<div class="quote_poster">huevonkiller Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Gay-bashers think homosexuality is irrational, and you said my feelings were irrational, which made me think that your opinion is no better than a gay-basher's or mine (I'm not a gay basher for the record) </div> You said we're making the same argument, but again you didn't clarify what that argument is. You only refer to statements, not arguments. To the extent a gay-basher is making the same arguments I'm making, I'll accept the conclusions he arrives at based on those arguments. I disagree with gay-basher ideas that aren't argument-based or are based on flawed arguments (e.g. it's ok to force gays out of the locker-room because I think it's a sin). Point out a single one of those arguments which I've used elsewhere, and I'll yield and admit I'm a hypocrite. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Yet you imply that you have the logical stance on this issue and didn't seem to be making any "compromises" whatsoever (like admitting when you are wrong in a genetic debate). See below for the rest.</div> Who mentioned anything about compromises? <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">This is the point where I assumed that you were stating that homosexuality is very irrational, in which case I would not understand why you would be defending it. Then you came out later stating you think it is only somewhat irrational (and not as bad as incest for example).</div> I said why I wouldn't call homosexuality rational -- being homosexual is not a choice, it is a condition of being. Only a moron would read that and think I'm implying that homosexuality is wrong and therefore not worth "defending". I don't think you're a moron, so this is puzzling to me. And you claim I later changed my stance to it being only somewhat irrational. Huh? It's like you're just making up things now. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">But you brought up the Constitution did you? I was just stating other "constitutional" things (like separate but equal). </div> Just for the hell of it. I see. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Fear is the incorrect term. It's annoying/gross/deplorable.</div> You might think gay people are annoying/gross/deplorable in general. But it is in the locker-room, where you are vulnerable, that you really have issues with them. That is fear-based. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">In that case, since there aren't that many players on an NBA roster, I would now propose a single stall for bathing/clothing. Problem solved.</div> Sure. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">You said homosexuality being completely natural was a (low) possibility. These are your own words.</div> Alright. I said it was possible. But that's all. Beyond that, I didn't say anything about how likely or unlikely it was. There's a wide gap between "possible" and "likely".
<div class="quote_poster">durvasa Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">You said we're making the same argument, but again you didn't clarify what that argument is. You only refer to statements, not arguments. To the extent a gay-basher is making the same arguments I'm making, I'll accept the conclusions he arrives at based on those arguments. I disagree with gay-basher ideas that aren't argument-based or are based on flawed arguments (e.g. it's ok to force gays out of the locker-room because I think it's a sin). Point out a single one of those arguments which I've used elsewhere, and I'll yield and admit I'm a hypocrite. </div> Those statements, led me to the belief that you were a hypocrite until you clarified that homosexuality is only somewhat irrational in your opinion (once again, I asked you how it was determined that homosexuality was so rational, then you stated it wasn't, so the focus shifted else where). I felt you were criticizing me for determining what is rational/irrational but everyone does the same. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> Who mentioned anything about compromises? </div> Well I've been catering to your points as we move along. You see, I can adjust my views to a degree. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> I said why I wouldn't call homosexuality rational -- being homosexual is not a choice, it is a condition of being. Only a moron would read that and think I'm implying that homosexuality is wrong and therefore not worth "defending". I don't think you're a moron, so this is puzzling to me. </div> A condition of being is not the end all excuse for defending someone. Maniacs have a condition of being. When I thought you implied that homosexuality is as "irrational" as incest, I would not understand why you would defend it. I have realized this not what you meant, so you're not a complete hypocrite; though in your incest post I would declare that you are. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> And you claim I later changed my stance to it being only somewhat irrational. Huh? It's like you're just making up things now. </div> No, I said you were not as clear before as you believe. When I read your "condition of being" comment earlier, that sounded like the symptoms of a crazy person and puzzled me. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> Just for the hell of it. I see. </div> Since we were discussing legalities, I just brought it up. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> You might think gay people are annoying/gross/deplorable in general. But it is in the locker-room, where you are vulnerable, that you really have issues with them. That is fear-based.</div> Somewhat. But not to a large extent. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> Alright. I said it was possible. But that's all. Beyond that, I didn't say anything about how likely or unlikely it was. There's a wide gap between "possible" and "likely".</div> It appeared like wishful thinking.
<div class="quote_poster">huevonkiller Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">With all due respect though, this is where I would claim that you are a hypocrite. What do you mean it's a "psychological" problem that has nothing to do with sexual orientation? Sexual orientation is a psychological problem.</div> Yes, but it is a different psyschological issue; I went over the difference. And I'm merely explaining my reaction to it -- why I find it disturbing. I'm not disturbed by people having a different sexual orientation. Whether incest is wrong is another issue. A lot of the times, it is wrong. In rare circumstances, I don't think it is. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">In your extremely unlikely example, incest isn't as wrong because that couple had no way of knowing they were brother and sister.</div> No, after they learn they are brother and sister. Is it wrong for them to continue to have sex? I say no.
<div class="quote_poster">huevonkiller Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Those statements, led me to the belief that you were a hypocrite until you clarified that homosexuality is only somewhat irrational in your opinion (once again, I asked you how it was determined that homosexuality was so rational, then you stated it wasn't, so the focus shifted else where). I felt you were criticizing me for determining what is rational/irrational but everyone does the same.</div> I don't understand your reasoning here, frankly, but if you no longer believe I was being a hypocrite I'm satisfied.
<div class="quote_poster">durvasa Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Yes, but it is a different psyschological issue; I went over the difference. And I'm merely explaining my reaction to it -- why I find it disturbing. I'm not disturbed by people having a different sexual orientation. Whether incest is wrong is another issue. A lot of the times, it is wrong. In rare circumstances, I don't think it is. </div> But you said: "That's why it is disturbing to me. It indicates either something very wrong about the upbringing, or that you're so mentally disturbed that your relationship as family doesn't override the otherwise natural sexual attraction." That's exactly what one can say about homosexuality. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> No, after they learn they are brother and sister. Is it wrong for them to continue to have sex? I say no.</div> Well in that extremely rare instance I somewhat agree.
<div class="quote_poster">huevonkiller Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">But you said: "That's why it is disturbing to me. It indicates either something very wrong about the upbringing, or that you're so mentally disturbed that your relationship as family doesn't override the otherwise natural sexual attraction." That's exactly what one can say about homosexuality.</div> Which part? The second part about family relationship not overriding a sexual attraction obviously doesn't apply. The first part, yes, one could say that, but it would be for a different reason. If the reasoning is different, then there's no hypocrisy.
<div class="quote_poster">durvasa Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Which part? The second part about family relationship not overriding a sexual attraction obviously doesn't apply. The first part, yes, one could say that, but it would be for a different reason. If the reasoning is different, then there's no hypocrisy.</div> The statement itself is hypocritical though. I'm sure incest is also due to some genetic differences in a person along with psychological problems; in that case it's almost exactly like homosexuality.
<div class="quote_poster">huevonkiller Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">The statement itself is hypocritical though. I'm sure incest is also due to some genetic differences in a person along with psychological problems; in that case it's almost exactly like homosexuality.</div> But they aren't the same. Even if it also involves genetic differences, that's not the reason I find it disturbing. I think I made it clear why I find incest disturbing, and those reasons don't apply to homosexuality. So, no hypocrisy.
<div class="quote_poster">durvasa Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">But they aren't the same. Even if it also involves genetic differences, that's not the reason I find it disturbing. I think I made it clear why I find incest disturbing, and those reasons don't apply to homosexuality. So, no hypocrisy.</div> Yes, you presume that since it has nothing to do with sexual orientation, that it is a different matter; but I do not see things that way. The reasons why you find incest disturbing are similar to the the reasons I find homosexuality disturbing, yet it seems that you can't see the similarities. Both paths appear to go off the natural direction one is supposed to go.
<div class="quote_poster">huevonkiller Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Yes, you presume that since it has nothing to do with sexual orientation, that it is a different matter; but I do not see things that way. The reasons why you find incest disturbing are similar to the the reasons I find homosexuality disturbing, yet it seems that you can't see the similarities. </div> This is my reason (quoting myself): "Your relationship as family doesn't override the otherwise natural sexual attraction. " Is that why you find homosexuality disturbing? Yes or no. Also, it makes no sense to call someone a hypocrite based on what they find disturbing. Being disturbed by something is an emotional reaction. You can't argue that something is disturbing, you can only explain why it disturbed you. People can have contradictory emotional reactions, but it doesn't make sense to have a hypocritical emotional reaction.
<div class="quote_poster">durvasa Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">This is my reason (quoting myself): "Your relationship as family doesn't override the otherwise natural sexual attraction. " Is that why you find homosexuality disturbing? Yes or no. </div> Now tell me, why should a relationship as a family member override the sexual attraction? <div class="quote_poster">Quoting durvasa:</div><div class="quote_post"> Also, it makes no sense to call someone a hypocrite based on what they find disturbing. Being disturbed by something is an emotional reaction. You can' targue that something is disturbing, you can only explain why it disturbed you.</div> Let's define hypocrite then: <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> hyp?o?crite /ˈhɪpəkrɪt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[hip-uh-krit] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1.a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs. 2.a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, esp. one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.</div> <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> be?lie /bɪˈlaɪ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[bi-lahy] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –verb (used with object), -lied, -ly?ing. 1. to show to be false; contradict: His trembling hands belied his calm voice.</div> You've made some contradictions that you can't seem to understand. At the same time, you don't necessarily feign an approved public attitude, so you can't be considered a hypocrite it seems. Though I would still claim that you're mildly doublethinking: <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Doublethink is an integral concept in George Orwell's dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, and is the act of holding two contradictory beliefs simultaneously, fervently believing both.</div>
<div class="quote_poster">huevonkiller Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Now tell me, why should a relationship as a family member override the sexual attraction?</div> I don't know why it should. I just know that I'm personally disgusted by the idea of having such relations with family members. So the idea itself is just disturbing. I can't explain it any further then that. Two men having sex is kind of gross, in a different way, but I'm not nearly as disturbed by it. Two women having sex -- no problems there . <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Let's define hypocrite then:</div> This is the definition you are referencing: "1.a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs." This doesn't apply here, because I'm not explaining why I think incest is wrong. That is a moral judgement. I'm explaining why I find it disturbing. Two different things. I've made this distinction already.
<div class="quote_poster">durvasa Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">I don't know why it should. I just know that I'm personally disgusted by the idea of having such relations with family members. So the idea itself is just disturbing. I can't explain it any further then that. Two men having sex is kind of gross, for different reasons, but I'm not nearly as disturbed by it. Two women having sex -- no problems there . </div> It doesn't seem natural or appropriate, that's why. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> This is the definition you are referencing: "1.a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs." This doesn't apply here, because I'm not explaining why I think incest is wrong. That is a moral judgement. I'm explaining why I find it disturbing. Two different things. I've made this distinction already.</div> Right, you're not a hypocrite (only because by definition, a hypocrite has to have poor moral character), but you don't think you've made any contradictions?
<div class="quote_poster">huevonkiller Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">It doesn't seem natural or appropriate, that's why. </div> I don't find incest disturbing because it seems inappropriate. Thinking something is inappropriate is a moral judgement. Different. As for it not seeming natural, true. It doesn't seem natural. But that alone doesn't explain why I find it so disturbing. There are lots of things that don't "seem natural" to me which I just shrug at. All sorts of weird sex fetishes out there which I can not relate to. Most don't bother me. Incest however strikes a different chord for me, due to how it subverts family relations. Surely you're not disturbed equally by all things that seem unnatural to you. And that doesn't mean you're contradicting yourself. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Right, you're not a hypocrite (only because by definition, a hypocrite has to have poor moral character), but you don't think you've made any contradictions?</div> In the discussion we're having in this thread, I don't think so.
Durvasa, at the beginning of this thread you criticized people for having negative views towards gays without having (what you believed were) rational reasons why. Yet know you are deploring incest for the same reaons we criticized homosexuality (because you think its wrong). I think incest is disgusting too, but you kind of contradicted yourself here.
<div class="quote_poster">XSV Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Durvasa, at the beginning of this thread you criticized people for having negative views towards gays without having (what you believed were) rational reasons why. Yet know you are deploring incest for the same reaons we criticized homosexuality (because you think its wrong). I think incest is disgusting too, but you kind of contradicted yourself here.</div> I never criticized anyone for thinking homosexuality is disgusting. What Hardaway, and others in this thread, have said goes far beyond that.
<div class="quote_poster">durvasa Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">I don't find incest disturbing because it seems inappropriate. Thinking something is inappropriate is a moral judgement. Different. As for it not seeming natural, true. It doesn't seem natural. But that alone doesn't explain why I find it so disturbing. There are lots of things that don't "seem natural" to me which I just shrug at. All sorts of weird sex fetishes out there which I can not relate to. Most don't bother me. Incest however strikes a different chord for me, due to how it subverts family relations. Surely you're not disturbed equally by all things that seem unnatural to you. And that doesn't mean you're contradicting yourself.</div> Homosexuality strikes a chord with me because it subverts the natural emotions towards the opposite sex or eliminates the natural disgust of being with the same sex. Just because one is born in that fashion doesn't necessarily excuse it either. The reasons why anyone would detest incest will always be similar to the reasons I dislike homosexuality. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> In the discussion we're having in this thread, I don't think so.</div> Hmm, I'll comment on this later.
