TheMulletMutilator
Member
What does it matter what the worst President in our nation's history believes? Obama has me wishing for the days of Jimmy Carter.
Obama vs. Beantown
- Thread starter Beantown
- Start date
prodigal punk
Member
This easily qualifies as one of the most misguided posts in JazzFanz history. People aren't "pilin' on" Bean because its the cool thing to do, they are doing it because he is ignorant. You and franklin can try and play the role of protectors of poor Bean, but that doesn't change the fact that he gets what is thrown at him by completely ignoring the facts that are laid before him. old_sage has given him some pretty stark and irrefutable evidence that what he claims is false and Bean completely ignores it- he doesn't even acknowledge these things were stated. Your attempt to turn him into the victim does nothing but make it easier to lump you into the same category. Any way you spin it some people feel it is wrong to allow the type of ignorance that Bean has demonstrated to go unchecked. Do they think they will change his mind? Probably not. If he was open to new ideas he probably wouldn't have the stance he has, in the first place.
I am confident that Sage has been arguing for the sole purpose of establishing correctness. I don't think he has been "piling on" at all.
Bean's biggest mistake has been the compulsion to explain his position. As I stated before, I believe the crux of his belief is that heterosexual relationships are special. This is, more than likely, based heavily (if not solely) on his religion. But, he feels the the need to explain his faith in a biological context. This hasn't gone so well. He would be better off to state "This is what I believe, that's it."
I am still trying to figure out what is so damned dangerous about Bean believing as he does. It certainly isn't any worse than automatically categorizing someone as IGNORANT or CLOSE-MINDED, just because they don't happen to agree with you (I am stating this generally, BTW. It is not aimed at anyone in particular.)
As long as I'm rambling:
MOE: I am not opposed to gay marriage, but I think the ideal solution would to be for the gov't to only recognize civil unions - gay or straight. Everyone gets the same rights, benefits, responsibilities, etc. Let churches have their "marriages". Then if you're hit on by a stranger, you can say "Sorry, I'm unionized."
in all fairness to the English language, sometimes (for me at least) it is not so much the ideas that Beantown expresses as it is the awkward way he has of expressing them.
and I'm not talking about situations where a word or two is misspelled, or a word is used in the wrong context, or the wrong (pardon the expression) homonym is used, but sentences that are constructed in a way that makes it difficult to discern what is really being said. Bean really only seems to have this problem when he is trying to discuss particular issues relating to evolution and homosexuality, so perhaps it's just such an emotional issue for him that he gets his words mixed up.
That may sound to you like I'm "pilin' it on" Beantown just because he's "easy pickins", I don't know. But I'm not, and I give Beantown credit to realize that's not at all what I'm doing.
And I am still waiting for a response to my earlier question - even if it's just "I'm not sure" it'd be something.
edit: it took me a while to compose my post, and now I notice that Bronco's posted a response - - anybody else miss the function on the old board where it warned you that a new post had been made?
and in response to Bronco, I would say I agree, as long as "marriage" is used only in sense to describe the ceremony that may be performed, and not in any sort of a legal sense.
and I'm not talking about situations where a word or two is misspelled, or a word is used in the wrong context, or the wrong (pardon the expression) homonym is used, but sentences that are constructed in a way that makes it difficult to discern what is really being said. Bean really only seems to have this problem when he is trying to discuss particular issues relating to evolution and homosexuality, so perhaps it's just such an emotional issue for him that he gets his words mixed up.
That may sound to you like I'm "pilin' it on" Beantown just because he's "easy pickins", I don't know. But I'm not, and I give Beantown credit to realize that's not at all what I'm doing.
And I am still waiting for a response to my earlier question - even if it's just "I'm not sure" it'd be something.
edit: it took me a while to compose my post, and now I notice that Bronco's posted a response - - anybody else miss the function on the old board where it warned you that a new post had been made?
and in response to Bronco, I would say I agree, as long as "marriage" is used only in sense to describe the ceremony that may be performed, and not in any sort of a legal sense.
and furthermore, since it is somewhat related to the topic, I'd like to come out of the closet and announce that I'm proud of both Beantown and Archie Moses for the way they have learned to handle the "slings and arrows" that some of us frequently dish out. For the most part, they do a great job resisting the urge to engage in "bro-biting" or reacting in ways that further fan the flames and I think they deserve credit for that. I'll probably get a gazillion negative rep points for saying this, but so be it.
Beantown
Well-Known Member
Moe, let me list some things for you and maybe this will help understand me better.
-I believe homosexual relations should have 100% the same rights as heterosexuals. Even with adoption. In a perfect world I would love every child to have a mother and father. But there are too many children needing loving parents that this makes my perfect world an impossibility.
-I believe the term "marriage" has always been assoctiated with as a hetorosexuality and family. Family is where I believe marriage has biological meaning. Since heterosexual relations are the only ones to be able to create genetic families that go beyond generations.
-I believe one of the biggest social problems is the disrespect of the power of reprodcution. I believe pushing the relations to be viewed as "equal" takes us further into this direction. I think we are better off accepting and acknowledging all our differences.
-Also Moe in response to my "grammar issues". 95% of my posts come from my Iphone from work (like this one) while I am doing other work. So I dont really re-read anything I wrote. So there probably are quite a bit of mistakes.
thanks Bean. In response to your first point, I think we probably agree more than we disagree. The next two points are where I'd say we probably have major areas of disagreement. As to your last point, I do agree that it can be difficult to be completely coherent under various circumstances, and I realize errors and things do occur. But for whatever the reason, I think the way you express yourself on certain topics adds to the difficulty others may have in following your reasoning.
TheItinerantSon
Well-Known Member
Is homophobia associated with homosexual arousal? Henry E. Adams, Lester W. Wright, Jr., and Bethany A. Lohr. University of Georgia. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 92, 49-54. Bernstein, G. S. (1994)
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBYQFjAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.psychologytoday.com%2Ffiles%2Fu47%2FHenry_et_al.pdf&ei=7lpkTJecHIOClAfT4fn-CQ&usg=AFQjCNHmFLG8n9XqGXtSmXz9OS7MATLMug&sig2=bukLZ_N2NffWyiE0YKApdw
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBYQFjAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.psychologytoday.com%2Ffiles%2Fu47%2FHenry_et_al.pdf&ei=7lpkTJecHIOClAfT4fn-CQ&usg=AFQjCNHmFLG8n9XqGXtSmXz9OS7MATLMug&sig2=bukLZ_N2NffWyiE0YKApdw
C l u t c H 385
Banned
haha, homophobia? what a stupid word.
NAOS
Well-Known Member
fixed.
C l u t c H 385
Banned
You didn't. He just thinks he's clever.
NAOS
Well-Known Member
Why can't I leave this alone? Here is a little play-by-play of Beanturd's philosophy...
His thinking starts from a perfect (edenic?) whole: the world as it should be. These ideas are clearly religiously inspired (probably Mormonism since the emphasis is on family and he makes repeated reference to genealogies). We can also probably assume that he sees his family, his race, and his self as the defining SUBJECT of power with respect to the structure of family and it's importance in the human story. In other words, if everyone were to follow those rules, which he embodies and ultimately defines, then the world would in fact be a perfect place and this issue would be null; it seems that the issue of homosexuality may just vanish. Jumping ahead, because the world doesn't follow these prescriptions it is flawed. We have fallen from Eden. Because of this beanturd is, from his position of moral authority, deciding that he should open his heart to the lesser and let them love each other and the less fortunate children born outside of his plan for nature (please note the position of power he is in, and how many times I am forced to write the words "he" and "his". Everybody else in this story gets their name from him: "homosexuals", "sinners", etc.). Note: his whole argument is pinned on the perfection of the original whole. This kind of metaphysics was proven to be entirely irrational back in the 17th century as a consequence of Spinoza's proofs. P.S. that was a LONG time ago.
here Beanturd is employing a semantic hook. The very essence of the word "marriage" is supposed to smack me across the face with some kind of truth. Well, there has never been a word in the history of language that maintained a static meaning. If it is important to people's experiences, then it is alive and re-interpreted constantly. Let's not forget that in the US the legal definition of the word "person" at one point didn't include people of African descent. Privileging the essence of a word is, in a word, retarded.
We jump from the essence of "marriage" to the essence of "family". At this point every problem with his restrictive and incorrect assumptions of biology come to the fore. See my previous posts.
This first statement is a puzzling (and, I suspect, incomplete) statement. I'd guess it is loaded with religious, social, and political opinions against anybody that dares to tread on straight sex in any context. This is tied to his concept of Eden and vision of nature: if people respected reproduction in that way, then, bam! problem solved. Then, he confuses "equal" with respect to the law with "equal" in body, feeling, and (I have to take it here) purity. This is obviously an egregious political/legal error. How empty does this last sentence feel to you? Let's acknowledge our difference so that I can show you what is special and what is not!
His thinking starts from a perfect (edenic?) whole: the world as it should be. These ideas are clearly religiously inspired (probably Mormonism since the emphasis is on family and he makes repeated reference to genealogies). We can also probably assume that he sees his family, his race, and his self as the defining SUBJECT of power with respect to the structure of family and it's importance in the human story. In other words, if everyone were to follow those rules, which he embodies and ultimately defines, then the world would in fact be a perfect place and this issue would be null; it seems that the issue of homosexuality may just vanish. Jumping ahead, because the world doesn't follow these prescriptions it is flawed. We have fallen from Eden. Because of this beanturd is, from his position of moral authority, deciding that he should open his heart to the lesser and let them love each other and the less fortunate children born outside of his plan for nature (please note the position of power he is in, and how many times I am forced to write the words "he" and "his". Everybody else in this story gets their name from him: "homosexuals", "sinners", etc.). Note: his whole argument is pinned on the perfection of the original whole. This kind of metaphysics was proven to be entirely irrational back in the 17th century as a consequence of Spinoza's proofs. P.S. that was a LONG time ago.
here Beanturd is employing a semantic hook. The very essence of the word "marriage" is supposed to smack me across the face with some kind of truth. Well, there has never been a word in the history of language that maintained a static meaning. If it is important to people's experiences, then it is alive and re-interpreted constantly. Let's not forget that in the US the legal definition of the word "person" at one point didn't include people of African descent. Privileging the essence of a word is, in a word, retarded.
We jump from the essence of "marriage" to the essence of "family". At this point every problem with his restrictive and incorrect assumptions of biology come to the fore. See my previous posts.
This first statement is a puzzling (and, I suspect, incomplete) statement. I'd guess it is loaded with religious, social, and political opinions against anybody that dares to tread on straight sex in any context. This is tied to his concept of Eden and vision of nature: if people respected reproduction in that way, then, bam! problem solved. Then, he confuses "equal" with respect to the law with "equal" in body, feeling, and (I have to take it here) purity. This is obviously an egregious political/legal error. How empty does this last sentence feel to you? Let's acknowledge our difference so that I can show you what is special and what is not!
NAOS
Well-Known Member
A philosophy that provides a true acceptance of difference doesn't start from the idea of an original, pure WHOLE. With respect to the issue of sexuality that means that we must throw away the general categories of "heterosexual" and "homosexual" because, logically speaking, that would be making this same error: the general category, or whole, subsumes the particular experience. In other words, there is no "heterosexual" and there is no "homosexual"; every body has different desires. You can imagine a spectrum ranging from hetero- to homo-sexual if it makes it easier for you. In this vision the outer edges become logical operators, impossible to achieve fully: everybody is somewhere in between. Desires, I can assure you, are capable of taking many different shapes. Our ideologies constrain them. In a different time and place, Beanturd would get turned on by different things; these different things would be more or less on the side of the masculine ideal that he currently strives for.
In this context, the desire for life-long partnership and even the desire to raise offspring can/should be seen as a completely different problem with a mind-blowingly large number of solutions depending on the context.
In this context, the desire for life-long partnership and even the desire to raise offspring can/should be seen as a completely different problem with a mind-blowingly large number of solutions depending on the context.
First of all, I don't believe it's an "either - or" proposition. Furthermore, I categorically do not like the way you use the term "equal" in this sense - - no relationship of any sort is equal to any other relationship - - just like apples are not equal to oranges. They have similarities, they have differences - they may have equal nutritional value for some components, they may have equal size and weight in some cases, but that still doesn't make apples equal to oranges.
So I would say the best course of action is to recognize areas of similarity as well as areas where there are differences. It is not just one or the other.
As to N_A_O_S - maybe it should be New_Animosity_Old_Stupidity.
I'll just say that one of my peeves is when someone takes another's post, quotes it with their own changes and calls it "Fixed" Sometimes it's done with good humor and it's funny, but when it's done purely for the sake of animosity and derision, it's not so funny to me.
New_Anonymity_Old_Sage said:
But I will say that the points you make in your last post (quoted above) reflect my line of reasoning as well. I too believe that there is a spectrum, and I think it's difficult to know for sure how much cultural and societal norms influences our behaviors. I also think our knowledge on this subject is evolving (LOL) and it's difficult to predict what science may discover in the future.
That's a GREAT question!
I wish I had a quarter for every time you pledged an end to the futile exercise that is arguing with Beantown.
Seriously, life has more to offer...
You will learn.
Hopper
Banned
Wow, Mo! You're really comin out swingin, these here days, eh? Just sayin whatcha thinks, and lettin da damn chips falls where they may, and all. Good work, Darlin!
By the way, I agrees witcha bout NAOS (eous), not that I don't agree bout nuthin else, just aint got nuthin to add, really. Mebbe knowin I agrees will make ya changes your mind about the poor boy, eh?
NAOS
Well-Known Member
haha, I sat down to eat a snack, started browsing, and then couldn't help it.
I knew before I started typing that Beanturd was lost. If there is any value in my posts (which there needn't be, actually, beyond me getting ideas out) it will probably be through making Beanturd an example of tired religio-political views. That would be great, actually.
If he wants to keep going, now I've got all my troops lined up for the political issues. I'm guessing he will continue on his way: no substantive response to my points, just chugging along.