Perversion

[knightlight72]

Are you trying to say that gender roles tell us anything morally?

No. I was trying to point out that it fits the definition of perversion. That is biologically not the function.

No, I'm saying that no one has ever defined the word "perversion", it doesnt mean anything. People use the word as a way of dismissing behaviors as morally without ever explaining their moral relevance.

I went to several dictionaries, and I have to say that your premise is mistaken. Many people have defined perversion, and include it in the english dictionary.

You cannot define something without a meaning, and the meaning was included in the dictionary.

 

[knightlight72]

So perversion is related to how men and women take to their gender roles? I guess I don't get what you're saying... Are you talking about our roles in sex or society, and if sex, there are plenty of sex acts between consenting adults of two genders that isn't exactly traditional...

No, the OP was talking of perversion, and how homosexaulity did not meet the definition. I was pointing that it did biologically meet the definition.

So context was against the OP.

 

[knightlight72]

I don't think people are saying the term is useless... They're saying misuse of the word is useless. And I have to admit that there's a point there, because when I see somebody misuse that word (or any other word) my first thought isn't "Well there's a well spoken person who knows what they're talking about."

Actually, I was agreeing that simply saying it was usueless. What I was disagreeing with was that people were saying homosexuality didn't meet the definition. (There was no misuse, it meets the definition)

 

[k]

No. I was trying to point out that it fits the definition of perversion. That is biologically not the function.



I went to several dictionaries, and I have to say that your premise is mistaken. Many people have defined perversion, and include it in the english dictionary.

You cannot define something without a meaning, and the meaning was included in the dictionary.

Gender is a social construction while sex is anatomically based and sex is not exclusively used for pro-creation.

 

[k]

I guess I don't see how homosexuality is "biologically meeting the definition of perversion."

IMAO, "biology" is being used as a euphemism for heterosexist norms.

 

[knightlight72]

Gender is a social construction while sex is anatomically based and sex is not exclusively used for pro-creation.

I think you'd have to show me more proof that male and female do not meet biological function before I can believe that it is a social construction.

 

[knightlight72]

I guess I don't see how homosexuality is "biologically meeting the definition of perversion."

I was using the dictionary definition, and then compared it to biological functions of the human body.

 

[k]

I think you'd have to show me more proof that male and female do not meet biological function before I can believe that it is a social construction.

There is a diff between the male gender and male sex, that was my point.

 

[knightlight72]

So having sex is not a biological function of the body? Being naturally attracted to somebody of the same sex is against the biological function of the body?

I think you're trying to respond to something I said earlier, and were trying to understand it. I was pointing you back to the earlier refernbce by helping you understand the context. It was about the definition of perversion, and how homosexuality matches that definition.

It seems you switched directions from what I was speaking about. I mentioned OP and context, and definition. So I'm not talking about attraction. I am talking about the definition of perversion, and how homosexuality does fit in the definition.

 

[knightlight72]

There is a diff between the male gender and male sex, that was my point.

And my point was that the term is by definition correct.

 

[k]

And my point was that the term is by definition correct.

Maybe if we lived in a world of objectively created words.

 

[knightlight72]

Maybe if we lived in a world of objectively created words.

If you don't want to use the dictionary, you don't have to. But that doesn't mean the dictionary is not used by everyone else.

 

[k]

If you don't want to use the dictionary, you don't have to. But that doesn't mean the dictionary is not used by everyone else.

Every single person on the planet could use the dictionary every single hour. That still would not negate the fact it is a subjective document.

 

[knightlight72]

Every single person on the planet could use the dictionary every single hour. That still would not negate the fact it is a subjective document.

Alright, the dictioary is subjective. And technically, the word perversion is subjective as well. That doesn't change the definition at all though.

 

[k]

Alright, the dictioary is subjective. And technically, the word perversion is subjective as well. That doesn't change the definition at all though.

How the definition is applied is subjective, that's the WHOLE point.

 

[sparklecat]

I agree with knightlight; going by the definition of perversion as abnormality, homosexuality clearly would fit - it's a minority position. From what I see, you're not using it as any sort of moral statement, correct?

 

[knightlight72]

How the definition is applied is subjective, that's the WHOLE point.

Actually, I was given the impression was the problem of the negative value given to it. Meaning I stated it was the opinion of the word use needing to be changed, and not the actual definition that is being changed.

So the definition applies directly and correctly.

In other words, the dictionary is not moral or immoral, it's simply the way people are using the term that some have issue with. (Why have issue with the dictionary for defining a word? That's what the dictionary is for)

(I think that should also answer sparkle's question)

 

[rambot]

[Ain't hermeneutics a beach...

 

[Ave Maria]

Speaking of Dittomonkey, is he still around?

 

[k]

Actually, I was given the impression was the problem of the negative value given to it. Meaning I stated it was the opinion of the word use needing to be changed, and not the actual definition that is being changed.

So the definition applies directly and correctly.

In other words, the dictionary is not moral or immoral, it's simply the way people are using the term that some have issue with. (Why have issue with the dictionary for defining a word? That's what the dictionary is for)

(I think that should also answer sparkle's question)

Who writes dictionaries? It is the group w/ the most power. They don't just fall out of the Objective Sky.