Sorry. You posted a strong claim for one opinion in this thread and used selected snippets of their text to bolster that claim. I may get around to reading it some time (although their apparent lack of intellectual rigor does not encourage me–I’d rather read original sources), but I am not going to read the book just to participate in this discussion.
I am willing to entertain the notion that your quotes were not representative of their whole work, but you are the one relying on them to make such odd claims as "when male homosexuality dominates a society, it signals the end of real civilization.“ Since such an event has never occurred, it is nothing more than speculation that it might occur and I don’t need to read a whole book to realize that the logic is flawed.
I would hope that a person would educate themselves for the sake of the knowledge, not merely for participation in an internet discussion. Something tells me that you will read neither Sexual Secrets, nor any of the “original sources.”
So, you can judge the entire book on those quotes alone, at least one of which you regard as “odd.”. I envy that ability, in a way. Would that it were so easy for me. I choose instead to delve in, even if I consider an idea odd.
It is interesting to me that this thread, with more than 60 responses and more than 1,300 views, has not produced anything proposing or substantiating a claim that increasing homosexuality in a society is benign, or even beneficial. Why? Probably because it isn’t either.
You have no idea what I’ve experienced and what I haven’t. I stand by my request that you provide something to back up your comments about Western disease. For that matter I’ll stick with ‘fictional’ unless you can come up with some good reason I shouldn’t.
I’d like some proof that it’s increasing in the first place, because I think your premise is flawed.
If you had experienced such phenomenon, then you know that they exist. As it is at this point, the concepts will remain fictional to you. As for cites, I have made an assertion; you dispute it. In fact, it appears that you object to the idea. Do your own research. You have Google as well as I do.
Didn’t really say that; no premise there to be “flawed.”
You take responsibility for doing your research because, presumably, you want to learn about something you don’t know so much about, yet.
It might be increasing; it might not. If it does increase, Eastern philosophy proposes that it will result in the ultimate destruction of a given society/civilization.
Is this a good or a bad thing? Hard to tell. Civilizations come and go. So do planets, stars, galaxies, and universes. I think the only thing that can be inferred from Eastern thought on this topic is that if homosexuality increases, and the acceptance of it, the society/civilization is on the way to its own destruction.
Any emotional reaction to this process by a human being is pure egotism. I think the essence of Eastern philosophy is: Here is what is; do what you want and expect and accept the consequences.
I’m not doing the work to back up a point you tried to make.
Good for Eastern philosophy, although I don’t understand why something that has existed, in all likelihood, forever, would have such a sudden and detrimental effect on civilization.
Quite frankly, for all you can argue the sophistication and/or the worthiness of of Eastern thought vs Western, it cuts no ice with the original premise as presented: how would, first, gay marriage destroy marriage as a whole and, second, how would the destruction of marriage therein destroy society? None of this, outside of drmark’s original post, comes even close the mark of responding to the question. It just seems to me that the argument over energies and whatever else might be better suited to another thread.
Not necessarily sudden. Could take tens, hundreds, thousands, hundreds of thousands of years or more, much more. We’re talking about processes that take place on a cosmic scale, some in an instant, some within the span of a human lifetime, others over spans of time that are almost or completely inconceivable to us.
In the end, I think that Eastern philosophy informs us as to what we can expect in the short- and long-term, as a result of all varieties of behavior.
Incidentally, Hindu philosophy proposes that we are currently in the “Kali Yuga,“ the Age of Destruction, and that everything is inevitably headed toward destruction on a slow train (in terms of a human life span). Could take a real long time to finish off the job…
Buy this theory, and about the only thing we can talk about is how pleasant we can make it for ourselves before we, and eventually everything, reach our ultimate end. Good reason, IMO, to just do our best to ensure that ourselves and our civilization survive and thrive as much as possible.
You might be right, Priam, but I, for one, am having a great time with the exchange of ideas and all of the tangents it has taken us on. I hope others are, too.
I would posit that gay marriage would be good for society. Marriage is a method of expanding one’s family. Children benefit from an extended family.* They learn to socialize with a large number of people of different ages. They benefit from the knowledge and resources of the family. They have many people to turn to when in need, and it lessens the strain on the parents. This is especially true with relatives who don’t have children themselves and so have more resources, such as many gay couples, and even more true in cases where both parents work.
In other words, it’s not about the quantity of children made, but the quality of their upbringing.
I don’t have a cite for this. I vaguely remember reading that children whose grandparents were still alive and in their lives were better off than otherwise. That was given as a hypothesis for why menopause evolved. Better to increase the grandkiddies’ chances than have more of your own, at that point.
You have quoted a claim that "when male homosexuality dominates a society, it signals the end of real civilization“ from the book that you chose in order to put forth your particular position. In point of fact, that is an odd claim given that there is no evidence to support it. It is simply a belief, no different in quality than the beliefs held by Fundamentalist Christians or extremely conservative Muslims on the same topic. Since you have offered Douglas and Slinger as some sort of expert sources on the topic, yet have failed to demonstrate a single historical case that supports their contention, I am left with the perception, based on your failure either to expand on their views or to provide genuine support for their views, that they have nothing much more to add on the topic. (If they had more that was pertinent, I’d have thought you could have found it by now.) Faced with reservations about the quality of their offering, you have done nothing to provide evidence to support them, but have merely attacked those who have expressed doubts, generally through ad hominems.
You (through your sources) have provided nothing more than thinly veiled homophobia supported by absolutely no evidence or logic. (In fact, the “arguments” that you have quoted are not much more than a pretentious rewording of the condemnation of homosexuality that John Cleland put in the mouth of his heroine in his Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure, Or Fanny Hill in 1749.) Rather than sniffing that your opponents don’t have the right mindset or haven’t read the proper books, perhaps you could provide some actual substance for your argument.
As I noted earlier, the specific claim that "when male homosexuality dominates a society, it signals the end of real civilization“ is not supported by any historical evidence. If it has no more behind it than your false claim that eating flesh has been proven to be harmful, then we have no reason to accept such declarations.
As to why no one has made a case for the “benign” or “beneficial” aspects of “increasing homosexuality” in a society, there could be any number of reasons. I, for example, have no strong belief that “increasing homosexuality” is “beneficial.” First, I doubt that homosexuality is increasing; second, I suspect that it is a neutral force in society. The OP asked the question whether gay marriage would “destroy” society. I do not have to create imaginary benefits (in the way that Douglas and Slinger have created unnamed deficits) in order to defend homosexual marriage. For the purposes of this discussion, I need merely point out that no one has provided a single shred of evidence that homosexual marriage will be harmful and I have addressed the topic. I would guess that most advocates of homosexual marriage are simply ignoring this thread on the grounds that there has been no substantive arguments in the affirmative and so feel no need to offer counterarguments championing that activity.
You know, I don’t know of any gays out there who could be described as wanting to destroy society. On the other hand, many elements of many societies could be described as wanting to destroy gays. Just an idle thought.
I’m educated in Eastern thought. As your quotes have shown, Eastern traditions are still riddled with just as much archaic nonsense, and superstition and ignorance as what you can find in Western traditions. There is much I like about some Eastern philosophy. I have long been a practicioner of Zen meditation. But just because something is “Eastern” doesn’t mean it can’t be a load of crap. Kundalini yoga and “chakras” are a perfect example. It’s a load.
“Messages from meditation?” What messages. I’ve been meditating for years and I’ve never heard any messages, nor is receiving “messages” a goal of any meditation I’ve ever read about.
The stuff you quoted is just a bunch of culturally bigoted nonsense which is completely uniformed by any real knowledge of science, biology or sociology. You can find a lot of hardcore misogyny in those traditions too if you really want to go quote mining.
Actually, I’m quite well read on Eastern philosophy, which is why I was interested in your rather bold declaration. And frankly, if Atkinson’s adaptations of Hinduism for Christians comprises your exposure to Eastern philosophy, then I dare say that it is you who needs to read up. In any case, if you decide to answer the question, what I asked you was in what way it is factually (your claim) a more sophisticated philosophy (setting aside for the moment that there is not one monolythic Eastern philosophy).
Excellent, and well done! Finally, something besides screeching objections and claims of being attacked. Don’t worry about the cite. Since I’m aware of the research to which you refer, I don’t need a cite. And if I were not aware, I would make it my business (and obligation) to find out about it, and decide for myself whether or not I agree.
Anyway, under those very specific circumstances, and assuming that it is, for all intents and purposes, more desirable to have child raised in a family with married parents (of whatever sex combination), then the ability of gays to marry would be beneficial. I have worked with hundreds of children over the years, and have seen many times the results of complete, or almost complete, disenfranchisement from the existing societal structure. I’m still no big fan of the existing societal structure, but given that that’s what we’ve got, at this point, something is probably better than nothing, for kids in that unfortunate position.
I agree with the assertion I cited. But this particular position is not “mine.” I did not come up with it. Nor am I interested in propounding some particular agenda of my own. Again, and for about the fourth time, this is what has been said, and I happen to agree.
Will you finally do your homework?
And you believe something else. You prate about my having “merely attacked” others’ views. There is no tone of attack in anything I have posted. That you would perceive it as such gives you away. You’re not so sure about what you have decided to believe, and it shows in your reaction to the stance I have presented.
Jeez, again with the “homophobia.” I guess flashing the term around provides a convenient out for you. One more time: Eastern philosophy is practically based and practically oriented.
Okay, so you’ve read Fanny Hill. So have I. It was more than 20 years ago, but I have read it. Which is more than I can say about your actual background in Eastern philosophy. You don’t know and, apparently, you don’t want to know.
And who are these “opponents” whom you consider me to be sniffing at? Your choice of words again gives you away. You’re not about self-education and discussion to the end of understanding. You consider those who disagree with the ideas I have presented as “opponents,” presumably including yourself. And you persistently demand that someone else do your research for you. Lazy, lazy, lazy.
Finally, you put yourself on the line. That took a long time. Easier to be the challenger than the challenged, I suppose. Careful, now. If you’re going to be a Moderator, you’d best be moderate.
You doubt that homosexuality is increasing, you suspect that it is a neutral force in society. You know, I hate to go here, but where are your cites? Only kidding. If I want to confirm or disconfirm your beliefs, I’ll do the leg work. Why won’t you?
As for your “guess” as to why advocates of homosexual marriage are “simply ignoring” this thread, gee, what a dissing. An alternate explanation might be that they just haven’t found it or, if they have, don’t have anything to say. Actually, your perception is inaccurate, as there have been a few posts in this vein, one of which, by audreyayn, I have responded to. Take a look at it.
Pretty much. It goes back to basics: man + woman = offspring. That’s by design and incorporated into that design is caring for the offspring. The offspring respond best when you have a male/female environment - and here’s the key - that is dedicated to the welfare of the offspring.
We don’t have that anymore. Personally, I think the most damaging thing done to the family unit was the concept of no-fault divorce. If no kids are involved, then no-fault works, but the minute kids enter the picture, they take priority. I think it should be damn near impossible to divorce once you have kids (exceptions being drugs/alcohol, violence, crime, etc.). But when times get rough, people are not willing to buckle down and make the marriage work any more. They would rather quit than take on that responsibility and committment.
And I think that is the issue that should be first and foremost on the discussion hit parade. But that’s just me…
You bet. Are the ones that I have presented so “riddled?“ If you think so, why?
You haven’t experienced these phenomena so, to you, they’re “a load.” Too bad, after so much meditation. Keep working at it. You never know what will happen.
Not a goal; a result. Anyone can learn more about a given topic by concentrating their attention on it.