Bill Snedden

As does migration between nations by individuals or committed homosexual partnerships. Your point would be?

But as homosexuality obviously and irrefutably existed prior to Freud (as HelenM points out), your statement is yet another non sequitur to add to the growing pile. Homosexual behavior is obviously and undeniably a facet of human nature, just as killing is. I'm sure that you would agree that mere biological or psychological impulse doesn't convey moral status; we judge moral status based on values.

Why? For what reason? What's the possible relevance?

"There have been Civilizations that built democracy into the social order, but these civilizations are now dead."

Correlation doesn't equal causation.

I submit that you haven't a clue what you're talking about.

"Exists most purely?" What relevance does that have? The very fact that homosexuality exists absent your conditions militates strongly against your bizarre speculation.

Besides which, we could easily make similar statements about heterosexual relationships. The traditional male-female marital relationship has for years been a form wherein men were allowed to dominate and abuse females.

Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle....


I see. So mere sexual attraction does not convey moral status in the case of homosexual relationships, but it does convey it in the case of heterosexual ones?

Blatantly hypocritical, question begging, and the fallacy of special pleading to boot!

"If homosexuality is self-evident..." I'm unable to parse your meaning here. Do you mean moral by virtue of its existence in human nature? If so, then I most emphatically do not see homosexuality as "self-evident." I thought I had already made it amply clear that I believe that mere attraction does not convey moral status. You on the other hand, appear to believe that it does but only in the case of heterosexuals. It would seem that your own argument is therefore subject to this objection, in which case aren't you refuting yourself?

As for "...societies that let..." et al, more substance-free assertions. You haven't a possible shred of evidence to demonstrate that homosexuality has been the sufficient or primary cause of the downfall of all civilizations that ever "...let (it) into the order..." Why do you insist on making such blatantly ludicrous and non-verifiable statements?

You want me to give a reason why rape and pedophilia are irrelevant to a discussion about the morality of homosexuality? Are you for real?

How about: people other than homosexuals commit the crimes of rape and pedophilia and not all homosexuals commit these crimes nor do they appear to harbor un-acted-upon desires to commit these crimes. There is therefore no reason to believe that homosexuality is a causal factor of nor materially related to these crimes and therefore there is reason to believe that they are irrelevant to a discussion of the morality of homosexuality.

Now, you still haven't answered some of the questions I posed:

What does "capability" necessarily have to do with same or opposite sex sexual contact?

What does "stability" necessarily have to do with same or opposite sex sexual contact?

What does it mean for something to be "suitable to human nature?" I ask this because homosexual activity is clearly part of human nature (as humans engage in it) and just as clearly satisfies needs of those humans who engage in it (or they wouldn't do so). What else does "human nature" mean? "Procreative function"

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Dr Rick

It leaves us still wondering how anything you've posted is relevant to homophobia.

It is; one of Freud's great contributions to the field of psychology was his emphasis on repressed desires and unconscious motivation.

Do you have a point?

Pedophiliacs tend to have specific personality characteristics that include poor impulse control. Poor impulse control is not repressive; repressing impulses is repressive.

How is this relevant to homophobia?

You are looking for a rationalization for homophobia, but you won't find it here.

You have a point?!

Bill Snedden

Um...no? Human relationships (male-female, male-male, female-female) can and do exist as equal peer relationships with each party compromising with the other when appropriate for each to do so. Whatever "dominance" may appear is the dominance of the relationship itself and not one individual over another.

I didn't think it was possible for your "arguments" to get any wackier than they already were, but apparently I was wrong.

This is probably one of the most blatant and baldfaced examples of unfounded speculation masquerading as fact that I have ever seen on these boards and that's saying a lot.

If your point was to demonstrate that you are willing to say literally anything in order to avoid dealing with the real issue, then you have made it admirably. If it was something else, then I'm afraid you've failed miserably.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

dk

I don't believe Freud claimed to invent human nature, his claim to fame was discovery of the id, ego and super ego, biology is destiny, so sexual orientation resides in the id, and sexual behavior balances between the ego (real) and superego (morality).

In the nuclear family children learn gender id from same sex parent, what I have termed in this thread a normative ethical form.

HelenM

No, it was overt disagreement. I'm surprised you didn't pick upthat I was overtly disagreeing with your claim that peers cannot resolve a dispute without appeal to a higher authority - and as proof I gave examples of when they can resolve it without appeal to a higher authority.

How you turned that into agreeing with you mystifies me...

Not necessarily. (Will you see that as tacit agreement too?)

In my opinion, dominance is not primarily determined by the comparative flexibility of the two people.

Well, isn't that a tautology? Directed implies hierarchy so of course directed work forms hierarchical patterns.

I think it's simpler than that; some people enjoy exercising power over others, etc.

I'm not sure what point you were making...if you tell me then it would be easier for me to assess whether you made it or not.

Helen

dk

dk: I agree, and when one compromises the other becomes dominant. In fact the only way two peers can remain equals is to avoid disputes with some reasonable division of labor. Alas we regress into traditional sex role models.
Bill Snedden: Um...no? Human relationships (male-female, male-male, female-female) can and do exist as equal peer relationships with each party compromising with the other when appropriate for each to do so. Whatever "dominance" may appear is the dominance of the relationship itself and not one individual over another.
dk: There are many peer to peer relationships, and when one peer compromises they become subordinate. In a marriage both parties may subordinate themselves to the marriage, not each other. Domestic violence and divorce follows from two peers trying very hard to be dominant. The dispute in these unfortunate instances sooner or later gets escalated to family or criminal courts.

dk: Many activities are suited to peers, but directed activity (work) tends to form hierarchical patterns. Some men are more passive than others, and the hazing rituals our military academies and fraternities practice have their roots in the homosexual initiations rights of Ancient Greek armies. My point stands. Prisons are far more brutal. It is hard to ignore without intentionally shutting ones eyes to obvious. Recently we’ve seen a pattern of rape at the Air Force Academy, and in Illinois high schools adults encouraging women brutality in a true sporting tradition. I think I’ve made my point. Still women pedophiles and rapists are rare.

Bill Snedden: I didn't think it was possible for your "arguments" to get any wackier than they already were, but apparently I was wrong.
This is probably one of the most blatant and bald faced examples of unfounded speculation masquerading as fact that I have ever seen on these boards and that's saying a lot.
If your point was to demonstrate that you are willing to say literally anything in order to avoid dealing with the real issue, then you have made it admirably. If it was something else, then I'm afraid you've failed miserably.
dk: If my line of thought has gotten wacko its because I’m trying to reconcile homosexuality with an ethical form. It obvious that two peers can’t resolve a dispute unless one compromises, and when one compromises they cease to be peers. Disputes that can’t be resolved between peers must submit to binding arbitration. Schools, cities, factories,,, virtually every human cooperative endeavor takes on a hierarchal form. If we are to reconcile homosexuality with an ethical form there’s simply no other reasonable course. If you wish to concede that homosexuality has no ethical form, cool.

Dr Rick

...that deep rumbling you may have just heard was every deceased ehticist and shrink on the planet rolling in their graves...

dk

(snip) double post

dk

dk: Actually you weren’t in disagreement. Any negotiation over a disputed matter between peers that gets resolved, necessarily requires one party to compromise. Short of tossing a fair coin to resolve the dispute the party that compromises has become subordinate. There’s no other plausible option. Peers can’t resolve disputes, 1) they walk away, 2) put up their dukes or 3) escalate the matter to binding arbitration. There’s simply no other plausible alternative, all true peer-peer relationships are non-binding, or there’s a protocol that makes disputes impossible.

HelenM: People resolve disputes this way all the time...
And compromising doesn't make you 'less' than the other person. If anything perhaps it reveals you to be 'greater' in that you can be more flexible than the other person. But basically I'd say it doesn't affect whether two people are peers, that one of them is willing to compromise.
dk: I agree, and when one compromises the other becomes dominant.
HelenM: Not necessarily. (Will you see that as tacit agreement too?)
dk: Peers can’t compromise, negation, barter or haggle. Peer relationships require protocols that both parties honor because they value the relationship. End of story, by necessity.

HelenM: In my opinion, dominance is not primarily determined by the comparative flexibility of the two people.
dk: Call it what you want, if you want to call a dominant person inflexible, fine.

dk: In fact the only way two peers can remain equals is to avoid disputes with some reasonable division of labor. Alas we regress into traditional sex role models. Many activities are suited to peers, but directed activity (work) tends to form hierarchical patterns.
HelenM: Well, isn't that a tautology? Directed implies hierarchy so of course directed work forms hierarchical patterns.
dk: bingo,

dk: Some men are more passive than others, and the hazing rituals our military academies and fraternities practice have their roots in the homosexual initiations rights of Ancient Greek armies.
HelenM: I think it's simpler than that; some people enjoy exercising power over others, etc.
dk: Cool, call them inflexible, whatever, they have dominant personalities.

dk: My point stands. Prisons are far more brutal. It is hard to ignore without intentionally shutting ones eyes to obvious. Recently we’ve seen a pattern of rape at the Air Force Academy, and in Illinois high schools adults encouraging women brutality in a true sporting tradition. I think I’ve made my point. Still women pedophiles and rapists are rare.
HelenM: I'm not sure what point you were making...if you tell me then it would be easier for me to assess whether you made it or not.
dk: Sure, peer to peer relationships are either based on strict protocols, or degenerate into abusive or formalize as hierarchical relationships. I do agree with you that hazing tends towards the abusive side. That’s probably why good friends are difficult keep. I know about peer to peer protocols for two reasons, 1) I’m a network analysis and peer to peer relationships are an essential part of the Network Architecture, 2) I’m a middle child from a large family. Honestly I’m not trying to be a smart ass.

HelenM

I read the end of your post and I think you're wrong to think that you can infer from childhood sibling disputes or computer systems to how adult peer relationships work. What you say is impossible is not impossible. I hope that you aren't as inflexible in your own relationships as what you wrote indicates your beliefs are about peer-peer relationships. We don't have to interact like computers where you have to have things exactly right for the computer to do what you want. In human relationships, 99% or 90% or even 60% can be good enough to move forward.

Again, that inflexibility. But people are not computers...

I didn't call a dominant person inflexible! Did you even read what I wrote?!

So I said you stated the obvious and you said 'bingo'. So you agree you stated the obvious - that there was no meaningful content to what you said about directed work and hierarchy?

You need to read my posts if you want to know what I call people.

If you were trying to indicate smartness then a good first step would be to read what I write carefully, before responding.

Anyway I suggest you stop assuming that human relationships work the same way as computer systems. Because they don't.

Helen