Be a good citizen: Attend your local gay pride parade
June 26, 2006 · By Peter Rempel
It’s that time of the year again: Gay Pride Parades are filling the streets of our big cities and those of us with liberal orientations are having our commitment to free speech stretched out of shape.
The time of year when we are reminded that floats featuring men dressed as nuns with bananas strapped to their crotches simulating anal sex with a another man dressed as Jesus is a sacred and virtuous form of expression that all sensible and fair-minded citizens should not only tolerate, but approve of.
This year, be a good citizen: Attend your local gay pride parade and cheer heartily as your most deeply-held beliefs are mocked and degraded by nihilistic exhibitionists.
Do it, or I’ll report you to your provincial human rights commission.
Well it’s THE event of the GLBT calendar year, like Easter is to Christendom; of course, without any insight into greater purposes or hope and longing towards eternity.
What exactly are they taking pride in again?
“…without any insight into greater purposes…”
Are you kidding? They can totally hook up at these parades.
Interesting leap from gay to nihilistic exhibitionists, I’ll mention that to the gay, but very devote, Catholic fella I know who attends these parades to get his take on it but somehow I doubt there’ll be much agreement.
There’s no such thing as a “gay, but very devout, Catholic fella.”
… irrespective of whether or not he attends these parades.
There’s no such thing as a “gay, but very devout, Catholic fella.�
I have met a gay Catholic priest… so, you are wrong George.
You have ment a gay Catholic priest?
Can’t be a very devout one then.
“There’s no such thing as a “gay, but very devout, Catholic fella.â€?”
THANK YOU!!!
It’s all in the interpretation isn’t it George? And intrepretation changes doesn’t it George? It’s one of the reasons the Dominicans haven’t been sent out in centuries.
Interpretation of what?
“You have ment a gay Catholic priest? Can’t be a very devout one then.”
Wow, is that a 2×4 sticking out of your eye? Ouch.
Too many people make the assumption that gay = non-religious/devout. Just like others make the assumption that conservative = homophobic.
I can see where people may get the latter impression from posts on the Politic, but am not quite sure where people get their evidence to make their assumption about the former.
Btw, here is the biblical reference if you didn’t get that one from your seminary class, assuming that you are a devout Catholic, that is: Matt 7:3.
Being “gay” is a religion, so no I’m not assuming it is non-religious. And, as demonstrated during parade season, there are many fanatical devotees to this inner-worldly religion; or better yet, cult.
As for the assumption about conservatives and homophobia, I think it is pretty safe to say, while conservatives don’t go ga ga over homosexual dandies, they certainly don’t have any phobia of them, paralysed with fear and trembling whenever they encounter a homosexual. That would be ridiculous.
Back to being “gay” and being “devout catholic”, no evidence is required because it doesn’t make any sense. You can’t be “gay” and be “devout Catholic” at the same time. Someone who is “gay” believes they have a “sexual orientation,” a disposition by nature that excuses them from full resposibility for their sexual desires. A devout Catholic is to have no other gods before God, so to accept a sexual orientation and excuse what the Catholic church would consider living in sin on the basis of it, is to compromise being a devout Catholic. (BTW, the Catholic Church is not a liberal institution; so unless you’re a big wig in the church, you won’t have any say on church doctrine.)
How can you not understand this?
I’m not a devout Catholic. But I do know enough about Christian scripture and I have enough common sense to know that one should be very careful reading scripture selectively, for convenience. One might say something stupid.
Good, I always resented learning scriptures in seminary, so I am glad we can leave them aside (sorry Sister Hanna, but I really didn’t like memorizing chapter and verses).
I guess I do not understand “this” because you and I do not share a common definition of the word “gay” and fundamentally disagree on the meaning of “sexual orientation” and “homophobia”.
The word homophobia means fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals. It can also mean hatred of and disparagement of homosexual people, their lifestyles, their sexual behaviors, or cultures, and is generally used to assert bigotry. Opposition to same-sex activism on religious, moral, or political grounds may also be referred to as homophobia. (see dictionary)
Someone is gay if they identify themselves as gay. Gay does not mean having sex with someone of the same sex, lots of people do it, and still identify themselves as “straight”.
Religious devotion is the level at which you follow the precepts of said religion (i.e. following commandments, participating in sacraments, subscribing to the theological world view / framework the religion sets out as “truth”).
Someone is Catholic if they have been baptized into the Catholic Church.
And since Catholics baptize children, before it is possible for them to talk - and declare themselves gay, straight or otherwise, it seems quite possible that there are many, if not millions, of devout gay Catholics, even those who become priests, bishops, etc.
That Catholic Church, although it is not a liberal institution, does believe in the fundamental concept of original sin. The Catholic church does not believe that one can enter the kingdom of God on one’s own merits (i.e. following all the rules set forth by the councils of the Catholic hierarchy) which is where Jesus comes into the picture.
And while the Catholic Church believes that homosexual acts (i.e. sex between same sex persons) are sinful, and something to be avoided, the Catholic church has not taken steps to ask gay (i.e. those who identify as gay) to leave the church. In fact, the church views homosexuality as any other temptation that one must over-come.
What is does ask is that they stop having “unnatural sexual relations”. So, even if someone is gay (i.e. self identifies as having sexual attraction to those of the same sex) it is quite possible to be a member of the Catholic church in good standing, and be devout, even a priest of a bishop, if this person does not act upon their attraction.
The fact that “homophobia” contains the word “phobia” leads some people to reject the term outright, and to criticize it as an unnecessarily or even maliciously loaded term, since “clinical homophobia” is not listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Nevertheless, homosexual panic has been successfully used as a defense in legal cases, though this defense is no longer permissible in many jurisdictions.
Just as some people use the term “homophobia” to stress the association between prejudice and a fear or medical disorder, others Sexism, sexualism, heterosexism, heterosexualism, and “homosexualism” have been proposed as alternatives which are more morphologically parallel, and which do not have the association with phobia. Sexism refers to sexual discrimination and hatred and may be extended to include discrimination and hatred based on both sex and sexuality (sexual-identity/sexual-orientation/hypersexuality). Sexualism refers to hatred against homosexuals (gays/lesbians) and bisexuals. Heterosexism refers to hatred against people who are not heterosexual. Heterosexualism is an ambiguous term which is used either as a synomym for heterosexuality or heterosexism. The term “homosexualism” is a rarely-used synonym of homosexuality. Queer Theory and critical theory use the terms heterocentric and heteronormativity to refer to similar ontological assumptions.
As behaviors and thoughts that are frequently considered homophobic are often not fear based but instead reflect a disapproval of homosexuality, recent psychological literature has favored the term homonegativity.
There is also considerable debate over the term’s usage as a label for opponents of certain categories of social policy, with the debate centering upon the question of whether such opposition is a legitimate moral stance or indefensible discrimination, and whether or not there are reasons other than fear and misunderstanding that might justify such positions. As in cases such as the Santorum controversy, many have alleged that the term is often used as a means of demonizing and silencing political opponents without regard to their actual motives; those on the other side of the debate argue that the motives in such cases are always connected with bigotry or fear.
A thoroughgoing reply, Lyndon. Thanks.
“I guess I do not understand “thisâ€? because you and I do not share a common definition of the word “gayâ€? and fundamentally disagree on the meaning of “sexual orientationâ€? and “homophobiaâ€?.”
We partially agree on “gay” and on the ways “homophobia” is used in conversation and for political gain. I don’t think you appreciation what it means to actually have a “sexual orientation,” and maybe this is because you are personally beholden to having one, so you don’t really appreciate what it means to be gay.
To have a sexual orientation is indicative of being willfully irresponsible. Sexual orientation is a conclusion one arrives at so that they no longer have to justify why they do what they do, or are the way they are. But everyone knows that there are no easy explanations for why one has the sexual desires that they do. What matters is what one actually does with the desires they have; how the choices we make today affect our desires in the future. To have a sexual orientation is to cop out on morality (to no longer justify), and this is bad because the essence of being human is being moral, making choices for better or worse.
You are correct that being “gay” is an affiliation that one makes, irrespective of any homosexual conduct one will, or ever will, engage in. And because it is an affiliation, and one that comes with group norms of behaviour and ritual (Pride Week), it is a similar affiliation to being Catholic. It also resembles religion, because many people who proclaim themselves to be “gay” do so because “being gay” is the highest identification and source of meaning in their life. But one should never forget that “being gay” is a choice, irrespective of homosexual desires.
As for being Catholic, people are born Catholic and remain Catholic, others become Catholic or stop being Catholic. But just because one is Catholic does not make them devout. To be devoutly Catholic is to live according to the teachings of the Church. The Church teaches that homosexual acts are a sin, so any affiliation that promotes homosexual acts are somehow good would be contrary to the teachings of the Church. To the extent that being gay is a promotion of homosexual acts as good, being gay is contrary to being Catholic according to the Church. While one can be gay and be Catholic, no one can be gay and be a devout Catholic.
Being gay is not simply experiencing homosexual desires but having an affiation with others because of those desires, and based on one’s percieved “sexual orientation”. For a devout Catholic such an affiliation would be a form of idolatry, to worship at the altar of naturedness.
Human beings aren’t natured, they’re intelligent! When psychology forgets this, it fails as a science of mankind.
Interpretation of what? Intrepretation of the bible and the will of god George, surely you are not unaware of the various changes in position taken by the catholic church over the years. I mean, at one point the earth was not only flat but the centre of the universe… intrepretation of the bible said so, as a matter of fact questioning that fact could get you jailed or killed by the church (remember those Dominicans I mentioned?). When did the catholic church officially come out against slavery? What was their prior position based on biblical intrepretation? How many things changed during the second vatican council? What about the currently evolving position on condoms?
Everything changes George, if it doesn’t it stagnates, and then it dies…. the catholic church is a lot slower to change than other faiths, but it will, and when that happens homosexuals will not be questioned about whether they are devote or not.
“Everything changes George, if it doesn’t it stagnates, and then it dies…. the catholic church is a lot slower to change than other faiths, but it will, and when that happens homosexuals will not be questioned about whether they are devote or not.”
Nice progressive read on history–true socialist form. Who knew it was so straight forward–or shall we say, gay forward–to the utopia of the Sodomising Man, before whom all shall bow, even history.
“I don’t think you appreciation what it means to actually have a “sexual orientation,â€? and maybe this is because you are personally beholden to having one, so you don’t really appreciate what it means to be gay.”
I think you are wrong, George. I do not think you appreciate what it “means” to be gay as you have never taken the time to walk in a gay man’s shoes, but tend to address stereotypes and the fringes of the “gay lifestyle”.
Just like the word homophobia has multiple meaning, so does the word “gay”.
Gay is an adjective meaning “carefree”, “happy”, or “bright and showy”; however in modern usage, gay is a word usually used, as either a noun or adjective, to refer to homosexuals; persons sexually oriented toward members of their own gender.
The use of the term gay, as it relates to homosexuality, arises from an extension of the sexualised connotation of “carefree and uninhibited”, implying a willingness to disregard conventional or respectable sexual mores.
“Gay”, used as an adjective, sometimes describes traits associated with both homosexual men and lesbians, their culture, or perceived lifestyle. The term lesbian, on the other hand, is used exclusively in a gender-specific way to describe homosexual females.
By the mid-century “gay” was well-established as an antonym for “straight” (respectable sexual behaviour), and to refer to the lifestyles of unmarried and or unattached people.
The subcultural usage started to become mainstream in the 1960s, when gay became the term predominantly preferred by homosexual men to describe themselves. Gay was the preferred term since other terms, such as “queer” were felt to be derogatory. “Homosexual” was perceived as excessively clinical: especially since homosexuality was at that time designated as a mental illness, and “homosexual” was used by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) to denote men affected by this “mental illness”. Homosexuality was no longer classified as an illness in the DSM by 1973, but the clinical connotation of the word was already embedded in society.
Sexual orientation, behaviour, and self-identification are not necessarily aligned in a clear-cut fashion for a given individual. Some people consider gay and homosexual to be synonyms. Others consider gay to be a matter of self-identification and homosexual to refer to sexual activity or to sexual attraction that is predominantly to members of the same sex. By using these definitions, a person could be gay and not homosexual, or homosexual and not gay.
If a person has had same-sex sexual encounters but does not self-identify as gay, terms such as ‘closeted’, ‘on the down low’, ‘discreet’, or ‘bi-curious’ may be applied. Conversely, a person may identify as gay without engaging in homosexual sex. Possible choices include identifying as gay socially while choosing to be celibate or while anticipating a first homosexual experience. Further, a bisexual person may identify as gay while maintaining a monogamous relationship with a member of the opposite sex. Still others might consider gay and bisexual to be mutually exclusive.
Some same-sex oriented persons prefer ‘homosexual’ as an identity over ‘gay’, seeing the former as describing a sexual orientation and the latter as describing a cultural or socio-political group with which they do not identify.
Self-identification of one’s sexual orientation is becoming far more commonplace in areas of increased social acceptance, but many are either reluctant to self-identify publicly or even privately to themselves. The process is fairly complex, and many groups related to gay people cite inadvertent heterosexism as a leading problem for those that would otherwise self-identify.
The term gay can also be used as an adjective to describe things related to gay people or things which are part of gay culture. For example, while a gay bar is not itself homosexual, using gay as an adjective to describe the bar indicates that the bar is either gay-oriented, caters primarily to a gay clientele, or is otherwise part of gay culture.
Using it to describe an object, such as an item of clothing, suggests that it is particularly flamboyant, often on the verge of being gaudy and garish. This usage pre-dates the association of the term with homosexuality, but has acquired different connotations since the modern usage developed.
Using the term gay as an adjective where the meaning is akin to “related to gay people, culture, or homosexuality in general” is a widely accepted use of the word. By contrast, using gay in the pejorative sense, to describe something solely as negative, can cause offence.
Now while I agree that there is a level of self-identification that is required for the modern usage of the word “gay”, this does not mean that I believe it is not an innate quality. Many other groups are asked to self-identify in Canada (i.e. those with Aboriginal or Metis status).
All in all, I think it is more complicated than your definition, George, that being “gay� is an affiliation.
Much of the above I would agree with because it is simply dickering over semantics. If that is what you like to do, have fun.
You have failed, once again, to take the concept “sexual orientation” to task for it’s pathological implications when over generalised. The only people who actually have a sexual orientation are those who say they have one. And the one’s that say they do are denuding their own intelligence—otherwise known as being stupid—so that it is easier for them to justify their sexual conduct.
No one has any reason to believe they have a “sexual orientation” except those that really want to have one, like you. When not used to describe a pathological self-understanding of one’s own conduct, intelligent people are capable of seeing the concept as overly metaphysical and, so, offensive to their intelligence.
Generally speaking, human beings have sexual desires contingent to particular experiences of the those desires. Every human being is “in process”, living their lives, reacting to new and different experiences that impact what they desire erotically. And human beings always have choice to do one thing rather than another, in each contingent circumstance, being what they choose to become.
Look, if you want to be gay, have at it. But don’t expect to be excused for some percieved “sexual orientation” that you might have, refusing to take control over. Having a “sexual orientation” is not like race or eye-colour because it has to do with human behaviour; a justification as such.
Call it what you will George, it’s what happened, and continues to happen.
“But don’t expect to be excused for some percieved “sexual orientationâ€? that you might have, refusing to take control over.”
You see, this where you and I must disagree. I do not believe it is something that I need to take control over, nor am I asking to be excused for it.
What I am asking for, and sadly we live in a society where I must ask, is to be treated the same as everyone else under the law, regardless of the fundamental choices I make.
I understand that you feel that sexual orientation is a choice, as much as, say religion is a choice. Fortunately for those who suscribe to religion, there are constitutional and legal precidents that protect their rights and freedoms from discrimination.
For those who have, are, or choose a sexual orientation, there was not, until recently, equal protection or treatment under the law. In fact, homosexual men and women were jailed in Canada up until the late 1970s.
What you have failed to prove / address or even justify is how my choices are any different from yours? And how your choices merit protection under the law, and mine do not. Fortunately for me, the courts and Government disagree.
As for arguments over semantics, well, it is important to agree upon what you are disagreeing about in order to have an informed discussion.
I would like to get back to your last statement, here, because you, and the religious right in Canada, are also asking to be excused for behavior that not everyone agrees with. The behavior I am speaking about is the institutionalized discrimination of gays and lesbians under the guise of “religious morality”.
You will remember the debate about religious freedom vis-a-vis human rights before the Government of Canada passed the Civil Marriage Act in February of 2005.
As you know very well,
Section 1 sets out the short title of the Act.
Section 2 legislates the legal capacity for two persons of the same sex to marry civilly.
Section 3 recognizes that religious officials are already protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms from being compelled to perform marriages that would be contrary to their religious beliefs, as confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada in its opinion on the marriage Reference.
Section 4 clarifies that civil marriages between same-sex couples cannot be ruled by the courts to be void or voidable only because the couple are of the same sex, overruling existing common law.
If the charter indeed guarantees religious freedom, then what was the need for Section 3? I would opine that Section 3 pandered to the needs of religious interest groups to have additional rights, (i.e. to be exempt from being charged with human right violations re: their institutionalized discriminatory behavior.
If anyone is asking to be excused for their behavior, it is the religious right, and not gay activists.
Stageleft: What are you talking about?
Lyndon: It’s really hard having conversations with people so self-absorbed and wallowing in self-pity as you.
On sexual orientation, irrespective of whatever one is “oriented to,” you write: “I do not believe it is something that I need to take control over, nor am I asking to be excused for it.”
Nonsense! To actually believe this you would be taking no responsibility for your sexual conduct as it relates to your “orientation”. What if you had a different orientation? Say to some sexual desire that is illegal when acted upon (hmmm, paedophilia)? And you are asking to be excused for it because if the courts were to “read out” sexual orientation from s. 15 of the Charter (the equality rights section), it’s a safe bet you would be screaming bloody murder.
Sexual orientation is not simply a justification for being gay, but a pathological disposition towards erotic longing and desire, however it be manifest.
People with sexual orientations, whatever those orientations be, deserve no recognition under the law whatsoever! They are irresponsible bums! Likely the only time “sexual orientation” should ever enter legal discussion is when a psychologist is explaining to a court of law why some suspect has little moral measure beyond what they are oriented towards sexually. People with sexual orientations pathologically justify why they do what they do sexually by saying nature made me to have these desires, therefore I must act on them. This is morally irresponsible and dehumanising because human beings are free to intelligently choose how to act and live.
Unless you are breaking the law, having a sexual orientation does not cause much hardship under the law. That does not mean, however, that sexual orientations are not irresponsible and morally reckless justifications for one’s sexual conduct.
Religious activists and gay activists are both concerned with freedom of thought and expression. Getting “sexual orientation” recognised by the Canadian courts was one way gay activists obtained their objectives. But it was extreme. Applying the notion of sexual orientation out of context makes for very bad jurisprudence; in Canada making everyone with a sexual hang-up, whatever it be, due equal treatment under the law.
Jurisprudence concerning s. 15 of the Charter has enabled the new orthodoxy that everyone has a sexual orientation to quickly become like an established church; gay activists becoming as corrosive to civil society as any fundamentalist religious believer has ever been, completely intolerant of anyone who dare disagree with the orthodoxy.
To clarify: “Unless you are breaking the law, having a sexual orientation does not cause much hardship under the law.”
Section 15 of the Charter has been interpreted by the courts to include sexual orientation as an equality right, so sexual orientations are henceforth privileged in Canadian law. However, that does not detract from the fact that sexual orientations are pathological dispositions towards erotic longing and desires, and therefore irresponsible. While sexual orientation is priviledged by court interpretation of s. 15, some sexual orientations remain punishable under Canadian law, paedophilia, justified as such by the paedophile, being a perfect example.
Section 15 of the Charter has been interpreted by the courts to include sexual orientation as an equality right, so sexual orientations are henceforth privileged in Canadian law.
Freedom of Relgion is also an equality right, and therefore, neither sexual orientation, nor religion are privileged over one another.
“Freedom of Relgion is also an equality right, and therefore, neither sexual orientation, nor religion are privileged over one another.”
In theory, yes. But when the two come into conflict with one another, the courts have been much more likely to side with sexual orientation. Think of Vriend.
Sexual orientation describes the direction of an individual’s sexuality, often in relation to their own sex or gender. Common terms for describing sexual orientation include bisexual (bi), heterosexual (straight) and homosexual (lesbian or gay).
�Sexual orientation“ is also a legal term. It is commonly used in anti-discrimination legislation that prohibits discrimination based on homosexuality, heterosexuality and bisexuality.
A number of different classification schemes have been used to describe sexual orientation since the mid-19th century, and scholars have often defined the term ’sexual orientation’ in divergent ways. Indeed, several studies have found that much of the research about sexual orientation has failed to define the term at all, making it difficult to reconcile the results of different studies. However, most definitions include a psychological component (such as the direction of an individual’s erotic desire) and/or a behavioural component (which focuses on the sex of the individual’s sexual partner/s). Some prefer to simply follow an individual’s self-definition or identity.
The term sexual preference has a similar meaning, but is often used by those who believe that sexuality is fluid and incorporates an element of choice, as opposed to those who believe sexuality is fixed early in life. “Sexual identity” may be used as a synonym for sexual orientation, but the two are also sometimes distinguished, with identity referring to an individual’s conception of themselves, and orientation referring to “fantasies, attachments and longings”[2] and/or behaviour. In addition, “sexual identity” may be used to describe a person’s perception of their own sex, rather than sexual orientation.
Considerable debate continues over what biological and/or psychological variables produce sexual orientation in humans, such as genes and the exposure of certain levels of hormones to fetuses. A much smaller dialog remains in progress on whether that orientation is discretionary, largely limited to a minority of Christians and many Muslims with its foundation rooted in theology and old scientific thinking. Freud and many others, particularly in psychoanalytic traditions, speculate that formative childhood experiences (a.k.a.. nurture) help produced sexual orientation.
Most specialists follow the general conclusion of Alfred Kinsey regarding the sexual continuum, according to which a minority of humans are exclusively homosexual or heterosexual, and that the majority are bisexual, that is, that the norm is to experience a mixture homoerotic and heteroerotic feelings, each kind to a different degree. Interestingly, Kinsey himselfâ€???along with current “queer”activist groupsâ€???focus on the historicity and personal fluidity of sexual orientation. Kinsey’s studies consistently showed sexual orientation as something that evolves in many directions over a person’s lifetime.
Ongoing debate about the morality of same-sex relations often references beliefs about whether sexual orientation is a choice or a fixed attribute.
There are several different views on the subject, the major ones of which are:
* Sexual orientation is a preference, like any other lifestyle choice. People can be influenced in this choice, as in any other, by their peers, by media exposure, and by society in general, but the responsibility for making the choice is personal. (This view is frequently accompanied by a belief that choosing homosexuality is immoral or undesirable and should be discouraged. However, some who hold this view also believe that homosexuality can be an addictive behavior, like substance abuse, and difficult to stop; and still others believe that this presumed choice to engage in a “gay lifestyle” is morally neutral or even beneficial.)
* Sexual orientation is fixed early in life. People should seek romantic and sexual relationships with people of whatever gender they desire. Discrimination against such sexual minorities is immoral.
* Sexual orientation is fixed early in life, but homosexuality is immoral. People who have homosexual feelings should be discouraged from acting on them, and should live in celibacy, in opposite-sex relationships, or should attempt to develop heterosexual feelings (see ex-gay for a discussion on this movement).
* Sexual orientation is biologically predetermined.
* Sexual orientation is not fixed; however it changes, not by acts of choice or will, but through factors beyond a person’s voluntary control.
* Sexual orientation is an illusory social construct. People should stop worrying about it and simply allow others and themselves to love whomever they please.
There is a strong correlation between belief in choice and disapproval of homosexuality. (Whether or not there is a causal relationship in either direction is a matter of debate.)
Btw, what makes homosexuality irresponsible? I know you believe it, but you certainly have not given any logical reason for this belief, other than saying it.
And as for deserving recognition under the law, or not, one could argue quite successfully that in a state without a state religion, that religion should not be recognized either. Thankfully the courts and Government disagree with this point of view.
I think what makes poeple like George so upset, is that there needs to be specific recongition of different groups in the Charter. It makes me upset too, but for different reasons. I welcome the day that society progresses to a state where such distinctions are no longer needed. But until then, I am afraid that lines need to be drawn in the sand somewhere so that many groups of different people will be able to live together in this country without fear.
1.) “Sexual orientation describes the direction of an individual’s sexuality, often in relation to their own sex or gender.”
What do you mean by direction? preference? if so, how is anyone in any position to speak of their sexual preferences, in each contingent circumstance of occurrence, over the scope of their life time?
Sexual orientation is inclusive of “heterosexuality”, “homosexuality”, “bisexuality”, “monosexuality”, “masturbators-who-like-well-carved-watermelons-sexuality,” and whatever else people think they are sexually oriented to, and permanently so.
In popular usage, sexual orientation is more than just sexual preference, but a “nature-made-me-do-it” justification for sexual conduct.
2.) “â€?Sexual orientation“ is also a legal term.”
Yes, and this is unfortunate because it is out of context, away from its proper application in psychology. There are better ways to punish hate crimes.
3.) “The term sexual preference has a similar meaning, but is often used by those who believe that sexuality is fluid and incorporates an element of choice, as opposed to those who believe sexuality is fixed early in life.”
Sexual preference is used by those who don’t have a sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is distinct because it is a pathological fixation that denies human choice. Those with sexual orientations therefore deny their capacity as human beings, moral agents, to be what they choose to become, therefore justifying what they have become on the grounds that “nature made me this way.” But that’s a completely irresponsible position because nature makes human beings umpteen ways, from which we expect human beings to “grow up” and “behave.” (eg. Young boys are usually more violent than young girls, did you know that? We still expect boys to not grow up to be thugs.)
4.) “Considerable debate continues over what biological and/or psychological variables produce sexual orientation in humans, such as genes and the exposure of certain levels of hormones to fetuses.”
The only people who care about this idiotic debate are the idiots with sexual orientations who, for one reason or another, think any such research actually proves that they don’t have a choice when it comes to what they desire to do and act on sexually. But that’s ridiculous, human beings are moral, so they always have choice. Everyone knows this, and even the idiots who care about this debate.
5.) “Most specialists follow the general conclusion of Alfred Kinsey regarding the sexual continuum, according to which a minority of humans are exclusively homosexual or heterosexual, and that the majority are bisexual, that is, that the norm is to experience a mixture homoerotic and heteroerotic feelings, each kind to a different degree.”
This is common sense. Just look at the advertising in clothing stores, or how clothing is marketed.
But this doesn’t excuse having a sexual orientation; a pathological fixation or hang-up on one’s sexual desires, and accepting that nature made you that way, therefore you are no longer morally culpable for those desires, whatever they be. What nature did is irrelevant. What human’s do is the only thing that matters, given the hand each are dealt in life.
6.) “Ongoing debate about the morality of same-sex relations often references beliefs about whether sexual orientation is a choice or a fixed attribute.”
Sexual orientation is not a choice for those that think they have a sexual orientation. However, seeing that sexual orientation is a justification one gives for the erotic desires they experience, and act on, leads to the realisation that any justification given for human conduct is a choice because human beings are intelligent.
7.) “There is a strong correlation between belief in choice and disapproval of homosexuality. (Whether or not there is a causal relationship in either direction is a matter of debate.)”
This depends on what actual conduct you are talking about. Clearly, sodomosizing anyone, be they of the opposite or same sex, is a reprehensible and dehumanising act. I’m not arguing for the state to make it illegal, it’s just morally wrong and everyone knows it—even those who do it. As for the rest, it happens and most people don’t care.
And none of this excuses having a sexual orientation or should be excused by saying one has a sexual orientation.
8.) “Btw, what makes homosexuality irresponsible? I know you believe it, but you certainly have not given any logical reason for this belief, other than saying it.”
I don’t know. I never said this. Your question doesn’t make any sense. How could homosexuality be irresponsible? People experience homoerotic longings and desires. So what? What matters is what human beings choose to do in acting on their longings and desires, consciously acting towards moral betterment as individuals.
9.) My whole point on this thread has been to show that gay activists are truly religious adherents to the orthodoxy of sexual orientation. Being gay is like a religion from which adherents derive existential justification for doing what they do sexually. As far as religions go, it’s a pretty pathetic one because it is completely inner-worldly, not to mention morally irresponsible to the degree that it justifies homosexual conduct on the basis of sexual orientations—pathological fixations.
I should add that heterosexual adherents to the orthodoxy of sexual orientation are equally irresponsible.
So then do you prescribe asexuality as the highest form of responsibility and decency?
No.
This is similar to your, “what makes homosexuality irresponsible?” question. Again, I don’t know. I’m not really sure how to read your question.
If you mean asexuality as a sexual orientation, then no. Any sexual orientation is irresponsible, even asexuality if it is turned into a pathological fixation, believing you are justified in having no sexual relations just because nature made you with no desire for it; that you are “marked” asexual for the rest of your life. It may just be a manifest fear of intimacy. :-) Or such a person may just be a miserable loner who doesn’t think they will ever realise sexual desire or intimacy, so they give up, miserable and alone, in need of a pathological excuse for why they are the way they are. Maybe the responsible thing for them to do would be to try stepping out sometime and trying something new, if only learning to appreciate physical touch.
On the other hand, asexuality, as everyone experiences, is not an absence of erotic longing and desire. It is an absense of erotic longing or desire for physical intimacy with another human being. And this is because one has other longings and desires that occupy their attention, longings and desires that they percieve to draw them toward the good.
Asexuality is something everyone experiences, if only when they experience an immediate fear or threat on their life that they must react to. In that case the good being preservation of life; so life threatening circumstances aren’t exactly conducive for getting horny, unless, of course, those circumstances are prolonged and somewhat normalised.
Asexuality is also a choice, a choice to focus on other things besides erotic longings or desires for physical intimacy. And as a choice it usually serves some higher purpose, say a Catholic priest committed to celibacy to best serve God and the Church; which I can’t imagine is altogether easy, probably harder for some than for others.
on how a certain group will be celebrating Canada Day: These, including numerous other systemic issues, will be discussed and the subjects of focus in how we can shame Canada and improve the situation of all of our peoples: — George Freeman vs. Lyndon Simmons on (what else?) gay issues: Alot like King Kong versus Godzilla. — Stageleft is benevolently hawking a native issues conference to us folks “who do not seem to have a grasp on the issues.” Conferences are fun, and there is usually free food. Guess
So then you are against the “concept” of sexual orientation, rather than the physical intimacy between two consenting adults? I still do not understand why you are against “choice” vis-a-vis sexual activity.
What?
Sexual orientation is a concept taken from psychology. It has an application in psychology. Over generalising the concept of sexual orientation and applying it to everyone distorts reality. Not everyone has a sexual orientation. To think everyone does is dogmatic nonsense.
“I still do not understand why you are against “choiceâ€? vis-a-vis sexual activity.”
How can you possibly derive this from what I have written?
After re-reading this string of posts, I must assume, then that you are in fact against choice vis-a-vis sexual activity and that this is part of the reason you do not like the term sexual orientation because some use it as a justification for their sexual choices, be it who they have sex with, or the type of sex being had, as seen in this comment:
“Clearly, sodomosizing anyone, be they of the opposite or same sex, is a reprehensible and dehumanising act. I’m not arguing for the state to make it illegal, it’s just morally wrong and everyone knows itâ€???even those who do it. As for the rest, it happens and most people don’t care.”
Now, the definition of sodomy is:
Sodomy is a term of religious origin used to characterize certain sexual acts. The term is most commonly used to describe the specific act of anal sex between two males, or between a male and a female. The term “sodomy” also may include non-coital sexual acts such as oral sex and other paraphilia. It is sometimes used to describe human-animal sexual intercourse (a.k.a. bestiality or zoophilia). Sodomy laws forbidding certain types of sex acts have been instituted in some cultures.
The term “sodomyâ€? derives from the name of the ancient city of Sodom, which according to a common interpretation of the Bible, was destroyed by God for its sins. In today’s common language it identifies the practice of anal or oral intercourse.
The English term buggery is very closely related to sodomy, in concept, and often interchangeably used in law and popular speech.
Be honest now, George, you don’t really feel bad getting a blowjob do you? And if your partner likes doing it, should (s)he be made to feel bad about it because it doesn’t fit into your narrow view about “responsible sex”?
Anyway, back to my first question about irresponsibility.
I asked it because of the following statements you made:
“To have a sexual orientation is indicative of being willfully irresponsible.”
“People with sexual orientations, whatever those orientations be, deserve no recognition under the law whatsoever! They are irresponsible bums!”
“This is morally irresponsible and dehumanising because human beings are free to intelligently choose how to act and live.”
The last comment is the one that confused me. In one breath you call sexual orientation irresponsible, and in the next say that human beings are free to choose how to act and live.
So you see, I do not understand how you can have it both ways, and thus the confusion and question.
Finally, since you keep bringing it up, I would like to address the concept of morality. You and I seem to come from different camps of thought on this topic.
Morality deals with that which is regarded as right or wrong. The term is used in regard to three contexts: individual conscience; systems of principles and judgments–sometimes called moral values–shared within a cultural, religious, secular, Humanist, or philosophical community; and codes of behavior or conduct derived from these systems.
Personal morality defines and distinguishes among right and wrong intentions, thoughts or actions. Human conscience is widely acknowledged to encourage individuals to do right; its origins and role are the subject of much discussion. Belief in an effective system of divine judgment often helps with personal motivation, as classically seen in the success of Medieval codes of knighthood and the spread of Islam. The desire to conform to the behavior of a group to which an individual belongs or aspires to belong is also a powerful force, though it may generally apply to more general cultural norms and customs, where the dichotomy is between proper and improper behavior.
Group morality develops from shared concepts and beliefs and is often codified to regulate behavior within a culture or community. Various defined actions come to be called moral or immoral. Individuals who choose moral action are popularly held to possess “moral fibre”, whereas those who indulge in immoral behavior may be labelled as socially degenerate. The continued existence of a group may depend on widespread conformity to codes of morality; an inability to adjust moral codes in response to new challenges is sometimes credited with the demise of a community (a positive example would be the function of Cistercian reform in reviving monasticism; a negative example would be the role of the Dowager Empress in the subjugation of China to European interests). Within nationalist movements, there has been some tendency to feel that a nation will not survive or prosper without acknowledging one, common morality.
Codified morality is generally distinguished from custom, another way for a community to define appropriate activity, by the former’s derivation from natural or universal principles. In certain religious communities, the Divine is said to provide these principles through revelation, sometimes in great detail. Such codes may be called laws, as in the Law of Moses, or community morality may be defined through commentary on the texts of revelation, as in Islamic law. Such codes are distinguished from legal or judicial right, including civil rights, which are based on the accumulated traditions, decrees and legislation of a political authority, though these latter often invoke the authority of the moral law.
In any society, actual behavior patterns diverge, sometimes seriously, from accepted notions of how one ought to behave. This dissonance is exaggerated for political effects by the pundits of hypothetical morals, who invite confusion as to the details and applicability of a group’s fundamental moral code.
Morality can also be seen as the collection of beliefs as to what constitutes a good life. Since throughout most of human history, religions have provided both visions and regulations for an ideal life (through such beliefs characterized by ‘the god(s) know what’s best for us’) morality is often confused with religious precepts. In secular communities, lifestyle choices, which represent an individual’s conception of the good life, are often discussed in terms of “morality”. Individuals sometimes feel that making an appropriate lifestyle choice invokes a true morality, and that accepted codes of conduct within their chosen community are fundamentally moral, even when such codes deviate from more general social principles.
While some philosophers and biologists hold that morality is a thin crust hiding egoism, amorality, and anti-social tendencies, others see morality as a product of evolutionary forces and as evidence for continuity with other group-living organisms.
Thankfully, the law considers itself independent of morality, even if the law happens to reflect or intends to reflect morality.
And since the law, by definition, is not intended to be moral, the argument that somehow it should be falls apart.
Futhermore, the moral core of an individual is the extent to which that person will apply his or her notions of morality. It is centered on the individual and can be extended to include other people or groups. The individual sees these others within the moral core as deserving to be treated in the same way the individual personally wants to be treated.
The moral core is a principle that can determine how an individual applies particular moral values and beliefs. It is described in some theories of ethics as the limits to the rationality of ethics itself. From this perspective, morals are considered primarily aesthetic notions and not seen as directly sharable.
Persons who fall outside of an individual’s moral core are not covered by that individual’s notions of morality and do not enjoy its protections. Thus, the concept of a moral core can serve to explain apparent hypocrisy in people who claim to have particular ethical principles. For example, it might be used to explain why someone whose religion forbids murder can nevertheless support involvement in war or imposition of the death penalty for certain crimes. According to this theory, the people whose killing can be justified somehow fall outside the individual’s moral core.
A moral core is presumed to be formed by experience, including especially parental moral examples, and the slow growth via cognition of a set of conditionings, inhibitions, and concepts of beauty through his or her entire lifetime. Although it may be demonstrated to train or inspire others, it cannot be shared in any way, and is constantly changing.
Some theories of morality, notably moral relativism, but also branches of theology, hold that there is little value in attempting to share moral cores or even to align moral choices except to the bare minimum needed to prevent conflict.
The opposite belief, imposing various degrees of standardization via a moral code and its enforcement, usually in a legal system, is that such cores either can be shared or are irrelevant to the process of social control and learning proper conduct.
So I guess I take exception to statements such ast “everyone knows” this and “everyone knows” that, when indeed, not everyone shares your ideals.
Does that make me a relativist? Sure it does. Does relativism have its limits, yes, of course, but I believe it has less limits than imposing a strict moral code on a group of people as diverse as those in Canada. Furthermore, I believe that the limits of relativism are overhsaddowed by its benefits; in other words, I believe it ensures the minimum level of order required to prevent un-needed and distructive conflicts in society while allowing the the widest range of reasonable freedoms for a the largest portion of a civil society.
What is so irresponsible about that?
1.) “… you are in fact against choice vis-a-vis sexual activity and that this is part of the reason you do not like the term sexual orientation because some use it as a justification for their sexual choices, be it who they have sex with, or the type of sex being had, as seen in this comment:”
How on earth could I possible be against choice when I have argued that having a sexual orientation is irresponsible. And something is irresponsible when it does not recognise the choices, or further justifications, that can and should be made.
“Sexual orientation” is a pathological excuse that claims humans do not have a choice, ultimately (they have a sexual orientation), when it comes to their sexuality. But human beings are intelligent. They always have choice, becoming what they choose to become.
I find it hard to fathom, after all this, that you think I am somehow arguing against choice. Yeessh!
2.) As for my use of the term sodomy, I use it here to denote anal sex, and nothing more. It is reprehensible and dehumanising. Notice, you didn’t even try to defend it because no one can with good reasoning.
3.) “In one breath you call sexual orientation irresponsible, and in the next say that human beings are free to choose how to act and live.
So you see, I do not understand how you can have it both ways, and thus the confusion and question.”
What’s so confusing? This goes back to a point raised earlier about you not really knowing what it means to have a sexual orientation, likely because you are beholden to having one.
Think about it! As most people understand it, the concept sexual orientation means something more than just sexual preference. If sexual orientation only meant sexual preference, it never would have been read into s. 15 of the Charter by the courts. No one in their right mind would legitimate any and all sexual desires that human beings have and act on as equally valid or rightful—there are obvious perversions (ie. sodomy, prostitution, rape, paedophilia, etc.).
So sexual orientation is used to account for the givenness of sexual desires, not just what people desire, and the belief that sexual desires, whatever they be, are something inherently meaningful about individuals and cannot be changed. It is the belief that one is born a certain way—hetersexual, homosexual, whatever—and will always be that way. This is a “belief” people hold, usually about themselves, and it is a mistaken belief, if only because: A.) the future is unknown (you don’t know what you will be sexually desiring of in twenty years time—no one does), B.) there are lots of reasons for why individuals experiences the sexual desires that they do (eg. genes, rough childhood, good childhood, and on and on), and C.) individuals always have choice to think one way or another, to do one thing or another.
Now psychology originally used the term sexual orientation to diagnose what were considered pathological dispositions towards sexual conduct, especially conduct that was traditionally considered immoral (ie. homosexuality). But this is the realm of pathological diagnosis, and such diagnosis arises from a more nuanced appreciation of sexuality. That are some people who suffer from pathologies, there are others who don’t. Those who DON’T suffer from pathologies don’t think or spiritually dispose themselves pathologically. With respect to sexuality, people are only pathologically disposed towards their sexual desires if they think about, or spiritually dispose themselves to, their sexual desires pathologically.
Sexual desires are experienced in contingent occurrences and towards certain things. They come and they go. Individuals experience different desires over the course of their lifetimes. And futhermore, people always have choice over what they do because they are intelligent.
People with sexual orientations are irresponsible because they don’t recognise this, being pathologically fixated on certain generalised sexual desires (ie. being homosexual, being heterosexual, etc.). Sexual orientation is simply the justification they give, a “nature-made-me-this-way” response, to explain why they do what they do sexually. But this is a pathetic excuse because: A.) it denudes human intelligence, the extent to which humans are free to be what they choose to become (so it’s dehumanising), and B.) nature makes people all sorts of ways, much of which is not good, so we expect human beings to be moral.
4.) “I would like to address the concept of morality. You and I seem to come from different camps of thought on this topic.”
Human beings are moral. To be human is to be moral; to justify doing what you do, expecting others to do the same.
Everyone knows certain things because there is common sense. We live in a common world. And the things that everyone knows are commonly knowable.
Someone is irresponsible when they cannot adequately justify doing what they do. And justifying one’s sexual conduct by claiming to have some sexual orientation is pathetic and irresponsible because it implies that one does not have a choice, that nature just made them this way; so there is no further, more meaningful justification for why they do what they do sexually.
OK, so then I guess we will have to respectfully agree to disagree.
I do, however, thank you for this discussion, because it has given me further insight into why people are so ardently opposed to the gay rights movement.
However, I believe that your beliefs are based on fundamentally flawed logic (i.e. choice is good, as long as you choose from this select group of behavior, and if you don’t then you must be irresponsible), and the selective and narrow use of terminology (i.e. sodomy as anal sex only, whereas the legal definition includes much more - and your definition of sexual orientation). This does not mean that some of your points were not well made.
Nevertheless, I would caution you against the perpetual use of the Argumentum ad populum and argumentum ad personam fallacies in your arguments.
An argumentum ad populum (Latin: “appeal to the people”) is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it; it alleges that “If many believe so, it is so.”
So when you say “Everyone knows certain things because there is common sense. We live in a common world. And the things that everyone knows are commonly knowable.” it doesn’t mean that everyone actually knows / accepts the premise of your arguments. There are many different cultures, religions, and points of view in this world.
Argumentum ad personam usually and most notoriously involves insulting one’s opponent, but can also involve pointing out factual but damning character flaws or actions. The reason that this is fallacious is that â€??? usually, anyway â€??? insults and even damaging facts simply do not undermine what logical support there might be for one’s opponent’s arguments or assertions.
“It’s really hard having conversations with people so self-absorbed and wallowing in self-pity as you.” Whatever, dude.
Much of this discussion has been about semantics, which, I beleive is important in order to understand what a person is saying when they use specific terms. And while it can be frustrating, it always helps set the proper stage for a proper debate.
I look forward to future discussions.
Well, I think you’re wrong, but you’re certainly no slouch. Your willingness to banter back and forth marks you out as a decent sort of guy.
I’m not trying to justify hatred of gays. I don’t, however, think intolerance is always a bad thing, rather it is simply the means by which society, any society, expresses disdain for certain behaviours, and to greater or lesser degrees. Freedom means freedom for everyone. Just as gays think it is unfair that some people don’t like their behaviour, it’s equally unfair for gays to expect those people to change their behaviour when they aren’t doing anything criminal.
I’ve never argued anything contrary to choice. I’ve said that human beings are intelligent, they always have choice. I’ve said that to be human is to be moral, to justify doing what you do and to take responsibility for what you do. To that end, proclaiming a sexual orientation is ludricrous for responsible individuals. It infers that whatever sexual desires one may have, those desires can’t be “helped” or “directed” in anyway, that ultimately one is not responsible for their sexual conduct. Sexual orientation is a pathetic nature-made-me-do-it excuse and justification for one’s sexual conduct; so it is irresponsible.
As for, narrow definitions, I’ve always been clear on what I mean by the terms I use. I could have said “anal sex” instead of sodomy but then I told you what I meant by sodomy. And narrow definitions are good because they help one stay off of slippery slopes. Extending the definition of sodomy beyond anal sex is a slippery slope. Similarly, a lot of people want to extend the definition of “sex” beyond sexual intercourse, a penis in a vagina, but of course, that’s what sex IS for all mammals, and any activity beyond that usually has its own name—”sexual” is descriptively more general. My use of the term “sodomy” is to implore one to see that “anal sex” isn’t really sex, it’s sodomy.
As for agumentum ad populum and argumentum ad personam, such fallacies only apply to political conversation when what they claim is actually fallacious. To say that everyone knows something, or is capable of knowing something, is an appeal to common sense. It forces one’s opponent to justify why THEY do not know that something. And if the argumentum ad populum is well placed, then the opponent, if he cannot justify his ignorance, will learn something. Pointing out someone’s ignorance of the real world—and yes, the world is real—is a good thing.
As for insults, they are handy for pointing out, blatantly, why someone is being contrary. And like argumentum ad populum, argumentum ad personam can be well placed. It is possible to more or less accurately insult someone; which in any disagreement, one must always look out for so that they, themselves, do not get accurately insulted. Insults are effective because they usually evoke a passionate response from the one being insulted, a response to refute the insult. And furthermore, it’s easy to argue about anything when one thinks argumentation is only about ideas. It’s quite another matter when the argument turns to one’s motivations for arguing the first place, or scrutises what one actually cares about in the real world. So often insults are necessary for this reason, to put the onus on one’s opponent to think more critically.
As you write:
“Much of this discussion has been about semantics, which, I beleive is important in order to understand what a person is saying when they use specific terms. And while it can be frustrating, it always helps set the proper stage for a proper debate.”
Yes. Semantics are made sense of given one’s practical experience, or intimations of experience, as commonly understood. To that end is the whole point of conversation, the onus being on each person privy to the conversation to understand the subject being addressed.
…you guys sure have done a good job at making sure that us queers are GLAD your god hates us. if that kind of intolernace, judgement and outright hate was accepting of me, I’d seriously question what kind of human being I was. I bet poor ol’ jesus just cries when he looks down and people are using his name to hate and judge and exclude people. imagine spending yer whole life telling people to love others, don’t judge them, accept them and be good to them, then to die a slow painful death trying to defend those teachings of love and tolerance…only to look down a while later and not only find people judging and hating, but find them doing it in your name!! the very things you spoke out against being practiced in your name! (interestingly, jesus never spoke out against being gay, just judging/being jerks to others). It really makes me feel sorry for the poor guy more than anything else. and he can’t even defend himself while you guys slander his name. how awful. I hope he’s keeping a list ;)
wow