Research done for Brother Real
Brother Jumbo
sustaining them, he elicits our compassion, has requested that I do
some research for him about the nature of reality.
Here's my first reference:
The Passion of the Western Mind by Richard Tarnas.
I chose this book because it's not an academic work. It's aimed at the
general reader. Even Brother Real might get it. Cross dem fingers.
Here's a bit from page 351:
"Kant's penetrating critique [note to Brother Real: Kant was a
philosopher, widely respected] effectively pulled the rug out from
under the human mind's pretensions to certain knowledge of things in
themselves, eliminating in principle any human cognition of the ground
of the world."
Got that, Brother Real? Any objections at this stage?
Some hidden cue there for a hate-attack by Brother Rick, I suppose.
He doesn't like his categories challenging.
Tarnas elaborates:
"All human experience was indeed structured by largely unconscious
principles."
That's your team, guys, you should shout "yay, our team!" here. You
know, animals seek pleasure, people have a sense of identity. All
that.
However, Tarnas is even-handed. He goes on:
"but those principles were not absolute and timeless. Rather, they
varied fundamentally in different eras, different cultures..."
Hmmm. So, like, you mean Jesus didn't wear jeans? Go fig.
Crazy stuff, huh?
(Sand-pit provided for head insertion by "I know what I know Ltd of
Ontario.")
really real
> "Kant's penetrating critique [note to Brother Real: Kant was a
> philosopher, widely respected] effectively pulled the rug out from
> under the human mind's pretensions to certain knowledge of things in
> themselves, eliminating in principle any human cognition of the ground
> of the world."
>
> Got that, Brother Real? Any objections at this stage?
Yes, this all sounds like pretentious intellectual bullshit.
We can never be sure of knowing anything, but it's pretty obvious that
some we think we know are really real. The earth revolves around the
sun, and some people are homosexuals.
> "All human experience was indeed structured by largely unconscious
> principles."
I see no relevance to this fact.
> "but those principles were not absolute and timeless. Rather, they
> varied fundamentally in different eras, different cultures..."
so you throw out the baby with the bathwater? Were there mountains and
homosexuals in other eras and other cultures? Maybe there are no
homosexuals in Iran these days,but I'm sure they are everywhere else.
> Hmmm. So, like, you mean Jesus didn't wear jeans? Go fig.
There's no proof Jesus existed historically, but some people in the
bible, like Herod, definitely existed. They wore the clothes of their
era, and practiced the homophobia of their era, homophobia which got
written into the bible. Or was an abomination considered a good thing
back then?
Brother Jumbo
> Brother Jumbo <ch...@cupolagallery.com> wrote:
> > Tarnas elaborates:
>
> > "All human experience was indeed structured by largely unconscious
> > principles."
>
> > That's your team, guys, you should shout "yay, our team!" here. You
> > know, animals seek pleasure, people have a sense of identity. All
> > that.
>
> > However, Tarnas is even-handed. He goes on:
>
> > "but those principles were not absolute and timeless. Rather, they
> > varied fundamentally in different eras, different cultures..."
>
> > Hmmm. So, like, you mean Jesus didn't wear jeans? Go fig.
>
> > Crazy stuff, huh?
>
> > (Sand-pit provided for head insertion by "I know what I know Ltd of
> > Ontario.")
>
> pomp and circumstance.
>
> The attempt at a "jeans" comparison was especially pitiful.
Yeah, right, Brother Rose. As I said, it was for the general reader.
And I don't think you'd recognize tone if it bit you.
Brother Jumbo
> > "Kant's penetrating critique [note to Brother Real: Kant was a
> > philosopher, widely respected] effectively pulled the rug out from
> > under the human mind's pretensions to certain knowledge of things in
> > themselves, eliminating in principle any human cognition of the ground
> > of the world."
>
> > Got that, Brother Real? Any objections at this stage?
>
> Yes, this all sounds like pretentious intellectual bullshit.
Well done.
Brother Real, 1; Kant 0
Glad Brothers Rose and Real are on team.
Brother Jumbo
> topic. You continue to approach the threshold.
Oh I like it there.
> Looking forward to you finding some Kant quotes that aren't uselessly
> vague.
I don't agree it was "uselessly vague". I think it was general. It's
the general point (knowledge is a function of culture, and culture is
relative) that Brother Real seems incapable of getting... I'm not that
sure you get it, actually. You're not that flexible in the philosophy
area, is my impression...
really real
>>> Try not to let Trolly push you over the edge into utter mania on this
>>> topic. You continue to approach the threshold.
Anyone remember who said this about poisoned rose?
"After the way you've conducted yourself in this thread, you're still
able to call other people childish and belligerent. Presumably with a
straight face."
really real
>
> Trolly, why do you troll to protest being called a troll?
Eric, I have simply asked you to stop calling me "trolly," and told you
that every time you do, I will post something from the pr file.
I have to assume that you only call me "trolly" to relive what people
have said about you in the past
As rwalker once said:
"PR has his panties in a wad again. What a surprise."
Brother Jumbo
> said so, and Foucault's word is law" argument.
I never said his word was law.
Brother Real said I was misinterpreting Foucault, but he never backed
that up. In fact, he couldn't, because I was accurately paraphrasing
Foucault.
What I did say was: Foucault has never been adequately refuted. Which
remains the case. You go in for the usual Usenet bravado of rephrasing
that as me saying "Foucault is law".
The "law" being stated is: culture is relative.
Yet you won't even agree to that, judging from your saying you are on
Brother Real's (ahem) "side" (another typical Usenet strategy: make
teams).
Thus, I conclude you are much better at evaluating pop music than
assessing philosophical ideas. Which is fine. Only then you pile in by
describing a general but accurate paraphrase of Kant as "uselessly
vague". Why Usenetters can't leave alone topics they're not up to
speed on is something that constantly makes me roll my eyes.
Brother Jumbo
>
> --
>
> > "but those principles were not absolute and timeless. Rather, they
> > varied fundamentally in different eras, different cultures..."
>
> the Law."
Excellent. At last. A sensible counter.
Totally agree there are constants (speed of light ... action of
gravity ... desire). But they are not of human *origin*, which is (as
you know) the point here. All human products (categories of sexual
preference, modes of conceptualising identity) are cultural products.
Just to keep things clear for the Brothers R.
really real
Here are some constants for humans
All humans are animals
All humans require nourishment
All humans die
Mr Jinx
Speak for yourself!
> All humans require nourishment
>
Man cannot live on bread alone
> All humans die
Some come back (Lazarus, Phil Collins, R-chel)
Mr Jinx
really real
>
> Yet you won't even agree to that, judging from your saying you are on
> Brother Real's (ahem) "side" (another typical Usenet strategy: make
> teams).
Good point, Jumbo. Poisoned rose really revealed his personality defects
when you complained that I was wrong for attacking him and diluting the
Let's Straighten Out Jumbo team. Pr thinks it's a battle of
personalities, not a search for the truth.
Despite how crazy some of your arguments get, Jumbo, at least you just
never call me the "T" word. Pr can't fathom the fact that I am serious
when I argue.
Nor, of course, can pr fathom the irony that he attacked me first in
this thread.
M. Rick
Because I told you before, oh, you Kant do that. D7#9, C7add11, G7
M. Rick
I was driving by a school and saw a bumper sticker on a Buick Imperial
that said “Homosexuality Is Fiction.” Then we drove past a church and
it changed from “Fiction” to “Sin.”
M. Rick
convoluted language indicate deceit.
Brother Jumbo
> Jumbo <ch...@cupolagallery.com> wrote:
> > All human products (categories of sexual
> > preference, modes of conceptualising identity) are cultural products.
>
> to insist any label is a "category" being imposed on the recipient, and
> it's such a niggling distinction to draw the bulk of one's mental energy.
This makes no sense. PR, for the sake of us getting somewhere (let's
assume that we both think that is possible), why can't you say "ok,
culture is relative, it's dumb, it's obvious,, but I'll grant you at
least that much, so we can MOVE ON"???
> You'll probably go onto something about how there were no "philosophers"
> back then because it wasn't an official category back then...only people
> who demonstrated philosophizical behavior.
Whoa. You really *really* don't get it, do you? Yikes.
Just to be clear:
Homosexuality: pre-1800: no historical evidence of this category;
therefore, it is legitimate to suggest that it is a cultural product
(not sex with members of the same sex, but lifelong commitment to one
brand)
Philosophy: um, preeeetttty long pedigree. Back to Thales, in fact.
Not, however, a fact of nature. Certainly, that is, a cultural
product. If you say there were stone age philosophers, it would be
fair enough to question the category, no?
Why is this so hard for you?
Brother Jumbo
> Let's not confuse insanity with con-artistry. The evasions and
> convoluted language indicate deceit.
Hate-speech rule no. 5: the person who disagrees with me is a LIAR.
Come on, Brother Rick, open up your heart and mind.
Brother Jumbo
>
>
>
> All humans are animals
>
> All humans require nourishment
>
> All humans die
Well, here we are really getting somewhere.
Now try this:
> All humans commit an erotic act each time they interact with another human (smile, speak, glance, whatever...)
> All humans therefore commit homoerotic acts and heteroerotic acts every day.
> The framing of the category "homosexual" is therefore an act of categoization with a view to control, policing and discrimination.
Foucault in a nutshell, just for you.
Love,
Brother Jumbo.
Brother Jumbo
> It was just a tossed-off parallel example, Kookypuss. I didn't worry too
> much about picking the best one,
Oh sure, honey-bunch, you're just holding back on me. (I like this
talk you do.)
> because I don't take you seriously
> enough.
Well, your philosophy chops continue to wow me...
> It's kinda fun watching you screech "cultural imperialism" over
> and over like a demented parrot, though.
Glad to be of service.
> And of course, culture is relative. Here's a debate hint, sweetie: When
> you thin your argument into generalized points that no one disputes,
> you're not getting anywhere.
Well, Brother Rose, I thinned it so you could, you know, keep up.
Culture is relative. We've got that,.
Now let's back-track to where your poo-pack got bunched.
Foucault said homosexuality is a cultural category, framed in the 19th
century. Therefore, in periods where there is no reference to that
category, it is fair to assume that it did not exist as a *category*.
That, prior to that time, sexual acts were legislated against, not
sexual identities. Therefore, to assert The Bible is homophobic is
(whispers) cultural imperialism.
You dived in, with zero grasp of the concepts involved, and said that
to even suggest this was nonsense. Typical Usenet bravado instead of
chops.
Anyway, carry on with the silly Usenet name-calling in lieu of an
argument. It's charming.
Jolene
The Dancer With Laryngitis/Lady Lazarus/Miss Lonely
RichL
news:95cfec7e-01b3-4700...@o20g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
>> All humans commit an erotic act each time they interact with another
>> human (smile, speak, glance, whatever...)
Either a totally unsubstantiated premise, or a redefinition of the word
'erotic'.
Basically, I think your entire schtick on this issue is simply a matter of
linguistics and has no meaning aside from manipulating the language.
Content, baby. That's where it's at!
RichL
> Foucault said homosexuality is a cultural category, framed in the 19th
> century. Therefore, in periods where there is no reference to that
> category, it is fair to assume that it did not exist as a *category*.
> That, prior to that time, sexual acts were legislated against, not
> sexual identities. Therefore, to assert The Bible is homophobic is
> (whispers) cultural imperialism.
Let me get this straight: Foucault redefines 'homosexuality' as referring
to a 'sexual identity', rather than simply, as the rest of us do, with
people who prefer to engage in sexual acts with their own gender
exclusively, and therefore homosexuality did not exist before Foucault chose
to redefine it.
Congrats! You've passed Circular Reasoning 101!
RichL
news:c6d8efb4-a93c-4345...@34g2000pru.googlegroups.com...
>> Kant
>
> Because I told you before, oh, you Kant do that. D7#9, C7add11, G7
Excellent!
Jolene
> On Mar 16, 6:18 pm, Brother Jumbo <ch...@cupolagallery.com> wrote:> On Mar 16, 8:34 pm, poisoned rose <pro...@poisonedrose.com> wrote:
>
> ---\
>
>
>
> > > You are completely batshit on the semantics of "categorizing." You seem
> > > to insist any label is a "category" being imposed on the recipient, and
> > > it's such a niggling distinction to draw the bulk of one's mental energy.
>
> > This makes no sense. PR, for the sake of us getting somewhere (let's
> > assume that we both think that is possible), why can't you say "ok,
> > culture is relative, it's dumb, it's obvious,, but I'll grant you at
> > least that much, so we can MOVE ON"???
>
> while we're on the subject, "steel cut" oats is a complete fraud.)
>
>
>
> > > You'll probably go onto something about how there were no "philosophers"
> > > back then because it wasn't an official category back then...only people
> > > who demonstrated philosophizical behavior.
>
> > Whoa. You really *really* don't get it, do you? Yikes.
>
> > Just to be clear:
>
>
> > Homosexuality: pre-1800: no historical evidence of this category;
> > therefore, it is legitimate to suggest that it is a cultural product
> > (not sex with members of the same sex, but lifelong commitment to one
> > brand)
>
> > Philosophy: um, preeeetttty long pedigree. Back to Thales, in fact.
> > Not, however, a fact of nature. Certainly, that is, a cultural
> > product. If you say there were stone age philosophers, it would be
> > fair enough to question the category, no?
>
> > Why is this so hard for you?
>
> homosexuals. Good Gawd almighty, what a perfectly boring era olden
> times must have been.
>
> I am reminded by something I may have posted here already (so try not
> to shoot me Rachel if I did). Somebody was talking about homosexuality
> and the Olympics as two things that are highly popular every couple of
> thousand years. (Not Fou-cault.)
I must speak out, because allowing misconceptions about me to spread
is akin to lying and deceit and perpetrating a fraud on the public.
Silence=Death! I will confess, and save myself from the superfluous
Fanciful Electric Chair himself!
Contrary to popular belief, I am not G-d. I do not know Everything.
The archives of RMD are not housed (please refrain from tittering) in
the annals of my brain.
If one has a question as to the originality of one's commentary, I
suggest you just shrug it off, throw your towel in the ring, and
remind yourself: there is nothing new under the sun.
J.
Jolene
> "RichL" <rpleav...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Foucault said homosexuality is a cultural category, framed in the 19th
> > > century. Therefore, in periods where there is no reference to that
> > > category, it is fair to assume that it did not exist as a *category*.
> > > That, prior to that time, sexual acts were legislated against, not
> > > sexual identities. Therefore, to assert The Bible is homophobic is
> > > (whispers) cultural imperialism.
>
> > Let me get this straight: Foucault redefines 'homosexuality' as referring
> > to a 'sexual identity', rather than simply, as the rest of us do, with
> > people who prefer to engage in sexual acts with their own gender
> > exclusively, and therefore homosexuality did not exist before Foucault chose
> > to redefine it.
>
> > Congrats! You've passed Circular Reasoning 101!
>
UNIVERSAL ORGY!!!!!
Jolene
> Brother Parrot <ch...@cupolagallery.com> squawked:
>
> > Foucault said homosexuality is a cultural category, framed in the 19th
> > century. Therefore, in periods where there is no reference to that
> > category, it is fair to assume that it did not exist as a *category*.
> > That, prior to that time, sexual acts were legislated against, not
> > sexual identities. Therefore, to assert The Bible is homophobic is
> > (whispers) cultural imperialism.
>
> not sure why his opinion is law, however.
>
> > You dived in, with zero grasp of the concepts involved, and said that
> > to even suggest this was nonsense. Typical Usenet bravado instead of
> > chops.
>
> > Anyway, carry on with the silly Usenet name-calling in lieu of an
> > argument. It's charming.
>
>
> You know what's bizarre? When I look up "homosexual" in the dictionary,
> it simply talks of sexual desire/behavior toward one's own gender. It
> doesn't say anything about belonging to a culturally defined population
> demographic. Poor Foucault...died just a little too soon to get hisself
> an Internet browser.
The long broken arm of human law?
RichL
news:prose9-3B420E....@news.eternal-september.org...
> Poor Foucault...died just a little too soon to get hisself an Internet
> browser.
<another mouthful of Diet Mountain Dew sprayed onto my monitor>
Jolene
I feel it necessary to add, that contrary to popular opinion, I am not
Bob Dylan, either.
In case one has any doubts, I would like to make it clear, that Bob
Dylan is my House Nigger.
He is the butler of planet earth.
The BUTT-ler, more specifically.
Wiggle, wiggle, nigga!
And I have a message for him:
STOP USING MY HOUSE, AND COME OVER AND EAT MY PUSSY.
really real
> Are you teaming up with rr or competing against him in the ignorance
> heats? Because you're starting to acquire the characteristics. And
> trust me--this is one race you don't want to win.
>
You can't blame pr for being rational, like I am, about the question of
whether the bible is homophobic and whether homosexuals existed before
the 1800s.
It's you and Jumbo who are lost in this utterly absurd belief, and it's
obviously caused by your desire to deny a serious problem with the holy
book you believe in.
No one else in rmd agrees with you and Jumbo about this. Except for M
Rick, hey don't jump into the argument because it's obviously too absurd
for them.
Brother Jumbo
No, you've got it completely wrong, RichL. Foucault does not
"redefine" homosexuality. Nor does he define it. He points out that
homosexuality was defined as a category in the 19th century. If you go
back and read my words, you'll see that's what I clearly said.
Ask yourself this: what is going on in my head that I would misread so
badly? And why do I then go on the attack with an overly-aggressive
"circular reasoning 101" (ho ho) comment?
Answer: the psychic defences are up.
Brother Jumbo
Look at the Usenet birds go cheep cheep.
Brother Jumbo
>
>
> Jumby has presented it as the absolute truth, without a doubt. And
> anyone who disagrees "doesn't get it."
That's simply a lie, Brother Rose. I never NOWHERE NO HOW presented it
as "absolute truth". I said "Foucault argued...", "Foucault showed..."
"Foucault suggested", all the way, every step of the line. But
basically you can't READ when your dander's up. You patently failed to
comprehend what was being said. So I said you didn't get it. And you
know what? I was right. Statements you've made (oh, no philosophers
either, then? [lordy lor]) show you don't get it. So that IS a fact.
What you going to do? Carry on hiding behind Usenet juvenile humour?
> You skipped this part:
>
> > You know what's bizarre? When I look up "homosexual" in the dictionary,
> > it simply talks of sexual desire/behavior toward one's own gender. It
> > doesn't say anything about belonging to a culturally defined population
> > demographic.
OK, this is at least a levelheaded counterstatement.
Homosexuality, I suggest, as a term and category is a cultural
product, dating from the 19th century. It is still in current use and
generally means what you quote your dictionary as saying.
The word itself does not does not mean "the culturally-produced
category arbitrarily applied to sexual desire for [etc]..." It is
simply not the dictionary's job to make such observations.
Brother Jumbo
>
>
> It's you and Jumbo who are lost in this utterly absurd belief, and it's
> obviously caused by your desire to deny a serious problem with the holy
> book you believe in.
I don't "believe in" any holy book. I am against discrimination and
cultural imperialism. I think you are in denial of your part in
discrimination through the misapplication of cultural categories.
>
> No one else in rmd agrees with you and Jumbo about this.
You share the herd mentality with Brother Rose and Brother RichL I
see.
Brother Jumbo
>
> >> All humans commit an erotic act each time they interact with another
> >> human (smile, speak, glance, whatever...)
>
> Either a totally unsubstantiated premise, or a redefinition of the word
> 'erotic'.
> Basically, I think your entire schtick on this issue is simply a matter of
> linguistics and has no meaning aside from manipulating the language.
Tell you what. Here's a deal. I'll call you on this (I haven't checked
any dictionaries yet, do you trust me? I trust you.) You give me your
definition of erotic. Then I'll go to my dictionary (OED) and using
ONLY what I find there in the entry for "erotic" will I try to justify
what I said. If it turns out I can't then I will agree that I'm
twisting words to suit my case. OK?
> Content, baby. That's where it's at!
Oh totally Brother Baby, I'm, like, so with you there. One Brother's
content, however, is another Brother's received idea.
Brother Jumbo
> Brother Jumbo <ch...@cupolagallery.com> wrote:
> > Ask yourself this: what is going on in my head that I would misread so
> > badly?
>
> ample dose of conflicted self-loathing.
Hm, so now it's the ad hominem route.
If you must know, I'm embarrassed at how boring I am, married for 20
years (to a woman, don't you know). And no experience of sex with a
man. Never felt the homoerotic urge, actually (no doubt as a result of
my cultural programming - if anything, I wish I'd been "programmed" to
be more sexually curious). However, I don't go along with categorizing
myself in the way you evidently expect all people to. You'll notice I
got through that description without having to tick a sexuality box.
Now, I think I've earned the right to have my turn with you.
Control freak who doesn't like the fact he can't control real people
in everyday reality, so takes that frustration out on the internet
through bullying behaviour whenever he is challenged, or whenever he
finds himself at a loss in a discussion. Good at processing and
evaluating pop music, but tends to think his skill in that area
indicates a high level of intelligence in matters where he is
basically under-informed.
Brother Jumbo
> Brother Jumbo <ch...@cupolagallery.com> screamed:
>
> cultural cultural cultural cultural cultural cultural cultural cultural
> cultural cultural cultural cultural cultural cultural cultural cultural
> cultural cultural cultural cultural cultural cultural cultural cultural
> cultural cultural cultural cultural cultural cultural cultural cultural
> cultural cultural cultural cultural cultural cultural cultural cultural
> cultural cultural cultural cultural cultural cultural cultural cultural
> cultural cultural cultural cultural cultural cultural cultural cultural
> cultural cultural cultural cultural cultural cultural cultural cultural
> cultural cultural cultural cultural cultural cultural cultural cultural
> cultural cultural cultural cultural
Child.
Brother Jumbo
> Brother Jumbo <ch...@cupolagallery.com> wrote:
> > > Jumby has presented it as the absolute truth, without a doubt. And
> > > anyone who disagrees "doesn't get it."
>
> > That's simply a lie, Brother Rose. I never NOWHERE NO HOW presented it
> > as "absolute truth". I said "Foucault argued...", "Foucault showed..."
> > "Foucault suggested", all the way, every step of the line.
>
> unassailable conclusiveness of Foucault's writings.
Empty accusation instead of argument. Why not quote me doing that? Oh,
sorry, you can't because I didn't. Yet you can call me a liar. Whew.
You just can't cope with this, can you?
>
> > OK, this is at least a levelheaded counterstatement.
>
> > Homosexuality, I suggest, as a term and category is a cultural
> > product, dating from the 19th century. It is still in current use and
> > generally means what you quote your dictionary as saying.
>
> > The word itself does not does not mean "the culturally-produced
> > category arbitrarily applied to sexual desire for [etc]..." It is
> > simply not the dictionary's job to make such observations.
>
> If you look up "Marxism," the definition has a historical component.
> Because there, the term's "cultural invention" is crucial. It's not
> something that has always been.
Why can't you always be as level-headed as this? It's difficult to
spend time discussing something with someone who falls back on insults
on lies whenever a salient point is made.
You're absolutely right. Marxism has an obvious historical component.
A good dictionary will find room to mention relevant dates. After all,
it's very easy to date Marxism!
But there are no end of terms which standard dictionaries do not give
usage histories for, but which only have legitimate reference to their
cultural milieus. At random, I look up "vegan" in my Collins one
volume dictionary. "A person who refrains from using any animal
product whatever, for food, clothing, or any other purpose". From that
one might conclude that there are vegans in the Bible. But no-one
would describe themselves as a vegan during Biblical times. One did
not categorize oneself along such lines. Yet the dictionary is silent
on that score. Ditto homosexual/ity.
However, let me (unlike you) show willing in the concession stakes.
Try this: Foucault's ideas have not found acceptance to the extent
which a standard dictionary would reflect them in its definition-
practice. Now, you can make hay with that concession if you like, or
we can carry on the discussion like adults. Do you think that this
disqualifies Foucault's argument from being given serious
consideration? After all, if he is wrong, surely it is only a matter
of doing research. The historical record cannot lie in this matter.
My personal hunch is that the dictionaries will catch up in time. But
I would say that, wouldn't I.
Brother Jumbo
Adolescent.
Brother Jumbo
> Then again, if you work at an art gallery, you probably spend
> an awful lot of time around flamboyant People Who Date Their Own Sex
> (since the term "homosexual" is such anathema).
Hmm, you're obviously rattled (been doing research on my address).
It's my wife's gallery. I have never worked there.
But Really Real ... here is an example of that homophobia you've been
on about. ("flamboyant"???)
Brother Jumbo
> Brother Jumbo <ch...@cupolagallery.com> wrote:
> > > > > Jumby has presented it as the absolute truth, without a doubt. And
> > > > > anyone who disagrees "doesn't get it."
>
> > > > That's simply a lie, Brother Rose. I never NOWHERE NO HOW presented it
> > > > as "absolute truth". I said "Foucault argued...", "Foucault showed..."
> > > > "Foucault suggested", all the way, every step of the line.
>
> > > That's a simply a lie, Brother Fanatic. You've been quite smug about the
> > > unassailable conclusiveness of Foucault's writings.
>
> > Empty accusation instead of argument. Why not quote me doing that?
>
> squallings on this subject.
Oh come on. How intellectually dishonest is that! You make a personal
accusation and can't be arsed to back it up. Indicates the strength of
your position overall.
>
> > Why can't you always be as level-headed as this? It's difficult to
> > spend time discussing something with someone who falls back on insults
> > on lies whenever a salient point is made.
>
> You've been insulting me from the start.
Again, if you can show me insulting you prior to receiving a steady
barrage of abuse from you, I would happily apologize.
>
> > But there are no end of terms which standard dictionaries do not give
> > usage histories for, but which only have legitimate reference to their
> > cultural milieus. At random, I look up "vegan" in my Collins one
> > volume dictionary. "A person who refrains from using any animal
> > product whatever, for food, clothing, or any other purpose". From that
> > one might conclude that there are vegans in the Bible. But no-one
> > would describe themselves as a vegan during Biblical times. One did
> > not categorize oneself along such lines. Yet the dictionary is silent
> > on that score. Ditto homosexual/ity.
>
> Another dopey example...your continued insistence that a phenomenon
> can't exist until someone coins a snappy "category" term for it.
Not someONE. Such a category is produced by institutional means.
Certain types of phenomena then become categorizable by that
institution, and other institutions, for the purposes of control.
Please note that the "certain phenomena" of course pre-exist the act
of categorization. ("Snappiness" is irrelevant. It's not about
individual agents coming up with new words.)
>
> Any theories on when pedophilia was invented? I won't ask you about
> sadism, since the term itself reveals who brainstormed the idea of
> sexual pleasure through pain.
Sadism is actually an excellent example. It could get this debate out
of the Bible-related qyagmire Really Real wants to drag it into. Of
course, people throughout history have experienced pleasure through
sensations the majority of people would consider painful or
constricting. Only when the term "Sadism" was coined for sexological
purposes, however, did it become possible to group disparate phenomena
into one box for the purposes of diagnosis, in the service of social
control.
> > Do you think that this
> > disqualifies Foucault's argument from being given serious
> > consideration?
>
> It seems apparent that Foucault's position was something beyond him
> incessantly screaming "CULTURAL IMPERIALISM!" in the hopes of his
> readers starting a related drinking game.
But you're taking my rhetorical strategy vis-a-vis Really Real's
Bibliophobia absurdly at face value in taking this line. It's what I
meant about you not always recognizing tone.
> > My personal hunch is that the dictionaries will catch up in time. But
> > I would say that, wouldn't I.
>
> Yup.
How'd I know you'd say that?
M. Rick
believing in something intrinsic about their gender preference. Why
would it matter if some philosophy teachers and Dylan worshippers
believe otherwise? How could this seemingly limited and insipid view
refute the combined experiences and testimonies of millions of people?
Because this isn’t about an esoteric academic view that has no social
or legal import. It’s about religion. The “Foucault view” (as stated
here) supports prohibitions against same-sex behavior. If in fact
there is something intrinsic about homosexuality, then same-sex
prohibitions can be construed as unconstitutional violations of
essential rights. The other use of the “Foucault view” pertains to
the Bible: if homosexuals never existed in any sense, then the Bible
can’t be said to be anti-homosexual. The Bible is the primary
justification for our present-day discriminations. The evasive and
deceptive tactics employed by the posters here are also straight out
of religion, most notably the endless repetitions, the condescending
tone and the false “love” preaching. And yet the preachers continue
on and on just as they do in real life.
Jolene
Yesterday I wrote to Bob and said, "Sing, Bob Dylan" then immediately
followed that up with, "Tweet, tweet. C'mon birdie!"
treadleson
> Brother Jumbo <ch...@cupolagallery.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 17, 7:29 pm, poisoned rose <pro...@poisonedrose.com> wrote:
> > > Brother Jumbo <ch...@cupolagallery.com> screamed:
>
> > > cultural cultural cultural cultural cultural cultural cultural cultural
> > > cultural cultural cultural cultural cultural cultural cultural cultural
> > > cultural cultural cultural cultural cultural cultural cultural cultural
> > > cultural cultural cultural cultural cultural cultural cultural cultural
> > > cultural cultural cultural cultural cultural cultural cultural cultural
> > > cultural cultural cultural cultural cultural cultural cultural cultural
> > > cultural cultural cultural cultural cultural cultural cultural cultural
cultural cultural cultural cultural cultural cultural cultural
cultural
> > > cultural cultural cultural cultural cultural cultural cultural cultural
> > > cultural cultural cultural cultural
>
> > Child.
>
> Fuck thyself, you numbingly tedious parrot.
What???
Jolene
Then I quoted Bob, "I taut I taw a puddy cat! I did! I did!"
treadleson
> On Mar 17, 7:57 pm, poisoned rose <pro...@poisonedrose.com> wrote:
>
> > Any theories on when pedophilia was invented? I won't ask you about
> > sadism, since the term itself reveals who brainstormed the idea of
> > sexual pleasure through pain.
>
> Sadism is actually an excellent example. It could get this debate out
> of the Bible-related qyagmire Really Real wants to drag it into. Of
> course, people throughout history have experienced pleasure through
> sensations the majority of people would consider painful or
> constricting. Only when the term "Sadism" was coined for sexological
> purposes, however, did it become possible to group disparate phenomena
> into one box for the purposes of diagnosis, in the service of social
> control.
Actually, this is one area where you might want to stay within the
Bible-related quagmire. If anything, sadism took a very different
turn historically. De Sade was pointedly atheistic and anti-clerical
and the acts of "sadism" committed in his stories are according to a
pretty ideological atheist manifesto. Sadism has certainly
unencumbered itself of this baggage over the years until today it is
considered harmless, just another one of hundreds of "lifestyle
choices" that should be practiced safely and with the carefully
considered consent of one's partner.
A mere shadow of it's former self, in fact. De Sade's strong atheistic
bent made him a big favorite of the Surrealists, among other reasons.
treadleson
---
> treadleson <treadl...@aol.com> wrote:
> > Nothing he's said could lead a person to your "inkling."
>
> It is baffling to me that anyone could be this hysterical over such a
> thoroughly trivial issue of semantics. If he and Trolly had managed to
> stick to the real topic of whether the Bible scorns homosexuality (and
> if this is justified), I could understand the tumult. But this fanatical
> dictionary tangent is utterly Kooksville.
I don't follow your line at all. At all. If you want to exit the
discussion, fine. But you keep challenging the propositions he's
putting across, which means that you do have some stake in the
discussion, no matter how small, and you have some point of view. I
agree that his occasionally superior tone can be irritating, but that
isn't his main thrust (you'll pardon the expression).
With the Bible bit, he challenged rr's objections on the basis of a) a
kind of historical moral imperialism (which he calls "cultural")
practiced by people like rr where we judge people of a different era
according to our contemporary moral & ethical standards, and b) modern
(post Victorian) society's portrayal and categorization of the
homosexual as a personality "type" which goes far beyond who the
person sleeps with and into a new categorization as a kind of
hermaphroditic character.
This is not utterly Kooksville. It's a widely accepted analysis. It's
also far more serious than the really kooky debates that rage on in
the country on the subject of homosexuality. You should be giving
Jumbo props for attempting to lift the discussion out of the rr muck
that he persists in dragging everything into, and looking at deep
social/political/medical forces at work when it comes to homosexuals.
(On a somewhat related topic, there was an interesting article several
years back in the New Yorker about Indian prostitutes and the shrines
of courtesans in India, where courtesans have a distinguished
religious history.)
RichL
news:7bed7de0-014d-4f42...@d14g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 16, 11:33 pm, "RichL" <rpleav...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> >> All humans commit an erotic act each time they interact with another
>> >> human (smile, speak, glance, whatever...)
>>
>> Either a totally unsubstantiated premise, or a redefinition of the word
>> 'erotic'.
>
>
>> Basically, I think your entire schtick on this issue is simply a matter
>> of
>> linguistics and has no meaning aside from manipulating the language.
>
> Tell you what. Here's a deal. I'll call you on this (I haven't checked
> any dictionaries yet, do you trust me? I trust you.) You give me your
> definition of erotic. Then I'll go to my dictionary (OED) and using
> ONLY what I find there in the entry for "erotic" will I try to justify
> what I said. If it turns out I can't then I will agree that I'm
> twisting words to suit my case. OK?
Here ya go:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/erotic
Simple and to the point.
Now here's your contention:
"All humans commit an erotic act each time they interact with another human
(smile, speak, glance, whatever...)"
Trust me on this: there's nothing sexual (ergo, erotic) about my
interactions with my boss.
RichL
> On Mar 16, 11:40 pm, "RichL" <rpleav...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> "Brother Jumbo" <ch...@cupolagallery.com> wrote in message
>>
>>
>> > Foucault said homosexuality is a cultural category, framed in the 19th
>> > century. Therefore, in periods where there is no reference to that
>> > category, it is fair to assume that it did not exist as a *category*.
>> > That, prior to that time, sexual acts were legislated against, not
>> > sexual identities. Therefore, to assert The Bible is homophobic is
>> > (whispers) cultural imperialism.
>>
>> Let me get this straight: Foucault redefines 'homosexuality' as
>> referring
>> to a 'sexual identity', rather than simply, as the rest of us do, with
>> people who prefer to engage in sexual acts with their own gender
>> exclusively, and therefore homosexuality did not exist before Foucault
>> chose
>> to redefine it.
>>
>> Congrats! You've passed Circular Reasoning 101!
>
> No, you've got it completely wrong, RichL. Foucault does not
> "redefine" homosexuality. Nor does he define it. He points out that
> homosexuality was defined as a category in the 19th century. If you go
> back and read my words, you'll see that's what I clearly said.
It's not clear from what you said whether or not Foucault points it out, in
the sense of providing evidence that the term (or its equivalent in other
languages, or another word having the same meaning) was NEVER used prior to
the 19th century (in which case I might concede your point), or simply
ASSERTED it.
If the former, can you provide the evidence?
If the latter, he's engaging in circular reasoning.
RichL
> On Mar 17, 3:03 pm, really real <reallyr...@shaW.CA> wrote:
>>
>>
>> It's you and Jumbo who are lost in this utterly absurd belief, and it's
>> obviously caused by your desire to deny a serious problem with the holy
>> book you believe in.
>
> I don't "believe in" any holy book. I am against discrimination and
> cultural imperialism. I think you are in denial of your part in
> discrimination through the misapplication of cultural categories.
>>
>> No one else in rmd agrees with you and Jumbo about this.
>
> You share the herd mentality with Brother Rose and Brother RichL I
> see.
This is precisely the kind of smarmy overreach that PR is accusing you of
and which you deny vociferously.
Although I wouldn't use the language that he does, it seems to me that it's
an effort to dismiss outright any views that disagree with your own (or with
Foucault's).
really real
I was surprised that poisoned rose accused you of being a repressed
homosexual. I've always thought of him of being one. Poisoned rose seems
to repress a lot of things.
really real
>> Nothing he's said could lead a person to your "inkling."
>
> It is baffling to me that anyone could be this hysterical over such a
> thoroughly trivial issue of semantics. If he and Trolly had managed to
> stick to the real topic of whether the Bible scorns homosexuality (and
> if this is justified), I could understand the tumult. But this fanatical
> dictionary tangent is utterly Kooksville.
Did you just call me the magic word again?
When I was adding Jumbo's fine retort to the poisoned rose file, I came
upon this quote from Donna
"There are FAR too many examples of this arrogant clown spewing his
smarm on anyone and everyone who's ever called him on it. Far too many
for me to care to bother researching or copying."
really real
> On Mar 17, 3:03 pm, really real<reallyr...@shaW.CA> wrote:
>>
>>
>> It's you and Jumbo who are lost in this utterly absurd belief, and it's
>> obviously caused by your desire to deny a serious problem with the holy
>> book you believe in.
>
> I don't "believe in" any holy book. I am against discrimination and
> cultural imperialism. I think you are in denial of your part in
> discrimination through the misapplication of cultural categories.
>>
>> No one else in rmd agrees with you and Jumbo about this.
>
> You share the herd mentality with Brother Rose and Brother RichL I
> see.
>
No Jumbo, only treadleson backs you up on this, and he's so convoluted,
it's hard to tell what he really things. I assume treadleson is a
God-fearing Christian who doesn't want to deal with the homophobia in
the bible. I'm not so sure that he'd agree with you about the homophobic
passages really being about child abuse.
really real
>>
>> Fuck thyself, you numbingly tedious parrot.
>
> What???
Indeed, treadleson, one of the ways to deal with a poisoned rose tantrum
is to point out his blind irony.
The other way, of course, is to post things that inspire him to post ten
times as much back, if you can get a chuckle out of that sort of thing.
treadleson
> treadleson <treadl...@aol.com> wrote:
> > This is not utterly Kooksville. It's a widely accepted analysis. It's
> > also far more serious than the really kooky debates that rage on in
> > the country on the subject of homosexuality. You should be giving
> > Jumbo props for attempting to lift the discussion out of the rr muck
> > that he persists in dragging everything into, and looking at deep
> > social/political/medical forces at work when it comes to homosexuals.
----
> I think you pulled this "widely accepted" line on me before, but the
> idea that homosexuals are Hell-damned preverts is more "widely accepted"
> than elite, academic nattering about whether homosexuality didn't exist
> in theory until it became recognized as a "category." So...not much of a
> defense.
Listen--Jumbo and Foucault's point is that the damned-to-hell-pervert
attitude grows out of the categorization. Once you can recast a person
from merely "guy who likes to doink guys" (or girl w/ girl) into "sick
pervert girly man pinko faggot" you have recast his or her entire
character and it becomes much easier to demonize, criminalize,
scrapegoat...whatever...that person. It allows you to launch moral
crusades, portray them as examples of society's decay, etc. Jumbo and
Foucault go further, into the whole question of "control," which I'm
less convinced of, but there is a case to be made for that.
And it isn't just gays that this happens to throughout history. But
it's the only group that it happens to based on sexual preference. The
other examples have to do with skin color, nationality, and other
traits.
----
> > b) modern
> > (post Victorian) society's portrayal and categorization of the
> > homosexual as a personality "type" which goes far beyond who the
> > person sleeps with and into a new categorization
>
> I'd say Jumbo has barely touched on this, if at all.
This has been the point all along.
RichL
news:0228f0b3-b025-46da...@w7g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 17, 5:53 pm, poisoned rose <pro...@poisonedrose.com> wrote:
>> treadleson <treadl...@aol.com> wrote:
>> > This is not utterly Kooksville. It's a widely accepted analysis. It's
>> > also far more serious than the really kooky debates that rage on in
>> > the country on the subject of homosexuality. You should be giving
>> > Jumbo props for attempting to lift the discussion out of the rr muck
>> > that he persists in dragging everything into, and looking at deep
>> > social/political/medical forces at work when it comes to homosexuals.
>
> ----
>> I think you pulled this "widely accepted" line on me before, but the
>> idea that homosexuals are Hell-damned preverts is more "widely accepted"
>> than elite, academic nattering about whether homosexuality didn't exist
>> in theory until it became recognized as a "category." So...not much of a
>> defense.
>
> Listen--Jumbo and Foucault's point is that the damned-to-hell-pervert
> attitude grows out of the categorization. Once you can recast a person
> from merely "guy who likes to doink guys" (or girl w/ girl) into "sick
> pervert girly man pinko faggot" you have recast his or her entire
> character and it becomes much easier to demonize, criminalize,
> scrapegoat...whatever...that person. It allows you to launch moral
> crusades, portray them as examples of society's decay, etc.
I agree with you -- given the terms that YOU used. But those aren't the
terms that our treasured Brother is using at all. He's lumping the term
'homosexual' -- a term that, as conventionally defined, is not pejorative in
the slightest, at least to those with open minds -- in with 'sick pervert',
'girly man', 'faggot' etc. To me, this is disingenuous. Among the
ivory-towered literati, this may be a perfectly acceptable argument. But
consequences of whatever SUBSTANCE there may be to the argument, however
well-intentioned it may be, are to (a) deny increasing scientific evidence
that homosexuality is, for most people, not a choice and (b) in so doing,
lend credence to those who would deny rights to individuals simply on the
basis that they commit "sinful" acts that they have a choice not to commit.
The contention that homosexuality is a cultural construct will not sway the
opinions of those who claim they have a basis in religion for persecuting
homosexuals and, in fact, may encourage them to continue. After all, how
can one discriminate against a "cultural construct"?
> And it isn't just gays that this happens to throughout history. But
> it's the only group that it happens to based on sexual preference. The
> other examples have to do with skin color, nationality, and other
> traits.
False. One can make the same charge of discrimination against people who
believe in polygamy or polyamory, sex with children, or even bestiality for
that matter. The difference being, there's an OBVIOUS culturally-based bias
against those practices, and their constituencies aren't sufficiently large
or powerful to raise a fuss about it.
treadleson
> treadleson <treadl...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > I think you pulled this "widely accepted" line on me before, but the
> > > idea that homosexuals are Hell-damned preverts is more "widely accepted"
> > > than elite, academic nattering about whether homosexuality didn't exist
> > > in theory until it became recognized as a "category." So...not much of a
> > > defense.
>
> > Listen--Jumbo and Foucault's point is that the damned-to-hell-pervert
> > attitude grows out of the categorization.
---
> No, Jumbo's point is that you can't say the Bible is homophobic because
> homosexuals didn't exist back then.
I'm getting really close to adopting Jumbo's supreme-patience-with-a-
child tone.
'Ear me now--homosexuality in the past (Biblical times) was not
perceived as it is today, that is, as a character type--flamboyant,
limp-wristed, girly man. That's why the term "homophobic" doesn't
apply. Homophobic--a very modern term--doesn't apply to fear and
hatred of men who shtup men solely because they are rump wranglers. It
applies to fear and hatred of men who have the personality type of the
queer, faggot, swish, effeminate weakling--sort of part man/part
woman. However, this personality type is a post-19th century creation.
This characterization of the swish fag wasn't in play before that. A
man could shtup another man and still be considered manly. He could
shtup a camel and still be considered manly. This characterological
creation is post-19th century.
And even then you didn't have people up in arms because Walt Whitman
was writing poems to his male love interest. He was the unofficial
poet laureate. Same with Shakespeare's sonnets. Only in recent times
do you find people stupidly snickering about whether he was having sex
with the man he addresses in all of those sonnets. And speaking of
Shakespeare, there isn't a single instance that I can think of where
he's got a gay character who people make fun of for being gay. And in
the Bible, which is where all this started, gay relationships are
approved of. David and Jonathan anyone? Yes, that David. King David.
The Jonathan-David love affair is portrayed as one of the most
beautiful love relationships in the Bible, even "passing the love of
women," and it's pretty racy how they get naked together, Jonathan
giving David his sword and belt. The only reason Saul is pissed about
this is because if David doesn't marry, there will be no heir. (So
Saul sensibly opposed gay marriage.) It had nothing to do with the
modern word, "homophobia."
Yet 20th century plays and movies and TV are chock full of faggy guys
as laughing stocks, and that really is homophobia. Before gays, it was
black people.
So yes, homosexuals as we know them (and homophobia) just weren't
there before.
>
> > > > b) modern
> > > > (post Victorian) society's portrayal and categorization of the
> > > > homosexual as a personality "type" which goes far beyond who the
> > > > person sleeps with and into a new categorization
>
> > > I'd say Jumbo has barely touched on this, if at all.
>
> > This has been the point all along.
>
> Nope. That COULD be a worthwhile point to debate, but Jumbo never got
> there. Too twisted in knots over semantics.
treadleson
> treadleson <treadl...@aol.com> wrote:
> > 'Ear me now--homosexuality in the past (Biblical times) was not
> > perceived as it is today, that is, as a character type--flamboyant,
> > limp-wristed, girly man. That's why the term "homophobic" doesn't
> > apply. Homophobic--a very modern term--doesn't apply to fear and
> > hatred of men who shtup men solely because they are rump wranglers. It
> > applies to fear and hatred of men who have the personality type of the
> > queer, faggot, swish, effeminate weakling--sort of part man/part
> > woman. However, this personality type is a post-19th century creation.
> > This characterization of the swish fag wasn't in play before that. A
> > man could shtup another man and still be considered manly. He could
> > shtup a camel and still be considered manly. This characterological
> > creation is post-19th century.
> Go on pretending this is Jumbo's angle all you like, but it makes no
> difference. Those of us who read his endless "homosexual" vs.
> "homoerotic" nigglings know better.
I'm not pretending. Homosexual vs. homoerotic is exactly what I'm
saying.
>
> > And in
> > the Bible, which is where all this started, gay relationships are
> > approved of.
----
> Well, at least one well-known quotation (already cited recently) says
> otherwise. And I guess it's up to you now to explain why so many
> Christians have the idea that the Bible says homosexuality is not only
> "not approved of" but downright sinful.
Western culture devised this idea. As usual, a better case could be
made with scriptural backing. So they searched high and low until they
found a few small quotations (and it's only a few, which doesn't equal
a focused, all out attack) that would back them up.
Why the culture was ready and willing to follow this new line is a
fascinating question, to me, anyway. And there's nothing inherently
Christian about it, no matter what either gays or fundamentalists may
think. Communist Cuba has had an anti-gay stance and so did the Nazis.
Soviet Union was all over the place on the question, both politically
and region-by-region. If you read the wiki article, you'll find
theories but no definitive answers as to why this was.
really real
>
> Western culture devised this idea. As usual, a better case could be
> made with scriptural backing. So they searched high and low until they
> found a few small quotations (and it's only a few, which doesn't equal
> a focused, all out attack) that would back them up.
There are six passages in the bible used to condemn homosexuals.
http://www.otkenyer.hu/truluck/six_bible_passages.html
Genesis 19:5 Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13
Romans 1:26-27 I Corinthians 6:9; I Timothy 1:9-10
Two of the passages call the homosexual act an abomination
Look at the passage from Timothy 1:9 -10. It actually uses the H word,
which is odd, because no one categorized homosexuals until the 1800s
I Timothy 1:9-10:
"Law is not made for a righteous person but for those who are lawless
and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane,
for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and
fornicators and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and
whatever else is contrary to sound (healthy) teaching."
M. Rick
“Homosexuals” as you know them are caricatures. Homosexuals as I know
them are just people with a preference for their own sex.
M. Rick
That's cute, except that you and millions of other Bible believers in
today's world oppose extending equal rights to homosexuals, including
the right to marry. Instead we get ten thousand posts about "faggy gay
lifestyles" and lectures about the wonderfully good sense of Bible
folks. Why do we care? Because the Bible is the primary
justification for the modern-day discriminations.
M. Rick
We don't deny people rights based on the fear of increased bigotry.
Rock Hudson was gay. Ryan Seacrest, probably not gay. Elton John
hasn’t lost many fans over the years. Why should he pretend that he’s
just a guy who occassionally likes to “doink” guys? For whose benefit
must the charade continue? It doesn’t matter if the gay man is
effeminate or macho. What matters is that he is allowed to express
his sexuality, engage in romantic relationships, and that he is has
full equal rights.
treadleson
On Mar 18, 12:42 pm, "M. Rick" <insomniati...@gmail.com> wrote:
---
If I say that I'm am going to declare abortion a constitutionally
protected right and I am going to find my justification in the
Constitution by twisting what it says into a pretzel until I find my
backing, where are you going to find fault (assuming that you don't
think abortion is protected and that this is a sham approach)? Will
you find fault with the Constitution or with the people who
misinterpreted the Constitution? I would find fault with the latter.
Now, I'm assuming that because you're pro gay marriage that you're
also pro abortion rights, so we'll leave our personal preferences out
of this.
I used this real life example of protected abortion rights to show how
it is slightly loopy to attack a whole religion when the people to
attack (if you're so disposed) are the people who have twisted the
religion. It is amazing how people constantly fall into this trap.
Not totally amazing, though. I don't know about you personally, but I
think many people (the rr's of this world) need some reason to attack
religion, specifically Xtianity (always the object of his attacks),
and this is something they've recently latched onto--the imagined anti-
gay bias of the Bible. It doesn't matter to them that you can find
major examples of celebrated man-man love relationships in the Bible,
King David being the biggest. They have made up their mind and
nothing, not even facts and verifiable truth, will deter them in their
quest. And they cannot entertain modern understandings of homosexual
history because, again, it would divert them from their main quest--
attack Christianity. This homosexuality business is just a
smokescreen.
What is interesting, to me at least, is how persistent their attacks
and hatred are, especially when they purport to be seekers of truth.
But let us no longer pretend that their beef is with the Christian
view of homosexuality. Their beef is with Christianity, and with
religion in general.
If they were honest about this (those seekers after truth) they would
make the very reasonable and indisputable observation that it is the
Christian priesthood and hierarchy that promotes the anti gay bias.
But this two would sidetrack them. It's not the men who distort the
Bible that they are after--it's the Bible and religion itself. And it
isn't like they confuse the two. They know very well what the
difference is. That's why I'm not holding my breath.
treadleson
> > Listen--Jumbo and Foucault's point is that the damned-to-hell-pervert attitude grows out of the categorization. Once you can recast a person from merely "guy who likes to doink guys" (or girl w/ girl) into "sick pervert girly man pinko faggot" you have recast his or her entire character and it becomes much easier to demonize, criminalize, scrapegoat...whatever...that person
> We don't deny people rights based on the fear of increased bigotry.
> Rock Hudson was gay. Ryan Seacrest, probably not gay. Elton John
> hasn’t lost many fans over the years. Why should he pretend that he’s
> just a guy who occassionally likes to “doink” guys? For whose benefit
> must the charade continue? It doesn’t matter if the gay man is
> effeminate or macho. What matters is that he is allowed to express
> his sexuality, engage in romantic relationships, and that he is has
> full equal rights.
Is this deliberate?
RichL
>> Well, at least one well-known quotation (already cited recently) says
>> otherwise. And I guess it's up to you now to explain why so many
>> Christians have the idea that the Bible says homosexuality is not only
>> "not approved of" but downright sinful.
>
> Western culture devised this idea. As usual, a better case could be
> made with scriptural backing. So they searched high and low until they
> found a few small quotations (and it's only a few, which doesn't equal
> a focused, all out attack) that would back them up.
Well it's not so black and white. The Biblical quotations DO exist, after
all. Besides, eastern religions don't have monolithic views on the subject,
although on average they are more tolerant in this respect than western
ones.
RichL
>
> On Mar 18, 12:42 pm, "M. Rick" <insomniati...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ---
>
>> >The only reason Saul is pissed about this is because if David doesn't
>> >marry, there will be no heir. (So Saul sensibly opposed gay marriage.)
>>
>> That's cute, except that you and millions of other Bible believers in
>> today's world oppose extending equal rights to homosexuals, including
>> the right to marry. Instead we get ten thousand posts about "faggy gay
>> lifestyles" and lectures about the wonderfully good sense of Bible
>> folks. Why do we care? Because the Bible is the primary
>> justification for the modern-day discriminations.
>
> If I say that I'm am going to declare abortion a constitutionally
> protected right and I am going to find my justification in the
> Constitution by twisting what it says into a pretzel until I find my
> backing, where are you going to find fault (assuming that you don't
> think abortion is protected and that this is a sham approach)? Will
> you find fault with the Constitution or with the people who
> misinterpreted the Constitution? I would find fault with the latter.
The bible explicitly condemns what are now called homosexual acts. It's
there in black and white.
The Constitution doesn't mention abortion (one way or another).
It's an inapt comparison.
treadleson
> "treadleson" <treadl...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:15e4c951-d182-4ff0...@z27g2000prz.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 18, 12:42 pm, "M. Rick" <insomniati...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > ---
>
> >> >The only reason Saul is pissed about this is because if David doesn't
> >> >marry, there will be no heir. (So Saul sensibly opposed gay marriage.)
>
> >> That's cute, except that you and millions of other Bible believers in
> >> today's world oppose extending equal rights to homosexuals, including
> >> the right to marry. Instead we get ten thousand posts about "faggy gay
> >> lifestyles" and lectures about the wonderfully good sense of Bible
> >> folks. Why do we care? Because the Bible is the primary
> >> justification for the modern-day discriminations.
>
> > If I say that I'm am going to declare abortion a constitutionally
> > protected right and I am going to find my justification in the
> > Constitution by twisting what it says into a pretzel until I find my
> > backing, where are you going to find fault (assuming that you don't
> > think abortion is protected and that this is a sham approach)? Will
> > you find fault with the Constitution or with the people who
> > misinterpreted the Constitution? I would find fault with the latter.
---
> The bible explicitly condemns what are now called homosexual acts. It's
> there in black and white.
>
> The Constitution doesn't mention abortion (one way or another).
>
> It's an inapt comparison.
Is it? In the 1600s, the word "homosexual" didn't exist. In the King
James version "abusers of mankind" is how the word now translated as
"homosexual" was translated. That could mean pimp, masturbator,
promiscuous hetero, etc. If Paul had meant to specify man on man, he
would probably have used the Greek word for pederast, since that's
what they said. But he doesn't.
So in the same way that abortion doesn't appear in the Constitution,
homosexual doesn't appear in the Bible, not in the widely 1 Timothy
passage anyway.
Okay...take the above cited Bible quotation from 1 Timothy. The King
James version says "abusers of mankind." Does this mean homosexuals?
That