I’m not talking about one interpretation being “nicer”, I am saying that an interpretation that betrays it’s own internal logic is not as valid as a well reasoned and thought out belief system.
Another thing those attacking Kirkland and Lissener seem to be missing is the fact that the original thread was hijacked by fundies. The original thread had fuck-all to do with anything they had to say- WVWoman felt the need to piss all over a valid discussion without adding anything to it. They came here looking for a fight, and I see no need to just roll over for them.
Apos, with every word you type you make it clearer that you have no real investment in what you’re saying; that you’ve simply latched onto something to be contrary about, and are unwilling or unable to give it up: your tail is vey cleary wagging your dog.
Anytime someone tries to clearly describe for you what they’re talking about, you dismiss it as “labeling.” Well, sure, if every time you use a damn noun you’re labeling something.
If someone expresses an opinion that’s disrespectful of my personhood, you can be damn sure I’ll claim the right to disrespect their opinion, and you coming around splitting hairs and shoving camels through needleyes, going on about respect this and polite that, contribute exactly zero to the substance of the debate.
—I’m not talking about one interpretation being “nicer”, I am saying that an interpretation that betrays it’s own internal logic is not as valid as a well reasoned and thought out belief system.—
I wasn’t aware that your logic was the determinant of the validity of another’s religious faith (which, for all anyone knows, may not be based strictly on logical arguement).
Besides, you haven’t convinced me that you’ve give any serious creedence to a fundamentalist’s logic even if presented with it. His4ever said she couldn’t defend her views (she seems in general confused as to the purpose of this board: she seems to think it’s “Great Descriptions of My Beliefs”), but that’s hardly reason to conclude that they cannot be defended, and I’ve certainly heard defenses of their views that I consider fair as far as their own internal logic goes, though not necessarily absolutely convincing (as I noted, I think it’s pretty hard to pretend that the Bible writers even had much a clue as to what gay love is, much less that women can have sex). You can’t simply label someone a hypocrite when they aren’t even prepared to supply their internal logic for you to analyze.
The problem is: I don’t much care if Paul was grossed out by gay sex (he seemed pretty grossed out by even hetero sex anyway). Nor do I care if the Bible claims that god thinks men sleeping with each other is an abomination (my favorite translation of this passage reads “God hates that!” which might as well read: “that realy pisses god off!” or “That really get’s god’s panties in a bunch!”)
—Another thing those attacking Kirkland and Lissener seem to be missing is the fact that the original thread was hijacked by fundies. The original thread had fuck-all to do with anything they had to say- WVWoman felt the need to piss all over a valid discussion without adding anything to it. They came here looking for a fight, and I see no need to just roll over for them.—
Granted. And I think people did a pretty good job calling their claims into serious question, pretty much stalling them out.
Of course, they did get piled on en masse, and the nastiness seemed to kill any hope of a discussion on even those hijacked issues (and no one seemed to really care much about the original topic once the fundamentalists came in with big targets painted on their heads, and of course they got beat down good, as expected).
The effectiveness of either depends on what you are trying to accomplish. Radical activism can force people who have been avoiding the issue, to decide on their stance. It can bring an untalked-about or unrecognised issue to a wider audience. Whether or not radical activism works effectively in terms of drawing the majority of people towards its cause (which I for one doubt), it certainly makes people sit up and take notice - perhaps make them aware of instances of homophobia/biogtry they wouldn’t otherwise have knowledge of. For example, someone who is outwardly supportive but still harbours thoughts along the lines of ‘but why must they throw their lifestyle in my face? I don’t need a parade!’, may have a better understanding of a desire to march once they have a wider knowledge of the issues involved. Issues that might never have come to their attention if it hadn’t been for the activists reported-on in their daily newspaper.
As Padeye already pointed out, reasoned debate will only be highly effective with those willing to listen. With those who refuse to consider changing their stance on an issue, it can at least accomplish showing these people that, although a gay man’s sexuality is just plain ‘wrong’ (which for some is an undebateable point), some of us can be fairly nice and polite. It might make them respect you more as both a debater and well-mannered person but won’t truly challenge their opinions in any meaningful way. No matter how nice or polite some of the Christians on this board can be, or how effectively they argue their stance, I very much doubt I’ll ever be swayed by their arguments and will probably continue as a godless heathen until my last breath. But if they’ve debated with grace and manners, I will give them more time and respect than if they’d been busy spouting hatred and disgust.
Experience would tell me that the reasoned debate approach is more likely than radical activism to convince its audience that an issue is a worthwhile cause; especially here where, although you may not change the opinions of the people you’re debating an issue with, you can still sway the thoughts of those reading who are willing to listen. It’s just that much of the time when it comes to efficacy of debate vs. activism, the radical activists will be the ones creating an audience for the debate in the first place.
The effectiveness of either depends on what you are trying to accomplish. Radical activism can force people who have been avoiding the issue, to decide on their stance. It can bring an untalked-about or unrecognised issue to a wider audience. Whether or not radical activism works effectively in terms of drawing the majority of people towards its cause (which I for one doubt), it certainly makes people sit up and take notice - perhaps make them aware of instances of homophobia/biogtry they wouldn’t otherwise have knowledge of. For example, someone who is outwardly supportive but still harbours thoughts along the lines of ‘but why must they throw their lifestyle in my face? I don’t need a parade!’, may have a better understanding of a desire to march once they have a wider knowledge of the issues involved. Issues that might never have come to their attention if it hadn’t been for the activists reported-on in their daily newspaper.
As Padeye already pointed out, reasoned debate will only be highly effective with those willing to listen. With those who refuse to consider changing their stance on an issue, it can at least accomplish showing these people that, although a gay man’s sexuality is just plain ‘wrong’ (which for some is an undebateable point), some of us can be fairly nice and polite. It might make them respect you more as both a debater and well-mannered person but won’t truly challenge their opinions in any meaningful way. No matter how nice or polite some of the Christians on this board can be, or how effectively they argue their stance, I very much doubt I’ll ever be swayed by their arguments and will probably continue as a godless heathen until my last breath. But if they’ve debated with grace and manners, I will give them more time and respect than if they’d been busy spouting hatred and disgust.
Experience would tell me that the reasoned debate approach is more likely than radical activism to convince its audience that an issue is a worthwhile cause; especially here where, although you may not change the opinions of the people you’re debating an issue with, you can still sway the thoughts of those reading who are willing to listen. It’s just that much of the time when it comes to efficacy of debate vs. activism, the radical activists will be the ones creating an audience for the debate in the first place.
—Apos, with every word you type you make it clearer that you have no real investment in what you’re saying; that you’ve simply latched onto something to be contrary about, and are unwilling or unable to give it up: your tail is vey cleary wagging your dog.—
You know what? I actually do have quite an investment in what I’m saying, and it’s something I care about a great deal.
I’m sorry that I’m not signalling it properly by screaming and carrying on or calling you names.
—Anytime someone tries to clearly describe for you what they’re talking about, you dismiss it as “labeling.” Well, sure, if every time you use a damn noun you’re labeling something.—
Some nouns are meant to describe: some are simply meant to demean others and shortcut legitimate discussion and debate. I get pissed off when conservatives do it, I get pissed off when liberals do it. I know of no moral rationale that justifies illegitimate tactics only when they are used by people one otherwise agrees with.
—If someone expresses an opinion that’s disrespectful of my personhood, you can be damn sure I’ll claim the right to disrespect their opinion,—
You have every right. But whether someone has the “right” to do so is not the topic of this thread.
—and you coming around splitting hairs and shoving camels through needleyes, going on about respect this and polite that, contribute exactly zero to the substance of the debate.—
As far as I can tell, that’s only because for you there is no substantive debate to be had on this issue, and nothing is going to change your mind.
Has anyone else here boggled at the irony of defending intransigence-on-principle at a message board whose main virtue is the ability to promote dialogue, in a forum called “Great Debates”?
What principle are the gay advocates being intransigent on? The fact that being gay is not a chosen condition? We know that’s true, there is no chance that its false. The fact that being gay and being Christian is totally possible? We know that’s true, there is no chance that its false. How, because we know ourselves, we know our lives, we know who and what we are and that we never made any choice to be as such.
I believe hansel was talking about the rush to defend certain fundies who have admitted that they haven’t thought through their world view and that they won’t listen to opposing views. I could be wrong about hansels intentions, but the only intransigence I’ve seen comes from the fundies.
No, the intransigence to which I was referring was lissener’s proclaimed position (though most of the fundamentalists that come through here qualify in exactly the same way), who by his own words is not here to debate homosexuality, or the views of conservative Christians on it, but to simply get in their face and confront them, with “firm, implacable insistence”; the issue is “non-debatable, and non-negotiable”. In the same way that His4ever will make no attempt to evaluate her own beliefs according to any other standards than her own, lissener will attempt nothing more than a shouting match with her.
To be clear, I’m not saying anything about gay advocacy, or the tactics used in general. I’m talking about the actions and motivations of certain posters here.
What the hell else is a message board for, if not useful conversation? The fact that one side is obstinate doesn’t mean that the other side can’t get a good workout, and that the lurkers might not find something to think about. When the premise that a profitable exchange is possible is completely abandoned, what’s the purpose of even posting?
What, lissener? Were you were that His4ever’s “implacable insistence” was actually swaying some of us?
The difference, aside from the fact that Lissener is right and His4ever is wrong, is that those of us opposed to the bigotry of the fundies can and do support our position.
It is morally reprehensible to claim that both sides have valid arguments when one side plainly does not.
—It is morally reprehensible to claim that both sides have valid arguments when one side plainly does not.—
Depends on what you mean valid arguements for. Certainly, I don’t think she or anyone has what I consider valid reasons for thinking that loving people of the same sex is wrong. But I think it’s sort of silly to pretend that one couldn’t have perfectly valid reasons for believing that their God thinks it wrong.
Obviously, having His4ever around is great fun for all, and especially seeing as she has no idea how to go about defending her beliefs, she must be a refreshing change of venue from those that can actually at least argue coherently her stripe of biblical interpretation.
I’m just not sure how exicting or interesting or enlightening it all is in the end, and making sweeping conclusions about whether fundamentalists are right or wrong about their interpretation of the BIBLE seems as totally unjustifiable as His4ever’s own declarations against Catholics and Mormons.
Is it really so hard to imagine that the authors of the bible were bigots themselves? It’s certainly possible to interpret the passages that way, despite the fact that it certainly is, and will probably always remain ambiguous.
But perhaps this idea bothers me less than others because I can envision the possible existence of a God who hates gay people without any fear of feeling that I should agree with it’s opinion.
I didn’t say anything about the validity or soundness of either side’s arguments. I said, what the hell’s the point of posting on a message board, whose whole purpose is to permit useful dialogue to occur, when you’d rather mean-circle someone than talk to them? You have as much chance of making a difference as His4ever does.
This is just theory and academic debate for you and Apos, hansel.
It’s not just some intellectual exercise for me. If someone expresses the “opinion”–largely supported or at least connived at by society at large, including this board–that I am less human than they are because of the essence of who I am, then I shouldn’t be expected to politely debate them on the issue. I simply tell them, as the full-on human they’re dehumanizing that they’re wrong.
You guys can debate it as much as you like: it’s dry abstraction for you (“Hmmm; that’s an interesting question. Let’s look at the text, shall we?”). It’s not about text and interpretation and debatable points and someone else’s opinion for me: it is me and my life and place and time on this planet and my self.
There was a time when it was a matter of opinion whether the world was round or flat. Now, if one were to say that the world is flat, and “that’s just my opinion,” they would be ignored and marginalized.
Well, I am the subject of H4E’s “opinion,” and I’m here to tell you that she’s flat out wrong, and I’m suggesting that she should be ignored and marginalized for holding such an “opinion.” For me, it is nondebatable and non-negotiable.
Wait a sec, Homebrew and I are also telling the fundies they are wrong. The difference is we are using logic and evidence to disprove their bigotry; you and Kirk resort to swearing and insults. I share your anger, but I think your tactics don’t work.
Morver, I am proud to bea gay man, and I don’t get how you think you canbe dehumanized by fundie bigotry. I am the judge of how I feel about myself, and I lose no sleep over being disliked by a pack of unintelligent, slackjawed Biblebeaters. They can think whatever they please; my only concern is that their bigotry not be translated into political action. I want them to be impotent and fangless, and the best way to accomplish that goal, is to show how stupid and baseless their arguments are, not to shriek like a Boston fishwife.
Plus, again, there can be no debate on whether gay people choose to be gay or not. I am gay. I know that I didn’t choose to be. I don’t know a single gay person who chose to be. But “people” like His4 and her ilk base their entire worldview based upon the lie that gay people choose to be gay.
There can be no real debate on whether or not being gay is a chosen condition. Because we’re right here, and we’re saying its not, and we are the final authority on the matter, because we, and only we, would know if we chose our orientation.
Who the hell are you, Apos and hansel, to demand the “right” to debate my humanity, as if it were some kind of parlor game?
Well, of course, ultimately you do have that right, just as you have the right to debate if maybe blacks are inferior to whites, or evolution is “just a theory.” But doing so makes you, in my book, a part of the problem and not a part of the solution.
More to the point, where the hell (screaming again here) do you get the pulsating nerve to demand that I join in the debate, sipping tea with my pinky akimbo?
You guys want to play angels-on-a-pin game with me and my self, you’ll get no cooperation from me, and shame on your for demanding it.
As one long time and fascinated lurker I’m coming down on the side of name-calling, sauce-for-the-goose, or whatever you want to call an impassioned defence of ones humanity against Dark Ages homophobic tripe spouted by bigots and justified by, to mix and mangle metaphors, a fig leaf christianity cherry-picked from the Bible.
A little less tolerance, a little more shunning, to paraphrase Elvis.