Will gays destroy society?

Great Debates
101

It appears that you have misunderstood the nature and dynamic of this forum and misunderstood requests to follow some semblence of a systematic debate as “insolence” and “defensiveness.” If you just want to spout groundless opinions without being challenged then got to IMHO.

Nobody has asked you to do “research” for them, only to back up your assertions with some sort of argument or evidence. “I read it in a book” is hardly persuasive.

Really all your argument boils down to is “These eastern dudes think homos are wrong. They learned it by meditating and getting magic messages. If you don’t believe me read this book.”

Frankly, if all your book has to offer is “inspired” testimony from “Eastern Masters,” then all you really have is a lame appeal to authority which is substantively indistinguishable from “God told me.” (or rather, “God told some magical Eastern dudes”).

102

You tell me — its your word of choice.

And on preview, I’ve seen Dio’s post. I hadn’t paid attention before and therefore missed your apparent pronouncement that Eastern philosophy condemns homosexuality. As the Kama Sutra says, “'The male servants of some men carry on the mouth congress with their masters. It is also practised by some citizens, who know each other well, among themselves.” The mouth congress is dick sucking. Dicks are called lingams, and homosexuals are called “eunichs” or “the third sex”:

*When, holding the man’s lingam with his hand, and placing it between his lips, the eunuch moves about his mouth, it is called the ‘nominal congress’.

When, covering the end of the lingam with his fingers collected together like the bud of a plant or flower, the eunuch presses the sides of it with his lips, using his teeth also, it is called ‘biting the sides’.

When, being desired to proceed, the eunuch presses the end of the lingam with his lips closed together, and kisses it as if he were drawing it out, it is called the ‘outside pressing’.

When, being asked to go on, he puts the lingam further into his mouth, and presses it with his lips and then takes it out, it is called the ‘inside pressing’.

When, holding the lingam in his hand, the eunuch kisses it as if he were kissing the lower lip, it is called ‘kissing’.

When, after kissing it, he touches it with his tongue everywhere, and passes the tongue over the end of it, it is called ‘rubbing’.

When, in the same way, he puts the half of it into his mouth, and forcibly kisses and sucks it, this is called ‘sucking a mango fruit’.

And lastly, when, with the consent of the man, the eunuch puts the whole lingam into his mouth, and presses it to the very end, as if he were going to swallow it up, it is called ‘swallowing up’.

Striking, scratching, and other things may also be done during this kind of congress.*

103

Okay, let’s get it straight. I’m not trying to persuade anybody of anything. Again, if I have misperceived the nature of this forum, and my duty was to bring people around to some particular way of thinking, then I haven’t done that. I didn’t want to. That’s not the Eastern way. Eastern teaching is not Socratic, and is not considered a debate. You provide the information that you have to provide, and the hearers can take what they want and leave the rest, like a smorgasboard (to use a Western comparison). If they reject some or all of what’s offered, that’s up to them. They will leave the table full, hungry, or something in between, depending on their tastes.

But to look upon the table and declare, “This isn’t what I like! I want other food! Justify why you provided this instead of what I like, and all the recipes, too!” is insolent, impudent, and rude. It is an abuse of an offering. Either get up and leave, or go ahead and try something and see if maybe it agrees with you after all.

Some of the reactions to the statements I have quoted have, IMO, belied a raging insecurity on the part of the posters. Something in those statements gets at them, and that’s not a good sign.

The “authority” to whom I appeal is each human individual. That’s what I’ve been saying all along, isn’t it? I can think of nothing more respectful. You take whatever knowledge presents itself to you, and see for yourself if it works. You don’t like an idea? Don’t like it! But don’t go around demanding of someone who has that idea that they must justify it to you and convince you of it. It’s just bad form.

I have appreciated the time and effort you have put into your responses. Thank you.

BTY, what was that English novel to which you referred?

104

Then stop fucking posting in this thread.

This is mostly likley not what you mean, (You claim your posts are the food? :smiley: ) but I can see the table, as the whole of human existence, and the food as human nature, including homosexuality.

No. When someone appears to have a twisted view of the definition of evolution, science, etc., I will certainly demand that they justify their willingness to pervert the meaning of words or concepts. Here, you seem to be claiming that “Eastern Thought” show that homosexuality is a cause of something. This completly denies the thoughts of many Eastern people, as Liberal has shown, and so you are liable to explain your idea.

105

Can you tell us what that argument was?

106

In addition to what Lib posted, it may interest drmark to know that homosexual frottage is encouraged in some Buddhist monastic sects as a means to relieve ordinary sexual tension.

107

Well, for a few reasons. While I was exploring my spiritual orientation, I was also pursuing a degree in psychology. The most important thing I got out of that degree, and perhaps the most important thing anyone can get out of any degree, is the ability to think critically. More specifically, regarding the study of psych, I learned just how unreliable one’s subjective experiences can be in determining truth, yet how tenaciously people will hold onto them, even in the face of evidence to the contrary. There are still tribes in the US who perform a raindance. When they dance and it happens by chance to rain a few days latter, they very much feel the connection.

During this time I was also very much into astral traveling. I could really, honestly and truly feel some part of me actually leave my physical body and move about the room. The problem was that nothing I ever observed while in this state matched up with what I observed in my normal waking state. But it felt so real.

Also during this time I was doing lots of psychedelic drugs (everything from LSD to shrooms to mescaline to ecstasy to nitrous oxide to etc.). Each one of these drugs produced in me a different, though admittedly similar in many ways, sense of profound insight and knowledge. Yet I could never articulate it adequately when I was sober, nor did any of my attempts at writing things down while in this intoxicated state every seem to have much meaning when read back later on. But that feeling was sooooo damn real while I was having it.

Each of these things I mention taken together made me realize that the feeling of insight/enlightenment/profound understanding/whatever, is quite different from actual insight/etc. And if the feeling of insight can be produced by adding chemicals to my body which in turn affect the action of my actual body chemistry, then it seems to follow that my body chemistry can produce those experiences on their own, even in the absense of the drug. Most importantly, these experiences can be adequately explained and predicted by chemistry.

So how does one know when they’ve really acheived any actual knowledge/insight? A subjective POV is unreliable. It is therefore necessary to take our own biases and chemistry out of the equation which is exactly what science is all about.

I trust that which can be measured objectively. So much of what I once believed has turned out to be so wrong.

108

But you used it, so I’m wondering what you mean by it. I’ve already done my defining.

I have specifically said from from my first post that Eastern philosophy does not condemn homosexuaity. And it doesn’t.

But, bravo! You have at least taken the time to delve in a bit. The correct spelling is “eunuchs,” BTW. This “third sex” were castrated males. I’m glad we don’t do that anymore.

The Kama Sutra is largely a reference manual. It describes a great variety of sexual practices. There are other books that describe sexual gratification that people derive from beating the hell out of each other, vomitting in each others’ throats, and eating their own, and others’, feces. I won’t be doing any of those things. Don’t sound like they’re real good for you, on the face of it, as it were.

109

Greased cat argument. This is Great Debates. And incidentally, Socrates is scarcely the whole of Western philosophy, or for that matter a major part of it — other than acknowledgment for ancient contributions. You’re mangling both Eastern and Western philosophy so much, and making so many false, misleading, and incomplete statements about them, that the damage you’ve done is now beyond containment. So… please stop.

110

You defined nothing. You made parallel meaningless statements about Eastern and Western philosophy. That’s not a definition. You declared that Eastern philosophy is more sophisticated than Western philosophy. Ordinarilly, I’d just shrug that off as the musings of an armchair hack, but you went beyond that, and said that it was factually more sophisticated. And when pressed to provide those facts, you’ve done nothing but wiggle and spout nonsense.

My mistake. I misinterpreted Diogenes.

No, Vedic eunuchs were not castrated males. Your understanding of the term apparently comes from early British readings of the literature. From Tritiya-Prakriti: People of the Third Sex:

Welcome to the world of the so-called “Vedic eunuch”, a term so archaic and disingenuous that it provides a good lesson both in semantics and social denial. First of all, there is no recorded evidence of any system of male castration either in ancient or contemporary India. The English word “eunuch”, or castrated male, is Greek in origin and was used to refer to homosexuals during the Middle Ages. When the term “homosexual” was coined with the advent of modern psychiatry in the late nineteenth century, British writers continued to cling to the word eunuch, which was considered more polite by Victorian standards. Thus they used the word to describe transgender people all over the world in regions ranging from Greece, Persia, India, China, Polynesia, etc. During the nineteenth century, when Great Britain was the major world power and had subjugated India, homosexuality was considered a sin so horrific that it was not even to be mentioned, let alone discussed. The result was the use of vague, inappropriate terms to describe transgender people such as eunuch, neuter, impotent, asexual, hermaphrodite, etc. While these types of people may have existed to some degree and are generally included within the third sex category, they hardly would have made up its mass. Rather, by behavior and as described in the Kama Shastra, members of the tritiya-prakriti engage almost exclusively in homosexuality.

The correct spelling is “vomiting”.

111

Then you shouldn’t be posting an argument in Great Debates. You don’t just get to make a statement and then say “No! Read the book!” when people argue it. Not around here.

Then it has no real value as an argument.

Asking someone to defend the positions they have taken is NOT rude, it is a requirement of intellectual debate. If you want to claim that Eastern “wisdom” is not suited for such consideration, then that’s fine by me.

And frankly, “justify your statement” is not 1 millionth as offensive as the pure hatred you unleashed against gays in your original post. Not that bigots like you care about such things.

112

Why?

How do you know? And what language does “likley” come from?

All of the posts are food. I’ve been eating well, lately. How about you?

Already responded to. Also, really, I know I’m not perfect in this regard, but work on your spelling.

113

You DID condemn all homosexuals. You accused us of being the cause of the destruction of civilization. That is pure condemnation, laced with seething hatred.

114

I do think you have in fact “misperceived the nature of this forum” which, as the name suggests, is to debate.

But even if that weren’t an issue, what you aren’t getting is that your beliefs on the subject are very offensive to gay people, and those who sympathize with their ongoing plight.

Let’s say someone came in saying the following:

does that seem offensive to you? I hope so.

115

Because, if you want to defend your views, the best way to do so is to rethink your op, given the input from other posters, and post it to the right forum. You might feel like defending your points, but I would recommend you don’t since it is just prolonging an argument in the wrong forum. I believe moving the topic would do the same thing. Others may post, but that will peter-out if you stop posting.

Scottslvania

Pretty good. :smiley:

I am. How about you work on your attitude towards the large varities of people in this world?

116

What damage, for God’s sake, and how is it beyond containment? Must not be too robust a group of thinkers around here to have anyone pleading, “please stop,” as if the whole board is about to fall apart irrevocably.

117

Must not be too robust a society if a bunch of homosexuals can cause it to fall apart irrevocably.

Right?

118

It would be good to get away from the “Eastern Masters” vs “Western thought” issue, and try to address some of the questions in the OP.

Namely:

I’ve seen some attempts to address this, but so far we’ve been bogged down by arguments over what homosexual sex might or might not do to some hypothetical “energy” that we might or might not have.

What about some discussion on alternatives to marriage as a method of raising kids?

For example, what if all kids were, from the time they were born to the time they became adults, raised communally and never met their parents?

Has any society or mini-society (like a kibutz) ever attempted anything similar to this? If yes, what were the outcomes?

It’s pretty clear that in a society were “every” kid has a mother and father, if you are raised without knowing your parents it is very bad. But, in a society were all kids are raised this way, then won’t kids just think that that is the normal way of doing things?

119

Okay. Mental note: don’t offend anyone.

Let’s say someone came in saying the following: The basic idea is that being black is an attempt to transmute Kundalini energy in a perverted and ultimately inefficient manner. The perversion degrades the body over time. The more degraded bodies in a civilization, the more degraded the civilization eventually becomes. Being black is not condemned, but it is certainly not encouraged.

does that seem offensive to you? I hope so.
[/QUOTE]

Are you suggesting that gays are a race?

120

??? Fanny Hill–I thought you said you had read it.

[ unsolicited advice ]

Correcting spelling is generally considered boorish behavior. Most of us type a lot, here, on other newsgroups, and at work, and we do not always catch every typo, even after re-reading. With that background, we have a general understanding that typos will get by our review processes and that nearly everyone will post them occasionally. Rather than engaging in petty sniping over such trivia, we generally recognize that it is a byproduct of the conditions under which we are posting and do not call attention to typos in others’ posts. In fact, we invoke the name of our Administrator in noting in Gaudere’s Law that a person who makes a point of (rudely) correcting another’s spelling will nearly always suffer a typo in their own posts: hence vomitting.

[ /unsolicited advice ]