Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [stoics] Re: 6 theses

Expand Messages
  • Robert Tyner
    Original Message----- From: charlesbricebroadway [mailto:charlesbricebroadway@yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2002 10:00 PM To: stoics@yahoogroups.com
    Message 1 of 13 , Apr 2, 2002
      Original Message-----
      From: charlesbricebroadway [mailto:charlesbricebroadway@...]
      Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2002 10:00 PM
      To: stoics@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [stoics] Re: 6 theses
       << Sexual identity is merely what it is- sexual identity. It is what you
      choose to be.  >>
      I don't know any homosexual or heterosexual who "chose" their sexual identity.  One can debate genetics and environmental factors, but I believe the consensus of the gay community is that sexual orientation is not a choice.  Heterosexuals often say about gays, "they choose to be that way." However, if you turn it around and say about straights, "they choose to be that way," it will most likely be considered absurd.
       <<< When I think of homosexuality, I think of sexual practices and less
      of identity. Is Hugh Hefner gay for having sex with men? Or is he
      bisexual? Or is he merely a confused heterosexual? Why not simply
      specify the acts as being either hetero or homo and leave it at that? >>>>
      Sexuality is a complex issue.  I think the terms homosexuality and heterosexuality refer to sexual orientations, not sexual acts.  Refering to sexual acts, one would say, "a homosexual/heterosexual act." Saying that, I don't think everyone can be easily labeled (although I don't agree that everyone is bisexual either.)  The Kinsey scale says that most individual's sexual orientation is somewhere in between being totally homosexual and totally heterosexual.  Some people are more curious than others, some are experimenting to find their own sexuality, there are bisexuals, transexuals - quite a diversity.
      I don't classify my sexuality by the types of sexual acts I may engage in.  A heterosexual male wouldn't say I am a "missionary positioner" or an "oral sexicator." Sexual acts are a preference, the gender of the person you are sexually attracted to is one's sexual identification, and not a preference. 
    • Robert Tyner
      ... From: charlesbricebroadway [mailto:charlesbricebroadway@yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2002 7:45 PM To: stoics@yahoogroups.com Subject: [stoics] Re:
      Message 2 of 13 , Apr 2, 2002
        -----Original Message-----
        From: charlesbricebroadway [mailto:charlesbricebroadway@...]
        Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2002 7:45 PM
        To: stoics@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [stoics] Re: 6 theses

        Mr. Rothschild,

         <<< As for the gun control issue, in the absence of a police state, I
        think it is reasonable that people should be able to defend
        themselves with a firearm. The police cannot be everywhere. I
        especially think women should possess firearms considering that they
        are seen as easy prey and are more prone to physical assault. >>>
        As far as capital punishment and gun control, I think the taking of life period is wrong. 

         <<< As for the homosexuality issue, heterosexuality is superior because
        of reproduction. Members of the same sex cannot bear biological
        offspring. >>>
        This seems to presume that the only reason for sex is procreation.  The pope may think this, but I doubt most sexually active people, gay or straight, would.
         <<< Other than that, I have no problem with gays and lesbians.
        This may distress you, but this is the way life is. I think too much
        of the gay agenda is spent trying to make homosexuality as legitimate
        as heterosexuality when this cannot be done. >>>
        I believe homosexuality is as legitimate as  heterosexuality.  Who is the judge that it is not?  Are you using the ability to reproduce as the sole criteria?  Where does that put heterosexual couples that cannot reproduce?  Where does that put the Chinese who can only have one child (or is it two?) in the Republic of China?
        The reason homosexuality is not seen as legitimate by many is ignorance and intolerance.  200 years ago who would have thought slavery would ever be abolished or women would vote?  Education and tolerance helped to make the change.
         <<< I consider my position to be reasonable, but many in the gay
        community are unreasonable in their demands. As Gore Vidal put it, he
        could not understand why anyone would want to be identified by a
        sexual practice. I think the gay movement has moved beyond the basic
        right to be treated with diginity  [sic]   and respect and into the area of
        Balkanization that is so rampant and is contrary to cosmopolitanism. >>>
        As you write this gay men and women are still being beaten, killed, denied civil rights, rejected from families, made fun of and committing suicide because of hate.  These things would not be happening if gays were treated with dignity and respect.  Tell Matthew Shepherd that "we have overcome." I think society has a ways to go on this issue - we are still struggling with racism.
        The issue isn't that gays want to be identified by their "sexual practice." If one lives an open life one's sexuality is bound to be exposed.  There would be no problem if this exposure wasn't met with fear causing hate.  Holding a lover's hand in public, going on public dates, buying furniture together, setting up home, raising children, etc. give away one's sexual identity.  When heterosexual's do these things, they are not given a second thought, but when a homosexual does these things they are "flaunting."
        Peace and Justice,
      • Fortunatus
        Hello Mr. Broadway, ... Your argument seems to be that Prohibition was relatively successful, and that it is better to try and fail than not to try at all. I
        Message 3 of 13 , Apr 2, 2002
          Hello Mr. Broadway,

          > THE DRUG WAR

          Your argument seems to be that Prohibition was relatively successful,
          and that it is better to try and fail than not to try at all. I agree
          with you this far. However, there is more than one way to try, and it
          is illogical to continue doing something that clearly fails to make a
          situation better when there is plenty of room for experimentation. It
          is ridiculous to endlessly pound one's head against a wall if there
          might be a door around the corner. I do think that legalization is
          probably not that door, but there are quite likely much better ways to
          spend the several billion dollars spent each year on the war on drugs.


          Mr. Tyner has adequately addressed the subject of sexuality. It is not
          a binary system, and sex acts do not necessarily define sexuality.

          > The issue you raise here is the issue of validity. Here is a story
          > based on numerous true occurrences that should shed light on what I
          > think the flaws of this binary thinking are:

          What binary thinking? Does the apocryphal incident you mentioned really
          have any bearing on the validity of homosexual relationships? What
          you're suggesting is that it is a human duty to reproduce, that anyone
          who chooses not to do so is therefore abandoning his or her duty, and
          that homosexuality is a choice that is therefore an abandonment of duty.
          I disagree with you that reproduction is a duty, and the jury is
          definitely still out on the degree to which homosexuality is a choice.

          And, I can provide you with apocryphal stories that are quite as valid
          as yours, though not nearly as sensational, that support my contention
          that homosexual relationships can be (and generally are) as valid as any
          heterosexual relationship.

          > The whole homosexual controversy is really a product of what
          > constitutes the good life.

          No. The important part of the homosexual controversy is that a group of
          people who have historically been the target of immense discrimination
          are now demanding if not respect, then at least equality before the law.
          Such groups are never homogenous nor without contrary examples, and
          they often go too far in their efforts to redress the wrongs done to
          them, but these things do not detract from the principle that all human
          beings ought to be reasonably free to determine the course of their own
          lives as they see fit.

          > Nature shows us that reproduction is necessary for the survival of
          > the species.

          It also shows us that homosexuality is relatively common and natural
          among mammals.

          > As a byproduct, sex is also a pleasurable act. Marriage
          > was instituted as a way of clarifying reproduction in order to serve
          > the social order.

          Social contracts evolve over time. Marriage is no exception.

          > This view is now going through some modification where partners
          > are seen as equals, but in a hostile world, women were amenable to
          > marriage and becoming chattel because they were at the mercy of men.
          > It was reasonable to look to a man for protection since it beat the
          > alternative.

          Study extant tribal cultures a bit more. Marriage, even among stone age
          cultures, is far more complex, with much more give and take, than simple
          slavery in return for protection.

          > Whether the institution of marriage is logical in modern times is
          > debatable, but it is clear that homosexuals wish to use it to
          > legitimize a judgment that they have made. It's like seeking a
          > presidential pardon for a crime that you did not commit.

          No. It's like seeking equal rights under the law. It's like fighting
          for a recognition of the legitimacy of one's existence in the eyes of
          one's country.

          > Let's look at it another way. You have a guy named Fred who has sex
          > with his goat named Billy. He finds this sex to be very fulfilling
          > and wishes to marry Billy in a civil ceremony. Naturally, the powers
          > that be reject such a thing. Why? Because these two individuals are
          > not the same species. Why should this matter? Who are we to question
          > the mysteries of love?
          > My question to you is this, why is Fred and Billy's relationship not
          > as valid as a homosexual or heterosexual relationship?

          If Billy is as intelligent, mature, and capable of making a sane
          decision as any adult human, then I would see the relationship as
          entirely valid and would have no problem with the two of them marrying.
          Modern marriage is (or at least ought to be) a willing union of
          competent equals. Since Billy is not an equal, it is simply a case of a
          man who abuses an animal for his own pleasure. This is the same
          principal that forbids children and mentally deficient people from
          marrying, and considers sexual relations with them to be rape.

          Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
          Ta i quetes Quenyanen séya vanima
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.