Printable View
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-19399582
Very disappointing nonsense to hear out of Ken Maginnis. I know he's a septuagenarien and probably lets his morality be informed by a conservative religiousity but his comments, which he apparently stands over, are hateful guff.
It happened in June. To be honest it's strange in one sense considering the general moderate stance he has always taken on certain issues however it's no real surprise for a septegenurian Unionist to find homosexuality abhorrent.
Likewise I wouldn't find it odd that a grandparent of mine held similar views or had an underlying racist or anti-Semetic streak. It's not condoning their behaviours but with every passing generation you will find that of the previous generations have a belief that is out-of-step with general thinking.
I'm sure my grandkids will think my stance on various things offensive whereas my parents would think I'm liberal.
I grew up having a lot of time and respect (I am willing to forget his UDR days) for Ken. This will not diminish that to the extent if say, a friend of mine were to say such things. It's not as if he has smacked bibles like Paisley on the matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BonnieShels
Im not, or the time he threw the Irish flag into the Thames
Was "Davy Keogh Says Hello" written on it? If so.....Quote:
Originally Posted by bennocelt
Maybe I should have said "forgive" rather than "forget".Quote:
Originally Posted by bennocelt
I don't think it's that strange. Plenty of politicians can be moderate or liberal on one issue (eg sexuality, censorship etc.) and bat-sh*t hardcore on others (economics, nationality).Quote:
Originally Posted by BonnieShels
But always thought his 'moderate' reputation was a bit strange. Whether it follows from his liking for rugby trips to the Shelbourne bar, or not being in the Orange Order. Er, but that's only because the Royal Black Preceptory is even more Orangeist.
Possibly unnecessary party dig there. He's an old man from a trad religious background who's not down with the gays. Whether unionist or other isn't really relevant.Quote:
however it's no real surprise for a septegenurian Unionist to find homosexuality abhorrent
I suppose the classic example would be the US right wing, economically liberal, socially terrifyingly conservative.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
Because catholicism has an excellent relationship with the gay community!Quote:
Possibly unnecessary party dig there. He's an old man from a trad religious background who's not down with the gays. Whether unionist or other isn't really relevant.
Not really, as they're economically conservative too- in the sense of harking back to pre-Marxist or Keynesian economics, sending small boys up chimneys etc. Hence the term neo-con.Quote:
Originally Posted by peadar1987
I was thinking more of supporting abortion, homosexuality, contraception etc. while at the same time wanting to abolish the welfare state.
Not to derail the thread, but I always used "liberal" as an antonym to "authoritarian". I'd normally use "progressive" as the opposite to "conservative". So a conservative wouldn't necessarily be authoritarian, it just so happens that in the US, the era they're trying to conserve was quite an authoritarian one in social terms.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
How exactly would one go about arguing that homosexuality is unnatural? The whole natural-unnatural dichotomy is a false one, as far as I'm concerned. Human actions, be they sexual or not, are as much an inherent part of nature as any other aspect of the natural world. And besides, bisexual/homosexual behaviour has been observed in not only one of our closest cousins, the bonobo ape, but throughout the animal kingdom.
Firstly, I want to make it clear that I have no problems at all with homosexuality, support their rights and so on. However, from the perspective that sex is for the purposes of procreation, gay sex is an unnatural act (whether it's humans, monkeys or dolphins). As an expression of love for or physical intimacy with someone of the same sex it is a natural consequence of that attraction. Attraction is a preference and in my opinion, that may be innate or learned.
Also agree that the reference to Maginnis' political preference is unnecessary. Insert catholic, Jew or Muslim and its the same case.
Well, people can play with the definition of "natural" all they want, but at the end of the day, it's irrelevant. The Appeal to Nature is a logical fallacy.Quote:
Originally Posted by SkStu
For me, it's more that he called homosexuality "deviant", and that it was the "thin end of the wedge" leading to incest and paedophilia, and that he finds the gay rights movement "offensive". And that's not to mention the fact that, no matter what correct definitions there actually are for the word "unnatural", it has become a loaded term in the gay marriage debate, and should probably be steered clear of if you don't want it taken the wrong way.
Annoys the tits off this particular raving hetro when conservative types -be they RC, Prod, Republican, Unionist, Neo Con or just sentimental about 'family values' equate homosexuality with paedophilia/sexual deviancy. It just drips ignorance.
Who has prefigured that the sole purpose of sex is procreation? Or that the purpose of anything is anything? How do you decide or define an exclusive purpose for something? Existence precedes essence, thereby leaving us free to decide or formulate our own personal essence. If someone wishes to engage in sexual intercourse solely for fun, that doesn't render their behaviour unnatural. Not all heterosexual sex is performed with procreation in mind either anyway, nor do we spend every minute of every living day engaging in sexual intercourse because we might feel that our human purpose is to procreate or whatever. Emotional bonding can be an entirely valid purpose to intercourse too, no? Besides, the purpose of gay sex, by its nature, obviously isn't procreation. It doesn't have to be compared to or judged against the perceived standard of heterosexual intercourse. Can't it be defined or viewed on its own terms?Quote:
Originally Posted by SkStu
"Actually, there is no such thing as a homosexual person, any more than there is such a thing as a heterosexual person. The words are adjectives describing sexual acts, not people. The sexual acts are entirely normal; if they were not, no one would perform them." - Gore Vidal.
Are you asking me those questions directly Danny? I hope not. A lot of the points you raised were addressed in the second half of my post. My point is/was that it depends on your perspective. A lot of people (billions) believe that sex is for procreational purposes therefore you will have those people thinking that gay sex is unnatural and, by that definition, it is. For us more liberal types life isn't so black & white.
As I said in my post before, I support gay rights, i also have quite a few gay friends but the rights and wrongs of it are clearly up for debate when you live in a complicated global society. One thing I have made clear to my friends is that just because they are put upon in a lot of walks of life, the gay community (whatever that is) shouldn't feel immune from justifiable criticism. I don't know if you've seen or heard of a show called "One Girl, Five Gays" - its set the perception of gay people back years in my opinion.
I may have misinterpreted your words as sympathising with that perspective rather than simply outlining the alternative view. Apologies if offence was taken. Billions may believe in that perspective, but it doesn't make it logically correct. Humanity believed the Earth to be flat at one point too, after all. I'm explaining why I think that perspective on homosexuality to be incorrect (or insulting bunkum, to be less polite) because I don't see how it is logically possible to predefine the purpose of any human act (especially if one is not engaged in it), or any aspect of nature for that matter.
Not familiar with 'One Girl, Five Gays', but will check it out. Why do you feel it has set the perception of the gay community back years?
As a related aside, I came across Donal Óg Cusack's speech at the Foyle Pride 2012 launch the other week earlier:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPmBIifX2x8
Thought it a very good speech on the issue; inspirational and containing the right mix of serious and humourous.
Here it is in text: http://www.gaycork.com/2012/08/donal...ride-festival/
I'll let you check it out and see what you think. It is a round table format hosted by the "One Girl". When gay people are on MTV prime time celebrating their own promiscuity and their desire to convert straight people, it leaves me scratching my head. It was the graphic nature of the trailers that shocked me. I can't imagine there being an accepted hetero equivalent. I don't understand the intent of the show cos it ain't good PR (or maybe I'm just old and uncool now).Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
By the way, I totally reject the argument that no human act or act of nature has no associated, clearly defined purpose. Sex just happens to be one of those acts that has more than one purpose i.e. 1) procreation and 2) expression of love/lust. The act of gay sex falls under the second.
Acts can come to have defined intents and purposes certainly, but what I disagree with is the notion that there is some predefined (or essentialist, if you will) purpose or necessary essence to the act of sexual intercourse. The act can be for the purpose of whatever those engaging in it want it to be. It could be for one of the two purposes you mention, or it could be for neither and for some other purpose entirely; think pornography, for example, where the primary purpose is commercial, or prostitution, where the purpose is perhaps recreational for one party and perhaps economic, amongst other possible purposes, for the other. There may even be other parties! In theory, sexual intercourse may be so casual, it may be difficult to pinpoint any purpose whatsoever.Quote:
Originally Posted by SkStu
It's the concept of essentialism with which I'm taking issue really. What's the purpose of a banana, for example? It could technically be used for many things and to claim that one "purpose" (say, eating it) is more natural than another (say, merely using it decoratively in a kitchen fruit bowl or using it as a comedic device upon which a protagonist's victim is to slip) doesn't really make sense to me as I don't see how one could argue that it has some predefined function that is more objectively correct than some other possible use.
Evolution is another concept to which humans like to attribute a purpose for various reasons, but it has no absolute purpose. It is simply an unconscious process guided not by predefinition or purpose, but rather by a mixture of random and the laws of nature. It just exists or occurs and is what it is, whatever that happens to be. Anyway, I'm getting a bit off the point, but just raising these examples to explain my overall point a bit better.
I'm sorry Danny but the purpose of a banana is to be eaten. Nature didn't introduce the banana for comedic value. Humans may come to use it for a secondary or tertiary purpose but a banana is fuel for the body. Subjectivity can change the "purpose" of a lot of things but that is human influence not natural purpose. Heterosexual sex and gay sex are two different acts presumably each with their own separate natural purposes. Procreation is the natural purpose of hetero sex, but it has evolved through our own subjectivity to be used for a number of reasons and it's natural purpose probably comes somewhere towards the end of all the humanity based purposes but it doesn't negate the fact that its ultimate purpose is to keep the human race in existence. Everything cannot just exist because it exists.
Also, imo you can't argue for randomness and for the laws of nature in the same post. It's kind of talking out of both sides of your mouth...well actually you can do what you like but I'm not buying it!!! :)
In fact, bananas exist to make more bananas. They are a product of natural selection. It just so happens that the most effective way for old-timey bananas to make more bananas was to be eaten by animals and have their seeds spread, so evolution dragged them in that direction.Quote:
Originally Posted by SkStu
Procreation is one of the core purposes of human sex, in the sense that anything has a purpose. However, "purpose" and "nature" don't reveal anything about morality. Humans have moved beyond just being creatures of instinct and self-preservation.Quote:
Subjectivity can change the "purpose" of a lot of things but that is human influence not natural purpose. Heterosexual sex and gay sex are two different acts presumably each with their own separate natural purposes. Procreation is the natural purpose of hetero sex, but it has evolved through our own subjectivity to be used for a number of reasons and it's natural purpose probably comes somewhere towards the end of all the humanity based purposes but it doesn't negate the fact that its ultimate purpose is to keep the human race in existence. Everything cannot just exist because it exists.
Incidentally, there are a lot of theories about how homosexuality has been beneficial in an evolutionary sense. They range from maintaining a critical mass of productive adults in a family unit without overloading things with kids, to research that suggests that the sisters of homosexuals are more fertile than women in the general population, hinting at some sort of genetic predisposition that is carried through the female lineage. It's interesting stuff.
Evolution is driven by random mutations, but it is itself not a random process. Lots of things are like this. Take the atmosphere as a (poor) example. Each individual atom or molecule in the air is moving at random, however, the fact that the atmosphere as a whole sticks there on the earth's surface is far from random.Quote:
Also, imo you can't argue for randomness and for the laws of nature in the same post. It's kind of talking out of both sides of your mouth...well actually you can do what you like but I'm not buying it!!! :)
Says who? Isn't that a very human-centric perspective by which to view the objective existence of a banana? As if it exists primarily to feed us? Bananas and humans don't necessarily even have to co-exist. I'm not entirely sure of the evolution of the banana, but there may well have been a time in the distant past when bananas existed before humans had ever come into existence, and there may well be a time in the future when humanity goes extinct but the banana remains. Theoretically-speaking, of course, would the banana lose all purpose you've imagined it to have in such a circumstance? As Peadar outlined, the banana simply exists as a product of evolution; there has been no absolute purpose dictated by this unconscious process because it wasn't manufactured with a purpose in mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by SkStu
Besides, I don't eat bananas. Is that "unnatural" of me?
You're confusing effect with purpose. There is no objective or essential purpose to sexual intercourse.Quote:
Subjectivity can change the "purpose" of a lot of things but that is human influence not natural purpose. Heterosexual sex and gay sex are two different acts presumably each with their own separate natural purposes. Procreation is the natural purpose of hetero sex, but it has evolved through our own subjectivity to be used for a number of reasons and it's natural purpose probably comes somewhere towards the end of all the humanity based purposes but it doesn't negate the fact that its ultimate purpose is to keep the human race in existence.
The randomness I was referring to was random mutation, which, combined with the process of natural selection, is the mechanism behind evolution.Quote:
Also, imo you can't argue for randomness and for the laws of nature in the same post. It's kind of talking out of both sides of your mouth...well actually you can do what you like but I'm not buying it!!! :)
In the sense of humans assigning it a purpose, you mean?Quote:
Originally Posted by peadar1987
Indeed, it can offer something as simple as relieving social tension within a civilisation - tension that may otherwise threaten the maintenance of the structures of social order that aid survival - as has been observed in bonobo society.Quote:
Incidentally, there are a lot of theories about how homosexuality has been beneficial in an evolutionary sense.
Do they truly move at random though? Aren't the collisions of atoms and whatnot still governed by the laws of physics that govern everything else in the universe? In essence, their course is predetermined by nature? I know I referred to the process of gene mutation as random, but I suppose "random" is fundamentally an incorrect word to use in this context as, ultimately, everything will have a cause, right down to an atomic/molecular/chemical level. That's getting very pedantic and largely irrelevant to the main discussion, mind. I suppose when I use the word "random", I mean the process of mutation is "random" in the sense that there is no indication that it is guided by a designer's hand with some pre-set function or purpose in mind.Quote:
Evolution is driven by random mutations, but it is itself not a random process. Lots of things are like this. Take the atmosphere as a (poor) example. Each individual atom or molecule in the air is moving at random, however, the fact that the atmosphere as a whole sticks there on the earth's surface is far from random.
In his defence, he didn't say its purpose was to be eaten by humans, just to be eaten.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
So, in a way, maybe, you interpreting his comments in the way you did is an example of what you term human-centrism......just sayin'.
I did actually take stock of that but didn't really think a distinction necessary for the purpose of the debate. Swap "humans" with "organisms from the kingdom Animalia" then. The banana's purpose still isn't to be eaten.Quote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
Touché. :)Quote:
So, in a way, maybe, you interpreting his comments in the way you did is an example of what you term human-centrism......just sayin'.
From the perspective of the organism from the kingdom animalia (with the exception of humans, who, for the most part, understand the evolution behind the banana), its purpose is to provide energy by being eaten.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
Is this perspective less valid than that of the banana tree?
I'm referring to the concept of an objective purpose. You are referring to a subjective purpose assigned to it and, as it happens, are actually re-affirming the point I was making against SkStu.
In the sense of it has a biological function. "Purpose" generally implies some sort of intent and mightn't be the most appropriate word for the situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
Sex could be assigned any number of purposes depending on the situation, reproduction, bonding, currying favour, earning money, even intimidation or expressing dominance.
Indeed.Quote:
Indeed, it can offer something as simple as relieving social tension within a civilisation - tension that may otherwise threaten the maintenance of the structures of social order that aid survival - as has been observed in bonobo society.
Damn you, you sent me deep into wiki with that one, I could have wasted an entire afternoon!Quote:
Do they truly move at random though? Aren't the collisions of atoms and whatnot still governed by the laws of physics that govern everything else in the universe? In essence, their course is predetermined by nature? I know I referred to the process of gene mutation as random, but I suppose "random" is fundamentally an incorrect word to use in this context as, ultimately, everything will have a cause, right down to an atomic/molecular/chemical level. That's getting very pedantic and largely irrelevant to the main discussion, mind. I suppose when I use the word "random", I mean the process of mutation is "random" in the sense that there is no indication that it is guided by a designer's hand with some pre-set function or purpose in mind.
On a quantum level, our best guess is that events are truly random, or contain a strong element of chance, at the very least. This would presumably extend to chemical reactions and the like, which rely on interactions between electrons. I think pretty much everything you can infer about the properties of an individual electron can only be expressed stochastically, (because electrons are weird!). Radioactive decay of individual atoms seems to be a particularly pure example as well.
You've raised an interesting point though, how much of what we consider to be random is truly random? There seems to be a split in the scientific community about that, some believe there is only one possible outcome for everything in the universe, which was set by the initial conditions, others that there is a degree of inherent randomness, making the future impossible to predict even if you know all of the conditions at a given instant.
You said that 'the bananas purpose still isn't to be eaten.' That is subjective, by your own argument of any assigned purpose whatsoever being subjective by definition, and as we were dealing in subjective purposes, I pointed out that the animal eating the banana would disagree.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
Could you define for me what you mean by an "objective purpose" and what it applies to?
By "objective purpose", I mean a pre-defined or essential purpose; a purpose existing independently from the subjective thoughts of conscious entities. I believe its existence precedes what you might call the functional essence we can attribute to it.
Thus, I don't see how the banana has any essential purpose (unless you wish to invoke a designer who had a purpose for it in mind), beyond whatever human-oriented purpose or other we, or an animal, may subjectively attribute to it after the fact of its existence.
The overall point is that we cannot say that there is one correct or natural way to utilise a banana to the exclusion of other ways. Objectively-speaking, all uses are as valid, correct or natural (or as invalid, incorrect or unnatural) as the next. The same principle applies to human sexual behaviour; there is no one right or natural way. There are just varying opinions, none objectively more or less valid than the other.
Great post thanks. The bit in bold is the essence of the point I was trying to make with Danny originally.Quote:
Originally Posted by peadar1987
And thanks Osarusan for clarifying my intent about who is eating the feckin banana...
Thread of the year.
Ken Maginnis, gay sex, bananas, and those fecking electrons.
But it's still a "purpose" assigned to it by certain conscious beings. The objective reality is that that isn't actually a purpose, but an effect. I think Peadar agreed with this, unless I misinterpreted post #28.Quote:
Originally Posted by SkStu
That conjures up quite an image!Quote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
Ken Maginnis did what to a bonobo with a banana?
Agreed. Ken must think all you papish pooftahs are bananas.Quote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
Surely papists would agree with him, given the RC position?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
What is the official position of the Catholic Church on homosexual behaviour? I think they view it as defying some supposed natural law (whatever they imagine that might be...), but I'm not so sure they would use terminology such as "offensive" or "abominable" to describe such behaviour, at least officially anyway. In fact, my understanding is that homosexual desires are not construed as sinful, but rather it is the homosexual act that is viewed to be sinful.
Dancing on the head of a pin stuff. They fought to get (and got) schools (of which they control 92%) exempt from equality legislation, so they can carry on discriminating. Who's first out of the traps when it comes to opposing gay marriage, gay couple adoptions etc? If not the Church, their fundamentalist supporters. Cut from the same cloth, just maybe a bit more PR savvy than other Christian churches on this island.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible