Gays, lesbians, bisexuals

[Spock]

Originally Posted by The Wizard from Milan

That is sufficient for me to say that my moral sentiment (although very advanced) is not definite, not set in stone, but always subject to improvement. Yet it is the best that I have ever found.
.

It seems a bit arrogant to state this, unless you live in a world of one?

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by The Wizard from Milan

I don't see my own mind as all powerful at all; it has all the limitations of the human species, I guarantee you. That is sufficient for me to say that my moral sentiment (although very advanced) is not definite, not set in stone, but always subject to improvement. Yet it is the best that I have ever found.
People who are used to think that the morality comes from a God, often misinterpret my statments as saying that I rival with an imagined God for morality. NOT AT ALL. I believe that morality comes from humans and is therefore fallible. In particular I known mine and I know it is very strong.

Very elegant, well put.

[Butterbeer]

funny ... my post has been edited ... no problem with that BTW .... but i can't actually see much difference

was it bold formatting of 'vitriolic'? ...and whatever i put in place of the 'moral master himself' ???

ah, well ...

actually losing the long post this morning, although being an annoying thing at the time in the extreme (though it was my own fault - but that's EVEN more annoying, heh?) ..was probably a good thing .... i was rather going on a super-sonic roll ....

... ahem ...

though you can take, or not, my word for it there were some good points in there too ...

yes, The Wizard from Milan, we were largely talking about different things, me in general about what to me is a clear misuse in the context of the word morality ...


for myself, i was not offended ... and have not cast my moral landscape, if i may use that metaphor, into either stone or set it in rigid straightjackets ...

course, i took the "too subtle for you to understand" bit the wrong way ..... or possibly the right way in it's veiled form???, but either way, probably too much to heart ...

thus my hasty overtaking of some neutrons ( or whatever is technically correct here) reacting to start a nuclear reaction .... rather hasty post, which as i said luckily got lost ....

People who are used to think that the morality comes from a God, often misinterpret my statments as saying that I rival with an imagined God for morality.

to be honest i am not so sure that it isn't you that actually assume they think this ...

but since i have never stated this position myself, you do seem to be jumping in rather blindly here, second guessing what you might think i do or do not think ....

well, i'd love to debate this and the definition of morality and it's usage, but it is rather off subject ... and i can fortell for sure if it was ever started elsewhere would very quickly get pulled and warped into numerous other subjects within the first page .... so i won't suggest it ....


For the record, myself and say, Inked, for example, probably do not nessecarilly agree on that many points - but for someone with beleifs as i beleive inked has, to see what you portay as morality at the whim of headaches and moods and the word being so used as to be the cult of the individual ... i fear could be very insulting and inflammatory ....

i think i see what you are saying LWFM ... but my point was i do not think your use of the word "morality' or morals is apt in context of your position.

... BTW ... you know the bit about you being omnipotent etc was just me being sarcy, right?

like i said, i started going off on one .... a bad habit ...

well, ok ...so back to the subject ... i'm sure someone will remind me what that was


best to ya Milanese Wizard

best BB

[Lotesse]

This has been a very interesting to read discussion on the definition of morality, especially what Wizard from Milan has to say, which is always so eloquent, and so well put, but you GUYS, isn't this a thread about Gays and Lesbians and Bisexuals, and NOT a thread aout the definition of morality and what it may mean to you? Just wondering how come the off-topicking gets so out of control around here...

[Spock]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

Just wondering how come the off-topicking gets so out of control around here...

It's easy. Whenever someone tries to point that fact out, the posters refuse to admit it and cry "censor". Some posters seem to think that they can post anything in any topic and it's never off topic So, "L", there are only a few of us who understand definitions.

[The Wizard from Milan]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

This has been a very interesting to read discussion on the definition of morality, especially what Wizard from Milan has to say, which is always so eloquent, and so well put, but you GUYS, isn't this a thread about Gays and Lesbians and Bisexuals, and NOT a thread aout the definition of morality and what it may mean to you? Just wondering how come the off-topicking gets so out of control around here...

Thank you for your words.
I think we started talking about morality because there are diffent opinions among mooters about whether acting on same-sex orientation is moral. I am, of course, among those who argue that it is.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Spock

So, "L", there are only a few of us who understand definitions.

it's a tough job, but someone's gotta do it

that said, sexual lifestyles and morality are intwined... at least to those who wish to impose their morality upon others... so i think it is unavoidable

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

it's a tough job, but someone's gotta do it

that said, sexual lifestyles and morality are intwined... at least to those who wish to impose their morality upon others... so i think it is unavoidable

But like gay marriage, maybe the bulk of this discussion could take place in a different thread.

[Butterbeer]

Originally Posted by The Wizard from Milan

Thank you for your words.
I think we started talking about morality because there are diffent opinions among mooters about whether acting on same-sex orientation is moral. I am, of course, among those who argue that it is.

well to both you and Spock .. i can only assume these comments are not meant regarding me:

i do not beleive i have made any position clear one way or t'other here: i would not take kindly (in general) to people (in general) assuming positions or beleifs on my behalf that they know absolutely nothing about: i.e my thoughts .... perhaps you can tell me my thoughts on this matter?

please do not assume:



for myself, yes, i absolutely started talking about morality in terms of language and definition

and absolutely nothing else: so if you care to assume anything else from that, that is your problem and misconception ...

Spock and Lotesse: well of course morality is pivotal to most people's views on thisa subject, but i merely replied to the morality thing, on a point of principle in terms of the languahge use and the skewed definition the way wizard wrote it, not so much his point per se, and in my post you will see clearly TWO examples of me saying ok this is off subject

and that i would not continue a debate on morality definitions here

and i ended with "right, better get back to subject ...." kind of post

so, i think you can say clearly there are least THREE people , or

there are only a few of us who understand definitions

plus one other that understand definitions

anyway wizard is cool with me, though i still suspect he thinks i am some rabid right wing religious zealot!

because i think his linguistic usage of the english language was at odds not in tandem with the point he tried to make ... i say again, stick to the subject ... which was language and do not assume anything else please! (and having done that, stick with the original subject ...er... which wasn't language!! )

thank you

best all BB

[The Wizard from Milan]

Butterbeer, I am not sure whether I have understood your point about language and definitions in re morals. You are free to restate it (in a new thread maybe, given that you and others are concerned about off-topicness)

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

i still suspect he thinks i am some rabid right wing religious zealot!

Well, that did come to my mind but my opinion of people is not set in stone and I believed you when you said you are not.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

But like gay marriage, maybe the bulk of this discussion could take place in a different thread.

i guess... but i'm very pro-conversation and very anti-on-topic... when you are sitting with your friends around a fire chatting about life do you chastise them if they go "off topic"?

the most interesting, and rewarding, conversations i've had are ones that often end up very far from where they began

plus, crying "off topic" can be a way of avoiding addressing some of the deeper issues on the subject at hand which are often related, but in a very indirect way

[Spock]

hmm, real life is different from cyber space A given topic that has a thread should be maintained as much as possible, within that thread. It just goes for smoother movement and doesn't confuse those who come into a thread only to find someone has wandered off into another monologue. Keeping things in their basically correct topic makes it easier for all. Not everything is realted to everything.

[Insidious Rex]

Well of course morality is related directly to homosexuality. The issue is that so many think its an immoral practice. Have we really become such on topic nazis here that we cant even have a normal discussion without people complaining about highly relevant aspects of a topic now being off topic? And anyway true talent lies not in the ability to complain and ridicule or to line item censor but rather in the ability to turn the conversation where you think it should be...

That being said... spent a recent evening chatting with a fellow that came out fairly early on in his life. His mother, who was fairly religious, loved him very much but was torn and troubled by the concept of her child being a homosexual. She feared he would be rejected by god and spent most of her time trying to "convert" him which no matter what they did only made him feel more of a hopeless pariah. His father was not so kind. When he was 16 he took him out to seek a prostitute to "get him straightened out". Unfortunately for him not only was he gay but he was also tall and gawky and extremely self-conscious and shy. Needless to say that turned into a horrific travesty of an evening for him and he felt pretty much like a disappointment and a monster (like the 'elephant man' he said) from there until he left home at 22. When he found people who finally accepted him for the good person he is he blossomed. He went to medical school and is now a successful doctor.

He says he equates being gay with love and not with sex like the rest of our society seems to. He has had very few sexual experiences in his life actually (despite the fact that we are repeatedly told here that all gays are sexual monsters who only bring harm to themselves with their behavior...) and embraces homosexuality in terms of how he loves and not who he has sex with. To him marriage is the ultimate expression of love not of sex at all. An interesting perspective I think we all should really think about when we straights so casually cast dispersions on people who want to enter into such a bond. Maybe, in fact, many of them DO understand the profound meaning of the issue. Perhaps, because of past experiences, many gays understand it better then many straights who our society allows to be in a position to take it rather lightly.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Have we really become such on topic nazis here that we cant even have a normal discussion without people complaining about highly relevant aspects of a topic now being off topic? .

ibid.

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by Spock

hmm, real life is different from cyber space A given topic that has a thread should be maintained as much as possible, within that thread. It just goes for smoother movement and doesn't confuse those who come into a thread only to find someone has wandered off into another monologue. Keeping things in their basically correct topic makes it easier for all. Not everything is realted to everything.

Hear, hear.

And in response 2 I. Rex, I am definitely of the opinion that sexual orientation is TOTALLY unrelated to morality. Is it a moral decision to be "straight?" Hmmm. If it is not a moral decision to be born non-homosexual, then how is it a moral decision to be born homosexual?

BTW I. Rex, that was a killer post just now.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

i guess... but i'm very pro-conversation and very anti-on-topic... when you are sitting with your friends around a fire chatting about life do you chastise them if they go "off topic"?

the most interesting, and rewarding, conversations i've had are ones that often end up very far from where they began

Absolutely, in real life. There are a lot of ways where the internet is not real life. Think of the entire GM forum as one conversation.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

plus, crying "off topic" can be a way of avoiding addressing some of the deeper issues on the subject at hand which are often related, but in a very indirect way

It can, but then you could counter this by starting a thread about the subject. Then if the person refuses to post in there, I guess you win all the internets or something.

I admit I'm biased about going off-topic on this particular issue. I have no interest in debating about morality whatsoever. I agree with Lotesse. Your sexual orientation has nothing to do with morality.

[Spock]

..get a room

[Lotesse]

Get a room? Jesus, Spock; sometimes I really wonder where you're going with your cryptic one-liners.

[Spock]

[Nurvingiel]

And now for a little thread necromancy...

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Well Xtra West certainly doesnt speak for millions and MILLIONS of homosexuals... Would you be ok with me saying the "moot community" is in full agreement that cutting back environmental standards so that big companies can polute more and make more money is a good idea? I dont think you would. But Im here by declaring it as the self apointed representative of the Moot Community! So there...

Always be super dubious of people who speak for entire groups of varied people. And be even more dubious of those outside these "groups" that want to lump them together under one term for political purposes and so they can declare them immoral hedonists all at once simply based on one small aspect of their being.

I don't think the newspaper was using the term "gay community" in a way designed to stereotype or harm. My point with that statement is that some actual gay people use that term. The Xtra West doesn't declare itself the spokesperson of any group. What newspaper speaks for a whole group of people? It is a newspaper with articles written by a number of different people.