A late response to John C. Wright
So maybe you've heard of a post made by John C. Wright. (scifi author of Children of Chaos, among others. Sad. I've read and it was decent, though the BDSM tones in the second half bothered me at first. Ironic, but it's from before he found Christ, so it's understandable..)
This post here.
It's a delightful post about how newly-renamed Syfy has been rated F by GLAAD on the homosexual characters present in its programs. Syfy has responded to this F with a public statement that they're going to get better, there will be at least 5 next season, and they're going to be natural---rather than flamboyant stereotypes, it will simply be a part of life. Sounds cool to me, but John C. Wright feels this is evidence of moral degradation. Groups are increasingly pushing public entertainment to display perversion in a manner that depicts it as acceptable. His slippery slope asks what next? Incest? Bestiality? And so on. His complaint was housed in the assumption that homosexuality is irrational and a perversion... and he demands that Leftists, being so proud of their rational intelligence, respond to his questions rationally.
Unfortunately, even as I was writing my response post, the replies were already up to 9 pages. By the time I finished, the post had already been locked and edited with four points to the primary categories of responders. I intend to be part of group 2: those who return after the flaming for reasonable conversations.
At any rate, feel free to follow the link, check out the original post, and see what discussions on it you can find! I found the post via a post on BiPolyPaganKinkyGamerGeek (http://community.livejournal.com/bipolypagangeek/985785.htm;) but that post is largely remarks of boycott and suggestions as to better authors to read, after we get over the feeling of vomit in our mouths.
I am not certain that the only cause of sexual desire is an imperative to reproduce. Your argument seems to include this as part of its basis. I point to the fragment "an irrational lust and longing to mimic the mating act with a sex with which one cannot mate," which seems to imply that the only rational lust is a mating act in which one can mate and produce offspring. Was that the intention? I would appreciate a response clarifying, and in the meantime I will proceed on that assumption.
Interaction of a sexual nature, without the intention of producing offspring, is not an innately new concept. The increasingly widespread acceptance such interaction may be, but I have no basis to be certain. Historical persons kept harems or regular prostitutes; was this for the sake of producing offspring? Legally illegitimate offspring have not typically been considered family. Was this, too, a perversion?
Well, possibly, and I can see that you might describe it as such. Either the harem is there for producing offspring, or they are there for expressing and venting sexual energy. However, sex does not occur only for the sake of reproduction. It is also used as a means of gaining power, and as a means of expressing and increasing closeness. These both still respond to the issue of sex, and not desire. I shall now present a different issue.
I suspect that, in your beliefs, sex should occur only within the sanctity of marriage; I see argument against adultery, but nothing regarding marriage. While I was taught that sex is not casual and should not be considered as such (due to the risks of disease and psychological harm), I have never believed that it is only for the sake of a married husband and wife to produce children. If I did, I would have to withhold sex from the sufficiently elderly and the infertile. I am aware of no reason for that restriction.
I realize that what you said was "the mating act with a SEX with which one cannot mate." Once a couple realizes that one or both of them is infertile, what now? If divorce is immoral, and marriage is for life, they are now together. Do we bar them from raising children? Perhaps we allow them to adopt, and raise those children. Do we bar the infertile couple from having sex, then? It is now merely "mimic[ing] the mating act", after all. Either we answer yes, and let it be known that this act is immoral, or we say no. If we say no, then on what grounds does the basis against homosexuality remain? Once one exception is present, then any others barred for the same reasons cannot be justly barred.
This does not lead a slippery slope to pedophilia, bestiality, incest, or necrophilia. In the first two cases, the issue of consent remains; the child or animal may be unable to make the decision to consent. In the first three, respect and loyalty may cloud judgment or slow the reaction of refusal sufficiently for the act to occur. In the last consent remains an issue, as the dead are not typically understood to speak.
Polygamy may remain a possible outcome. I intentionally used the term 'couple' before, but part of the issue here is "what is the purpose of sexual desire?" I do not agree that its sole purpose is the creation of progeny. I, personally, have no issue with that outcome. Responsible people who are willing to acknowledge their hopes and fears, and live accordingly, can potentially make any system of life work. I have issue when people are enslaved by marriage "agreements" arrived at through force, at remote cults in which people are raped, and the like. These are not representative of polygamy, any more than the beaten housewife and the drunkard husband who threatens their children if she should try to leave is representative of monogamy, or the orgy-crazed drug-addicted gay man is representative of homosexuality. These are their darker extremes and stereotypes, and the issue is with people living badly.
Ultimately, much as I would like to, I cannot rationally defend the Leftist position due simply to the terminology used in your questions. I do not perceive homosexuality to be a "serious-psychological malfunction," a "sexual perversion," "moral decay," or an "irrational lust." Thus, I cannot answer questions that categorize homosexuality in this way, except to say "please redefine your terms, you are making irrational claims, how can I respond rationally?"
I agree that political correctness is an issue. It should be no great surprise that the entertainment industry is concerned with what people think of them; profits emerge from ratings. Groups like GLAAD provide the service of warning the industry of the expectations of various groups of people. That they make these announcements public enables we the people to observe the industry's reaction, and decide whether we wish to patronize them.
I do not try to defend the Leftist argument for enforcing ~political correctness~ because I do not agree with its actions. I think we should not exclude groups---but forcibly including them is even more worthless. I prefer seeing a show in which all the characters are male to one which has a token female. Token characters are usually stereotypes, and do nothing to further the intention of the cause---which is to represent the diversity inherent within us.
In a way, I suppose that is an answer to your original question. There is no single right way, at least not in a "everyone knows this to be right." There is no single right way of living. There is no single right way of approaching love, life, sorrow, growing up, sex, or dying. There are different ways, developed due to the many different situations we grow up, the many different aptitudes and preferences we have. To claim that there is, to describe that way, excludes many people. To present through the entertainment industry, "look, this is us, this is what we wish to be," is problematic if no characters appear that we identify with. So some of us complain to the industry, some of us form committees and groups and speak loudly about the issues we see.
I spent my response picking apart your argument. Not ad hominem, but revealing gaps in your argument, pointing out that a base assumption in your questions is irrational.
It is unfortunate that you claim no rational opinion will emerge, and that all Leftists are as one incapable of rational argument. Hyperbole makes your claims inaccurate. That you state it, seemingly so earnestly, makes me doubt you would acknowledge any rational argument that might be given as a response.
Also unfortunate is that, since I'm late arriving at this post, I doubt you'll be responding anyway. 9 pages of comments thus far, and this post has been linked to from quite a few locations.
This post here.
It's a delightful post about how newly-renamed Syfy has been rated F by GLAAD on the homosexual characters present in its programs. Syfy has responded to this F with a public statement that they're going to get better, there will be at least 5 next season, and they're going to be natural---rather than flamboyant stereotypes, it will simply be a part of life. Sounds cool to me, but John C. Wright feels this is evidence of moral degradation. Groups are increasingly pushing public entertainment to display perversion in a manner that depicts it as acceptable. His slippery slope asks what next? Incest? Bestiality? And so on. His complaint was housed in the assumption that homosexuality is irrational and a perversion... and he demands that Leftists, being so proud of their rational intelligence, respond to his questions rationally.
Unfortunately, even as I was writing my response post, the replies were already up to 9 pages. By the time I finished, the post had already been locked and edited with four points to the primary categories of responders. I intend to be part of group 2: those who return after the flaming for reasonable conversations.
At any rate, feel free to follow the link, check out the original post, and see what discussions on it you can find! I found the post via a post on BiPolyPaganKinkyGamerGeek (http://community.livejournal.com/bipolypagangeek/985785.htm;) but that post is largely remarks of boycott and suggestions as to better authors to read, after we get over the feeling of vomit in our mouths.
I am not certain that the only cause of sexual desire is an imperative to reproduce. Your argument seems to include this as part of its basis. I point to the fragment "an irrational lust and longing to mimic the mating act with a sex with which one cannot mate," which seems to imply that the only rational lust is a mating act in which one can mate and produce offspring. Was that the intention? I would appreciate a response clarifying, and in the meantime I will proceed on that assumption.
Interaction of a sexual nature, without the intention of producing offspring, is not an innately new concept. The increasingly widespread acceptance such interaction may be, but I have no basis to be certain. Historical persons kept harems or regular prostitutes; was this for the sake of producing offspring? Legally illegitimate offspring have not typically been considered family. Was this, too, a perversion?
Well, possibly, and I can see that you might describe it as such. Either the harem is there for producing offspring, or they are there for expressing and venting sexual energy. However, sex does not occur only for the sake of reproduction. It is also used as a means of gaining power, and as a means of expressing and increasing closeness. These both still respond to the issue of sex, and not desire. I shall now present a different issue.
I suspect that, in your beliefs, sex should occur only within the sanctity of marriage; I see argument against adultery, but nothing regarding marriage. While I was taught that sex is not casual and should not be considered as such (due to the risks of disease and psychological harm), I have never believed that it is only for the sake of a married husband and wife to produce children. If I did, I would have to withhold sex from the sufficiently elderly and the infertile. I am aware of no reason for that restriction.
I realize that what you said was "the mating act with a SEX with which one cannot mate." Once a couple realizes that one or both of them is infertile, what now? If divorce is immoral, and marriage is for life, they are now together. Do we bar them from raising children? Perhaps we allow them to adopt, and raise those children. Do we bar the infertile couple from having sex, then? It is now merely "mimic[ing] the mating act", after all. Either we answer yes, and let it be known that this act is immoral, or we say no. If we say no, then on what grounds does the basis against homosexuality remain? Once one exception is present, then any others barred for the same reasons cannot be justly barred.
This does not lead a slippery slope to pedophilia, bestiality, incest, or necrophilia. In the first two cases, the issue of consent remains; the child or animal may be unable to make the decision to consent. In the first three, respect and loyalty may cloud judgment or slow the reaction of refusal sufficiently for the act to occur. In the last consent remains an issue, as the dead are not typically understood to speak.
Polygamy may remain a possible outcome. I intentionally used the term 'couple' before, but part of the issue here is "what is the purpose of sexual desire?" I do not agree that its sole purpose is the creation of progeny. I, personally, have no issue with that outcome. Responsible people who are willing to acknowledge their hopes and fears, and live accordingly, can potentially make any system of life work. I have issue when people are enslaved by marriage "agreements" arrived at through force, at remote cults in which people are raped, and the like. These are not representative of polygamy, any more than the beaten housewife and the drunkard husband who threatens their children if she should try to leave is representative of monogamy, or the orgy-crazed drug-addicted gay man is representative of homosexuality. These are their darker extremes and stereotypes, and the issue is with people living badly.
Ultimately, much as I would like to, I cannot rationally defend the Leftist position due simply to the terminology used in your questions. I do not perceive homosexuality to be a "serious-psychological malfunction," a "sexual perversion," "moral decay," or an "irrational lust." Thus, I cannot answer questions that categorize homosexuality in this way, except to say "please redefine your terms, you are making irrational claims, how can I respond rationally?"
I agree that political correctness is an issue. It should be no great surprise that the entertainment industry is concerned with what people think of them; profits emerge from ratings. Groups like GLAAD provide the service of warning the industry of the expectations of various groups of people. That they make these announcements public enables we the people to observe the industry's reaction, and decide whether we wish to patronize them.
I do not try to defend the Leftist argument for enforcing ~political correctness~ because I do not agree with its actions. I think we should not exclude groups---but forcibly including them is even more worthless. I prefer seeing a show in which all the characters are male to one which has a token female. Token characters are usually stereotypes, and do nothing to further the intention of the cause---which is to represent the diversity inherent within us.
In a way, I suppose that is an answer to your original question. There is no single right way, at least not in a "everyone knows this to be right." There is no single right way of living. There is no single right way of approaching love, life, sorrow, growing up, sex, or dying. There are different ways, developed due to the many different situations we grow up, the many different aptitudes and preferences we have. To claim that there is, to describe that way, excludes many people. To present through the entertainment industry, "look, this is us, this is what we wish to be," is problematic if no characters appear that we identify with. So some of us complain to the industry, some of us form committees and groups and speak loudly about the issues we see.
I spent my response picking apart your argument. Not ad hominem, but revealing gaps in your argument, pointing out that a base assumption in your questions is irrational.
It is unfortunate that you claim no rational opinion will emerge, and that all Leftists are as one incapable of rational argument. Hyperbole makes your claims inaccurate. That you state it, seemingly so earnestly, makes me doubt you would acknowledge any rational argument that might be given as a response.
Also unfortunate is that, since I'm late arriving at this post, I doubt you'll be responding anyway. 9 pages of comments thus far, and this post has been linked to from quite a few locations.