|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
NovaKart
Joined: 18 Nov 2009
Location: Iraq
|
 Posted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 1:16 am Post subject: |
 |
|
I couldn't care less if someone wants to call it a marriage or a civil union or whatever. One problem for gay couples is that if one of them is from a different country they cannot get residence in America even in states that allow civil unions/marriage. There are many couples that have been split up this way.
I will grant you that from my experience there is typically more promiscuity among gays and some gay couples have an open kind of relationship where they stay together as couples but allow the other partner to stray. I think this probably has a lot to do with the fact that society hasn't really recognized gay couples for long. A straight couple will be raised with a model of a relationship they should follow while gays don't really have that yet.
Of course not every gay couple is like that and there are some gays who are not promiscuous. Even if they're a minority they shouldn't be held accountable for the behaviour of all gays. I think as gay society becomes more mainstream you may see promiscuity becoming less acceptable to gays (just a thought not sure if I 100% believe that). I just think when you're not accepted by mainstream society you don't have any encouragement to behave like most people and that accounts for a lot of the promiscuity among gay people.
Like the women's movement and any other kind of movement not everyone in the gay rights movement has the same ideas. I personally don't care for people in gay parades who act raunchy and give gay people a bad name. Not every gay person is like that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Koveras
Joined: 09 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 7:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| kabrams wrote: |
| Koveras wrote: |
| Marriage isn't a secular institution. Gay marriage is a parody of an ancient religious tradition. (If anything, the gay movement should have respected that and pushed for legally equal civil unions. Instead they chose to rub salt in the wound.) But the culture-destroying nature of the gay movement doesn't stop (or start) there, because the movement is - as the quotation correctly notes - all about promiscuity, and not only in the sexual sense. It's about overthrowing all taboos in the name of promiscuity. |
LOL, what?
Marriage is both secular and non-secular, but its origins (specifically in the Western world, since this is what we are talking about) are completely secular.
Marriage in its earliest recorded/known forms almost entirely dealt with property, business and the uniting of two families (not two people in a religious union under one or various Gods). In these marriages, women had few to little rights, and there was no such thing as "love".
Religion came AFTER marriage, not the other way around. |
You don't understand the ancient world if you think anything was secular in it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Koveras
Joined: 09 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 8:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Koveras wrote: |
| Marriage isn't a secular institution. Gay marriage is a parody of an ancient religious tradition. (If anything, the gay movement should have respected that and pushed for legally equal civil unions. Instead they chose to rub salt in the wound.) But the culture-destroying nature of the gay movement doesn't stop (or start) there, because the movement is - as the quotation correctly notes - all about promiscuity, and not only in the sexual sense. It's about overthrowing all taboos in the name of promiscuity. |
While I agree that a more intelligent approach would have been to reduce "legal" marriage to civil unions which any two consenting adults can enter, and leave the actually term marriage to religious ceremony, I don't think your stance that the gay movement is "culture destroying" or "all about promiscuity" holds much ground.
1) It certainly might be culture changing, but not culture destroying; the only people who equate change in a culture to destruction of said culture are conservatives too grounded in the status quo. It's no more culture destroying than, say, an initative to get people to stop smoking. The culture might change, but it's not destroyed. |
I'm not certain why you're taking this relativist position when you are obviously no relativist yourself. It's self-serving, and you only use it because things are going 'your way' at the moment.
Anyway, the gay movement is both destructive of an actual historical culture, and contemptuous of the very idea of culture. Some people confuse culture with cultural artefacts; real culture is an internalized set of taboos, manners, myths that constrain and direct people. Positive liberty. Every actual culture is to some degree puritanical. A culture of negative liberty - which is historically what the gay movement has represented - is no culture at all.
Note, again, the partition between homosexuals and the gay movement. I don't think the mere existence of homosexuals or bisexuals exerts any destructive effect on culture. If anything, maybe the opposite.
| Quote: |
2) Homosexuals interested in marrying one another are no more promiscuous than heterosexual couples interested in marrying one another. There's nothing inherently more promiscuous about homosexuality as opposed to heterosexuality. Indeed, their desire to be allowed to marry one another is almost the exact opposite of promiscuity. Promiscuity according to the dictionary is:
| www.dictionary.com wrote: |
| characterized by or involving indiscriminate mingling or association, esp. having sexual relations with a number of partners on a casual basis. |
Wanting to marry another individual is not promiscuous, and in no way furthers the "cause" of promiscuity. If anything, it's a step away from promiscuity. |
The destruction of taboos is inherently promiscuous. The push for gay marriage is clearly not due to any sizeable number of gays that actually want to be monogamous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 8:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| This Uganda thing would be typical Africa nonsense, if not for the involvement of an American, which makes it newsworthy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 8:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| The push for gay marriage is clearly not due to any sizeable number of gays that actually want to be monogamous. |
This is the truth. I have many gay (male) friends and they couldn't care less. A relationship for them is a consistent partner for a few weeks. There's more going on here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 8:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Koveras wrote: |
| I'm not certain why you're taking this relativist position when you are obviously no relativist yourself. It's self-serving, and you only use it because things are going 'your way' at the moment. |
I'm not relativist, and the position I'm taking here isn't relativist. Culture change does not equate to cultural destruction. That doesn't mean that any given cultural change is good; I'm certainly of the school of thought that some cultural behavior is good and some is bad for the people partaking in it. That still doesn't justify calling it cultural destruction, a word that evokes frankly unfair images. If you want to claim that this particular change is bad, I don't agree with you but I think it's a valid claim. I don't think claims of cultural destruction are reasonable, though. When I think of the term cultural destruction, I'm much more inclined to imagine something like what the Australians did to the Aborigines. A concerted, willful attempt to eliminate their culture. Not change it, destroy it. I don't think that's what's happening here, and it certainly isn't what gays imagine themselves doing when they push for cultural change.
| Koveras wrote: |
| Anyway, the gay movement is both destructive of an actual historical culture, and contemptuous of the very idea of culture. Some people confuse culture with cultural artefacts; real culture is an internalized set of taboos, manners, myths that constrain and direct people. Positive liberty. Every actual culture is to some degree puritanical. A culture of negative liberty - which is historically what the gay movement has represented - is no culture at all. |
For the time being, let's go with that definition of culture. I feel under this definition my argument that cultural change -- rather than cultural destruction -- is what is occuring. Taboos against things like homosexuality are instead replaced with taboos against things like intolerance to homosexuality. Taboos against women speaking their mind in the company of men are replaced with taboos against beating your wife. Replacement rather than destruction. Positive change over time.
| Koveras wrote: |
| Quote: |
2) Homosexuals interested in marrying one another are no more promiscuous than heterosexual couples interested in marrying one another. There's nothing inherently more promiscuous about homosexuality as opposed to heterosexuality. Indeed, their desire to be allowed to marry one another is almost the exact opposite of promiscuity. Promiscuity according to the dictionary is:
| www.dictionary.com wrote: |
| characterized by or involving indiscriminate mingling or association, esp. having sexual relations with a number of partners on a casual basis. |
Wanting to marry another individual is not promiscuous, and in no way furthers the "cause" of promiscuity. If anything, it's a step away from promiscuity. |
The destruction of taboos is inherently promiscuous. |
First of all, based on what promiscuity means, I don't agree. Consider a taboo against the equality of whites and blacks. It existed, and I don't see how it's elimination could in any way be considered to further the cause of promiscuity. Second, as I said, I think there's a difference between taboo destruction and taboo alteration or replacement. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Koveras
Joined: 09 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 9:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Koveras wrote: |
| I'm not certain why you're taking this relativist position when you are obviously no relativist yourself. It's self-serving, and you only use it because things are going 'your way' at the moment. |
I'm not relativist, and the position I'm taking here isn't relativist. Culture change does not equate to cultural destruction. That doesn't mean that any given cultural change is good; I'm certainly of the school of thought that some cultural behavior is good and some is bad for the people partaking in it. That still doesn't justify calling it cultural destruction, a word that evokes frankly unfair images. If you want to claim that this particular change is bad, I don't agree with you but I think it's a valid claim. I don't think claims of cultural destruction are reasonable, though. When I think of the term cultural destruction, I'm much more inclined to imagine something like what the Australians did to the Aborigines. A concerted, willful attempt to eliminate their culture. Not change it, destroy it. I don't think that's what's happening here, and it certainly isn't what gays imagine themselves doing when they push for cultural change. |
I'm not responsible for the tendentious associations you have for a particular word. I won't tone it down; the gay movement was destructive, whether or not it knew it. In the sixties - when there was still something left to destroy - certain homosexuals chose to define themselves as a hostile minority, as victims, and sided with multiculturalism and the left, becoming the gay movement. These forces aren't creative, they're promiscuous and destructive. Fine, I just thought of another word: deconstructive. Whenever I say destructive, imagine I'm saying deconstructive. It's quite apt.
| Quote: |
| Koveras wrote: |
| Anyway, the gay movement is both destructive of an actual historical culture, and contemptuous of the very idea of culture. Some people confuse culture with cultural artefacts; real culture is an internalized set of taboos, manners, myths that constrain and direct people. Positive liberty. Every actual culture is to some degree puritanical. A culture of negative liberty - which is historically what the gay movement has represented - is no culture at all. |
For the time being, let's go with that definition of culture. I feel under this definition my argument that cultural change -- rather than cultural destruction -- is what is occuring. Taboos against things like homosexuality are instead replaced with taboos against things like intolerance to homosexuality. Taboos against women speaking their mind in the company of men are replaced with taboos against beating your wife. Replacement rather than destruction. Positive change over time. |
All these different taboos were really replaced by just one: we're all the same.
| Quote: |
| Koveras wrote: |
| Quote: |
2) Homosexuals interested in marrying one another are no more promiscuous than heterosexual couples interested in marrying one another. There's nothing inherently more promiscuous about homosexuality as opposed to heterosexuality. Indeed, their desire to be allowed to marry one another is almost the exact opposite of promiscuity. Promiscuity according to the dictionary is:
| www.dictionary.com wrote: |
| characterized by or involving indiscriminate mingling or association, esp. having sexual relations with a number of partners on a casual basis. |
Wanting to marry another individual is not promiscuous, and in no way furthers the "cause" of promiscuity. If anything, it's a step away from promiscuity. |
The destruction of taboos is inherently promiscuous. |
First of all, based on what promiscuity means, I don't agree. Consider a taboo against the equality of whites and blacks. It existed, and I don't see how it's elimination could in any way be considered to further the cause of promiscuity. Second, as I said, I think there's a difference between taboo destruction and taboo alteration or replacement. |
I dusted off the OED [that's right, the hardcopy, unabridged OED] and looked it up with a magnifying glass.
Promiscuous - mixed, indiscriminate
1. Consisting of members or elements of different kinds grouped or massed together without order; of mixed and disorderly composition or character; also, with pl. sh., of various kinds mixed together
2. That is without discrimination or method; done or applied without respect for kind, order, number, etc,; confusedly mingled, indiscriminate.
b) Of an agent or agency; making no distinctions; undiscriminating.
Etc. etc. It goes on like that, and nowhere mentions sex. You'll recall I made that caveat in the original post, that the gay movement was promiscuous, and not just in the sexual sense. My usage is correct. The destruction of taboos is inherently promiscuous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 3:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If marriage isn't secular, then why are ceremonies conducted by judges and ship captains considered as binding as those conducted by preachers? Why are common law marriages recognized? It seems to me a church ceremony is an option chosen by many, but in the end is superflous in the eyes of the law.
I've always wondered about promiscuity. If a person has, say, 3 sex partners over time, say when he/she is between the ages of 15 and 65, would that person be considered promiscuous? How about 3 partners in one month? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 7:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Koveras wrote: |
| I'm not responsible for the tendentious associations you have for a particular word. |
It goes beyond associations I have with the word and rather into how most people would feel about the word. I won't concede cultural destruction is happening based upon that. I'm quite happy with the words change and replacement, and I think they are the best description of what has occured and is occuring. For the sake of moving the conversation along, though, we may as well stop arguing over terminology regarding this particular usage, because even if you want to argue taboos are being destroyed on a case by case basis, you certainly haven't shown there is a net destruction of taboos going on.
| Koveras wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Koveras wrote: |
| Anyway, the gay movement is both destructive of an actual historical culture, and contemptuous of the very idea of culture. Some people confuse culture with cultural artefacts; real culture is an internalized set of taboos, manners, myths that constrain and direct people. Positive liberty. Every actual culture is to some degree puritanical. A culture of negative liberty - which is historically what the gay movement has represented - is no culture at all. |
For the time being, let's go with that definition of culture. I feel under this definition my argument that cultural change -- rather than cultural destruction -- is what is occuring. Taboos against things like homosexuality are instead replaced with taboos against things like intolerance to homosexuality. Taboos against women speaking their mind in the company of men are replaced with taboos against beating your wife. Replacement rather than destruction. Positive change over time. |
All these different taboos were really replaced by just one: we're all the same. |
First of all, all what different taboos? We're talking about one taboo here: a taboo against homosexuality. What other taboos are you referring to?
Second, the entire concept of tolerance of diversity is incompatible with the notion that we are all the same. If we were all the same, there would be no diversity to tolerate. That clearly can't be a fair characterization of what's going on, as such.
Finally, I could just as easily portray the situation as only one taboo being replaced, and that taboo is, "It's not okay to be different." But, that would be a gross oversimplification, and I think your "We're all the same," is also a gross oversimplification.
| Koveras wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Koveras wrote: |
| Quote: |
2) Homosexuals interested in marrying one another are no more promiscuous than heterosexual couples interested in marrying one another. There's nothing inherently more promiscuous about homosexuality as opposed to heterosexuality. Indeed, their desire to be allowed to marry one another is almost the exact opposite of promiscuity. Promiscuity according to the dictionary is:
| www.dictionary.com wrote: |
| characterized by or involving indiscriminate mingling or association, esp. having sexual relations with a number of partners on a casual basis. |
Wanting to marry another individual is not promiscuous, and in no way furthers the "cause" of promiscuity. If anything, it's a step away from promiscuity. |
The destruction of taboos is inherently promiscuous. |
First of all, based on what promiscuity means, I don't agree. Consider a taboo against the equality of whites and blacks. It existed, and I don't see how it's elimination could in any way be considered to further the cause of promiscuity. Second, as I said, I think there's a difference between taboo destruction and taboo alteration or replacement. |
I dusted off the OED [that's right, the hardcopy, unabridged OED] and looked it up with a magnifying glass.
Promiscuous - mixed, indiscriminate
1. Consisting of members or elements of different kinds grouped or massed together without order; of mixed and disorderly composition or character; also, with pl. sh., of various kinds mixed together
2. That is without discrimination or method; done or applied without respect for kind, order, number, etc,; confusedly mingled, indiscriminate.
b) Of an agent or agency; making no distinctions; undiscriminating.
Etc. etc. It goes on like that, and nowhere mentions sex. You'll recall I made that caveat in the original post, that the gay movement was promiscuous, and not just in the sexual sense. My usage is correct. The destruction of taboos is inherently promiscuous. |
However, again, even if you want to argue individual taboos are being destroyed, taboos aren't being destroyed in a net fashion, they're being replaced with new ones, and as such that definition of promiscuity does not apply. The overall level of taboo is not changing (in fact, if anything, the level of taboo is increasing, as the number of people affected by the new taboos is greater). As such, promiscuity still does not apply. If anything, society is becoming less promiscuous, as the level of taboo is increasing. You should be happy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kabrams
Joined: 15 Mar 2008
Location: your Dad's house
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 9:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Koveras wrote: |
| kabrams wrote: |
| Koveras wrote: |
| Marriage isn't a secular institution. Gay marriage is a parody of an ancient religious tradition. (If anything, the gay movement should have respected that and pushed for legally equal civil unions. Instead they chose to rub salt in the wound.) But the culture-destroying nature of the gay movement doesn't stop (or start) there, because the movement is - as the quotation correctly notes - all about promiscuity, and not only in the sexual sense. It's about overthrowing all taboos in the name of promiscuity. |
LOL, what?
Marriage is both secular and non-secular, but its origins (specifically in the Western world, since this is what we are talking about) are completely secular.
Marriage in its earliest recorded/known forms almost entirely dealt with property, business and the uniting of two families (not two people in a religious union under one or various Gods). In these marriages, women had few to little rights, and there was no such thing as "love".
Religion came AFTER marriage, not the other way around. |
You don't understand the ancient world if you think anything was secular in it. |
Spoken like someone who habitually fell asleep in World History 101.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Summer Wine
Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Location: Next to a River
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 4:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
In these marriages, women had few to little rights, and there was no such thing as "love".
|
Ah, what culture are we talking about?
I have spent some years in countries where the matriarchal system exists. It has so long as most people knew about it and some of the most recent violence came about because of mixed marriages.
Patriarchal and Matriarchal marriages created cultural differences. The idea that women have always had few rights in traditonal societies is not actually correct.
So lets discuss where these marriages existed before you make your statement. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 8:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Summer Wine wrote: |
| Quote: |
In these marriages, women had few to little rights, and there was no such thing as "love".
|
Ah, what culture are we talking about?
I have spent some years in countries where the matriarchal system exists. It has so long as most people knew about it and some of the most recent violence came about because of mixed marriages.
Patriarchal and Matriarchal marriages created cultural differences. The idea that women have always had few rights in traditonal societies is not actually correct.
So lets discuss where these marriages existed before you make your statement. |
For thousands of years in Europe or the Middle East, men had more power than the women on a societal level, though on an individual level women often had a lot of power at home. Why do you think Queen Elizabeth didn't want to get married? Most of the world has had patriarchal marriages since we've recorded history. The Canaanites, as far as I know, did have female goddesses and women were valued in certain ways, and ancient Arameans looked at God as a mother and even some when they became Christians still looked at God in a motherly way, but the Semites of long ago were patriarchal.
However, we are talking about institutions. Today, in Western societies we have a mixture of both. In some cases, the marriages are more matriarchal than patriarchal in spirit, at least. The children, however, don't take the name of the mother. At least, not her last name. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 8:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| This Uganda thing would be typical Africa nonsense, if not for the involvement of an American, which makes it newsworthy. |
In South Africa, they do have gay marriage, which surprised me. However, I don't think there is necessarily tons of tolerance in the country for homosexuals. The three Americans went down to Uganda which is influenced by a Christianity that used to more the norm in Europe and is more the norm in the US than it is now. That's why those three Americans found a receptive audience. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Koveras
Joined: 09 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 9:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Koveras wrote: |
| I'm not responsible for the tendentious associations you have for a particular word. |
It goes beyond associations I have with the word and rather into how most people would feel about the word. I won't concede cultural destruction is happening based upon that. I'm quite happy with the words change and replacement, and I think they are the best description of what has occured and is occuring. For the sake of moving the conversation along, though, we may as well stop arguing over terminology regarding this particular usage, because even if you want to argue taboos are being destroyed on a case by case basis, you certainly haven't shown there is a net destruction of taboos going on. |
In the interest of moving the conversation along, I'm willing to stop using the word destruction and all forms of it. If I want to emphasize that aspect of it, I will use 'deconstruction', because it highlights the method and the essential impotence of this movement. As you've probably noticed by now, I place the gay movement within a much larger context of deconstruction; it's certainly significant that it originated in the indiscriminate counterculture of the sixties and seventies. Sometimes I shift back and forth, without explaining it, between the one level and the other: between, in my mind, subversion in general and the gay movement. I believe that that has been the cause of some of the our confusion. I also would like to note that the quanitity of taboos is not important to me.
| Fox wrote: |
| Koveras wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Koveras wrote: |
| Anyway, the gay movement is both destructive of an actual historical culture, and contemptuous of the very idea of culture. Some people confuse culture with cultural artefacts; real culture is an internalized set of taboos, manners, myths that constrain and direct people. Positive liberty. Every actual culture is to some degree puritanical. A culture of negative liberty - which is historically what the gay movement has represented - is no culture at all. |
For the time being, let's go with that definition of culture. I feel under this definition my argument that cultural change -- rather than cultural destruction -- is what is occuring. Taboos against things like homosexuality are instead replaced with taboos against things like intolerance to homosexuality. Taboos against women speaking their mind in the company of men are replaced with taboos against beating your wife. Replacement rather than destruction. Positive change over time. |
All these different taboos were really replaced by just one: we're all the same. |
First of all, all what different taboos? We're talking about one taboo here: a taboo against homosexuality. What other taboos are you referring to? |
I'm referring to the taboos you referred to. You listed two different taboos in your post, and your use of the plural [eg. "taboos against women"] implied to me that you had more in mind. You mentioned a third taboo later in your post.
I'm referring to every taboo. In addition to the ones you brought up, I will add: the ones against casual sex; against public, physical displays of affection between the sexes; effeminacy in men; masculinity in women; indecorum in dress and carriage; irreverance to authority; victimizing oneself; pursuing pleasure; forgetting duty; I could go on. The gay movement had its hand in deconstructing all of it and I'm dumbfounded if you disagree. Nor did they - speaking on the general level now - 'replace' them: they simply crossed them off: doesn't matter, doesn't matter, doesn't matter.
I agree that there is popular hostility to the idea that they do matter. It's that paradox: tolerance's intolerance of intolerance, or a taboo against taboos. Riffing on what you said later, I also suppose you might say that formerly there was a taboo against not having taboos. To that all I can say is, if you agree with it, you haven't really comprehended the idea of culture as interior form.
| Quote: |
| Second, the entire concept of tolerance of diversity is incompatible with the notion that we are all the same. If we were all the same, there would be no diversity to tolerate. That clearly can't be a fair characterization of what's going on, as such. |
You're concentrating on words without seeing the essence. Egalitarianism, on both the individual and cultural planes, is opposed to actual differences. Liberal diversity is a sham, a melting pot. It's pushing promiscuous, negative liberty. It's opposed to class, creed, gender, nation, civilization, race. Any liberal will admit this proudly.
| Quote: |
| Finally, I could just as easily portray the situation as only one taboo being replaced, and that taboo is, "It's not okay to be different." But, that would be a gross oversimplification, and I think your "We're all the same," is also a gross oversimplification. |
I agree that victorian and post-romantic middle-class culture is singularly hostile to differences. I am not in favour of that culture. Sometimes I may conditionally be in favour of it.
| Fox wrote: |
| Quote: |
I dusted off the OED [that's right, the hardcopy, unabridged OED] and looked it up with a magnifying glass.
Promiscuous - mixed, indiscriminate
1. Consisting of members or elements of different kinds grouped or massed together without order; of mixed and disorderly composition or character; also, with pl. sh., of various kinds mixed together
2. That is without discrimination or method; done or applied without respect for kind, order, number, etc,; confusedly mingled, indiscriminate.
b) Of an agent or agency; making no distinctions; undiscriminating.
Etc. etc. It goes on like that, and nowhere mentions sex. You'll recall I made that caveat in the original post, that the gay movement was promiscuous, and not just in the sexual sense. My usage is correct. The destruction of taboos is inherently promiscuous. |
However, again, even if you want to argue individual taboos are being destroyed, taboos aren't being destroyed in a net fashion, they're being replaced with new ones, and as such that definition of promiscuity does not apply. The overall level of taboo is not changing (in fact, if anything, the level of taboo is increasing, as the number of people affected by the new taboos is greater). As such, promiscuity still does not apply. If anything, society is becoming less promiscuous, as the level of taboo is increasing. You should be happy. |
Still mesmerized by quantity, I see. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Koveras
Joined: 09 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 9:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| kabrams wrote: |
| Koveras wrote: |
| kabrams wrote: |
| Koveras wrote: |
| Marriage isn't a secular institution. Gay marriage is a parody of an ancient religious tradition. (If anything, the gay movement should have respected that and pushed for legally equal civil unions. Instead they chose to rub salt in the wound.) But the culture-destroying nature of the gay movement doesn't stop (or start) there, because the movement is - as the quotation correctly notes - all about promiscuity, and not only in the sexual sense. It's about overthrowing all taboos in the name of promiscuity. |
LOL, what?
Marriage is both secular and non-secular, but its origins (specifically in the Western world, since this is what we are talking about) are completely secular.
Marriage in its earliest recorded/known forms almost entirely dealt with property, business and the uniting of two families (not two people in a religious union under one or various Gods). In these marriages, women had few to little rights, and there was no such thing as "love".
Religion came AFTER marriage, not the other way around. |
You don't understand the ancient world if you think anything was secular in it. |
Spoken like someone who habitually fell asleep in World History 101. |
You may be confusing civil with secular. I don't deny that marriage has always been a civil institution. But till recently civil didn't mean secular. I'm going to speak mainly of the Roman tradition, because that's where Western civilization most identifiably springs from.
You mentioned family. Guess what? The family was a cult from the beginning! The paterfamilias was a priest. He made sacrafices. In him resided the genius of the family - another religious notion. Binding two families together was eminently religious. You've been watching too much HBO.
You mentioned property. Again, the nature of Roman religion (and I wonder if your history profs ever mentioned the numen. No they probably lectured about 'animism' or some bullshit) makes property a fundamentally religious institution.
Even the so-called civic virtues of fides, virtus, gravitas, and so on were religious notions.
Now, where are the same-sex marriages in Western history? Point them out to me.
Speak up for traditional marriage and everyone assumes you're some provincial Kansas City republican.
Last edited by Koveras on Thu Jan 07, 2010 9:31 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
