the community for gay men who are into straight men. I don't like it, sure, but they exist. Maybe I just shouldn't bother. I don't know why I said anything in the first place, so carry on.
 
I think you would lose that bet, and it's clear from your comments that you know nothing about the gay community. Yes, we gay and bisexual men have a community, where we talk amongst ourselves.

Like I said, I don't think it is exclusively biological, but I also don't think it matters. And some of us are old-school enough to have a problem with being called "queer," since that was used as a SLUR. But the new generation is intent on "reclaiming" that slur, even though it is still used as one.

There is a word in the community for gay men who are into straight men. I don't like it, sure, but they exist. Maybe I just shouldn't bother. I don't know why I said anything in the first place, so carry on.
How can you possibly know I'd lose the bet? Are you able to deduce from what I've said that I don't like homosexuals and they don't like me? What arrogant nonsense, you know nothing of my interests or circle of friends. If you mean very young homosexual people in contact over social media represents a "community", that's like saying the Idealists and Panpsychist on Skeptiko represent a community, or boy band fans represent a community, true if you ignore every point of difference and the fact they communicate by text.

I've made my thoughts on homosexual nomenclature clear and won't have it twisted to suit political ends. I do not use "queer" unless it's in reply to a gay person who uses it as a term for themselves first, or any other word with negative associations. If you want a serious discussion on sexuality as a whole and non-physicalist assumptions about the nature of it, let's have that discussion. But don't play the victim. Suppose I flip it and say you're denying the rights of Catholics to freedom of expression? I would never claim the ascendency of one idea based on politics. Ideas stand or fall on their ability to authentically reflect truth, not because someone projects pejoratives and insults where none exist. At least we agree that homosexuality is probably not exclusively biological. For that alone you can expect demonization by materialists. I hope you can have that debate among your friends, gay and straight.

The reason I get grumpy over these kinds of posts is they remind me of sceptics. Modern, civilised people believe x and if you question it you're a fucking moron. Debate the issue? Fuck you arsehole. But I wasn't trying to provoke you. Yeah, well I feel provoked and provocation is in the eye of the beholder so STFU! At least you avoided bad language, which is more than I've been able to do.
 
Last edited:
I think (IN MY OPINION) you would lose because you know nothing of people’s private lives online or offline. You don’t know who is gay or who is not. And yes, I was part of the gay community as a bisexual man. I never said gay people didn’t like you!(!??)

Gay communities did exist before the Internet, you know, and we had to support one another during the AIDs crisis. But to compare Skeptiko and internet posts to how the gay community existed before “homosexuality” was more “accepted” in the late ‘90s is actually insulting. There was (and is) actually a community because we were/are marginalized, demonized, hated. Are you denying that gay communities didn’t exist outside of the Internet or something in the past? I don’t think that is what you meant. Or that we were not persecuted for our sexuality, even violently?

I would never deny Catholics or any other religion or political movement to have their communities and beliefs and speech, and I am certainly not playing the victim. I think you have read something into my comment that isn’t there.

I even said before that I enjoy your posts and you seem well-read and intelligent. I was surprised by your reply, so I suppose this will be my last post on the matter, and I am sorry that I have offended you and possibly many others.

Over and out.

Take care and good luck to you.
 
I don't know who is gay or not? Not 100%, but I've been around camp gays, straight acting gays, gay gays, misanthropic gays, self-loathing gays, gays who don't know they're gay, bi-sexuals, self-denying skinhead gays, priggish gays, predatory gays and straight men who enjoy it up the sh*tter for kicks, so my gaydar may not be perfect, but it's pretty reliable and has been since I was a young teenager who used to go to gay clubs with my mates because the music so was so much better than the pop straight discos played. We were accepted by homosexual men for what we were (eye candy), not because we were closet gays and I always respected that. Today's political homosexuals could learn a lot from the gay men of that generation. I reject any inference that I am homophobic or naïve to the nuances of the gay world.

That there is a genuine community of like minds based on nothing more than sexual orientation, is something I find bizarre. About as realistic as a straight community:
 
Congratulations - you've just made the stupidest analogy of the year.

Edit: I'm not an advocate of bans and de-voicing, but this is very close to trolling and I recommend moderators have a close look at it.
I'll stand by the decision of the village idiot.
 
I'll stand by the decision of the village idiot.
Anyone who equates enslavement with sexual orientation is the idiot. The inference of the post was clear, gay men didn't used to claim special status, automatic victimhood or that the straight world didn't understand their pain. I don't know any serious minded gay adults who would do so now. That anyone would liken abduction and slavery with gender orientation is a fool, a troll or a politician.
 
gay men didn't used to claim special status, automatic victimhood or that the straight world didn't understand their pain
Do you secretly loathe gay people? You just can't stop hammering on them.
 
Do you secretly loathe gay people? You just can't stop hammering on them.
I don't think I'm the one who has the problem with homosexual people. You need to work out what you really think, stop projecting, and come back when you've worked through your issues. You've just claimed homosexuality is like slavery. It doesn't require a Freudian to conclude you have stuff to sort out.
 
I cannot but lament how short lived the so called peace surplus was. I. e. The brief amount of time between the end of the cold war and the the troubles this thread is concerned with.

Not only that, but there are people in positions of power in the US, who can't bear to accept that Russia need no longer be an enemy!

David
 
Surely the ideal aim for gays and lesbians would be to be accepted as equals and for their differences to be simply forgotten about - except perhaps in dating situations.

Unfortunately that end point would be useless for politicians who want to carve a career out of these people's supposed grievances.

David
 
Back
Top