Quote:
|
No, it's quite pertinent, since you say that ALL christian communities should abide by X rules and interpretations. As you are saying to me that it is quite wrong of me to say that ALL homosexuals engage in this public display of nudity (which I am not saying ALL are doing, just SOME) then you have to also accept that SOME fundamentalist Christian ministries feel that this type of camp is fair game for them to place their children. If one side its true, the the converse of it must also be true for other people.
|
Logically, that claim doesn't follow. I made a universal moral claim: i do in fact believe that faith in Christ calls people to be open and affirming of others, regardless of sexual orientation.
I make a totally unrelated descriptive claim. Not all queer communities engage in such practices.
Why does one have anything to do with the other? For the record, i think that responsible and respectful sexual practice is a universal "price" so to speak for the gifts and joys of sexuality. Again...my response is that your arguments are not tracking logically. Your claim here is what's good for the goose is good for the gander. My response is that yes, that's true. I beleive in universal moral imperatives. In both sexual ethics, and in being affirming of sexual orientation. Any descriptive claims about what queer communities do is unrelated. I was not saying that some communities should be confrontationally sexual and some not. I simply stated the fact of what was. Logically, that argument does not track.
Quote:
|
You keep trying to filter my words through a "homosexual hatred" filter when there is no such malice on my part. All that I'm saying is what I've always been saying, if you want someone to accept you as you are, then you are required to accept someone as they are. That is not conditional, it's not "on the condition that they don't do X." If you make it conditional, which is what I keep hearing from your words, you are in my book no different than those people who are being intolerant towards your sexual orientation.
|
I'm not making any such accusation. Your remarks have surprised me, and dissapointed me. But i have not, and do not now accuse you of malice or hatred. Straight priviledge does not exclusively rely on such overt things as that. For the most part, it is simply inertia. Things being the way they have always been, etc...
What i'm concerned about here is that this discussion has had a very random track from my perspective. Some queers displaying poor sexual ethics really has nothing to do with a conversation about if reparative therapy is a valid option for a parent.
Say a parent was forcing "therapy" on a straight idenitifed child to be gay. If we were discussing this, and i blurted out that i hated the fact that there are a bunch of straight people who are overtly sexual, or that there are straight sex criminals...would you feel this would be a relevant addition to the conversation, or a distraction from the issue?
Reserving judgement, i've been asking you why you think this is relevant. I'm quite prepared for any range of answers. I'm still wondering. I've told you...I have no interest in making public promescuity acceptable. I believe in responsible and respectful sexual ethics. So telling me that as a queer person i have to be respectful of people who hate me so that the rest of society will respect slutty queers? I couldn't care less. Do i have to respect confrontational mardi gras revellers, or the people invovled in the "wilding" incidents of NYC a few years back (if we wanted an example of a straight parade gone horribly wrong)? Is that part and parcel of being respectful to straight society? No. Of course not. Why do you expect a logical connection between respect for queers in general has anything to do with respect for behavior of a subset of queers who display excessive behavior?
As i've said earlier, i think that you are free to make the comparison between myself and the advocates of reparative therapy. But you're ignoring the question of means, and also suspending judgement on what you think is right. We make acceptance of others conditional on all sorts of things. Some are valid criteria for defining what is a civilized person, and some are not. Race, orientation, etc...I feel are invalid reasons for making such a determination. I do think adherance to ideals of freedom of speech, commitment to civil resolution of problems instead of violence, etc...are valid ones. I'm sure you make categorizations of these criteria as well. Obliterating that process in your argument natrualizes your assumptions, which again....i can't grant you. Both myself, and these advocates of homophobia, believe in universal moral imperatives. But that's where the similarities end. Very few people are willing to abandon universal moral imperatives, and i suspect you have a few of your own. Murder is often the one final idea that people simply cannot accept the idea of tolerating opposing viewpoints on. They cannot co-exist with people who believe in random killing as a normal part of life. So yes...there is a comparision. But it's intensly non-descriptive. 99% of humanity (made up figure for sake of argument) beleives in universal moral imperatives. So saying that A and B are alike for that reason isn't incorrect. It is vague and non-descriptive, and largely with out meaning.