Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality

Arilou · Jun 6, 2012

RGB said:
from a documentary standpoint:

1. Authorship bias -
2. Survival bias -
3. Writing and application/interpretation isn't the same. "Catholic viewpoints" have changed over time but their application has changed even more, which is more important. You're arguing that there's a 1:1 correspondence.

from a "why bother studying the middle ages at all" standpoint

1. We can still talk women in the past without agreeing that they are vessels of weakness, sin and impurity and need to be treated with a firm hand
2. We can still talk homosexuals in the past without regarding them as sodomites who have fouled the clear spring of friendship, Augustine-like

I'm basically not sure what the problem is. We can full well disagree with the sources and their authors on any number of subjects, based on our vastly wider and deeper collective knowledge, so why not this subject. The call to examine the past from a strictly conservative viewpoint is hardly agenda-free.

Uhm, no, we can't really disagree with the sources. We can use different sources, and explain why they're better, or we can use the sources themselves and try to point out inconsistencies/issues, or we can use other sources of information (like archeology, etc.) But in the end we *must* rely on sources (and interpretation of sources) even recognizing that yes, sources are often incomplete, biased, etc.

History begins and ends with sources. We can't say anything outside of them (beyond "We don't really know about that.")

unmerged(59077) · Jun 6, 2012

Arilou said:
Uhm, no, we can't really disagree with the sources. We can use different sources, and explain why they're better, or we can use the sources themselves and try to point out inconsistencies/issues, or we can use other sources of information (like archeology, etc.) But in the end we *must* rely on sources (and interpretation of sources) even recognizing that yes, sources are often incomplete, biased, etc.

History begins and ends with sources. We can't say anything outside of them (beyond "We don't really know about that.")

The bolded part is what I meant. Geography, biology, reconstruction, comparative social studies and the like. On the basis of those we can disagree all we want provided we have reason. We have reason. I see no problem.

I like that "demographic segment" part, nice formulation.

ZhugeKongming · Jun 6, 2012

Arilou said:
It should be noted that in addition to various religious reasons, we have to consider a verybasic pressure against homosexuality: IE: You're expected to breed to preserve the family. (which in some cases, like Greece and arguably China, was an actual religious duty (before the synthesis chinese thinkers were really aghast by buddhism and the concept of monastaries precisely for the idea of abstinence and thus not continuing the family line/providing children to honor the ancestors).

Chinese disdain for Buddhism probably has less to do with their cherished notions of family (though that plays a part) and more to do with the fact that most of these thinkers were part of a Confucian tradition that was directly competing with Buddhism for imperial patronage.

The-Doc · Jun 6, 2012

Sun_Wu said:
PS, Doc, 'My country, right or wrong' is a thing that no patriot would think of saying, except in a desperate case. It is like saying, 'My mother, drunk or sober'.

Exactly, "if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." was Carl Schurz's rebuttal to the statement you quoted, referencing the need for political direction beyond simple jingoism.

RGB said:
At this point I'm not certain what the discussion is about Other than Ancestral Romania and joag's impending martyrdom.

On review neither am I.

I thought that you were suggesting some kind of crypto-homosexual movement in the modern sense and backing Boswell. But it looks like you're saying that there were people of the same sex in erotic relationships in ye olden days. I'm not sure any of us were actually disagreeing, and I too think Arilou's classification as a demographic makes sense.

Sun_Wu · Jun 6, 2012

Calanctus said:
I don't know if you're serious but Tibet is hardly the only Buddhist country in the world.

It was a Buddhist theocracy.

Arilou said:
It should be noted that in addition to various religious reasons, we have to consider a very basic pressure against homosexuality: IE: You're expected to breed to preserve the family. (which in some cases, like Greece and arguably China, was an actual religious duty (before the synthesis chinese thinkers were really aghast by buddhism and the concept of monastaries precisely for the idea of abstinence and thus not continuing the family line/providing children to honor the ancestors).

I'd argue that "identity" or "orientation" is (from a historical POV) largely if not entirely irrelevant (at least until if/when we get enough sources to get more deeply into people's heads) rather I'd think of it as a demographic segment: There were probably significant number of people who preferred to form romantic and sexual relationships with members of the same gender. However, they'd most likely at the very least have to maintain these in addition to the prescribed heterosexual relations (IE: Marriage) simply for dynastic/family etc. reasons. Those who didn't would most likely use other ways of "weaselling out" of the overbearing dynastic imperative: IE: use other socially acceptable excuses to get out of marrying and having children (of which entering religious orders, etc. would probably be a big one)

The first paragraph is off a bit

The second paragraph is much better, many heterosexuals probably didn't like their spouses terribly much considering many marriages were arranged so someone not liking their spouse wasn't that special.

RGB said:
The bolded part is what I meant. Geography, biology, reconstruction, comparative social studies and the like. On the basis of those we can disagree all we want provided we have reason. We have reason. I see no problem.

I like that "demographic segment" part, nice formulation.

Sources are all we have and a multitude of sources are substantially better than a few because thy can be used to cross check. I would like to point that other than letters for those friendships there are funerary monuments as show in Bray's book The Friend, I find them just a bit more tangible.

Calanctus said:
Chinese disdain for Buddhism probably has less to do with their cherished notions of family (though that plays a part) and more to do with the fact that most of these thinkers were part of a Confucian tradition that was directly competing with Buddhism for imperial patronage.

Very much so.

The-Doc said:
Exactly, "if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." was Carl Schurz's rebuttal to the statement you quoted, referencing the need for political direction beyond simple jingoism.

On review neither am I.

I thought that you were suggesting some kind of crypto-homosexual movement in the modern sense and backing Boswell. But it looks like you're saying that there were people of the same sex in erotic relationships in ye olden days. I'm not sure any of us were actually disagreeing, and I too think Arilou's classification as a demographic makes sense.

Smells like "If I am not in the state of grace, may God put me there; and if I am, may God so keep me." except relating to the state.

None of us have been disagree on the fundamentals except that one Romanian guy who was all like "ZOMG teh gheys"*

*is this a good impersonation?

ZhugeKongming · Jun 6, 2012

Sun_Wu said:
It was a Buddhist theocracy.

For much of the early modern period, yes. Before that, or in the mid-20th century when the PRC invaded? Not really.

The-Doc · Jun 6, 2012

Sun_Wu said:
Smells like "If I am not in the state of grace, may God put me there; and if I am, may God so keep me." except relating to the state.

Nah, it was the end of an anti-imperialist speech, concerning the direction America was taking with the Phillipines. Just a nice rhetorical flourish, reversing a common slogan of the time and I feel it nicely sums up the kind of ethic Mr. Schurz tried to maintain as a statesman.

I confidently trust that the American people will prove themselves too clear-headed not to appreciate the vital difference between the expansion of the Republic and its free institutions over contiguous territory and kindred populations, which we all gladly welcome if accomplished peaceably and honorably — and imperialism which reaches out for distant lands to be ruled as subject provinces; too intelligent not to perceive that our very first step on the road of imperialism has been a betrayal of the fundamental principles of democracy, followed by disaster and disgrace; too enlightened not to understand that a monarchy may do such things and still remain a strong monarchy, while a democracy cannot do them and still remain a democracy; too wise not to detect the false pride or the dangerous ambitions or the selfish schemes which so often hide themselves under that deceptive cry of mock patriotism: “Our country, right or wrong!” They will not fail to recognize that our dignity, our free institutions and the peace and welfare of this and coming generations of Americans will be secure only as we cling to the watchword of true patriotism: “Our country when right to be kept right; when wrong to be put right.”
Full Speech

Furthermore his beard proves his sincerity and good intentions.

None of us have been disagree on the fundamentals except that one Romanian guy who was all like "ZOMG teh gheys"*

*is this a good impersonation?

Yup, Aquinas would be proud.

(Who are you going for here?)

Sun_Wu · Jun 7, 2012

The-Doc said:
Nah, it was the end of an anti-imperialist speech, concerning the direction America was taking with the Phillipines. Just a nice rhetorical flourish, reversing a common slogan of the time and I feel it nicely sums up the kind of ethic Mr. Schurz tried to maintain as a statesman.

Furthermore his beard proves his sincerity and good intentions.

Yup, Aquinas would be proud.

(Who are you going for here?)

It's okay to be imperialist as long as you are honest that you took them over and are exploiting them for resources.

How does a beard prove sincerity and good intentions?

Why you say Aquinas would be proud so much to me?

I am attempting to parody bigotted, homophobic hicks.

unmerged(59077) · Jun 7, 2012

Sun_Wu said:
How does a beard prove sincerity and good intentions?

How does it not! Beards are awesome! Also, if your dad doesn't have a beard, you've got two mums! (not meant to be taken seriously).

Why you say Aquinas would be proud so much to me?

This was humour through repetition. He already mentioned Aquinas when you were channeling Aquinas, and now he's mentioning it again when you're not. But I'm sure old Thomas would give you a Defender of the Faith medal anyway for bravely standing up to slanderous Occidentals.

Sun_Wu · Jun 7, 2012

RGB said:
How does it not! Beards are awesome! Also, if your dad doesn't have a beard, you've got two mums! (not meant to be taken seriously).

This was humour through repetition. He already mentioned Aquinas when you were channeling Aquinas, and now he's mentioning it again when you're not. But I'm sure old Thomas would give you a Defender of the Faith medal anyway for bravely standing up to slanderous Occidentals.

Fu manchus are better than beards. Oh yeah? Well your mother was a hamster and your father smelled of elder berries!

Can Doctor Angelicus even bestow the title Fidei Defensor? Why would he give me an award for fighting perfidious Occidentals?

The-Doc · Jun 7, 2012

Sun_Wu said:
It's okay to be imperialist as long as you are honest that you took them over and are exploiting them for resources.

How does a beard prove sincerity and good intentions?

Why you say Aquinas would be proud so much to me?

I am attempting to parody bigotted, homophobic hicks.

On the contrary, as the Statesman says:

There are some American citizens who take of this question a purely commercial view. I declare I am ardently in favor of the greatest possible expansion of our trade, and I am happy to say that, according to official statistics, our foreign commerce, in spite of all hindrances raised against it, is now expanding tremendously, owing to the simple rule that the nation offering the best goods at proportionately the lowest prices will have the markets. It will have them without armies, without war fleets, without bloody conquests, without colonies. I confess I am not in sympathy with those, if there be such men among us, who would sacrifice our National honor and the high ideals of the Republic, and who would inflict upon our people the burdens and the demoralizing influences of militarism for a mere matter of dollars and cents. They are among the most dangerous enemies of the public welfare. But as to the annexation of the Philippines, I will, for argument's sake, adopt even their point of view for a moment and ask: Will it pay?

Now, it may well be that the annexation of the Philippines would pay a speculative syndicate of wealthy capitalists, without at the same time paying the American people at large. As to people of our race, tropical countries like the Philippines may be fields of profit for rich men who can hire others to work for them, but not for those who have to work for themselves. Taking a general view of the Philippines as a commercial market for us, I need not again argue against the barbarous notion that in order to have a profitable trade with a country we must own it. If that were true, we should never have had any foreign commerce at all. Neither need I prove that it is very bad policy, when you wish to build up a profitable trade, to ruin your customer first, as you would ruin the Philippines by a protracted war. It is equally needless to show to any well-informed person that the profits of the trade with the islands themselves can never amount to the cost of making and maintaining the conquest of the Philippines.

I answer that Carl Schurz as an ardent proponent of ordered Republicanism and Liberalism was against the activity of Imperialism on every level imaginable. His speech in Chicago that I quoted alone contains his personal refutations of Imperial policy as a matter of honesty, law, precedent, trade, diplomacy, and public morals.

Reply to Objection II: A well groomed but flourishing beard displays masculine dignity and fortitude instantly sending a speaker's ethos through the roof. People were especially credulous in the late 19th century for this very reason.

Reply to Objection III: RGB has answered this one sufficiently. It is also certainly within the capabilities and merits of the Angelic Doctor to give you a Defender of the Faith medal, for whatever that would be worth. I'd keep it though if offered.

Reply to Objection IV: Bigoted homophobic hicks do not say "ZOMG", or "teh", or even "gheys". That is the proper response of the internet dweller that mocks them. Few know what a bigoted homophobic hick would say as they are not usually given a venue to speak, people ignore them, and they are usually quiet unassuming folk.

Sun_Wu · Jun 8, 2012

The-Doc said:
On the contrary, as the Statesman says:

I answer that Carl Schurz as an ardent proponent of ordered Republicanism and Liberalism was against the activity of Imperialism on every level imaginable. His speech in Chicago that I quoted alone contains his personal refutations of Imperial policy as a matter of honesty, law, precedent, trade, diplomacy, and public morals.

Reply to Objection II: A well groomed but flourishing beard displays masculine dignity and fortitude instantly sending a speaker's ethos through the roof. People were especially credulous in the late 19th century for this very reason.

Reply to Objection III: RGB has answered this one sufficiently. It is also certainly within the capabilities and merits of the Angelic Doctor to give you a Defender of the Faith medal, for whatever that would be worth. I'd keep it though if offered.

Reply to Objection IV: Bigoted homophobic hicks do not say "ZOMG", or "teh", or even "gheys". That is the proper response of the internet dweller that mocks them. Few know what a bigoted homophobic hick would say as they are not usually given a venue to speak, people ignore them, and they are usually quiet unassuming folk.

Disagreement with the reply to Objection I: I was not insinuating he was a proponent of imperialism, I was talking about order. You must remember that to me East and South East Asia Koutou'ing to China is merely a restoration of the natural order.

Disagreement with the reply to Objection II: A beard is a matter of personal taste and while a well kept board does show good manners it does not expertise, knowledge or moral competence.

Response to the reply to Objection III: Okay, I didn't even know there were defender of the faith medals.

Acceptance of the reply to Objection IV: k, I waz teh b usin teh intwebz spek (I have always found this bizarre manner of speech rather amusing as I am amazed that people can read it)

unmerged(2833) · Jun 9, 2012

This thread is so confusing. You guys are serious with that objection 2 series, or joking?

joak · Jun 9, 2012

DarthMaur said:
This thread is so confusing. You guys are serious with that objection 2 series, or joking?

Since it ruins that sort of joke if *they* explain it: That very formal structure was once common, Aquinas (who was mentioned just a bit earlier) being the most well remembered practitioner. Aquinas spent less time appealing to facial hair than The-Doc does, though.

I assume that answers the "are they serious" question as well. An appeal to facial hair (argumentum ad beardium) is to well known a logical fallacy for them to commit except as parody.

The-Doc · Jun 9, 2012

DarthMaur said:
This thread is so confusing. You guys are serious with that objection 2 series, or joking?

It's okay I'm not always sure either.

joak said:
Since it ruins that sort of joke if *they* explain it: That very formal structure was once common, Aquinas (who was mentioned just a bit earlier) being the most well remembered practitioner. Aquinas spent less time appealing to facial hair than The-Doc does, though.

Well he wasn't perfect you know.

Sun_Wu · Jun 9, 2012

The-Doc said:
It's okay I'm not always sure either.

Well he wasn't perfect you know.

Objection 1: Sometimes how serious the statement is depends on the reader

Objection 2: Doctor Angelicus did not a beard to convey his ethos, his halo that was powered by his inner sanctity that inflicts +10 radiant damage per round to all evil aligned enemies within 10 squares sufficiently conveys his ethos and dignity

The-Doc · Jun 9, 2012

Sun_Wu said:
Objection 1: Sometimes how serious the statement is depends on the reader

Objection 2: Doctor Angelicus did not a beard to convey his ethos, his halo that was powered by his inner sanctity that inflicts +10 radiant damage per round to all evil aligned enemies within 10 squares sufficiently conveys his ethos and dignity

I. This is so, I hope I haven't been misleading. I'm usually half n' half when it comes to gravitas.

II. Halo combined with tonsure and flabbiness is one potent combination. Exhibits an endearing lack of presumption and artifice, and of course burns the impure.

Sun_Wu, I don't mean to be too personal but are you a Chinese or Korean student studying at a university in an Anglophone country?

unmerged(31994) · Jun 9, 2012

RGB said:
There was definitely some very interesting medieval Islamic jurisprudence that created third-sex categories for people we wouldn't classify as third-sex today so that they could accommodate some (from today's viewpoint) same-sex activity legally. It's no longer done, the western view has become prevalent and is treated with hostility.

Vavi dear, why isnt my scholarship a cited source for you? :sad:

Sun_Wu · Jun 9, 2012

The-Doc said:
I. This is so, I hope I haven't been misleading. I'm usually half n' half when it comes to gravitas.

II. Halo combined with tonsure and flabbiness is one potent combination. Exhibits an endearing lack of presumption and artifice, and of course burns the impure.

Sun_Wu, I don't mean to be too personal but are you a Chinese or Korean student studying at a university in an Anglophone country?

I. So agreement is established then?

II. Indubitably

Why would you think I'm Korean? At least you didn't call me Japanese...

Sun Wu was a brilliant Chinese tactician during the Spring and Autumn Epoch (春秋时代) to whom the the Art of War is attributed. And yes I am studying in an Anglophone country. My surname is 孟 (Meng)

unmerged(59077) · Jun 9, 2012

Calipah said:
Vavi dear, why isnt my scholarship a cited source for you? :sad:

Actually, yes, it'd be good to use your papers and the sources in them, but at the time I didn't have them on hand.

Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality

Irken Tallest

Tzar of all the Soviets

Lt. General

Lt. General

Empress

Lt. General

Lt. General

Empress

Tzar of all the Soviets

Empress

Lt. General

Empress

Grandpa Maur

humorless pedant

Lt. General

Empress

Lt. General

Zardishar

Empress

Tzar of all the Soviets