I received an email from someone called Kevin accusing me of having refused to state my position on gay marriage. I have never been asked, but am in fact entirely in favour. I think human relationships are essential to human happiness, and I am not in the least concerned about the gender combinations or sexual practices in which people find happiness. Nor am I obsessed with the number two. I have no objection to polyandry or polygamy (or the gay equivalent) either. The key thing is that people enter and leave relationships entirely consensually, once of an age to consent. I do not believe in matters of tax, immigration or any other governmental sphere, any combination of family life should be favored over any other.
My own family life is “conventional” and very happy, but I do not make the mistake of believing one model fits all.
When you say ‘Baroness Thatcher’, I think you mean Madame Pinochet.
The old witch is 87. This is proof of the truth if the old saying – ‘The good die young’.
Here she is with the buccaneer scion and daughter-in-law no 2.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/margaret-thatcher/9607428/Margaret-Thatcher-Mitt-Romney-hails-former-PM-as-tower-of-strength.html#
I know it’s the first wife speaking here, but doesn’t he sound an unpleasant specimen.
{http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1529124/My-husband-Mark-is-an-arrogant-womaniser-and-a-mummys-boy.html}
Ben, good to see you; sorry I didn’t say hello earlier.
Jon: “Ah, no, that can’t be right…. [mind explodes].”
Yes, it’s all very confusing, isn’t it? I think the basic rule is that if something has progressive, inclusive or Left-wing values, it’s a tool of the Illuminati / Freemasons / Feminazis / Marxists / [insert name of preferred mega-conspiracy here], and is being used to undermine society preparatory to the destruction of all nation states so that worldwide totalitarianism can be installed. If you disagree, you’re “a clone of Theodore, devoid of all empathy and hell bent on destroying anything of virtue in society.”
Simple really. Serve the Right wing agenda, or you’ll end up serving the Right wing agenda; the choice is yours!
MJ:
It’s clear and succinct, but not sensible. Australian law recognises the validity of gender reassignment. In other words, transsexuals are issued with a new passport with the amended sexual identification. If the law were consistent, this reassignment should annul any marriage ties solemnised before gender reassignment.
Moreover, the second part of Howard’s 2004 amendment denies validity of some marriages conducted not only in Australia but in every other jurisdiction in the world! This act of jurisprudential arrogance endangers many arrangements in family and property law worldwide.
Howard’s dumb amendment is little more than a dog whistle to the cultural right. It doesn’t clarify issues. It clouds them. Sensible jurisdictions would be well advised to resist the temptation of stumbling along Howard’s footprints.
I’m glad you’re “not obsessed” with “number two”, Craig! But you probably wouldn’t want to go to one of former MP Mark Oaten’s parties anyway.
@Jon – “I am struck by how utilitarian some of the anti-gay arguments are here. We (each of us individually, or all of us collectively?) apparently have a responsibility to consider worldly reproduction.”
I’m not sure how to take your post, Jon. Am I now anti-gay because I am not pro-gay? We’re either with them or against them. Is that the argument? No room for discussion outside of the box, one’s political credentials must be presented at the door.
You observe, i think rather sarcastically, that we might be expected to have a responsibility to consider worldly reproduction. Yes, that is true but only for intelligent people who care about worldly issues like climate change, biodiversity, pandemic diseases, intercontinental war-fare etc. You can ignore worldly reproduction in a world of seven billion people if you like, but you will be on the wrong side of history, eventually.
Your post also conflates many different phenomena that you clearly have contempt for. Very prejudicial to assume that someone subscribes to these ideas on the basis of something completely unrelated. Isn’t that like conflating pedophilia with homosexuality? I’ve had someone here, on another thread, slyly imply that I was a Nazi based on her own prejudices and now it appears I’ve been dumped in the same bin reserved for crackpots like Scouse Billy. Where is the intellectual integrity in assigning guilt based on non-existant associations?
The “aggressively feel-good” culture I referred to includes, but is not limited to, political correctness. It is part of the Western cultural revolution that attempts to stymie intelligent (and more importantly unintelligent) conversation because people “take offence” at the issues raised and some of the sentiments, preferences and prejudices expressed. Somehow, we are expected to arrive at the same logical/intellectual position through some hitherto unknown mysterious force without engaging in the process of discussion, argument, reevaluation and ultimately agreement. Instead, and ironically, we are to be subjected to a program of bullying indoctrination until we conform, or fake conformance, to the popular values being peddled. I think pro-gay supporters are guilty of this and their behaviour cannot be mitigated by accusations that homophobes are equally bad or even worse. Remember the “two wrongs” proverb?
What strikes me about this and most other debates on homosexuality is the general assumption that the distinction between homo and hetero is binary. I don’t think it is. I think there is a continuous spectrum of sexual behaviour, deriving from(a) pack dominance structures and (b) background genetic variation. Early bonding may have something to do with it as well.
Sex is Nature’s way of getting you to breed. But it’s also pleasurable in its own right, and there is a variety of sexual activities which bypass the breeding imperative – vaginal sex being the only one of these which absolutely requires the participation of different sexes. Anyone care to tell me that oral and anal sex are not practised – at least occasionally – by the heterosexual components of a sanctified marriage?
That said, traditional marriage is as much as anything designed to ensure that people who produce sprogs are obliged to take responsibility for them: in a sprog-free situation, and in the current climate of acceptable promiscuity, marriage is rather irrelevant – for anyone.
I offer these points for further discussion…
Jemand, my apology. I built on Jon’s observations. I don’t think either of us were particularly referring to your comments. As I was writing my bit I wondered if I should mention that, but, well, you know; when you’ve been fighting off multiple wild conspiracy theorists who agree that everything is true apart from any statements from the person they’re trying to engulf, you jump at the chance of a bit of humorous relief. I’m sorry that your comments got dragged into it; they didn’t really deserve to be, they just provided a convenient opportunity to let off steam.
(People who are wedded to their flash cars, see also, J.G. Ballard: The Atrocity Exhibition
🙂
Komodo:
You left out fun and mischief! Also, confusion and imperfect senses, which is rather like that explanation for optical illusions; “sometimes it’s better to see a tiger that isn’t there than to not see one that really is”.
But we’re farting into the void here. Defeated by the glorious diversity of nature all the homo-suspicious have left to return to their contemplation of sexual practices so that they can get upset about them. Perverts.
“(People who are wedded to their flash cars,”
Although I was very attached to my ’55 Chevy, it was always platonic.
There was a corvette I saw once which made me lustful, though. (The smell of leather)
Courgette? I thought mostly girls enjoyed courgettes.
Jemand, good reply, but cheer up!
Clark’s right – I was leavening some genuinely conspiratorial, homophobic and regressive views around this blog generally with some humour (rather than sarcasm per se) and I thought for the general amusement of my detractors, I’d have my head explode with the weight of it all. Or perhaps in this environment, it would be the head of my (much cuter and camper) lemur alter-ego. Poor thing!
You’re right, I think I did lump you in with the UN Murdering Billions theory, and I apologise for it. It wasn’t at all done with a deliberation intended to make your position easier to knock down, and after your most recent reply I find myself newly interested in the origin of your views. Anyway, you may take a good chunk of my previous post as blowing off some steam!
For what it’s worth, here’s the cause of my frustration, felt by those of us who think liberalism should stand against oppression and defend minority groups. We have heard how gay lifestyles may be compared with paedophilia or incest (JimmyGiro), that straight couples should enjoy the exclusivity of “religious” marriage, supporters of gay rights are [liberal retards] and are worse than the worst fascists (Jay). The BBC has a “gay mafia” that is suppressing stories about gay paedophilia (Tea Cakes), pushing for gay rights is undermining Western culture and the established church (Forthurst), and the state should reflect Catholic views (Abe Rene).
It’s not just the views expressed here that are offensive. A former SNP leader says that gay marriage is ‘a step towards state fascism’. With this in mind I greatly share CheebaCow’s sense of depression and hopelessness at how visceral the anger against gay relationships still appears to be.
So, I’ve re-read your posts, and will try to cover ground that I’ve not touched on already. I do think a better understanding of your and my perspectives is worthwhile.
I felt that you were lumping homosexuality in with “disease” (a highly unpleasant religious view), but in a much later post you clarified: “[the existence of evolutionarily useless behaviour like alcoholism and irrational violence] doesn’t mean we should attack homosexuality as if it were a disease”. But, you’re not sure, since you also say “[e]ven if gene therapy does not eradicate homosexuality”, which I took to mean you would find the eradication of ‘the gay gene’ as a desirable outcome. My response was not unique, since Nevermind suggested that your posts would have given Mengele a run for his money. Perhaps some clarification would be worthwhile here?
On the application of genetic engineering: I disagree that gay screening would be permitted in the future. As I said previously, it would be regarded by the entire medical community as unethical. Similarly I trust that, as technology makes it easier for people to choose the gender of their baby, our evolving ethics will make it harder.
In just the same way, gay people would not (and should not) wish to produce more gay people using genetic manipulation – that is covered by my position on medical ethics above. Parents have children, and they should love them whatever their sexual orientation (gay parents are not more likely to have gay children, in any case).
You said that “[genetic technology] will give people options, and people will follow their true, natural, preferences”. What do you believe that people’s “true, natural preferences” are, regarding sexual orientation?
I should point out that fighting for gay rights is not intended to reflexively support “politically correct” views. It is about justice and equality of opportunity. Being gay is not selfish, even if you believe it exemplifies “feel good culture”, and protecting minorities from the genuine hatred and violence of homophobia is not “agonising over lifestyle arrangements”. Your choice of language dismisses the significance and history of this struggle for civil rights.
I was intrigued that you believe that “there must be enough heterosexual activity to ensure survival of the species” and that in reproducing we must not forget “that we are complex animals symbiotically connected with other complex systems”. This raises many new points. Firstly no single person should be compelled to reproduce; I hope you regard that as unthinkable, which is why I made light of the idea. Clark and I both pointed out that our population growth is out of control, and so there is simply no reason to believe that gay sexuality is threatening our long-term survival.
In any case, whilst I think humanity has great potential and has many characteristics worthy of celebration, would it matter if we died out? What significance would it have? Would it be a great moral failure if it did? Who would be around to mourn our passing?
“In any case, whilst I think humanity has great potential and has many characteristics worthy of celebration, would it matter if we died out? What significance would it have?”
Heh. It’s been suggested that Humans resemble a virus more so than a beneficial organism. Of course, ‘beneficial’ is a subjective term, and thinning the herd could be viewed as such.
Jon glooped:
Katz snarled:
And JimmyGiro drivelled:
Clark, don’t be too hard on Jimmy, it’s probably his most sensible post yet 😉 He has obviously been reading Proverbs;
“Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise”
Although I was very attached to my ’55 Chevy, it was always platonic.
There was a corvette I saw once which made me lustful, though. (The smell of leather)
Admit it, it was the bolt-on go-faster extra wide exhaust…
@Jon – 15 Oct, 2012 – 11:11 pm
WARNING – Long boring rant ahead ..
Jon, normally every comment we make is a mini essay constrained by a tiny box. Therefore we need to compress our thoughts and ideas into few words with the hope that they will be correctly read (English=English) and interpreted (not confusing a statement of fact with an expression of intent). And wherever there is ambiguity, I would hope, but do not expect, that people will make a benign interpretation for the sake of preventing postfix discussions like this comment that drag the whole conversation out into a rambling discourse. We aren’t discussing the central topic here now, but discussing the ‘discussion’. Why are we doing that?
Unfortunately, our comments here are often misread and deliberately misinterpreted. Can I blame the audience for failing to understand my posts, like a doctor who blames his patients for failing to get cured? Probably not, but let me try.
Lumping, writing, relating or otherwise inserting two words coherently into a logical text is what I try to achieve for a purpose. The problem here is you are scanning for offensive words (because you ‘take’ offence, not because I offend), especially if there is any proximity within the same sentence, and ignoring all those annoying interconnecting words that give nuanced and actual meaning to the statement. That is the sort of anti-intellectual political correctness that I rail against. Instead of reading the words, interpreting the idea correctly and evaluating its validity for a corresponding reply, you scan for offensive bits, political alarms go off, missile is launched. That’s not a discussion or a debate by any intelligent definition. I’ve launched missiles myself, so I might be admonishing from a position of weakness. Although there are some c***s here who need some dressing down every now and then.
Wrong again. I didn’t say eradication was a desirable outcome, at least for me. The word “eradication” implies nothing at all, especially the context in which I used it. The dictionary will give an adequate definition and I stand by its use although I admit I tried to think of a word that conveys “destruction” with an implication that it was absent of any particular cause or intent. In the context that I used the word, I meant that mom-n-pop eugenisists in the West, government (eg Iran) or some unexpected use of gene therapy in individual cases that results in a forseeable or unforseeable eradication of homosexuals. My interest is predominantly in end games. Very few people are capable of analysing end games with contemporary developments and I’m not a master analyst but this is what I like to discuss and stimulate debate on – hence my original post re the threat of collapse of homosexuals as a distinct variation and their possible transformation into a virtual ethnic group (if they were able to reproduce with offspring that were predominantly homosexual thereby necessitating gene therapy) if they realised the various possibilities.
You touched on some issues related to ethics and laws and hopes that people would act in one way or another. But many of those points were lost in the general thrust of your reply so I won’t be canvassing them now, at least in this comment.
Nevermind can go fuck him/herself.. and probably does. My pseudonym has given several creeps here a good focus for their own prejudices. It’s enjoyable seeing people make fools of themselves. Otherwise, I am completely oblivious to the retarded ramblings of some of Craig’s uninvited guests.
True in the sense that it reveals what they really want, rather than what they tell everyone else. Natural in the sense that heterosexual couples do not hope for a homosexual baby and homosexual couples (at this stage) might feel conflicted, ie “I don’t care but then again, life would be easier for my babe if he turns out straight. And I don’t want people blaming me for him being gay”. If and when gene therapy occurs, polarisation might reinforce and homosexuals who identify as a distinct ‘people’ could see gene therapy as a countermeasure for survival – as a distinct people. This is the stuff of science fiction becoming science fact, you must understand, but the foundations are being laid here and now. Hence, again, my original post – Will eradication of homosexuality be considered genocide and will homosexual people transform into a virtual ethnic group who fight for survival????? Of course, nobody really bothered to read my post so you can ignore it too if you like.
I didn’t dismiss anything. I simply didn’t address it and I don’t believe I should have to dredge up the ‘history of the world’ every time I allude to some minor point. See my opening paragraph above regarding mini essays and the constraints of tiny boxes. What you are really demanding Jon is that I and everyone else you converse with presents their political credentials as prefixes like “I’m not a racist, but..” or postfixes like “Having said that, I have lots of gay friends, yaaaaay!”. I refuse to submit to other people’s prior political approval as a condition of ongoing participation in this and other discussions. If I am not welcome, then either Craig or you or Clark (with Craig’s implied consent) can tell me to fuck off. What a boring, pointless blog this would be if everyone agreed with each other and an oppressive one if we must meet political preconditions.
I think the first point is an uncontroversial and very obvious one. It was not intended to refer exclusively to human reproduction but to all animals that evolved with sexual reproductive means. Komodo dragons are the only ones (i think) that can reproduce by themselves under conditions of stress. Komodo posts here so you can ask him/her about that. The point was simply to rebut the notion that heterosexuality is haphazard and equivalent to homosexuality in the animal kingdom. To labour the point, (hetero)sexual reproduction is at dangerously low levels in panda populations and various endangered species that are facing extinction. Survival of some of them might now depend on advanced technology. Human invasion of natural habitats has been so dramatic, that millenia old reproductive cycles are failing to meet their population security needs. Can I ask you if you care about this and do you agree if we could get these stupid pandas to fuck more often, that might be one less animal species that we have destroyed? I don’t know if there are many homosexual pandas, but could they help out?
I didn’t say “In reproducing we must not forget “that we are complex animals symbiotically connected with other complex systems””. You’ve merged two separate statements from the same comment to mean something that, again, I did not say. The point of the second part was that we are becoming mired in artificial problems, often in our heads, and disproportionately consuming energy in dealing with them while failing to address more fundamental issues like climate change and resource depletion. I didn’t elaborate on the point, hoping that it was bleeding obvious that we seem to have forgotten that we are eating/shitting animals with eating/shitting problems first. It’s very similar to the Western delusion that the ‘economy’ is a natural system. So we have economic bubbles and boom/bust cycles that we agonise over while rain forests are being “eradicated”. Look at the first few pages of the major newspapers and count how many articles address economic and social issues versus environmental issues.
I didn’t raise the issue of human population, Clark did. On that topic, however, you are talking about contemporary human population which has been indirectly driven by our exploitation of fossil fuels and industrialisation of human society – a temporary anomaly I hope. Homosexuality is not now and is unlikely to ever be an issue in relation to human population security if things stay the same. Heterosexuality and fertility, however, is always relevant to the population question and not something to be contemptuously disregarded for political point scoring. The future of human well being is very much dependent on our ability to stabilise and manage populations in every region of the globe through measures that are sensitive to the unique conditions under which these people live. Homosexuality is irrelevent and unhelpful despite my facetious remark that it might be a solution.
I don’t regard it as unthinkable, I regard it as standard practice. Listen to some people who you might have met –
Henry VIII (His Majesty) – “Why haven’t you produced for me a fucking heir? Off with your head!”
Mother (Nagging old woman) – “When are you two having a baby? When am I getting a granddaughter?”
Henry Umbutu (African tribal member) – “Why haven’t you got pregnant yet? Where is the son you promised me? You are a bad woman!”
Henry Singh, (Indian farmer) – “You’ve given me three daughters and no son. I will divorce you, you useless fucking Dalit!”
That’s a philosophical question. Let me answer it by asking you this. Given the FACT that we do exist, and we exist partly because we want to, what can we do to make our existence a profound one and not merely a self-destructive exercise in multiplying one stupid being into billions of stupid beings?
Lastly, I have wasted well over an hour on this post when I have other pressing things to do. But that is my problem, like the doctor with selfish patients who refuse to be cured.
– – – –
What long, boring post would be complete without a link to wikipedia? For those who use the word “should” too many times –
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem
Note: David Hume was an atheist
Jemand, no, I’m not discussing the discussion; I’m asking for clarity. I haven’t deliberately misinterpreted your points at all, just seeing your points through my own filters. This is very human, and is what we all do. I have given you no reason to think you are not welcome, and I have given you no reason to be angry.
It seems you think I am not arguing in good faith, and I am sorry to see you take that view, especially since my post was (a) apologetic to you where appropriate, and (b) written with good humour and civility. My (non-mod) view is that you should apologise to Nevermind for your deliberate rudeness towards him – the words from you on our screen sounded like open endorsement of eugenics. If you feel that you have been misread, then clarify, but there is no reason to turn to insults.
Anyway, thanks for the discussion. You should not think that time spent posting is wasted – it all adds to the exchange of ideas, which is valuable. May add more to the discussion, but for now, work calls.
Komodo dragons are the only ones (i think) that can reproduce by themselves under conditions of stress. Komodo posts here so you can ask him/her about that.
Busted!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6196225.stm
(Parthenogenetic and proud)
Jon, your filters are not working, throw them away. If idiots and conspiracy theorists get you down, stop wasting time on them. Do you argue with a dog that bites you?
Being human is never an excuse. Humans rape and murder in the millions but i’ve never heard the “i’m only human” defence before. You are an intelligent being, and you implied that you write in good faith. Therefore, I think you should read in good faith to keep some balance.
Being welcome – it’s a certain quality, buzz, vibe or zeitgeist. It’s either here or it aint. Here, it aint.
I don’t owe Nevermind, nor any other frothing, toxic commentator who willfully misconstrues my posts to defame me, any apology at all. I’m very disappointed that you see me as a eugenicist who needs to apologise after someone pisses in my face. I never demanded or expected an apology from you or anyone else, Jon. Although, maybe I should say that i am now sorry i bothered to reply at all.
That’s all very angry, Jemand, and I don’t see the cause of it, personally. Nevermind’s a good guy – if he disagrees with you (can’t find it on this thread) – suck it up and behave yourself. If he’s misconstrued your posts it may be because English isn’t his first language, or maybe because your fury is obscuring the sense of what you want to say.
Think on.
Komodo, how do you like being called a racist Nazi (or cowardly implication thereof) after nearly getting into a fight with a skinhead in defence of some French speaking black chicks who were being harrassed by this scum? You don’t get any credit for walking the walk, but you do get a drubbing if you don’t say the “right” thing on blogs. I’ve seen others cop it in the neck here.
Any reference to me being a German, Nazi, racist or eugenicist is a vile personal accusation (sorry Fritz!) that attacks me and not my comments which, generally, are tended as observations and analyses of what I believe to be the facts at hand, not my personal political preferences unless otherwise stated. But some people don’t get it because they live in a fantasy world where only their opinions count. These people are placed on my unsmiley face list. Nixon had one, so should I.
However, if Nevermind was not taunting me with a skewed implication that I am German and did not intend to compare me with Mengele (reinforced by Jon’s comment) then I’ll withdraw my comments regarding him.
Now, I’m thinking that either I’m unusually good at tearing people down or that you and Jon have exaggerated the impact of my posts. I’m inclined to believe the latter is the case.
Er..Nevermind’s German. So if he was implying you were, it could well have been complimentary. But I should really let him speak for himself.
Oh, and far from exaggerating the impact of your posts, I am a little perturbed by the seriousness with which you take them. But that’s just me.
Jemand, I know Nevermind in real life. He’s a good chap; kind, considerate and politically active. I really think that the “Mengele” thing was just an escalating misunderstanding. I’ve re-read Nevermind’s comment, and I can’t decide if Nevermind wished to criticise you, or the possibility of modification of the population that you were suggesting could occur.
Having read Nevermind’s comments for years, I can say that he does sometimes respond too critically, suggesting that he occasionally interprets other comments as more negative than they perhaps deserve. But this is a common Internet problem that most of us suffer from occasionally. Deprived of non-verbal communicational cues, in an adversarial environment, many of us occasionally overreact.
We’ve had a bit of an influx of conspiracy theorists here recently (have you ventured onto any of the al-Hilli threads? I don’t dare!). Trying to keep things focused and reasonably serious is quite demanding for the moderators, and Jon has had my own ups-and-downs to cope with, with which he has been very helpful. So I personally request that you cut him some slack.
Is there anything I can do to help? Would you like me to ask Nevermind to return to this thread and clarify his “Mengele” remark?
@Clark, I will take your and Komodo’s words that Nevermind is a reasonable person and that I have misunderstood his comment. I do remember an exchange between a hyena on another thread and Nevermind in which my ‘name’ was part of a German language exchange between the two. It had a sneering ‘private’ quality about it – probably because of the antipathy my hyena friend harbours for me. I have never previously addressed Nevermind and did not intend to until Jon seemed to confirm what I had thought.
It now appears to be a misunderstanding on my part and I apologise to Nevermind and his friends for it. A clarification by Nevermind would help but is not necessary at this point.
I know you have batted for me before regarding this infrequent reference to me being German – thanks. In truth I have nothing personal against Germans but I don’t like the implications. It is as if implying that I am German is a euphemism for another accusation they are too cowardly to state.
Re al-Hilli – it’s got enough delicious chunky bits for a conspiracy theory. Craig must have known that he was unleashing a monster. But as long as it is caged, it could be a good thing.
Jemand:
Yes, very true. But what can you expect from the corporate media? They will always discuss large-scale flows of money from a laissez faire “free market” perspective. The concept of using economics as a tool to address urgent and critical problems in the physical world is something that simply must not be mentioned, lest people start asking their governments to take such action. Where economic manipulation is being tried, carbon cap-and-trade, for instance, the media silence is overwhelming, but somehow, on the Internet, many people are being persuaded that it is a product of pure evil! Quite how this is achieved, I’m trying to discover from Chris Jones.