Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

First openly gay bishop

LGBT Religion

  • Please log in to reply
261 replies to this topic

#241 Cardie

Cardie

    I'm a very *good* tailor

  • Administrator
  • 22,632 posts

Posted 09 August 2003 - 08:50 AM

Delvo, there are situations where people turn to the partner who is at hand, despite having desires that are either for the opposite sex or the same sex. I'm sure many of the men who have relations with other men in prison would only choose women on the outside. Conversely, many gays in the closet, like Bishop Robinson himself, have sexual relations with the opposite sex and often marry. Just as you can have homosexual or heterosexual desires but never act on them, for instance by remaining celibate, so you can have sexual desires that will seize upon any port in a storm, so to speak. There are also many cultures that believe that as long as one is taking the male role as the penetrator, the repository is immaterial. In these cultures it is only the man who desires the "female" position who is deemed deviant.

Some people who have sexual relations with both the opposite and the same sex do indeed have bisexual desires. Others, I would posit, do not.

Cardie
Nothing succeeds like excess.

#242 GiGi

GiGi

    Lipstick wearing PIG kisser!

  • Islander
  • 8,774 posts

Posted 09 August 2003 - 12:04 PM

Delvo, on Aug 8 2003, 07:50 PM, said:

It wouldn't matter if they did or didn't. English words don't depend on foreign ones for their meanings. And heterosexuality is sexual attraction only to members of the OPPOSITE sex. Yes, there are people who can be turned on by both sexes, but there's a word for that too, in English, and it's not heterosexual. It's bisexual. It's not about what any culture does or doesn't accept. It's just what the words mean. If you fit the description that defines one word and not the other one, then you can't be accurately referred to by the other word whose definition does not describe you! I really can't imagine what's making this so difficult for you.
How can an English speaking person interpret the "word of God" as written in the Bible without knowing the language and culture of the original book?

We can't, but we do and we end up with misinterpretations that can cause wars.

I don't know where you live, but here in the Bay area we have many cultures living in one area.  Knowing what will offend ones neighbor is very important.  For instance sitting on the floor with one's feet pointing at a Middle Eastern person is a grave insult.  If that person is also a revered teacher the insult is grievous.  So there are even unspoken customs and perspectives that color how a culture looks at the world around them.  Knowing these things are important to interpreting what someone of that culture is saying in any given circumstance.

If one is to take the "word of God" as the pillar of their live, then misinterpretations of words can have great impact.  And since the original language of the Bible is Aramaic, what matters is what the word means to them, since they are the originators.

I feel that it is quite ignorant to think our Western/English interpretation of a situation is the right way to interpret a Holy Book.  I really feel that the Archbishop has at least studied the culture of the orginators of the Bible to come up with the interpretation that he has, because he is really right on.
"Life is as dear to a mute creature as it is to man. Just as one wants happiness and fears pain, just as one wants to live and not die, so do all creatures." -- HH The Dalai Lama

#243 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 09 August 2003 - 12:13 PM

Quote

It wouldn't matter if they did or didn't. English words don't depend on foreign ones for their meanings.

That's one of your more outrageous statements.

Clearly you have never studied word origins.

:wacko:
Posted Image

#244 Norville

Norville
  • Islander
  • 4,501 posts

Posted 09 August 2003 - 01:23 PM

Quote

English words don't depend on foreign ones for their meanings.

:lol: Of course, sir, of course. Believe whatever you like. :wideeyed:
"The dew has fallen with a particularly sickening thud this morning."
- Marvin the Paranoid Android, "Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy"

Rules for Surviving an Autocracy
Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
http://www.nybooks.c...s-for-survival/

#245 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 09 August 2003 - 01:43 PM

Una Salus Lillius, on Aug 9 2003, 11:13 AM, said:

Quote

It wouldn't matter if they did or didn't. English words don't depend on foreign ones for their meanings.

That's one of your more outrageous statements.

Clearly you have never studied word origins.

:wacko:
O gewd gawd, you could try paying at least SOME attention here. It might help you pick an insult that has something to do with what we're talking about instead of this kind of random nonsensical unrelated stuff. A word can come from a foreign word, yes, but that has nothing to do with the fact that an English word means what it means and trying to confuse people into acting otherwise by yakking about differences between cultures (a completely unrelated subject) isn't going to make English words suddenly mean something they DON'T mean. You can't make "heterosexual" not mean "heterosexual" just by saying that sometimes an English word comes from another language, any more than you can make it not mean "heterosexual" by giving examples of BIsexuality.

#246 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 09 August 2003 - 01:46 PM

Norville, on Aug 9 2003, 12:23 PM, said:

:lol: Of course, sir, of course. Believe whatever you like. :wideeyed:
I can't. Unlike you followers of the Red Queen, I'm stuck with reality.

#247 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 09 August 2003 - 01:48 PM

^

Hysterical much?

I suppose this is when your *real* um, command of the English language comes into play.:p

Delvo, the fact is that you said that English words don't depend on foreign ones for their meaning.

This statement is patently ridiculous.

Lil
Posted Image

#248 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 09 August 2003 - 01:56 PM

Una Salus Lillius, on Aug 9 2003, 12:48 PM, said:

you said that English words don't depend on foreign ones for their meaning.

This statement is patently ridiculous.
No, THAT claim is ridiculous. If this whole denial on certain people's part that words MEAN things weren't so mind-blowingly irrelevant to the topic of the thread, I'd ask you for ANY examples of English words that suddenly meant something new because someone had pointed out some facet of a foreign culture or language. No matter how much we learn about other cultures OR languages, a dog is still a dog, a tree is still a tree, and heterosexuality is still heterosexuality.

The depth of liberals' denial about certain words' meanings knows no bounds... nor, apparently, do the lengths to which some of them will go to defend their outlandish pretenses about those words...

#249 Blondie

Blondie

    The Peroxide Jihad

  • Dead account
  • 687 posts

Posted 09 August 2003 - 02:28 PM

Delvo, two things:

First, you've already shown me that your knowledge of etymology is shaky at best.  You really made my day with that ass/arse business.

Secondly, word meanings when applied to people....uh...mean little.  Terms like hetero, homo, and bi are conveniences.  The lines between sexual preferences can, and often are, blurred.  For example, I have not always been bisexual.  Even now, I prefer men for dating/socializing (and some sex), but I prefer women for sexual pleasure, but not much socializing.  

On top of that, solid studies have shown that well over 70% of men in the U.S. alone who consider themselves homosexual are in fact...married.  Most have kids.  So while they may be fundementally attracted to men enough to consider themselves homosexual, they are capable of carrying on a sexual relationship with women. Trust me...I is a sighkalluhjist. :)

Holding a word to it's strict dictionary definition where people are involved isn't a smart move at all.
The ditz FKA TrancesHuggyPillow

#250 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 09 August 2003 - 02:47 PM

TrancesHuggyPillow, on Aug 9 2003, 01:28 PM, said:

First, you've already shown me that your knowledge of etymology is shaky at best.  You really made my day with that ass/arse business.
Even if that WERE anything more than a flame devoid of any purpose but to try to antogonize me, it would still be irrelevant, since we're not talking about etymology here. We're talking about WHAT WORDS MEAN... and the attempt to make things appear to be different from the way they are by deliberately misusing them to mean other things that other words already mean. Shoot the messenger all you want, but it won't change the fact that that's what's going on here.

(And you STILL never made a case that anything I'd said in that example you just tried to use to prove my ignorance and stupidity was incorrect; all you did was point out a less complete source that agreed with what I was saying! And THAT is the basis for dismissing the possibility that I might know anything at all... about a subject that isn't even what we're talking about?! Wow, talk about desperation...)

Quote

solid studies have shown that well over 70% of men in the U.S. alone who consider themselves homosexual are in fact...married.  Most have kids.
OK, so many people inaccurately called homosexuals are in fact bisexuals (if they're truly aroused by their wives, not just pulling off a big deception). So what? That still doesn't mean that the words mean something other than what they mean! It still doesn't mean that that preacher who talked about "heterosexuals" having sexual interactions with others of the same sex was being any more accurate/honest!

Why do you meaning-deniers keep on pretending that the existence of bisexuality disproves the possibility of real, actual homosexuality and/or heterosexuality?

#251 Blondie

Blondie

    The Peroxide Jihad

  • Dead account
  • 687 posts

Posted 09 August 2003 - 03:09 PM

No, Delvo, I was not attempting to flame you.  I don't flame as a rule...incidentally, my original choice of words was "whopped" but I chose "shaky" instead in order to be more civil.

Again, no, Delvo the point I was making is that people can catagorize themselves as one thing, yet practice another depending on the occasion.  The lines get blurred.  If a gay man is married, considers himself homosexual, prefers men, is aroused by men, yet has sex with his wife for the purposes of procreation or to stay in the closet...is he gay, bi, or what?  His self-perception says gay, but technically he's bi.  Which one is right?

You cannot neatly catagorize people when it comes to social behavior, because people can and will jump all over the place due to circumstances or social demands.

Now, back on the topic of flaming.  You are on the border of being antagonistic yourself.  People in this thread have presented their viewpoints, right or wrong, and your whole attitude has basically been that their dummies, or silly liberals, or whatever.  I myself can't stand radical liberals or conservatives...mainly because they can't back up their claims with facts...only feelings. Try being a little nicer...you might find the conversation more stimulating.  Just be nice, please.

Edited to add "not"  :blush:

Edited by TrancesHuggyPillow, 09 August 2003 - 06:47 PM.

The ditz FKA TrancesHuggyPillow

#252 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 09 August 2003 - 04:36 PM

GiGi, on Aug 8 2003, 08:35 PM, said:

Delvo, on Aug 8 2003, 07:25 PM, said:

The men who see it that way are, by definition, not heterosexual, though. He talked about HETEROsexuals doing something that disproves HETEROsexuality.
They don't see it that way.  They are just being men in that culture.

I don't even know if they make the same verbal distinctions as we do.
And language is important - our world view is shaped by our language and by our culture.

The thought processes of people born in other cultures just don't necessarily parallel those of someone raised in another culture. When we moved to Hawaii, we were the only haoles in a totally Japanese neighborhood. I grew to love and respect them - they are fine people, make excellent neighbors, and practice a religion that is nothing like Christianity.  But their way of thinking is totally different from ours. A Japanese person can be smiling and bowing and be completely pissed off. They deal with their emotions differently than we do.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that even the very definitions of heterosexuality and homosexuality are labels, and not every culture shares our definitions.

We know that the Navajo that have names for colors we don't even recognize. And according to tests, they actually SEE colors we don't, and the very ability to see those colors may be tied into to how the brain and language shape and interact with each other - the Witherspoon study is discussed every day in college anthropology classes.

All this meanders toward saying that we are too ready to assume that the universe is shaped the way WE perceive it.  It is. But it's also shaped the way other cultures perceive it, and their perceptions don't necessarily line up with ours. It's maybe not such a good idea to assume that everyone regards homosexuality using the same definition or with the same revulsion. The Greeks certainly didn't. Through a lot of history, homosexual relations were common among the military.

Edited by Rhea, 09 August 2003 - 04:54 PM.

The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#253 Norville

Norville
  • Islander
  • 4,501 posts

Posted 09 August 2003 - 10:50 PM

Delvo, I have no idea who you mean by "the Red Queen", because I'm not in on your particular conspiracy theory (except that it's all the fault of Evil Liberals!). I imagine it's Hillary Clinton, but as I'm no fan of the Clintons, I couldn't care less.

You're not stupid, Delvo. Before you decide that I'm one of your Eeevil Liberal enemies, and twist my words beyond recognition to suit *your* agenda (yes, words *are* important), the meaning I took from your comment was that foreign languages have had no effect upon English. This is a bizarre comment, so I reacted accordingly.

If that's not what you meant, then apologies for misreading you. You certainly can go in for creative readings of other people's words, so excuse us if we sometimes return the favor. :rolleyes:

Quote

The depth of liberals' denial about certain words' meanings knows no bounds

No, sweetheart, words mean what they are. Words are important, and I've noticed that you fling this accusation, but a lot of people who *aren't* "liberals" *love* to take other people's words, twist them until they're fractured (like a certain attack dog who took what I said about a radio report I'd heard and accused me of "Nice company you keep!" -- as if I personally knew, and advocated the stance of, the person I'd heard speak), and then attack the clever little construction in order to discredit the adversary. Your Liberal Enemies aren't the only ones who play with language; don't even pretend otherwise.

Your labeling me with "followers of the Red Queen" is a nice little fantasy wordplay construction that makes sense in your mind, but not in mine. "Liberal" is a word that's become nothing but a label, nothing but shorthand for All The Evil That's Destroying The World; that word *used* to have meaning before it was distorted beyond all sane use. Name-calling is useless, to my mind, and I must remember not to talk to those who use it as one of their favorite tactics, that and deciding that anyone who disagrees on any issue is an Evil Liberal, The Enemy, and/or a retarded moron. Very boring. :sarcasm:

(Oh, the Red Queen... you mean Alice in Wonderland, don't you? Sorry, I was figuring that it had another meaning... ;) )

Edited by Norville, 09 August 2003 - 10:55 PM.

"The dew has fallen with a particularly sickening thud this morning."
- Marvin the Paranoid Android, "Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy"

Rules for Surviving an Autocracy
Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
http://www.nybooks.c...s-for-survival/

#254 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 09 August 2003 - 11:18 PM

Norville, on Aug 9 2003, 09:50 PM, said:

(Oh, the Red Queen... you mean Alice in Wonderland, don't you?...)
Ya... origin, or at least popularizer, of the quote "Words mean what I want them to mean, when I want them to mean it."... sorto like "'Heterosexual' can also mean 'turned on by the SAME sex' if and when I want it to mean that." :p

#255 Cardie

Cardie

    I'm a very *good* tailor

  • Administrator
  • 22,632 posts

Posted 10 August 2003 - 08:01 AM

The character in Carroll who insists that words mean whatever he wants them to is Humpty Dumpty, not the Red Queen. And that's in Through the Looking Glass, not Alice in Wonderland.

Cardie
Nothing succeeds like excess.

#256 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 10 August 2003 - 08:23 AM

Funky... how did she become famous for having said that, then? (It's even named the Red Queen Argument or Red Queen (Logical) Fallacy now!) A made-for-TV movie that reassigned certain lines or borrowed from the "other" book? (I know I remember seeing a red queen saying that, but I don't know if that was the very first presentation to give her that line.)

#257 Kosh

Kosh

    Criag Ferguson For President!

  • Islander
  • 11,147 posts

Posted 10 August 2003 - 09:30 PM

And me with no gasoline.
Can't Touch This!!

#258 prolog

prolog

    The Merry Programmer

  • Islander
  • 1,062 posts

Posted 10 August 2003 - 09:46 PM

That's okay, I've got plenty.

#259 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 12 August 2003 - 10:47 AM

Cardie, on Aug 10 2003, 06:01 AM, said:

The character in Carroll who insists that words mean whatever he wants them to is Humpty Dumpty, not the Red Queen. And that's in Through the Looking Glass, not Alice in Wonderland.

Cardie
Damn straight! Go, Humpty Dumpty!  :p  :p

I know this one by heart:

Quote

"There's glory for you!"

"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,' " Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't—till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!' "

"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument,' " Alice objected.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."

"The question is, " said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#260 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 12 August 2003 - 10:51 AM

Delvo, on Aug 10 2003, 06:23 AM, said:

Funky... how did she become famous for having said that, then? (It's even named the Red Queen Argument or Red Queen (Logical) Fallacy now!) A made-for-TV movie that reassigned certain lines or borrowed from the "other" book? (I know I remember seeing a red queen saying that, but I don't know if that was the very first presentation to give her that line.)
I suspect the term "Red Queen argument" has only recently come into vogue among the college community.

Here's a quote from an article which uses the term:

Quote

Alternatively, organisms that produce few offspring may need the occasional variant that shows disease resistance simply to avoid extinction. This is called the Red Queen Hypothesis after Alice in Wonderland: ".....it takes all the running you can do to keep in the same place."

Can I just say I LOVE this term used in the specific way it's used? :p :p

Edited by Rhea, 12 August 2003 - 10:53 AM.

The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: LGBT, Religion

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users