HappyJackWagon Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 Please go back and look at my post again. Read the quote and see the link I added. A bit trigger-happy with the CFR, are you not?Trigger happy? I don't think so. I called for a CFR and a few minutes later you edited your original post. That works for me. Thanks.
KevinG Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 Reasonable only to you. The nuclear family is also a social construct so clearly those will not be eternal either. Wow. Have you even read the Proclamation on the Family?
HappyJackWagon Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 Wow. Have you even read the Proclamation on the Family?Kevin, Please read in context. I was responding to Danzo's ridiculous claim by showing him how that logic doesn't work with another ridiculous claim.
Scott Lloyd Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 Reasonable only to you. The nuclear family is also a social construct so clearly those will not be eternal either.The proclamation on the family contradicts you.
Scott Lloyd Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 (edited) Trigger happy? I don't think so. I called for a CFR and a few minutes later you edited your original post. That works for me. Thanks.I edited my post before I saw your CFR. Had you waited eight minutes you would have saved yourself some embarrassment. But the important thing is you can now dispense with a misconception you had harbored. At least I hope you won't be repeating it. Edited September 30, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
bcuzbcuz Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 CFRYou can start by going to any museum with exhibits of Greek pottery. Open your eyes and push your ready made prejudices aside. Check out pottery from the 7th C and 6th C, B.C. Is that far back enough in time for you? Then ask yourself why such behaviours are described and prohibited in the Old Testament. Why forbid something if it didn´t exist?
Danzo Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 Wait, are you suggesting there was no such thing as homosexuality prior to the "social cultural construct" of "gay" being "invented in [the] last century?" Homosexuality, As I understand it defined today is "a homosexual is someone who incapable of being happy unless in a sexual relationship with someone of the same sex, and is incapable of being happy in a sexual relation with someone of the opposite sex, this person has no control over their desires and is born with this condition. Nothing can change it. " I don't think that is eternal (or even real) Some cultures don't even understand the term Homosexual. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 Kevin, Please read in context. I was responding to Danzo's ridiculous claim by showing him how that logic doesn't work with another ridiculous claim.Argumentum ad absurdum. Got it.
Danzo Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 (edited) You can start by going to any museum with exhibits of Greek pottery. Open your eyes and push your ready made prejudices aside. Check out pottery from the 7th C and 6th C, B.C. Is that far back enough in time for you? Then ask yourself why such behaviours are described and prohibited in the Old Testament. Why forbid something if it didn´t exist?What do you think about this http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/12/where-masturbation-and-homosexuality-do-not-exist/265849/ "But the Hewletts did find that their informants -- whom they knew well from years of field work -- "were not aware of these practices, did not have terms for them," and, in the case of the Aka, had a hard time even understanding about what the researchers were asking when they asked about homosexual behaviors." Edited September 30, 2015 by Danzo
Danzo Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 Reasonable only to you. Why do you think race is eternal?
ttribe Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 Homosexuality, As I understand it defined today is "a homosexual is someone who incapable of being happy unless in a sexual relationship with someone of the same sex, and is incapable of being happy in a sexual relation with someone of the opposite sex, this person has no control over their desires and is born with this condition. Nothing can change it. " I don't think that is eternal (or even real) Some cultures don't even understand the term Homosexual. 1 - I don't think the anthropological evidence supports your assertions that this is a "new" thing. 2 - Your "...or even real" comment is revealing in its ignorance; especially in light of the fact that the Church acknowledges the reality of this issue (at least in this life). 3 - Which "cultures don't even understand the term Homosexual?"
Danzo Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 The nuclear family is also a social construct so clearly those will not be eternal either. Since I am a practicing Mormon, the revelations I believe in and the rituals in the temple teach that family life will continue in the next life. Since this is what my religion teaches, I believe. You are, of course, under no obligation to accept my religious beliefs.
Danzo Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 1 - I don't think the anthropological evidence supports your assertions that this is a "new" thing. 2 - Your "...or even real" comment is revealing in its ignorance; especially in light of the fact that the Church acknowledges the reality of this issue (at least in this life). 3 - Which "cultures don't even understand the term Homosexual?" Did you look at my post above linking to http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/12/where-masturbation-and-homosexuality-do-not-exist/265849/?
jkwilliams Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 Homosexuality, As I understand it defined today is "a homosexual is someone who incapable of being happy unless in a sexual relationship with someone of the same sex, and is incapable of being happy in a sexual relation with someone of the opposite sex, this person has no control over their desires and is born with this condition. Nothing can change it. " That's certainly a novel definition. What you're doing is setting up an arbitrary binary classification for all humans. Humanity is, of course, far messier than that and maddeningly difficult to put into neat boxes. I don't think that is eternal (or even real) Some cultures don't even understand the term Homosexual. All you're really saying is that things aren't real if there aren't universal words for them. There's a word for that: fundamentalism.
Danzo Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 For believing Mormons, I think that's quite reasonable. The problem is when you extrapolate from that logic that mortal humans can choose who and what they are attracted to. It doesn't work. You think that mortal humans have no choice on who and what they are attracted to? Perhaps you have no choice on who and what you are attracted to, but I find that I have a high degree of influence over who and what I am attracted to.
ttribe Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 (edited) Did you look at my post above linking to http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/12/where-masturbation-and-homosexuality-do-not-exist/265849/? After I posted that, yes. However, I'm struggling to determine how you generalize from a single, small, group of people in a remote area of the world as being representative of all. The variables here are almost innumerable. BTW, your use of the phrase "some cultures" implies plurality. You've provided one. Are there more? ETA: Your response only attempts to address my third point. What about the other two? Edited September 30, 2015 by ttribe
Danzo Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 All you're really saying is that things aren't real if there aren't universal words for them. Did you read the article I linked to?
Danzo Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 After I posted that, yes. However, I'm struggling to determine how you generalize from a single, small, group of people in a remote area of the world as being representative of all. The variables here are almost innumerable. BTW, your use of the phrase "some cultures" implies plurality. You've provided one. Are there more? The article mentions two.
KevinG Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 You think that mortal humans have no choice on who and what they are attracted to? Perhaps you have no choice on who and what you are attracted to, but I find that I have a high degree of influence over who and what I am attracted to. And even more choice on how to act upon that attraction. I think we do people a great disservice by teaching that agency takes a back seat to lusts, and that they would be happier if society just accepted any behavior between consenting adults (or even better teens).
Danzo Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 And even more choice on how to act upon that attraction. I think we do people a great disservice by teaching that agency takes a back seat to lusts, and that they would be happier if society just accepted any behavior between consenting adults (or even better teens). And it is so foreign to my experience. I cannot count the times I have felt attracted to someone, or something and then decided that that someone or something was no longer attractive to me.
jkwilliams Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 Did you read the article I linked to? Yes, thanks for that. Fascinating. They said the same thing I just did: homosexuality may be "unarticulated" in the culture, but still present. They don't know. They also suggest that there could be a genetic component, such that in that small community there is no genetic predisposition to homosexuality. Either way, the article doesn't support your idea that homosexuality doesn't exist. 2
Danzo Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 Yes, thanks for that. Fascinating. They said the same thing I just did: homosexuality may be "unarticulated" in the culture, but still present. They don't know. They also suggest that there could be a genetic component, such that in that small community there is no genetic predisposition to homosexuality. Either way, the article doesn't support your idea that homosexuality doesn't exist. Obviously homosexuality exists. The question is, is it eternal? (or Must it exist)? I am not convinced.
ttribe Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 And even more choice on how to act upon that attraction. I think we do people a great disservice by teaching that agency takes a back seat to lusts, and that they would be happier if society just accepted any behavior between consenting adults (or even better teens). And, yet, the psychological harm created by telling everyone that all of their sexual attractions are a matter of choice is well documented. I'd suggest re-reading BlueDreams' posts in this very thread.
jkwilliams Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 And even more choice on how to act upon that attraction. I think we do people a great disservice by teaching that agency takes a back seat to lusts, and that they would be happier if society just accepted any behavior between consenting adults (or even better teens). No one is saying agency takes a back seat to lusts. I do not believe you or I have a choice in being sexually attracted to men or women. Do you?
KevinG Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 And it is so foreign to my experience. I cannot count the times I have felt attracted to someone, or something and then decided that that someone or something was no longer attractive to me. Feelings, and love, can be nurtured or discouraged. True if we are fundamentally attracted to opposite sex, or same sex, it would not be easy or even possible to change our general orientation. However, I would argue the concepts of sacrifice and self discipline have led to more joy than hedonism and disobedience. Behaving in ways that harm ourselves in the long run then blaming society for the hurt for not approving of our behavior seems to be the play of the day. 1
Recommended Posts