A Hypothetical Situation

[Tissue]

Tissue - Love is hardly about rationality. In the beginning stages you use rationality, to make sure you know you aren't going to trap yourself in a harmful relationship. But that's about it. Once you've really gotten to know each other and can see each other and talk to each other without any fear or regret or dishonesty, rationality is in the back of the mind. You might drag it out for the proposal, but that's it. Love is about emotion, love IS emotion. So of course anything concerning love is going to be EMOTIONAL.

I'm talking about the issue of homosexuality, not homosexual love.

Besides, considering the fact that most tactics used to condemn homosexuality are nothing but scare tactics that toy with a persons fears, guilt and bias, this should be fair game.

Ironically, that was very much a biased comment.

 

[Mling]

I'm talking about the issue of homosexuality, not homosexual love.

Well, the OP is about love.

Ironically, that was very much a biased comment.

Would only be if it wasn't true. As it happens, the tactic "Oh Em Gee! they're after your kids!" *is* seen fairly often, along with "Oh Em Gee! They're infiltrating churches and trying to ban all religion!"

 

[Tissue]

Well, the OP is about love.

Right, about it. It's a metareference, in that we are not directly involved in that love. This forum is for talking about the issue of homosexuality and how it relates to our spiritual beliefs, to the social institution of marriage, and to society as a whole.

Regardless, my arguments for rationality were toward Texas Lynn, who is making sensational and over-the-top comments on an issue where rationality and proper conversation is needed. You misread me if you think I am downplaying the beauty, depth, or legitimacy of love.

Would only be if it wasn't true. As it happens, the tactic "Oh Em Gee! they're after your kids!" *is* seen fairly often, along with "Oh Em Gee! They're infiltrating churches and trying to ban all religion!"

To quote JK Rowling, "I cannot be held responsible for the lunatic fringe of my religion." For a fine example, many people now believe that it is central Christian doctrine that there will be a rapture. Yet, most Christian scholars, and most laypersons who have studied the issue do not believe this. Because of the large number of stereotypical conservative Christian authors in the book market, however, Christianity has been, itself, stereotyped. To make such a sweeping generalization does the rest of us a grave disservice.

 

[Mling]

Right, about it. It's a metareference, in that we are not directly involved in that love. This forum is for talking about the issue of homosexuality and how it relates to our spiritual beliefs, to the social institution of marriage, and to society as a whole.

Regardless, my arguments for rationality were toward Texas Lynn, who is making sensational and over-the-top comments on an issue where rationality and proper conversation is needed. You misread me if you think I am downplaying the beauty, depth, or legitimacy of love.

Well, yes. It is a hypothetical, and it is hyperbole. As such it is deliberately exaggerated in order to make a very specific point. It does not address the entire spectrum of conversations one might have about homosexuality. It addresses the very specific point of how love plays out in situations where it is being persecuted. You may want to talk about a specific rational point, but that's not what this thread is about.

To quote JK Rowling, "I cannot be held responsible for the lunatic fringe of my religion." For a fine example, many people now believe that it is central Christian doctrine that there will be a rapture. Yet, most Christian scholars, and most laypersons who have studied the issue do not believe this. Because of the large number of stereotypical conservative Christian authors in the book market, however, Christianity has been, itself, stereotyped. To make such a sweeping generalization does the rest of us a grave disservice.

Ok, but, again, she wasn't talking about all of Christianity. She was talking about tactics used to condemn homosexuality. If tactics used to condemn homosexuality are only used by the lunatic fringe, then great. But where those tactics are used, they closely resemble what I wrote in my above post, and they are "nothing but scare tactics that toy with a persons fears, guilt and bias." I fully agree that this is not true for all of Christianity, and that is because it doesn't *apply* to all of Christianity. In situations where it applies, it is true.

 

[DZoolander]

I dunno about conservatives lacking imagination... I think it's quite the opposite actually.

Our faith is full of conservatives who live in an imaginary world... There's people talking about hypothetical abortions on imaginary daughters (partial birth abortions), the destruction of the institution of marriage (gay marriage issues), the "righteousness" of previous generations compared to now, etc.

There's quite a bit of fantasizing going on, from what I can tell

 

[Tissue]

Well, yes. It is a hypothetical, and it is hyperbole. As such it is deliberately exaggerated in order to make a very specific point. It does not address the entire spectrum of conversations one might have about homosexuality. It addresses the very specific point of how love plays out in situations where it is being persecuted. You may want to talk about a specific rational point, but that's not what this thread is about.

Then this is little more than a display of sentimentality. If she means to argue about emotions, and their role and legitimacy, then that would be rational. But to simply employ them with no frame; that is irrationality, and is of no use in furthering this issue.

Ok, but, again, she wasn't talking about all of Christianity. She was talking about tactics used to condemn homosexuality. If tactics used to condemn homosexuality are only used by the lunatic fringe, then great. But where those tactics are used, they closely resemble what I wrote in my above post, and they are "nothing but scare tactics that toy with a persons fears, guilt and bias." I fully agree that this is not true for all of Christianity, and that is because it doesn't *apply* to all of Christianity. In situations where it applies, it is true.

Then neither you nor her are actually saying anything substantial. You are essentially saying this: "Those who use underhanded tactics to condemn homosexuality are using underhanded tactics to condemn homosexuality."

You might as well start talking about arithmetic.

 

[Mling]

Then neither you nor her are actually saying anything substantial. You are essentially saying this: "Those who use underhanded tactics to condemn homosexuality are using underhanded tactics to condemn homosexuality."

You might as well start talking about arithmetic.

No, we are saying that those who condemn homosexuality use underhanded tactics to do so.

Implied in that is the suggestion that underhanded tactics are necessary for the lack legitimate reasons.

 

[Tissue]

No, we are saying that those who condemn homosexuality use underhanded tactics to do so.

Implied in that is the suggestion that underhanded tactics are necessary for the lack legitimate reasons.

I have already addressed this, stating that there are rational, reasonable arguments against homosexual marriage as presented in David Blankenhorn's book "The Future of Marriage". You are generalizing, just as Texas Lynn did, and it is precisely this that I am rebelling against.

I condemn homosexual practice. I consider myself rational, justified, and warranted in my beliefs. I consider myself intellectually satisfied in my reasons for holding such beliefs. I refuse to let you polarize this discussion and remove its subtleties.

 

[Mling]

I have already addressed this, stating that there are rational, reasonable arguments against homosexual marriage as presented in David Blankenhorn's book "The Future of Marriage". You are generalizing, just as Texas Lynn did, and it is precisely this that I am rebelling against.

I condemn homosexual practice. I consider myself rational, justified, and warranted in my beliefs. I consider myself intellectually satisfied in my reasons for holding such beliefs. I refuse to let you polarize this discussion and remove its subtleties.

Ok, you have stated that rational, reasonable arguments exist. In the many years that I have been involved in this debate, I have yet to hear one, so I'm not going to take your word for it. What are these arguments, of which you speak?

 

[Tissue]

I would essentially be summarising Blankenhorn with a Scriptural/spiritual twist. It is primarily his work that has made the greatest impression on me as a work of serious scholarship and research. I could not do his argument justice, nor am I inclined to spend my time rewriting what someone has already sufficiently presented in book form.

 

[Mling]

I would essentially be summarising Blankenhorn with a Scriptural/spiritual twist. It is primarily his work that has made the greatest impression on me as a work of serious scholarship and research. I could not do his argument justice, nor am I inclined to spend my time rewriting what someone has already sufficiently presented in book form.

Well then, you have no right to criticize my arguments or beliefs. After 5 years of speaking to people of various levels of intelligence and various backgrounds, and reading the writings of of many other people, I have yet to see one argument against gay marriage or homosexuality that really makes sense. I have looked, and I honestly believe that I have seen *every. single* argument on this subject that exists.

If you are going to tell me that there are plenty of arguments that are based in truth, follow with logic and proceed into meaningful discussion, you need to provide them and not just expect me to ignore everything I've seen because you told me to.

 

[OllieFranz]

I would essentially be summarising Blankenhorn with a Scriptural/spiritual twist. It is primarily his work that has made the greatest impression on me as a work of serious scholarship and research. I could not do his argument justice, nor am I inclined to spend my time rewriting what someone has already sufficiently presented in book form.

Can you at least summarize some of his main points? Just enough to convince us that he really has a new and legitimate viewpoint, and that we would not be wasting our money buying his book on your say-so only to find the same trite and tired arguments.

 

[Tissue]

Well then, you have no right to criticize my arguments or beliefs. After 5 years of speaking to people of various levels of intelligence and various backgrounds, and reading the writings of of many other people, I have yet to see one argument against gay marriage or homosexuality that really makes sense. I have looked, and I honestly believe that I have seen *every. single* argument on this subject that exists.

I have never criticized your beliefs. I HAVE criticized your argument; that is, your argument style. You made a few fallacies, and I pointed them out.

If you followed my posts on this forum, you'd notice that most of my posts are of this nature: pointing out fallacies and weak arguments on both sides of a discussion.

If you are going to tell me that there are plenty of arguments that are based in truth, follow with logic and proceed into meaningful discussion, you need to provide them and not just expect me to ignore everything I've seen because you told me to.

I have pointed you to the book that I have read on the issue. I can do no more than this. Frankly, I couldn't care less whether you are impressed or satisfied on the issue. You have asked for a rational argument. I have pointed you in a proper direction.

 

[Tissue]

Can you at least summarize some of his main points? Just enough to convince us that he really has a new and legitimate viewpoint, and that we would not be wasting our money buying his book on your say-so only to find the same trite and tired arguments.

Blankenhorn begins by taking a history of marriage as known in a number of different cultures and time periods, and through this a constructs an understanding of marriage as a social institution. The work, while recognizing the elements of love and intimacy so central to the institution, understands it socially.

It has been a while since I have read the book, and I don't have it at hand right now to refresh my memory.

 

[Mling]

I have never criticized your beliefs. I HAVE criticized your argument; that is, your argument style. You made a few fallacies, and I pointed them out.

If you followed my posts on this forum, you'd notice that most of my posts are of this nature: pointing out fallacies and weak arguments on both sides of a discussion.



I have pointed you to the book that I have read on the issue. I can do no more than this. Frankly, I couldn't care less whether you are impressed or satisfied on the issue. You have asked for a rational argument. I have pointed you in a proper direction.

Well, you pointed out what you *believed* were fallacies, and I pointed out that you were misinterpreting what I'd said.
I've followed your posts on this thread pretty carefully, actually. Posts that aren't replies to you are fairly casual, tossing ideas around. The OP is pure sentimentality, that's true. You are the one who started arguing that for the discussion to be meaningful, it had to be rooted in reason and logic. People who responded to you tried to meet you on that level, but, in my conversation with you, the discussion came down to whether reasonable and logical arguments that condemn homosexuality even exist. At that point, you said that they do.

I asked what they were.

Now, this point is crucial. Our discussion was, in large part, about whether it is biased, making sweeping generalizations or irrational to say that arguments condemning homosexuality are fearmongering. Whether it *is* biased and whatnot depends in large part on whether reasonable arguments for it *do exist*

This...the whole basis of your argument--an argument *you* started when you could have said "eh, it's a sentimental little thread. I don't want to bother"-- you are refusing to provide.

You couldn't be bothered to even summarize one, but expect me to go drive to the bookstore and lay down a chunk of my diminishing bank account to read something that may or may not be reasonable, based on your word.

Again, you could have left this thread alone. It was a meaningful, if casual and sentimental conversation without the introduction of "rationality." Without your contribution, it would have been a tossing back and forth of random personal feelings. That is not a rational conversation, but it is a conversation some people enjoy. For that reason alone, it is meaningful.
Poking at people, demanding logic and then refusing the provide any of your own, isn't even that. It is random cage-rattling and *that* serves *no* purpose.

And then you expect me lay down money because of a recommendation you made...

 

[Tissue]

Now, this point is crucial. Our discussion was, in large part, about whether it is biased, making sweeping generalizations or irrational to say that arguments condemning homosexuality are fearmongering. Whether it *is* biased and whatnot depends in large part on whether reasonable arguments for it *do exist*

This...the whole basis of your argument--an argument *you* started when you could have said "eh, it's a sentimental little thread. I don't want to bother"-- you are refusing to provide.

You misunderstand me, and my intent, and the basis for my posts, on every front.

I have no interest in arguing about our argument. We are both reading the same thread; where I see fallacy on your part, you see fallacy on my part. Clearly we cannot see eye-to-eye on this, and I have no doubt we would argue even after fifty pages of such banter. Let us save ourselves time and move on.

You couldn't be bothered to even summarize one, but expect me to go drive to the bookstore and lay down a chunk of my diminishing bank account to read something that may or may not be reasonable, based on your word.

Plug it in Yahoo and look up some reviews. Once again, I could care less whether or not you are satisfied by my answer. It is, at any rate, a rational and reasonable work of scholarship. Whether or not you bother with it does not change that fact.

Again, you could have left this thread alone. It was a meaningful, if casual and sentimental conversation without the introduction of "rationality." Without your contribution, it would have been a tossing back and forth of random personal feelings. That is not a rational conversation, but it is a conversation some people enjoy. For that reason alone, it is meaningful.

Without the introduction of rationality, it is meaningless. The OP-er means to draw conclusions from pure emotion, without any rationality to frame it. This is enough of a disservice to logic and to those who are generalized that I considered it worthwhile to say a few things in its/their defense.

Poking at people, demanding logic and then refusing the provide any of your own, isn't even that. It is random cage-rattling and *that* serves *no* purpose.

I have spoken using nothing but logic.

You assume that I am somehow obligated to outline my rational argument by some means (You? Logic as a whole? The Brute Squad?). This idea is beyond the scope of my reason for posting here, and is for someone else who has close interest in this issue to take over.

 

[Mling]

Without the introduction of rationality, it is meaningless. The OP-er means to draw conclusions from pure emotion, without any rationality to frame it. This is enough of a disservice to logic and to those who are generalized that I considered it worthwhile to say a few things in its/their defense.

A while ago I saw a thread go similarly, except it was the other way around, from my perspective. I had the same philosophical leanings as the person who was poking at the OP, and objected to the OP myself.

I'll tell you the same thing I told her. If you think somebody is laying the groundwork to make a point you don't think is valid, don't help them! It's best to let them make the point and then critique the actual logic they *did* use, then to make their presumed argument *for* them and then critique what they didn't say, but might have if you'd let them.

 

[Texas Lynn]

The Lord you serve is liberal. Just out of curiosity, would that be classical liberal or modern liberal? I'd also like to know exactly the kind and degree of peace and justice to which you refer.

I don't see much of a distinction; modern day quests for progress are built on the foundation of those which came before. today's liberalism will be considered ultraconservatism before you and I are dead.

As to your second query more specific information is needed. I recongnize life doesn't come in a neat little box, much as social conservatism wants it to.

 

[Texas Lynn]

I dunno about conservatives lacking imagination... I think it's quite the opposite actually.

Our faith is full of conservatives who live in an imaginary world... There's people talking about hypothetical abortions on imaginary daughters (partial birth abortions), the destruction of the institution of marriage (gay marriage issues), the "righteousness" of previous generations compared to now, etc.

There's quite a bit of fantasizing going on, from what I can tell

Ever read Marx's commentaries on contradictions? Fascinating if pompous stuff.

Yeah, you make a salient point; the Red Scare, fear of commies under beds (these days replaced by gays or terrorists, or, even better, terrorist gays) is certainly an exercise in fiction, but it is a collective delusion and manipulation. Imagination requires originality; being a right winger means merely to follow the fearmongers. It could be argued that the fearmongers themselves differ from orthodox conservatives in that they indeed do have vivid imaginations and do skillfully employ them to the advancement of themselves. Karl Rove is certainly a fine example. Remember how he referred to Jack Abrahamoff of James Dobson and Ralph Reed as "the nuts"?

 

[DZoolander]

Yep - I love Marx. If you do away with the stigmas attached to Marx/Marxism - he's actually one of my favorite social philosophers.

And you're absolutely right. Maybe I'm giving too much credit to conservatives in general by saying that they have the ability to indulge in fantasy/the hypothetical. Perhaps it is actually what you said...that they're just following in tow those that actually *do* imagine things/revel in fantasy (for their own political gain...of course).