Anonymouse Posted June 3, 2008 Report Share Posted June 3, 2008 Interestingly, however, you contradict yourself. The fact that you use the word "homosexual" shows that you actually do recognize that there is a category of people that are not "heterosexual," and thus do not have the same sexual desires as "heterosexuals." How do you equate the two then by forcing one to become like the other? And if you force one to become like the other, why not force the other to become like the one too? A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent (for example, deliberately overstating the opponent's position). A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it carries little or no real evidential weight, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted. Its name is derived from the practice of using straw men in combat training. In such training, a scarecrow is made in the image of the enemy with the single intent of attacking it. Such a target is, naturally, immobile and does not fight back, and is not as realistic to test skill against compared to a live and armed opponent. It is occasionally called a straw dog fallacy, scarecrow argument, or wooden dummy argument. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nairi Posted June 3, 2008 Report Share Posted June 3, 2008 I'm not arguing anything. I'm only interpreting what you wrote, albeit falsely, and asking questions based on my interpretation. It's up to you to correct me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted June 3, 2008 Report Share Posted June 3, 2008 I'm not arguing anything. I'm only interpreting what you wrote, albeit falsely, and asking questions based on my interpretation. It's up to you to correct me. I never denied homosexuals exist so for you to tell me I contradicted myself makes no sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nairi Posted June 3, 2008 Report Share Posted June 3, 2008 So, if you recognize that homosexuals exist (meaning that there is a category of people that does not feel aroused by the opposite sex), and you do not believe in socialism (meaning that we should deprive ourselves of certain things for the greater good of the collectivity), then why would you want to see homosexuals married to people that they do not feel attracted to just so that we can continue propagating the myth that homosexuals are either an aberration or a figment of our imagination? And if you still think that homosexuals should be married to the opposite sex, to whom they are not sexually attracted, then why should heterosexuals be able to enjoy their sexual choices and freedoms when their homosexual peers are not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted June 4, 2008 Report Share Posted June 4, 2008 (edited) So, if you recognize that homosexuals exist (meaning that there is a category of people that does not feel aroused by the opposite sex), and you do not believe in socialism (meaning that we should deprive ourselves of certain things for the greater good of the collectivity), then why would you want to see homosexuals married to people that they do not feel attracted to just so that we can continue propagating the myth that homosexuals are either an aberration or a figment of our imagination? And if you still think that homosexuals should be married to the opposite sex, to whom they are not sexually attracted, then why should heterosexuals be able to enjoy their sexual choices and freedoms when their homosexual peers are not? I never said homosexuals should not be married. If they want to get married, it's within the confines of what society deems 'marriage.' The problem here is that what has been nothing more than a behavior and tendency among a marginal portion of the human population is now being foisted upon the majority and imposed as somehow an 'identity' when for ages it has always been recognized as nothing more than a sexual jumpsuit people jump in and out of. And to go even beyond calling it an 'identity' and to attach "rights" to it is even more idiotic. Redefining marriage and the longstanding traditions which represent the collective wisdom of the ages and civilizations is like changing measure of a yardstick into centimeters and insisting on using it as a yardstick. In both cases one cannot change the definition of that thing, and still use it as a reliable source for measure. Every society and its institutions are intolerant of some sort of behavior. Unqualified toleration is not only nonsensical it is impossible and lethal. Society can shun or frown on certain behavior or attitudes that it deems unjust or in some way inappropriate. Intolerance always occurs in terms of a society’s or its institutions’ premises. But since we are in a "democracy" where we are in an endless game of "rights", even "right and wrong" concepts become a matter of majorities and "tolerance". Edited June 4, 2008 by Anonymouse Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hetanos Posted June 4, 2008 Report Share Posted June 4, 2008 I never said homosexuals should not be married. If they want to get married, it's within the confines of what society deems 'marriage.' The problem here is that what has been nothing more than a behavior and tendency among a marginal portion of the human population is now being foisted upon the majority and imposed as somehow an 'identity' when for ages it has always been recognized as nothing more than a sexual jumpsuit people jump in and out of. And to go even beyond calling it an 'identity' and to attach "rights" to it is even more idiotic. Redefining marriage and the longstanding traditions which represent the collective wisdom of the ages and civilizations is like changing measure of a yardstick into centimeters and insisting on using it as a yardstick. In both cases one cannot change the definition of that thing, and still use it as a reliable source for measure. Every society and its institutions are intolerant of some sort of behavior. Unqualified toleration is not only nonsensical it is impossible and lethal. Society can shun or frown on certain behavior or attitudes that it deems unjust or in some way inappropriate. Intolerance always occurs in terms of a society’s or its institutions’ premises. But since we are in a "democracy" where we are in an endless game of "rights", even "right and wrong" concepts become a matter of majorities and "tolerance". I think that gay and lesbian couples purse to attach marriage definition in their relationship for number of reasons. One of them, equal rights under the Constitution, another is to benefit from tax laws and insurance policies and such. I have no problem whatsoever for them to marry and call that relationship marriage. Throughout history, there were many injustices done to minorities whether they were protestants in England and France, Molokans in Russia, Jews in medieval Spain, or being woman in general. Each time, the society persecuted them and created deep animosities citing traditional conservative values of our predecessors Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nairi Posted June 4, 2008 Report Share Posted June 4, 2008 Arman, I was replying to this: Even the god damned Greeks recognized and allowed homosexuality to exist among men, provided they got married to a woman, for god's sake. The way you write seems to imply that you agree with this state of affairs. Correct my interpretation if I'm wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted June 4, 2008 Report Share Posted June 4, 2008 Arman, I was replying to this: The way you write seems to imply that you agree with this state of affairs. Correct my interpretation if I'm wrong. Because the Greeks understood it was purely a physical tendency and infatuation of some men and therefore society would better be served if eventually these 'free-spirited' types married a woman. Yes, I agree. But that does not entail denying homosexuality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nairi Posted June 4, 2008 Report Share Posted June 4, 2008 Yes, I agree. But that does not entail denying homosexuality. This isn't about you denying homosexuality, but whether you believe that homosexuals exist. I differentiate between the two. Anyone can engage in homosexual acts or homosexuality, but not be a homosexual per se. To me, a homosexual, when given the choice, will always choose for the same sex and will feel miserable in a heterosexual marriage (plenty of examples out there, including my cousin's uncle, who out of shame and pressure from his Armenian environment married a woman for eight years, suffered tremendously, until he decided that enough was enough, divorced her and ended up with his current boyfriend, with whom he has been happily copulating for over five years). A heterosexual, when given the choice, will always choose the opposite sex and would feel miserable if forced into a homosexual marriage. Homosexuality and homosexual acts, on the other hand, can occur among heterosexuals. There are people who experiment with same sex and there are people who might engage in it out of sheer desperation (such as in prison). In the same way, heterosexuality and heterosexual acts can occur among homosexuals. In fact, many homosexuals experiment with heterosexuality (or force themselves into it out of pressure from the environment they're living in) before they confirm to themselves that they prefer homosexuality. If you do not deny that homosexuals exist, then you should also recognize that homosexuals, like heterosexuals, have sexual preferences that cannot be changed. The Greeks may not have recognized this, but it doesn't mean that you shouldn't either. And what is good for the collective society is not always good for the individual. As a libertarian and anti-socialist, I would expect you to understand this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormig Posted June 4, 2008 Report Share Posted June 4, 2008 The collective wisdom of the ages, blah blah blah... Isn't that what confines women to the kitchen and the bedroom? Yup, the old way is the way to go... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted June 4, 2008 Report Share Posted June 4, 2008 This isn't about you denying homosexuality, but whether you believe that homosexuals exist. I differentiate between the two. Anyone can engage in homosexual acts or homosexuality, but not be a homosexual per se. To me, a homosexual, when given the choice, will always choose for the same sex and will feel miserable in a heterosexual marriage (plenty of examples out there, including my cousin's uncle, who out of shame and pressure from his Armenian environment married a woman for eight years, suffered tremendously, until he decided that enough was enough, divorced her and ended up with his current boyfriend, with whom he has been happily copulating for over five years). A heterosexual, when given the choice, will always choose the opposite sex and would feel miserable if forced into a homosexual marriage. Homosexuality and homosexual acts, on the other hand, can occur among heterosexuals. There are people who experiment with same sex and there are people who might engage in it out of sheer desperation (such as in prison). In the same way, heterosexuality and heterosexual acts can occur among homosexuals. In fact, many homosexuals experiment with heterosexuality (or force themselves into it out of pressure from the environment they're living in) before they confirm to themselves that they prefer homosexuality. If you do not deny that homosexuals exist, then you should also recognize that homosexuals, like heterosexuals, have sexual preferences that cannot be changed. The Greeks may not have recognized this, but it doesn't mean that you shouldn't either. And what is good for the collective society is not always good for the individual. As a libertarian and anti-socialist, I would expect you to understand this. First, homosexuality is exercised by a marginal portion of the population in any given society. It is more like a phenomenon and tendency than what you like to call it, 'an identity,' which is nothing more than a modern concoction. Second, correct me if I'm wrong, but if a dude lays timber on another dude, then he's gay - don't matter if he's just "experimenting." You're either a homosexual or not. Stop trying to pick and choose artificial distinctions and definitions of the way you think things ought to be. I'm sorry we cannot all be as advanced and right and progressive and all-seeing as nairi and Stormtrooper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nairi Posted June 4, 2008 Report Share Posted June 4, 2008 First, homosexuality is exercised by a marginal portion of the population in any given society. This is completely irrelevant. It is more like a phenomenon and tendency than what you like to call it, 'an identity,' which is nothing more than a modern concoction. If it was an identity, then deafness, muteness, and blindness are identies too. From now on, I declare myself deaf, mute, and blind. After all, it's an identity, and like all identities, I can appropriate it, even if I'm not actually deaf, mute, and blind physically. A modern concoction or a modern recognition of an age-old phenomenon? Second, correct me if I'm wrong, but if a dude lays timber on another dude, then he's gay - don't matter if he's just "experimenting." You're either a homosexual or not. Stop trying to pick and choose artificial distinctions and definitions of the way you think things ought to be. In that case, you're either heterosexual or you're not. If you sleep with the opposite sex, then you are heterosexual, which makes my cousin's uncle a heterosexual. Confused, perhaps, but heterosexual nevertheless. Regardless, the discussion started with your socialist insight that in order to save our spoiled planet we should force homosexuals to marry the opposite sex, because homosexuals are nothing but a figment of our imagination. After all, being a homosexual is merely an identity that some of us like to appropriate, just like some of us like to identity ourselves as hippies or socialists. I'm sorry we cannot all be as advanced and right and progressive and all-seeing as nairi and Stormtrooper. Cut the name-calling and try scratching your brain once in a while. Who knows something intelligent might come out of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashot Posted June 5, 2008 Report Share Posted June 5, 2008 I am just curous - are there any homos out there that believe in God??? I would guess not... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted June 5, 2008 Report Share Posted June 5, 2008 I am just curous - are there any homos out there that believe in God??? I would guess not... For the most part they don't. For the most part, many of the types here in L.A. are very earthly types who just revel in prurient wanderlusts. Anything beyond their self-gratification is beyond them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nairi Posted June 6, 2008 Report Share Posted June 6, 2008 I am just curous - are there any homos out there that believe in God??? I would guess not... And why should there not be any homosexuals who believe in God? After all, God created us all, including homosexuals, blind people, dwarfs, and trees. God, Ashot, has nothing to do with the doctrines of the Armenian Apostolic Church, the Bible, or the Koran. People can believe in god whichever way they wish. Did we not have this discussion not so long ago? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashot Posted June 7, 2008 Report Share Posted June 7, 2008 nairi jan, I don't think I have been in such a discussion - however - Yerp vor mart urana ir tsnoghnerin, yev morana ira serrakan haraberucyun@ - sa arten ashxari verchne... homo's believing in god = mocking religion... that is my opinion... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nairi Posted June 7, 2008 Report Share Posted June 7, 2008 nairi jan, I don't think I have been in such a discussion - however - Yerp vor mart urana ir tsnoghnerin, yev morana ira serrakan haraberucyun@ - sa arten ashxari verchne... homo's believing in god = mocking religion... that is my opinion... religious people believing they hold the truth about God = blasphemy. I've stated my views and so have you. Maybe I need to see the light one day. May you do. Until then, let's not bother discussing this issue with one another. We're too far apart to understand each other's views. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashot Posted June 8, 2008 Report Share Posted June 8, 2008 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phantom22 Posted June 8, 2008 Report Share Posted June 8, 2008 (edited) The two homosexuals that I was renting my condo from attended Church religiously every Sunday, had The Last Supper picture in their dining room and watched Joyce Meyer every day. They were obsessed with her. My girlfriend had no idea that they were homosexuals. Homosexuals are only those who are disgusted by sexual relations with the opposite sex. They find nothing attractive in the opposite sex. They can not understand how others can find the opposite sex attractive. They are a mirror image of heterosexuals who are disgusted by the thought of homosexual relations. I am just curous - are there any homos out there that believe in God??? I would guess not... Edited June 8, 2008 by phantom22 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.