Homosexuality
- Thread starter nosos
- Start date
Yuwipi Woman
Whack-A-Mole Queen
untethered's our bestest troll, don't be mean to him
I'll be slow and gentle.
untethered
For industry & decency
It nearly always is someone else's business and the interpretation of "doing no harm" tends to be so generous as to be meaningless.
dylanredefined
Not a house elf a tiger
Who really cares?
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
No, it really is no-one else's business what consenting adults get up to in private.
And I'll ask it again, if you think it is your busines - or society's in general - then what would you have society do about homosexuality?
toggle
wobbly
No it is not.
untethered
For industry & decency
Sex outside marriage is wrong and generally harmful to the individuals concerned, other people close to them and to the wider society. That said, it would be preferable for various social structures to inhibit this behaviour rather than to use the weight of the law.
Yuwipi Woman
Whack-A-Mole Queen
No. Its no one's business except the people who consent to be there. Some harm always occurs in relationships, but that's a risk you take when you consent to the relationship.
There's huge harm involved in trying to police people's private relations and we ought not to try. How many people have been executed for completely consenual acts? How many lives ruined?
untethered
For industry & decency
And what about the people that don't consent -- for example, the husband or wife that is being cheated on? What about the wider society that will have to pay, financially and otherwise, for the breakdown of a relationship?
There are more innocent lives ruined, including those of many children, by our society's laissez-faire attitude to "who sleeps with whom" than could conceivably be "ruined" by society taking a firm stand on sexual morality. People not only have a right to encourage and expect responsibility but a duty to do so.
I've reading quite a bit about Kinsey recently and I find it interesting how deeply some of his ideas have permeated the popular conciousness. At the end of the day Kinsey's work was a taxonomy of sexual practices rather than an inquiry into the meanings those sexual practices hold for people or the realities (e.g. a biologically determined sexuality) that do/don't underpin those meanings. Likewise the categories he fits people into are basically completely arbitrary. Beyond reporting on people's reports of their sexual behaviour, it's unclear what Kinsey is actually saying about anything.Roadkill said:
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
I get nervous when I see the word 'taxonomy'.
So how is it "wrong".As long its two (or more) consenting people its fine.
There may be others who are affected by being lied to and who wouldn't be happy if they knew what was going on. Eg if people are cheating on their husbands/wives/boyfriends/girlfriends (I hate the word 'partner').
Edit: untethered mentioned the screwing around (or s- around) scenario before me.
Then don't lie to them or stop basing relationships on sex... (non-monogamous relationships -- though I think untethered would have a problem with this)
I don't think it's entirely a bad thing. It's just it often gets taken up in such a methodologically deficient way that it's seen to actually be saying something about the world rather than simply carving up that world into categories for some prior set of reasons.cesare said:
Yuwipi Woman
Whack-A-Mole Queen
I think you have some odd ideas about the "good old days." Even when sexual relationships were heavily policed and sanctioned those harms occurred. People still fucked like bunnies. Often the innocent children produced by such unions were the ones who were subject to the highest penalities. A woman who was "ruined" became unmarriable and an economic burden to her family and society. It was at its core harmful and rife for exploitation.
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
He introduced the concept of 'race' and divided humans up accordingly. Not good.
But perhaps you meant 'taxonomy' in general terms. Well, you've outlined the downside ... how many one dimensional boxes can you attempt to put people in?
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
dylanredefined
Not a house elf a tiger
I do. I'm doing my first research project on stuff related to this and I'm really interested in what people's views are about the nature of gay identity etc.
Poor you .Though I guess you can just write what you want people lie and
justify all sort of things .Like the old joke goes
whats diffrence between straight and bisexual
A about 5 pints
@ ceasare
Just asking for clarification about your question
In all seriousness I don't think there's anything wrong with classifying people. It's just essential that we remember that someone is doing the classifying in a particular contexts for a particular set of reasons. Classification is a social process. We don't simply read these categories off the world. My problem with the concept of homosexuality is that you can trace a fairly clear and continous line of descent from its use as a clinical term to its modern use a a self-definition. The proliferation of discourses about homosexuality made resistence possible as people classified as homosexual were able to use the space opened up to make their own voice heard. It's just that this voice is heard as homosexual. Resisting clinical classification in this way entrenches the whole still basically clinical edifice.
Just asking for clarification about your question
In all seriousness I don't think there's anything wrong with classifying people. It's just essential that we remember that someone is doing the classifying in a particular contexts for a particular set of reasons. Classification is a social process. We don't simply read these categories off the world. My problem with the concept of homosexuality is that you can trace a fairly clear and continous line of descent from its use as a clinical term to its modern use a a self-definition. The proliferation of discourses about homosexuality made resistence possible as people classified as homosexual were able to use the space opened up to make their own voice heard. It's just that this voice is heard as homosexual. Resisting clinical classification in this way entrenches the whole still basically clinical edifice.
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
I do. I'm doing my first research project on stuff related to this and I'm really interested in what people's views are about the nature of gay identity etc.
Thinking about it, I'm not entirely sure how your OP relates to this
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
@ ceasare
Just asking for clarification about your question
In all seriousness I don't think there's anything wrong with classifying people. It's just essential that we remember that someone is doing the classifying in a particular contexts for a particular set of reasons. Classification is a social process. We don't simply read these categories off the world. My problem with the concept of homosexuality is that you can trace a fairly clear and continous line of descent from its use as a clinical term to its modern use a a self-definition. The proliferation of discourses about homosexuality made resistence possible as people classified as homosexual were able to use the space opened up to make their own voice heard. It's just that this voice is heard as homosexual. Resisting clinical classification in this way entrenches the whole still basically clinical edifice.
The trouble with classification is precisely because it's one dimensional. It doesn't take into account temporal issues, nor circumstances etc etc
Classification maybe a social process now, but only because we (as a society) allowed natural scientists to convince originally.
Like the old joke goes
whats diffrence between straight and bisexual
A about 5 pints
used to be 8 pints
untethered
For industry & decency
used to be 8 pints
Further evidence, if any were needed, of our society heading downhill ever faster.
bluestreak
HomosexualityIsStalin’sAtomBombtoDestroyAmerica
Sometimes one, sometimes t'other, generally both.
Similar threads
