Just Say No To The GLBT Mafia!
Posted in Quickies, Religion on | 1 minute | 34 Comments →I support ‘Chick-Fil-A, with a caveat: I probably don’t support the farms they get their chicken from, but I say “probably” because I don’t know where they get it from. Chances are it’s a farm with inhumane practices. At any rate, members of the GLBT mafia calling for the “banishment” of ‘Chick-Fil-A restaurants are spreading anti-American, unconstitutional bigotry, and I challenge any one of them to provide a reasoned argument demonstrating otherwise. Incidents like this really expose the danger of the militant GLBT factions. They are threatening to undermine the very principles this country was founded upon.
Matt
says...I think it’s definitely a little extreme to boycott a restaurant that is made up of franchises for the statements of the owner. You’re only hurting small business owners who may or may not agree with those statements. I also don’t know why this business is being singled out. Should we be examining the beliefs of every company owner and calling for boycotts or trying to block them from building new constructions when we find out they disagree with us? Do traditional marriage supporters now get to boycott Jim Henson products?
I’m not a supporter of civil marriage at all, so should I boycott Jim Henson because they believe it is the governments right to tell us when we are and are not married (which anyone who supports any kind of civil marriage is essentially saying)? Sorry, I’m keeping my Farscape DVDs and not turning this into some kind of vain crusade that is going to create a lot of collateral damage without doing much to support my cause.
cl
says...LOL! Yeah, I agree. The more I look into this, the worse it gets. Maybe I’ve just been under a rock but I didn’t know that Frank Turek got displaced from Cisco Systems because he believes in traditional marriage. Apparently, some gay person called up Cisco and complained, not about anything to do with Turek’s work or anything, but that Turek believes in the traditional definition of marriage. As far as I know, Turek never discussed his views on the job or anything like that.
I fear that a new dark age is coming while those that usher it in ironically declare themselves the voice of reason and liberty. I’m appalled.
dale
says...It isn’t ironic that the “LGBT Mafia” seems to act and work much like the type of extremely self righteous, conservative, Republican Christian groups that they are diametrically opposed to. I guess it’s a fight fire with fire world. Neither are a place for the meek or the peace lovers. This all feels like GWB’s “ether you’re with us, or you’re against us” rhetoric. Good move to call it the way you see it. That’s a very unpopular, or should I say divisive, position to take.
dale
says...“Either with us…”, not ether. Though, ether is a bit poetic, don’t you think?
Crude
says...I think the biggest tragedy of the whole LGBT movement is the name and concept itself.
Do you have same-sex attraction? Then congratulations, my friend – you are part of the LGBT. They’ll put that tag right on your name in the wikipedia – “LGBT people in (x)”. That’s your culture, whether you like it or not. Think same-sex acts are wrong while having SSA yourself? You’re in denial. You’re a liar. You’re a stooge. You’re compensating.
And of course, there’s stuff like this. Mere apathy is not enough, even support for legal same sex marriage is not enough. The mentality is either that you support, without reservation, the “LGBT” – not people with SSA, but the specific political, sexual and social philosophy the organizations push, in their purest forms – or you’re a bigot. Someone they can root out to get you fired, or shamed in public, or ostracized, or worse.
lackofcheese
says...Yes, denying permits to Chick-fil-A on the basis of the organizations they’re donating money to, or the views of the owner, is unjustified and likely illegal. It would be a different matter if Chick-fil-A was actively discriminating in their employment or sales, but as far as I know this is not the case.
The organizations they donate money to are a good reason (among others) for many private citizens to not support and not frequent Chick-fil-A. However, that is completely not a justifiable reason for the mayors of Boston, Chicago, and San Francisco to deny them permits.
However, at the moment I see little reason to think that any kind of “dark age” is coming. I expect that those mayors will have to retract their comments.
cl
says...dale,
Yeah, the “ether” thing is a bit poetic!
lackofcheese,
Well yeah, if all one looks at is the ‘Chick-Fil-A incident in isolation, then I’d agree with you.
dale
says...i’m having a hard time imagining the “Four LGBT Horse-Persons of the Apocalypse” right now without laughing, so I’m not feeling the pending dark ages. This is a splinter topic, but I think the underlying moral of this story is: you f*ck with people’s money, they will listen.
cl
says...“Four LGBT Horse-Persons” …
LOLOLOL! Digital high five headed your way.
Crude
says...Indeed.
dale
says...Digital high five received!
Crude
says...Speaking of the LGBT mafia:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57493780/cops-lgbt-volunteer-shoots-conservative-groups-guard/
Crude
says...And just since it seems slow here over the past few days…
Police: anti-gay attack was faked. The woman in question denies the charge, but I wonder – if she did fake it, does the conspiracy go beyond her?
I like how the lawyer said she had nothing to gain by faking the attack. But that’s obviously untrue.
cl
says...Crude,
Yeah, it’s been dead around here. You know me, gung-ho for a few weeks then totally uninterested. I did happen to catch your link to Carrier’s frothing-at-the-mouth madness, all I can say is WOW. I thought he stuck his foot in his mouth on the Ehrman thing but this is beyond crazy. Basically, everything I’ve been saying is now coming to light, such that even the atheists can see. There’s no “freethought” at FTB, it’s just groupthink whoring itself out as rational inquiry. Did you see that Carrier took to deleting all those empathetic, reasonable insults he castigated dissenters with? Priceless.
Anyway, as far as your link, interesting. She had plenty of egoistic martyrdom to gain by faking the attack. I bet you could even find some people to say her actions were justified even if she did fake them.
Crude
says...cl,
Yeah, I figured. Not a problem of course.
There was another one recently, some male kid. But yeah, the whole “nothing to gain” thing is ridiculous. That’s like saying a Republican has nothing to gain by faking an attack by Democrats. “Political currency.”
And really, I think this just scratches the surface of a larger issue. But enough about that for now.
Re: Carrier, yeah – they are in full-blown schism mode now, complete with new names (Gnu+? Really?), calls for purging. It’s amazing. The movement isn’t even a decade old and already they’re cannibalizing.
What I think is really funny is that one thing the Cult of Gnu had going for it was that it provided a kind of sense of camaraderie – if nothing else, no matter what disagreements people had, everyone was an anti-theist and an atheist at the end of the day. Now, that’s not good enough. If you’re not actively whipped up in their politics (and I notice ‘we need less white male heterosexual speakers are these events!!!’ is getting prominent play), you’re a lesser creature. And if you’re a libertarian or objectivist? Go to hell, you’re the enemy.
I particularly wonder how Sam Harris is going to deal with this, since one of his major schticks was opposing religion on the grounds that it created divisions, and then later (after the Vox-style arguments) changing that to ‘opposing tribalism’. Now there are two gnu tribes, and who knows if that’s the end of the fracturing.
Thinking Emotions
says...Wow, what a moron. I’m ashamed to live on the same planet as these people, you know?
Anyway, my thoughts on the whole “GLBT mafia” (lol) are similar to cl’s. The people that want to define themselves by it are being abysmally silly. I don’t see heterosexuality as a primary defining factor for me. However, unlike you guys (or at least Crude), I have no problem with gay marriage. I don’t see why gays would want to enter into the institution of marriage in the first place though. Politically, and don’t hold me to this 100%, I most closely identify with libertarians. I’m fiscally conservative but socially liberal (e.g., okay with abortion, okay with gay marriage, etc).
WRT Chick-Fil-A, I never understood what the big deal was. The guy is free to donate his money wherever he wishes, and beyond that, he can believe what he wants. If you don’t like it, don’t buy from his restaurants.
Anyway, just thought I’d stop by to drop my two cents in on some small stuff. I recently got a job at a grocery store, so I’ve been pretty busy with that, girlfriend, family, preparing for college, etc. Just busy all around. Hope all is going well for everyone around here.
Peter Hurford
says...@ThinkingEmotions:
I mean, I can understand why it’s not a defining factor for you, but I don’t understand why you expect that of the homosexuality of homosexuals.
What about the financial and social benefits of marriage?
Crude
says...If you can’t understand why it’s actually pretty crazy for people with SSA to use their sexuality as a defining factor of their being, I really question whether if you do understand why it’d be crazy for a “heterosexual” to do so.
The funny thing is one of the only reasons this debate has gone as far as it has is because no one ever talks about the core aspect: the actual sex. It’s the biggest taboo subject in international politics right now, moreso than even racism.
Crude
says...International politics meaning “anywhere”, not like, “anal sex is a source of tension in Chinese-American diplomacy”.
Peter Hurford
says...Minority vs. majority status and the presence of stigmatization / discrimination are two pretty big differences between the two that would make the identity relevant for homosexuality. It’s kind of like why there are Black Student Unions but no White Student Unions.
Crude
says...It’s not a question of identity merely being relevant. It’s a question of defining oneself first and foremost by their sexual attraction.
Plenty of heterosexual guys engage in and enjoy masturbating – there’s a stigma there. Some guys may even prefer it to actual sex, for which there is absolutely stigma. A man defining himself ass a jackoffsexual would be bizarre, even granting that.
There’s no White Student Unions for many, many reasons other than that, and Black Student Unions exist for far more reasons than ‘social stigma’.
Peter Hurford
says...Sure the psychology of self-identification may be complex, but I don’t think this argument by analogy works. Jackoffsexuals clearly don’t find the need for shared community and political mobilization as homosexuals.
But other sex-focused identity communities do exist (see BDSM, slut-positives, furries, etc.) even when politics isn’t an issue, so argument by analogy in the opposite direction, homosexuality communities just don’t strike me as intuitively odd in the same way that heterosexuality communities do.
Crude
says...Clearly don’t? Why – because otherwise they’d be enjoying social solidarity and political success?
That argument would lead to the conclusion that the ‘need for shared community and political mobilization’ is a recent, rather than innate, desire on the part of people with SSA.
And again, there is a gulf between a person whose sexuality is an aspect of them, and a person for whom their sexuality is their defining trait. A man who defined himself to be, first and foremost, a bottom submissive gimp would strike everyone as supremely odd, even compared to some guy who just happened to enjoy BDSM.
You yourself seem to indicate you’d find a “furry-sexual” and furrysexual community, defining themselves first and foremost as furries as odd. But the only difference you seem to recognize between furries and homosexuals is some vague “Well clearly it’s different because homosexuals have had political success, and furries haven’t, so clearly they don’t care about the stigma or they aren’t trying very hard because if they were then they’d be successful” twist.
cl
says...LOLOLOL! I needed a good laugh today.
So here’s something to chew on. Growing up as a skateboarder before skateboarding was cool and mainstream, I routinely experienced stigmatization. And, when presenting my arguments for equality (specifically getting a skatepark built in town), I would argue along the lines of, “Skateboarders deserve equal treatment as baseball players, soccer players and hula-hoopers.”
However, never even once did I succumb to the inflated ego kick of “skateboarder pride” or anything like that, even though people denigrated and oppressed skateboarders in the same way people denigrate and oppress gays.
So there’s something more than a pure desire for equality at the root of this GLBT mafia. That’s what I think.
Crude
says...Oh, I agree. I imagine a comparison between the two movements (admitting they different straightaway in some important aspects) would be that skateboarders generally want to be able to do what they do legally and in peace. If skateboarders regarded anyone who disapproved of skateboarding for any reason as living threats who need to be punished, silenced or converted, we’d start questioning their sanity.
Part of the problem with the LGBT thing is the debate always is framed in the most innocuous fashion, especially in cultural terms. This comic is one that I always picture when it comes to framing the issue. Behold, the template for just about every fiction or media representation of the two sides of this issue. My favorite part of that how the quote talks about the issue being hard for children to understand, and the response is to frame it in the most child-like, inaccurate, innocuous way, which unintentionally drives the point home.
Thinking Emotions
says...Peter,
Civil unions can provide those benefits. Yeah, I don’t see what the big deal is either when it comes to allowing gays to get married, but for the time being, civil unions will have to suffice. The reason I made that comment in the first place (I don’t see why gays would want to get married) is because of the ideological affiliations of marriage in this culture. Though Christianity doesn’t necessarily stigmatize homosexuals, it certainly stigmatizes homosexuality. Why would a gay person want anything to do with such an institution (aside from aforementioned benefits)? It would be like me joining the Family Research Council or something.
I can understand the collective spirit of the oppressed, but to proactively make it a defining characteristic of one’s personality… give me a break. Part of this movement is about acceptance, and even if gay marriage were allowed, it would be just as much of a stigma. Just because something is legal does not mean it is socially accepted. This is probably putting it a little too bluntly, but the hopes of the “GLBT mafia” is essentially to indoctrinate future generations with the idea that homosexuality is normal/okay so it isn’t an issue anymore.
Obviously, I don’t think homosexuality is an issue and I have no problem with gay people or gay marriage. I’m just stating my observations. It’s sad that this is such a complicated issue.
Crude,
So do you think anal sex is a taboo among heterosexuals? Just curious. I’m not sure whether it is. Online porn would lead me to believe it’s not, but that’s not the best metric for whether a certain sexual behavior is normal since porn is an outlet for the most niche of sexual behaviors.
If there were a pornographic journalism website, this would definitely be a headline…
Crude
says...It used to be. Hell, oral sex used to be. ‘Sodomy’ wasn’t just something two guys did, at one point. It was the name of various acts, some of which could be entirely ‘hetero’. In Christian and Natural Law terms, it’s the sodomy that’s the problem/sin, and it’s a problem even with heterosexuals.
When I say taboo subject, I don’t mean ‘people find anal sex so disturbing they won’t even think about it’. I mean in public discourse, certainly public intellectual discourse, the subject isn’t broached at all in a realistic manner. Which is why same-sex sexual intercourse gets dumbed down to ‘two people showing they love each other’ or something equally namby-pamby. You know, because that’s what most sex is about now, right? That’s the energy powering the prostitution, sex slavery, and pornography trades: the desire to express love.
It’s like the culture is straddling two distinct ideas, where sex is extremely private and should never be discussed and what happens in the bedroom is nobody’s business, but at the same time any sex in a consensual relationship is sacred and blessed by fiat even though it can’t be discussed.
Thinking Emotions
says...So are you one of those people that believe a la Aquinas that we should only have sex in the missionary position, only for the sake of procreation (i.e., sex for pleasure’s sake is wrong even within a lawful marriage), don’t ever masturbate because it can’t result in reproduction, etc? It’s okay if you don’t, and I am not trying to say you are. I just want to know.
If I’m reading you correctly, you think the actual sex between homosexuals (or specifically, anal sex between two gay men) is the underlying hot button/controversy, yeah? Or at least, you called it the “core aspect” to the reason why the debate has persisted. Honestly, I just don’t know if I can agree with this. Yeah, it’s definitely a factor, but I wouldn’t call it the “core aspect” in any sense (especially within the context of the political arena).
In more sophisticated, theologically inclined debates, then perhaps it is indeed a factor, but not a core aspect. If the argument is over anal sex, anal sex applies to heterosexual couples as well as homosexual relationships, so that debate is separate from the issue of gay marriage.
The biggest reason this isn’t an issue to me is because I don’t subscribe to natural law ethical theory and I don’t think it matters what consenting folks do in their bedrooms. If you ask me, that has no bearing on love or legitimacy of partnership.
This doesn’t matter to me, but it unfortunately matters to much of the American public.
Crude
says...That’s completely and entirely inaccurate with regards to the natural law (and certainly Aquinas’) understanding of sex. So no, I don’t believe that.
Having pleasure during sex is entirely fine and natural on natural law and Christian understanding alike. Having sex and doing your best to avoid pregnancy is an example of where the problem comes in.
Insofar as Christian/Catholic teaching goes, that is precisely the problem – the sex and sexual activity. It goes well beyond ‘anal sex between two gay men’.
No, it is the core aspect. And one of the common criticisms of people who favor traditional marriage is precisely that their arguments are “theological”, so it being supposedly theological doesn’t discount it from being core.
That is, at the end of the day, a core aspect of the entire gay marriage debate. It also happens to be the aspect people are uncomfortable discussing frankly, especially the LGBT.
Sex is central to marriage, and the debate is absolutely not separate precisely because of that. In principle and in practice a heterosexual couple can engage in sodomy, but also in principle this isn’t necessary. In principle, there is no such distinction with gay marriage: any sex within marriage will be sodomy – unless you abstract it to the point where ‘well just because someone is married doesn’t mean they ever have sex’, which would involve such a dramatic rewrite of marriage that it would be an obvious word-game. The entire point of the gay marriage fight from the LGBT perspective is to sanctify the sex and sexual relationships alike.
You don’t think it matters? Okay, explain that one to me, because I honestly would like to know your position here. Are you saying that…
What sexual acts two people engage in, so long as it’s consensual, doesn’t mean anything to you at all? So no matter what they do, so long as it’s consenting, there is literally nothing to object to, nothing to worry about or counsel against, even if they’re a friend of yours?
And just in case, let’s tack this on: So long as it’s consenting, and neither one if physically harmed, it’s okay?
Thinking Emotions
says...So let’s say I just want to have sex with my wife and am content with the number of children I have, and I do not wish to have anymore. I want to have sex for the sake of sex itself — for the pleasure and physical affection. Why is this is an issue? This is what I was trying to get at.
And so I’m wrong on every point there? Last I checked, Aquinas does indeed think missionary is the only legitimate sexual position [link]*, masturbation is a violation of natural law ethical theory [link], and having sex for strictly pleasure is also wrong [link].
Look man, I’m not a scholar on Aquinas, but this stuff is pretty cut and dry. Aquinas DID think it unethical to have sex with your wife for solely pleasure, i.e., avoiding childbirth as a result. For crying out loud, he likened it to homicide. And I’m not saying that sex with the intent to create children can’t be pleasurable, but I am saying that I can’t see why it’s an issue to have already had children and then just want to have sex without having more. You’re not harming anything.
* On that link, make sure to ctrl + F for “missionary” and go to the second example. Aquinas called deviation from missionary worth than sex with one’s own mother, so I’m inclined to think that means pretty bad. It should also probably be noted as a concession that this line of thinking was derived from the thought that missionary position was the position most conducive to pregnancy because of gravity, which seems erroneous. Haven’t seen any research conducted on the matter though, unsurprisingly…
If no one’s harmed, then no. There is literally nothing that would concern me, and if you’d like, we can get graphic. As long as no one is getting physically harmed (outside of the harm from STDs or whatever) to avoid sticky legal situations, I don’t see the big deal.
And hell, let’s not get caught up in rare, sexually niche examples. It’s just anal sex! Straight people do it all the time and it’s never an issue. Would I think it was weird if the neighbors next to me dressed up like frogs and then had sex on giant plush lily pads? Uh, yeah, but they can do that if it makes ’em happy. It’s not harming them and it’s not harming me.
So are you trying to say that you’re seriously worried about what’s going on behind some folks’ bedroom doors?
I wouldn’t use the word sanctify (though many LGBT folks are aiming for that), but I basically agree with the point you’re making. They’re aiming for social acceptance with the gay marriage movement, and they aren’t going to get it.
Ah, okay. I was speaking in general, not just limited to the views of Christianity and Catholicism. Thanks for the clarification… I now agree that sex is an extremely important part of the debate WRT the religious side.
Thinking Emotions
says...Worse, not worth.
Crude
says...Because it’s an abuse of the purpose and point of sex, rather like how vomiting up food you eat because ‘you want the pleasure of eating but aren’t too interested in digestion’ would likewise be considered a kind of abuse.
You may disagree with the reasoning, but at least let’s get clear on what the reasoning actually is.
The missionary position link gets Aquinas wrong, and Aquinas’ thoughts aren’t the beginning and end of natural law besides. Yes, masturbation is a violation, and sex that intentionally avoids the natural ends of sex is wrong as well. And it’s still incorrect to claim that sex was ‘only for the sake of procreation’ on natural law, because pleasure during sex is entirely acceptable and good by natural law and church teaching alike. Just as enjoying food is entirely acceptable while eating.
What you claimed before is “(i.e., sex for pleasure’s sake is wrong even within a lawful marriage)” – and that’s incorrect. Pleasure with sex, desiring sex because it’s pleasing, is entirely fine on natural law. Contraception is going beyond simple pleasure.
Regarding the missionary position link: I’m not really impressed with an unsourced link written by an excommunicated theologian with an axe to grind. Bring up the quote from Aquinas if you’re interested and we can talk it over if you really want.
First, how do you quantify ‘harm’ in this case?
Second, alright, let’s get graphic! Three hypothetical examples.
Situation one: You’re friends with a guy who is sexually excited by, and masturbates to, guro and (faked, of course) snuff/rape films. Is there something wrong with your friend? Should you be concerned? Would you feel morally obligated to, if you could, help him lose this habit and desire?
Situation two: Is there something wrong with Doug Thomas? Should we regard him as damaged, someone who could use help?
Situation three: Anne and Dan are happily married. Anne is absolutely thrilled at rape fantasies, and so is Dan. They go to great lengths to act these scenarios out, some of them pretty brutal and vile. But Anne’s never permanently hurt, and the bruising is pretty minimal. Is there a problem? If friends and family somehow found out, would it be right of them to even hope that this stops?
No, let’s get into sexually niche examples like the above, precisely because it touches on an important question: is all consensual sex and fantasy, short of physical harm like a broken like or a lost life, okay and acceptable and not something to regard as harmful or negative or ‘damaged’? Is there such a thing as a “healthy attitude” regarding sex? How about an “unhealthy attitude” that doesn’t have to do with being a prude?
These are important fundamental questions.
Yes, I am. Look, I’m not advocating busting down doors to check on people. I hate state-sponsored action in response to most ‘problems’. But yes, I think there’s such a thing as ‘healthy’ and ‘unhealthy’ sexual desires – even in a secular sense, though that’s more and more disappearing as people recognize what the stakes are. Nor am I pure – hell, I’ve seen porn, and I’m damn sure I have my own likes that I’m better off not indulging in. But we’re hitting a societal stage now where it’s becoming harder and harder to even recognize problems. Hell, the very act of recognizing a problem is ITSELF seen as the problem more and more.
Well, I think they will and they won’t for a while. I think there’s a weird, kind of artificial acceptance going on. But I also think this is pretty complicated. Western culture is turning japanese (so to speak) in a lot of ways, insofar as we’ve developed a new layer of language and public speaking that involves avoiding bluntness and telling obvious lies/speaking artificially, despite almost everyone recognizing what’s really being said.
Well, I also think it’s important from a secular side, believe it or not – I owe cl a series of arguments on this front in fact. But fair enough.
By the way, excuse me if I use some blunt language here. I’m not trying to be an asshole, and even if you disagree with me on this, I think this conversation is productive. But this is one topic I don’t like to pull punches on anymore, because I think it’s been punch-pulled into an extreme.
Thinking Emotions
says...WARNING: THIS POST IS EXTREMELY LONG. I DO NOT EXPECT AN IMMEDIATE OR TIMELY RESPONSE. PLEASE, TAKE YOUR TIME, AND FEEL FREE TO ONLY RESPOND TO THE PARTS WHICH YOU CONSIDER RELEVANT :) THANKS.
I’m glad you don’t want to pussyfoot around this topic. Believe me, I don’t either, and it disgusts me when folks don’t want to get their hands dirty in this subject matter. The examples you brought up were excellent, by the way. I really appreciate your candor in this matter. I feel like many folks reflexively disassociate themselves from the reality of an issue at hand, and it just makes it harder to have a productive exchange.
First, let’s settle (or at least further address) the issue revolving around my understanding or lack thereof of natural law and Aquinas and stuff.
I know this is beside the point, but that’s an obvious form of abuse. I mean, we have a name for it: bulimia. It’s not because it’s logically self-defeating or anything (i.e., like an action that violates Kant’s categorical imperative), but because it’s genuinely harmful.
Using contraceptives during sex simply isn’t. Sure, maybe you could make an argument that condoms are harmful because of latex allergies or that birth control causes hormonal imbalances within women, but that’s about it. And yes, pulling out IS a form of contraception, and aside from its miserably low rate of success, it’s not harmful in any obvious way.
Let’s return to the point you were actually trying to demonstrate, though: teleological ends and such. With that analogy, you’re presuming that the ultimate goal of sex is reproduction. Why? Says who? This is my initial reaction to almost every ethical theory or principle because when we get down to it, I feel they’re all equally arbitrary.
Sure, one of the results of sex is reproduction, but it’s not the only possible result, and it’s far from a guaranteed result. The claim that sex is meant to be used as a reproductive mechanism strikes me as unjustified and bold. Should sterile couples not be allowed to have sex? Are they obligated to adopt a child every time they have sex or something? Not trying to be a smart ass, I swear.
Just because one of the functions of sex is reproduction does not mean that is the intended purpose of sex or the only reason we should have sex. Sex actually has a lot of functions. Unlike the process of eating food, the process of having sex does not inevitably end in something like eating does for healthy people. Two adults can be of stupendous health, have sex while using no form of contraceptive, and the woman can still not be pregnant.
Now that I think about it, we don’t eat in order to digest things. Sure, digesting food is a result of eating food, but we don’t eat for the sake of digesting food. We eat for, primarily, sustenance and pleasure. Now, obviously, we couldn’t do the whole sustenance thing without digesting them, but hopefully you see what I mean… all the other functions of sex still work even if the result isn’t reproduction.
Fair enough. He’s not the beginning and end of natural law. So, let’s get this straight then: you don’t think sex outside of the missionary position is sinful or “less holy” or something?
I don’t think it’s incorrect at all. Yeah, obviously sex does other things (e.g., feels good, burns calories, improves mood), but on this natural law theory, its teleological end is reproduction. That’s what it’s meant or intended to do. Right? This is my understanding of natural law, and I’ve already done a fair bit of explaining why I reject this line of thought.
I wasn’t trying to say that natural law theory says it’s wrong to enjoy sex and I may have said that earlier. What I was saying, and what I find incredibly odd, is that it’s wrong to have sex with one’s marital partner and aiming to not have kids. I find this especially odd because it even applies to those that have fulfilled their “duty” by multiplying.
Let’s say I’m not particularly hungry, but I eat an ice cream cone just because it tastes good. Have I sinned? Let’s take this to the limits of absurdity. Let’s say I’m absolutely stuffed, but I have exactly one M&M left in a pack from earlier. I eat it for the sake of enjoying its flavor. Have I sinned?
Is chewing gum a sin since it is pretty much just for the flavor and not for the sustenance or digestion?
I’m sorry I wasn’t clearer. What I meant to say is sex that is had strictly for the purpose of pleasure, and no other things are intended. One of the things among the unintended are procreation. This is what I mean when I say natural law dictates that sex is meant for reproduction. Sex that excludes it is unlawful on this view. That’s puzzling, IMO.
We both agree that sex has functions (e.g., feels good, causes reproduction, relieves stress). Where we disagree is that sex has a purpose or intention. You use the phrase, “pleasure with sex…” as if sex is necessarily something more. I never said enjoying sex was wrong on natural law. What I said is that having sex strictly for pleasure (i.e., making an effort to avoid reproduction since it is not desired) was wrong on natural law. Notice the subtle differences in our phrasing.
You’re saying pleasure with sex, or pleasure during sex, as if the sex serves an entirely separate purpose.
I don’t think contraception is going beyond pleasure, but rather ensuring only pleasure. If I am aiming to not have kids and only to have a pleasurable night of sex with my wife, then I would obviously take some action or precaution to achieve this end. You’re right that this is different from wanting to have a pleasurable night of sex and just not caring if procreation happens to be a result, and the fact that it is different is my whole point.
So, while you say it’s wrong to have sex and make an effort to avoid reproduction, I’m sure you don’t think it’s wrong to have sex and make an effort to not feel pleasure, to not burn calories, to not reduce stress, etc. This is what I mean when I say that under natural law, the intended end of sex is reproduction. This is my understanding of natural law. Am I wrong?
Man, these are all excellently contrived and thoughtful scenarios. I am really going to enjoy responding to them! Let me quantify harm as you did: any physical harm. Let’s just take the commonsense route here and stick to bruising, cuts, slapping, breaking of bones, etc. Not for the sake of avoiding morally sticky spots, but for the sake of avoiding legally sticky spots.
Situation one: Weren’t we talking about sexual activity, i.e., what two or more people do behind their bedroom doors? Yeah, you can masturbate all day, but that’s not sex, and I almost feel it’s irrelevant because no one is being harmed in this case by the actions of another. I wasn’t under the impression that we were talking about whether desires in and of themselves were healthy.
Anyway, I can’t say whether I’d be concerned. It’s totally logically possible that he could masturbate to this stuff and find it very arousing, but still have a healthy sex life and relationship with his partner. However, I would go deeper than, “man, there is something unethical about that desire.” I would probably think, “someone that finds this arousing was probably traumatized at some point in their life.”
The reason why I don’t say this about other paraphilias (e.g., foot fetishism) is because I can’t call a neural cross-talk between feet and sexual pleasure resulting from playing with one’s mother’s feet at a young age particularly traumatizing. However, I can say that witnessing your mother being raped, tortured, then murdered at a young age is traumatizing, and perhaps this would lead to a fascination or arousal from guro. Or, y’know, more commonly, being a serial killer.
To answer: no, there is not something necessarily wrong with him, but there could be, and there is definitely an explanation as to why he finds this stuff arousing. I would be concerned if I didn’t know the origin of his sexual desire. I would feel obligated to help my friend lose this desire if I felt it was impeding upon his ability to have a mutually satisfying relationship.
Situation two: First of all, LOL. I’m basically going to repeat myself. No, there is not something necessarily wrong with him, and we should only attempt to help him if this sexual fixation is impeding upon his ability to have a mutually satisfying relationship.
Situation three: I’ve actually heard about this sort of thing. Apparently, women will give significant others their schedule and the significant other will pick a random time on a random day during an hour where she is relatively available to “rape” her. The problem with this is not supplied from the moral approach, but rather the legal approach. You could make a compelling argument that it’s still a legally legitimate rape (speaking of which: what up, Todd Akin? Hahahaha).
This is the same reason why people can’t willingly offer cannibals the chance to eat them (yes, this HAS happened before). It’s due to the legal stickiness, not the moral stickiness. I mean, if a person truly desires to be eaten, then that’s what they want, I guess.
Anyway, to answer the question. No, in moral principle, I do not find this to be a problem. Again though, I want to make sure we’re abiding by the conditions we’ve laid out. Bruising is a form of harm, even if it’s just minimal/temporary. As for what friends and family members think, this similarly has to do with known information (see prompt one WRT origin of fixation). If friends and family know about Anne and Dan’s mutual compliance and love of the rape fantasy, then I guess it would depend on the individuals themselves.
Alright. I’d say it would depend on why the people participating in those sexual fantasies have those sexual urges in the first place. What did they experience that made them turned on by this? If it’s a psychologically unresolved traumatic event, then I think we could call this “unhealthy.” If it’s a psychologically resolved traumatic event, but the urge still lingers and is relatively harmless, then I say we can call this “healthy.”
Where this distinction is absolutely vital is in dealing with pedophiles. Technically, in order to be considered a pedophile, you just have to be attracted to prepubescent humans. You don’t have to actually do anything with a prepubescent human. Is it wrong in and of itself to be attracted to prepubescent children? I don’t know. Is it wrong to fantasize about? I don’t know. I mean, fantasy is indeed just fantasy.
Skirting closer to controversy, is it wrong to create and use things like lolicon and computer generated child porn? Again, I’m really not sure. Skirting to the absolute boundaries of controversy, would it be wrong to create and use a lifelike child robot for pleasure? Again, I’m not sure. I can’t say it’s wrong… it’s not like the robot is conscious or anything. And what if studies show that this decreases the rate of pedophiles that become sex offenders? Would it thereby be good? There are a ton of things to consider here.
Yeah, I would agree that there are unhealthy sexual desires, both in the literal and abstract senses. For example, if it aroused you to watch someone eat your shit, then I would say this is literally unhealthy (while we’re at it, lol). Consuming feces is ridiculously dangerous. I would call this unhealthy because it is undoubtedly going to impede upon your ability to enjoy a mutually satisfying relationship.
HOWEVER, if watching someone consume your feces arouses you and you are able to just enjoy this as a fantasy and still have a mutually satisfying relationship without it, or to a far less severe degree (e.g., having sex in the bathroom after taking a dump to enjoy the aroma? I don’t know), then I suppose it’s okay.
Going back to guro, it’s possible to enjoy that stuff and still have a mutually satisfying relationship. But the moment someone actually starts cutting their partner up in the middle of intercourse, then it’s obviously a different story. Again, I can’t say whether it’s actually healthy to have that urge. If someone with that urge has dealt with the roots of it and the urge persists, then I would say this person is healthier than the same person who has the urge and has yet to investigate the root cause.
The bottom line just comes down to whether one can appreciate things like guro or poop eating as pure fantasy while enjoying/maintaining a relationship that lacks them.
By artificial acceptance, do you mean that it’s become trendy or the politically correct thing to accept gay marriage? If so, I agree. In fact, I don’t think this is a matter of opinion. It’s just how things actually are.
As for that new layer of language and public speaking, that’s always existed, my friend. It’s called politics. ;) The more troubling thing to me is that I fear many people, in fact most, do not realize what’s really being said.
Anyway, this has been a damn good exchange so far… looking forward to continuing it. I apologize for the length.
Crude
says...Thinking Emotions,
Thanks for the thorough reply. I’m going to zero in on key parts, as per your suggestion. If I overlook anything you think is important, please say so and I’ll do my best to address it.
Sure, we have a name for it. But how do we determine it’s ‘genuinely harmful’ or that it’s an ‘obvious form of abuse’? Keep in mind that until relatively recently, same-sex attraction was itself treated (from a secular point of view!) as a disorder, ever bit as ‘obviously harmful’ as bulimia. The fact that the act has a name, the fact that it’s treated as a disorder by psychologists and even doctors, doesn’t get one to the justification that it’s wrong.
Now, under natural law, the reason it’s called ‘disordered’ is obvious. Otherwise? I think you’re going to find that calling it ‘harmful’ is every bit as arbitrary as calling anything else ‘harmful’.
For one thing, if you remove reproduction, you don’t have a species anymore. I think even on empirical grounds Thomists are in a good position to argue that sex is ultimately about reproduction, or that reproduction is central to it. Of course, if you reject any and all purposes, direction and intentionality to begin with, that’s another story (but then this conversation is impossible.)
And Thomists/NLT don’t say that ‘the only reason to have sex is to have children’. By all means, have sex with a spouse because it’s fun, because you both like to, etc. But ‘having sex’ naturally, purposefully entails reproduction as a possibility. To put it another way, if you have sex and someone runs risk of getting pregnant, you didn’t do it wrong.
Nope. I’m aware of no Thomist or NLT who does think so.
I think you may be misunderstanding it if you take ‘the final cause of sex is reproduction’ to mean ‘you should NEVER have sex except to reproduce’ or ‘if you have sex and no pregnancy results, you sinned and did something horrible’. The final cause of sex is reproduction. Sex is enjoyed, even rightly enjoyed, for a variety of reasons. That’s not in conflict with natural law, just like eating something and enjoying the experience isn’t wrong.
You’re asking me if it’s a sin if you’re eating like a pig and stuffing yourself. Yeah, it’s gluttony. And yes, gluttony is an example of an abuse. Really, even on the ‘let’s go by what the doctors say’ front, gluttony is bad: see obesity, see eating disorders. (And then see the problem with those as I referenced above.)
Yes, when you corrupt the act of sex to turn it into something other than its natural ends, you’re doing something wrong on natural law. The subtle difference isn’t an issue – I’m well aware of what you said. But my point was that having sex for pleasure is entirely okay on NLT. It’s the intentional corruption of what would naturally result from the act where the problem comes in.
Honestly, I think part of the reason people have trouble seeing this is the vocabulary. Whether you have sex with or without contraception, it’s called ‘sex’, even though the two acts are fundamentally different. It’s a little like seeing a man having sex with an 8 year old, a man having sex with a dog, and a man having sex with his wife as three instances of the same thing: they’re all ‘having sex’.
First, what does the origin have to do with anything? So there are certain conditions under which it’s okay, so long as the origin is the right type?
Second, why expect him to even have an explanation for what he likes? You can get into some good ol’ psychoanalysis with a foot fetishist, but again, does this matter? Are you saying you need a justification for your sexual desires in order to validate them?
Third: Alright. he replies, “I don’t want a mutually satisfying relationship. I’m fine with this.” Is having the right kind of relationship essential to a healthy, functioning human being? What if he replies, “Oh, I have some. There’s a friend of mine who comes over and likes this too, we jack off to it together.”? Is the reply, well, okay, I guess you’re totally alright and there’s nothing wrong with you at all then?
Alright, but take a good, hard look at what you’re saying here: Doug Thomas and a man who’s married to and faithful to his wife are both equally okay morally, physically, sexually. One is not better than the other. You say that the only problem would be if he was being impeded in his ability to have a ‘mutually satisfying relationship’, but I’m again going to ask what that has to do with anything. What if he tells you that you’re broken because you require this ‘mutually satisfying relationship’, when you’d be far better off liking what he likes?
You say bruising is a form of harm. I ask why? Who determines this? Some people like to be bruised or smacked around or cut up. Then again, you’re saying that if they like it, well, the only problem is legal, that’s that. There’s no moral problem, and presumably, we can’t say that these people are damaged, in need of help, etc. The one area you’re holding out on is with regards to a ‘mutually satisfying relationship’, but I think even that’s going to have to fall. In which case, no standards exist, period. No one is ever damaged or harmed or anything, and there’s no such thing as true objective harm. At best there’s some arbitrary standard of ‘well, people like or dislike this’.
I’m repeating myself, but again I’d ask why the origins of the desires are relevant. Because there’s such a thing as a properly functioning human being, and properly function human beings don’t have experience X – but they can desire anything and they’re still properly functioning? Again, I don’t think you’re going to be able to hold onto this, because the same arguments you used to regard all sexual acts as wrong or right only when relative to interest is going to carry over to any talk of harm and proper function, at least given your view.
By artificial I mean, I think quite a lot of people who will defend gay marriage and same sex relationships like crazy, when you catch them with their guard down in private, are going to say they think those relationships are pretty screwed up. Even people IN those relationships. This is what I mean about us turning japanese – these added layers of rhetorical shielding and acting-as-if.
I agree that politics has always been around, but I think it’s been exacerbated in recent years. Speaking frankly used to happen more often, whether in business or politics, certainly in more casual situations. Now? Everyone is on guard. That’s my perception of it.