Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 12:45 pm
Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 12:34 pm
Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 12:24 pmIt also implies that a "gay cure" could work, when of course such attempts fail, and could only succeed in psychological harm.
The larger, prevailing ethic is that homosexuality (and other deviancies) exist and must be accepted in a liberal society.
I do not accept the term "deviant". That is the language of the Nazis.
Pretty soon someone will come along and find out how you deviate from the the norm. Then its you for the gas chambers
My own view? Nevertheless it should be suppressed, not encouraged, not advertised, not presented as a viable alternative life-style.
“Back into the closet you go!” — yet it is a far more spacious closet.
There is a point, surely you recognize this? when the normalization of deviancy will become intolerable even to liberal-minded people.
oooh poor victim~!!
You seem to be a victim of your own bigotry - enjoy!
The difference here is that you want to impose your version of normality onto other people, whilst the people you like to call deviant just want to be left alone to life their lives with the same rights that you have.
My view is that each one of us, each one who has an idea and an opinion, we have to *locate* ourselves within the belief and understanding system in which we really do exist. *Location* and *locating* imply discovering and knowing oneself, perhaps at a deeper and a more committed level. So, what I notice about what you say (the 'poor victim lol' comment and your general guilt-slinging) is that I can fairly locate you within a cultural zealotry which is intensely moralistic and moralizing.
de·vi·ate (dē′vē-āt′)
v. de·vi·at·ed, de·vi·at·ing, de·vi·ates
v.intr.
1. To turn aside from a course or way: hikers who deviated from the main path.
2. To depart, as from a norm, purpose, or subject; differ or stray. See Synonyms at swerve.
v.tr.
To cause to turn aside or differ.
n. (-ĭt)
A deviant.
[Late Latin dēviāre, dēviāt- : Latin dē-, de- + Latin via, road; see wegh- in Indo-European roots.]
de′vi·a′tor n.
de′vi·a·to′ry (-ə-tôr′ē) adj.
Curious then, and I think revealing, that my introduction of the term 'deviancy' evokes in you brandishing the "You are a Nazi!" stick. It is the ultimate blame tool and it compares with a zealous Christian believer's use of the designation "Satanic!"
True, to define 'normalcy' and a standard
does involve many different sets of judgment and assessment -- a value-system -- but the use of that profoundly moralizing epithet to describe anyone whose ideas and values you wish to demonize is a pretty transparent tactic. So then, the first order of business is disassembling that sort of usage.
And when that is done, I suggest, a window opens to examine entire realms of liberal and I think hyper-liberal moralization that functions within processes of 'social engineering'. Merely by seeing and understanding that we live in worlds where these techniques of manipulation are used enables us to deconstruct that level of *argument* and get back to the real topic: the definition of values.
My argument is in favor of the man-woman relationship, the productive, child-bearing relationship, and that placed at the very center of valuation and of value. I've worked it (my argument) out without recourse to a religious platform of belief, but I cannot say that metaphysical notions do not operate in my value-stress.
So I can, and without much huffing or puffing, simple assert that a rational standard of normalcy does exist which, generally speaking, is intuitively grasped. Those who define some other, contradicting, value-set are free to do so. But their arguments (in my view) generally fail.
So I work from this premise: it is best to accentuate and valuate in the highest category the 'normal' man-woman relationship. Deviancy from that norm must be tolerated (homosexuality must be tolerated) but it must be suppressed by mutual agreement. The 'fruitful' and 'productive' man-woman relationship should be encouraged, indeed it should be afforded rights and rewarded. And anything that operates against it should be criticized.
Have I sunk into what you call "bigotry"? I do not think so.
Would I recommend teaching the value that I am here describing and defending? Certainly yes. Is that the same as *imposing*? To some degree it is because of the entire process of *inculcation*.
So let's be realistic: If you were to design an education program for the young you would, without doubt, inculcate them in the values that you profess, would you not? The modern hyper-liberal moral system is intensely demanding and intensely moralizing and we are all aware that one can be 'cancelled' for even minor deviations (whooops!)
in·cul·cate (ĭn-kŭl′kāt′, ĭn′kŭl-)
tr.v. in·cul·cat·ed, in·cul·cat·ing, in·cul·cates
1. To impress (something) upon the mind of another by frequent instruction or repetition; instill: inculcating sound principles.
2. To teach (others) by frequent instruction or repetition; indoctrinate: inculcate the young with a sense of duty.
[Latin inculcāre, inculcāt-, to force upon : in-, on; see in-2 + calcāre, to trample (from calx, calc-, heel).]
in′cul·ca′tion n.
in·cul′ca′tor n.
In my view the conversation proposed in this thread is a good one and should be taken seriously. And to understand why people differ so strongly can only be understood if their value-systems are examined at an atomic and molecular level.