"Individuals who identify as straight but in psychological tests show a strong attraction to the same sex may be threatened by gays and lesbians because homosexuals remind them of similar tendencies within themselves," explains Netta Weinstein, a lecturer at the University of Essex and the study's lead author.
The next study they should do is on people who come out with reports that back up gay claims about the people opposing them really being gay themselves to see if their findings have anything to do with the fact that they may feel threatened by people who disagree with them on this issue.
Showing posts with label human sexuality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label human sexuality. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Monday, February 13, 2012
Does the Catholic prohibition on contraception make sense?
Those protesting the Obama administration's directive forcing Catholic institutions to provide their employees with contraceptives against the religious teachings of Catholicism are careful to point out that your view on whether the Obama administration is right is distinct from what you believe about the Catholic position on birth control.
At the same time, it's not a bad time to say something about the Catholic position on birth control. It is probably the ethical position most at odds with the modern utilitarian view of morality, and it makes no sense if you don't understand the central principle of Catholic ethics in general.
The central principle of Catholic ethics is that it is teleological. If you don't get this, then most Catholic ethical positions will make no sense at all.
There are basically three kinds of ethical systems. The first is consequentialist: an action is right if it produces good effects. Utilitarianism is the most widely known kind of consequentialism. The second is deontological: an action is right if the intension is to act in accordance with ethical rules. Immanuel Kant's ethics is considered a paradigm case of deontological ethics.
The third school of ethical thought, that to which Catholics are at least supposed to adhere, is teleological. What does it mean to say that Catholic ethics is "teleological"? The word comes from the Greek word telos, meaning, roughly, "purpose." This is widely known today as "virtue ethics," a view of human actions that is based on an Aristotelian-Thomistic view of reality. In modern times this view has been championed most notably by G.E.M. Anscombe and Alasdair MacIntyre. In fact, MacIntyre's book After Virtue is one of the most important and influential philosophy books to have come out in the last 50 years, and is almost single-handedly responsible for the contemporary revival of virtue ethics.
MacIntyre makes the case that, since the rejection of the Aristotelian-Thomist worldview during the so-called Enlightenment, teleological ethics has largely been abandoned in favor of various consequentialist and deontological views of ethics that have largely failed for a variety of reasons. And this, in turn, is the result of the rejection of two of Aristotle's four cases: formal cause, which the intrinsic pattern inherent in every thing, and final cause, which is the inherent purpose (telos) in every thing, and is aligned implicitly in each thing to that things formal cause.
The only coherent system of ethics, MacIntyre argues, is teleological.
Ethics in the teleological view is very simple. There are men as we find them in the world and men as they would be if they fulfilled their telos. Ethics is the best way to get from the first to the second.
Furthermore, because formal and final causation are rational concepts, virtue ethics yields a rational ethical system, one which short-circuits the fact/value distinction that plagues every other ethical system. There is no fact/value distinction in Catholic ethics, since ethics is itself a rational system.
Catholic ethics then, being teleological, is based on purpose. But more specifically, it is based on the intrinsic purpose in natural things, most importantly in man. If you look at the list of Catholic ethical positions, it will make sense only if you understand this.
This is particularly evident in sexual ethics. In Catholicism, a sexual act, like any other act, is judged right or wrong according the telos implicit in the act. The telos of the sexual act is reproduction. If the sexual act is performed in conflict with this purpose, or if the purpose the act is somehow interfered with, then it is wrong.
This is why the Catholic Church is opposed to contraceptives: They interfere with the intrinsic purpose of the sexual act.
Now as soon as you say this, you get rhetorically jumped by people who either don't understand teleological ethics or don't agree with it. They either argue that reproduction is not the only purpose of the sexual act or that no act has any intrinsic purpose and that the purpose of any act is whatever the doer has in mind.
As to the first kind of response, the usual argument is that pleasure is obviously a purpose of sex, and therefore reproduction is not the only purpose. But the argument that reproduction is not the only purpose of the sexual act is irrelevant, since it is not the position of the Catholic Church that it is. The Catholic position is that reproduction is the primary purpose and other purposes are subordinate to it.
It is also irrelevant because the argument confuses the natural purpose of a thing and it's extrinsic, human purpose. As Catholic philosopher Edward Feser has put it:
Then, as we said, there is the argument of those who don't think anything has any intrinsic purpose at all. This is the real objection, and, in fact, the people who argue that sex has some purpose other than procreation really don't believe in intrinsic purposes at all, anyway, even though they sometimes talk as if they do.
If you take this position--and reject all formal and final causes in nature--then you are left with the position that the heart is not for pumping blood, and the kidney is not for filtering the blood, and teeth are not for chewing, and the brain is not for controlling the rest of the body.
Just be glad doctors don't believe this--or at least that they don't act as if they did.
Under this view, nothing, in fact, is for anything.
And if you take this position, you are, of course, in the strange predicament of saying that the reproductive organs are not for reproduction.
It's not a position I would want to defend.
At the same time, it's not a bad time to say something about the Catholic position on birth control. It is probably the ethical position most at odds with the modern utilitarian view of morality, and it makes no sense if you don't understand the central principle of Catholic ethics in general.
The central principle of Catholic ethics is that it is teleological. If you don't get this, then most Catholic ethical positions will make no sense at all.
There are basically three kinds of ethical systems. The first is consequentialist: an action is right if it produces good effects. Utilitarianism is the most widely known kind of consequentialism. The second is deontological: an action is right if the intension is to act in accordance with ethical rules. Immanuel Kant's ethics is considered a paradigm case of deontological ethics.
The third school of ethical thought, that to which Catholics are at least supposed to adhere, is teleological. What does it mean to say that Catholic ethics is "teleological"? The word comes from the Greek word telos, meaning, roughly, "purpose." This is widely known today as "virtue ethics," a view of human actions that is based on an Aristotelian-Thomistic view of reality. In modern times this view has been championed most notably by G.E.M. Anscombe and Alasdair MacIntyre. In fact, MacIntyre's book After Virtue is one of the most important and influential philosophy books to have come out in the last 50 years, and is almost single-handedly responsible for the contemporary revival of virtue ethics.
MacIntyre makes the case that, since the rejection of the Aristotelian-Thomist worldview during the so-called Enlightenment, teleological ethics has largely been abandoned in favor of various consequentialist and deontological views of ethics that have largely failed for a variety of reasons. And this, in turn, is the result of the rejection of two of Aristotle's four cases: formal cause, which the intrinsic pattern inherent in every thing, and final cause, which is the inherent purpose (telos) in every thing, and is aligned implicitly in each thing to that things formal cause.
The only coherent system of ethics, MacIntyre argues, is teleological.
Ethics in the teleological view is very simple. There are men as we find them in the world and men as they would be if they fulfilled their telos. Ethics is the best way to get from the first to the second.
Furthermore, because formal and final causation are rational concepts, virtue ethics yields a rational ethical system, one which short-circuits the fact/value distinction that plagues every other ethical system. There is no fact/value distinction in Catholic ethics, since ethics is itself a rational system.
Catholic ethics then, being teleological, is based on purpose. But more specifically, it is based on the intrinsic purpose in natural things, most importantly in man. If you look at the list of Catholic ethical positions, it will make sense only if you understand this.
This is particularly evident in sexual ethics. In Catholicism, a sexual act, like any other act, is judged right or wrong according the telos implicit in the act. The telos of the sexual act is reproduction. If the sexual act is performed in conflict with this purpose, or if the purpose the act is somehow interfered with, then it is wrong.
This is why the Catholic Church is opposed to contraceptives: They interfere with the intrinsic purpose of the sexual act.
Now as soon as you say this, you get rhetorically jumped by people who either don't understand teleological ethics or don't agree with it. They either argue that reproduction is not the only purpose of the sexual act or that no act has any intrinsic purpose and that the purpose of any act is whatever the doer has in mind.
As to the first kind of response, the usual argument is that pleasure is obviously a purpose of sex, and therefore reproduction is not the only purpose. But the argument that reproduction is not the only purpose of the sexual act is irrelevant, since it is not the position of the Catholic Church that it is. The Catholic position is that reproduction is the primary purpose and other purposes are subordinate to it.
It is also irrelevant because the argument confuses the natural purpose of a thing and it's extrinsic, human purpose. As Catholic philosopher Edward Feser has put it:
It is also irrelevant that people might indulge in sex for all sorts of reasons other than procreation, for I am not talking about what our purposes are, but what nature's purposes are, again in the Aristotelian sense of final causality. Now it is true of course that sexual relations are also naturally pleasurable. But giving pleasure is not the final cause or natural end of sex; rather, sexual pleasure has as its own final cause the getting of people to engage in sexual relations, so that they will procreate.In other words, of course there are other purposes to sex than procreation, but they themselves only serve to enhance the primary purpose.
Then, as we said, there is the argument of those who don't think anything has any intrinsic purpose at all. This is the real objection, and, in fact, the people who argue that sex has some purpose other than procreation really don't believe in intrinsic purposes at all, anyway, even though they sometimes talk as if they do.
If you take this position--and reject all formal and final causes in nature--then you are left with the position that the heart is not for pumping blood, and the kidney is not for filtering the blood, and teeth are not for chewing, and the brain is not for controlling the rest of the body.
Just be glad doctors don't believe this--or at least that they don't act as if they did.
Under this view, nothing, in fact, is for anything.
And if you take this position, you are, of course, in the strange predicament of saying that the reproductive organs are not for reproduction.
It's not a position I would want to defend.
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Modern reproductive follies
"During the sexual revolution of the 1960s," says James Neuchterlein, "people wanted to have sex without children, but in 2010 we find ourselves trying to have children without sex ..."
A strange paradox brought to you by the people who think (equally paradoxically) that reproductive organs are not for reproduction.
A strange paradox brought to you by the people who think (equally paradoxically) that reproductive organs are not for reproduction.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Practicing unsafe journalism on Catholic Church
The Pope says something to someone about condoms, and the secular media completely gets what he says wrong. I am shocked, so shocked. The press has completely bungled, time after time, the issue of whether Benedict has some personal culpability in the sex abuse problem involving some priests (he doesn't), and now they have reported that the Pope has changed the Church's position on condoms, getting it wrong again.
In fact, you can almost count on the press getting just about everything wrong when reporting on the Catholic Church. They seem congenitally incapable of getting it right.
Here's what the Pope said:
Here is Cardinal Raymond Burke trying to talk some sense into the press:
In fact, you can almost count on the press getting just about everything wrong when reporting on the Catholic Church. They seem congenitally incapable of getting it right.
Here's what the Pope said:
[T]he sheer fixation on the condom implies a banalization of sexuality, which , after all, is precisely the dangerous source of the attitude of no longer seeing sexuality as the expression of love, but only a sort of drug that people administer to themselves. This is why the fight against the banalization of sexuality is also a part of the struggle to ensure that sexuality is treated as a positive value and to enable it to have a positive effect on the whole of man’s being.So the press sits there with an earhorn, saying, "Eh? What's that you say? Your for okay with condoms?"
There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants. But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality.
Here is Cardinal Raymond Burke trying to talk some sense into the press:
I don’t see any change in the Church’s teaching. What he’s commenting on — in fact, he makes the statement very clearly that the Church does not regard the use of condoms as a real or a moral solution — but what he’s talking about in the point he makes about the male prostitute is about a certain conversion process taking place in an individual’s life. He’s simply making the comment that a person who is given to prostitution, at least considers using a condom to prevent giving the disease to another person — even though the effectiveness of this is very questionable — this could be a sign of someone who is having a certain moral awakening. But in no way does it mean that prostitution is morally acceptable, nor does it mean that the use of condoms is morally acceptable.The silly idea that you're going to solve thing like the AIDS crisis through pushing condoms apparently isn't going to get any support from the Catholic Church.
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Are reproductive organs for reproduction?
It is interesting to me that when the question comes up of whether the purpose of sex is reproduction, there are some people who suddenly abandon all the language and logic they apply in every other situation where something's purpose is in question.
In the comments section of a previous post, one of the commenters got into this issue, and I remarked that it seemed strange to me that when we talk about general anatomy, or DNA, or animal behavior, we use blatantly teleological language to do it. But if we use that same language about human sexuality, all of a sudden the Tolerance Police show up and ask you for your identification papers.
We talk about the purpose of bodily organs all the time. The purpose of the heart is to pump blood to the rest of the body; the purpose of a kidney is to filter the blood; the purpose of the intestines is to digest food. Say these things and everyone nods earnestly in agreement.
But then you say, "and the reproductive organs are for..." (and you pause at this point to put up your deflector shields) "...reproduction."
As Mr. Bill was wont to say, "Nooooooooooooooooooo!"
No, indeed. Sex has become the great idol of our time. Malcolm Muggeridge once quipped that our culture has sex on the brain--which, he added, is a very uncomfortable place to have it. And if you add to that the fact that reproduction has become unfashionable among the denizens of our cultural elite, you get the the current aversion to saying that reproductive organs are for what they are clearly for.
So then we get into the debate about whether things have intrinsic purposes. Not a few people are willing to abandon the whole idea of things having purposes solely because they want to deny that sex has a purpose. Of course, the next day after they do this, you will find them once again using teleological language to talk about everything else.
The chief problem, of course, is that there is a whole contingent of otherwise rational beings who want to separate sex from reproduction and pretend the two aren't tied together in any natural way. If we saw this going on in the animal kingdom, we would hunt down the animal we saw engaging in this aberrant behavior, tranquilize it, and haul it into the laboratory to see what was wrong with it.
And then, after denying that sex has any intrinsic purpose, the same people will turn around and argue that the purpose of sex is pleasure. Well, that is the motive for doing it, but not the reason. Why do these people think that to say that the final cause of sex is reproduction is to somehow deny the role of pleasure in sex? As philosopher Edward Feser has pointed out, there is no more reason to think that the role of pleasure in sex is inconsistent with its reproductive purpose than to think that the role of pleasure in eating is inconsistent with its digestive purpose.
But the people who have a conniption fit every time someone mentions that reproductive organs are for reproduction are reductionists. They have cut themselves off from a whole view of the world by rejecting Aristotle's formal and final causation--the idea that things have natures and purposes--and so they must view things in very simplistic and one-dimensional way.
And they have to argue that reproductive organs are not for reproduction, which is a very strange thing to say.
In the comments section of a previous post, one of the commenters got into this issue, and I remarked that it seemed strange to me that when we talk about general anatomy, or DNA, or animal behavior, we use blatantly teleological language to do it. But if we use that same language about human sexuality, all of a sudden the Tolerance Police show up and ask you for your identification papers.
We talk about the purpose of bodily organs all the time. The purpose of the heart is to pump blood to the rest of the body; the purpose of a kidney is to filter the blood; the purpose of the intestines is to digest food. Say these things and everyone nods earnestly in agreement.
But then you say, "and the reproductive organs are for..." (and you pause at this point to put up your deflector shields) "...reproduction."
As Mr. Bill was wont to say, "Nooooooooooooooooooo!"
No, indeed. Sex has become the great idol of our time. Malcolm Muggeridge once quipped that our culture has sex on the brain--which, he added, is a very uncomfortable place to have it. And if you add to that the fact that reproduction has become unfashionable among the denizens of our cultural elite, you get the the current aversion to saying that reproductive organs are for what they are clearly for.
So then we get into the debate about whether things have intrinsic purposes. Not a few people are willing to abandon the whole idea of things having purposes solely because they want to deny that sex has a purpose. Of course, the next day after they do this, you will find them once again using teleological language to talk about everything else.
The chief problem, of course, is that there is a whole contingent of otherwise rational beings who want to separate sex from reproduction and pretend the two aren't tied together in any natural way. If we saw this going on in the animal kingdom, we would hunt down the animal we saw engaging in this aberrant behavior, tranquilize it, and haul it into the laboratory to see what was wrong with it.
And then, after denying that sex has any intrinsic purpose, the same people will turn around and argue that the purpose of sex is pleasure. Well, that is the motive for doing it, but not the reason. Why do these people think that to say that the final cause of sex is reproduction is to somehow deny the role of pleasure in sex? As philosopher Edward Feser has pointed out, there is no more reason to think that the role of pleasure in sex is inconsistent with its reproductive purpose than to think that the role of pleasure in eating is inconsistent with its digestive purpose.
But the people who have a conniption fit every time someone mentions that reproductive organs are for reproduction are reductionists. They have cut themselves off from a whole view of the world by rejecting Aristotle's formal and final causation--the idea that things have natures and purposes--and so they must view things in very simplistic and one-dimensional way.
And they have to argue that reproductive organs are not for reproduction, which is a very strange thing to say.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Insensitive remarks on gender confusion resulting from silly remarks in the promotion for the movie "Straightlaced: How Gender's Got Us All Tied Up"
It's hard to tell exactly what the point of the gay documentary: "Straightlaced: How Gender's Got Us All Tied Up" is, but judging from remarks by the promoters of the movie, it's about the "problem" of "gender boundaries." Somehow this "problem" helped bring about the suicide death of a Paul Lawrence Dunbar High School boy, and the way to deal with it is greater "acceptance of differences."
Merlene Davis of the Lexington Herald-Leader doesn't miss her chance to promote the movie, which was shown this weekend and sponsored by the Central Kentucky Council on Peace and Justice. Here's her description of the movie:
The film is about a boy named "Josh," an openly gay student at Lexington, Kentucky's Paul Lawrence Dunbar High School who committed suicide and a fellow student name "Hannah" who was his friend and who later died in a car accident. Josh is described as having a "flamboyant personality," which attracts the negativity of his peers. It's never stated outright, but you get the definite impression that Josh's death is to be laid at the feet of anyone who has a traditional view of human sexuality.
Here is the description of the film on the Kentucky Theatre's website:
Wait. Self-destructive? How could I say that? That's so insensitive and intolerant. Am I not ashamed of myself for saying this?
Well, actually, no. I know that in modern liberal secular society, which has constantly championing social policies that contribute to the disconnection of people from real cultures and real relationships, we are supposed to have compassion for people we don't know. This is one of the premises behind all the rhetoric about so-called "global culture." Which, by the way, not only doesn't exist, but can't.
I'm sure, if I had known the boy, I would have felt very sorry for him--for a number of reasons. I'm sure his parents too are understandably distraught and grieving. If I knew them, I'm sure I would feel equally sorry for them. But I didn't and I don't.
And he did, after all, kill himself. If there's something more self-destructive than that, I guess I haven't figured out what it is.
So does this "acceptance" simply mean being respectful of someone's humanity, or is it more on the order of I'm supposed to deny the basic principles of the Good the True and the Beautiful because they are right and I'm wrong?
I'd like to think it is the first, but I have the sneaking suspicion that it is really the second. In fact, the evidence for the accuracy of my suspicion is right there in the description. What are the beliefs of traditionally-minded people? They are "the biases we have and the determinations we make based on nothing." In other words, the views of those who think that males are not designed to be masculine and females are not designed to be feminine are to be accepted by those who disagree with them. On the other hand, those who think males are designed to be masculine and females are designed to be feminine are "biases based on nothing" and are to be rejected as unacceptable.
In other words, we use the language of moral neutrality to hide the fact that acceptance only goes one way. If you reject traditionalism, your views should be "accepted," and if you are a traditionalist, your views are not to be accepted, and furthermore you are to be characterized as intolerant in the process. If Group A rejects the views of Group B, then Group A is intolerant. But when Group B rejects the views of Group A, it is actually an exercise in tolerance despite the fact that it is no different in kind than the rejection exercised by Group A.
You agree with me, okay? But I don't have to agree with you. That's how the game works. Are you ready to play?
And what about these"determinations we make"? It doesn't take long to figure out that the people promoting the film want us to think, first, that it is only those evil, biased, intolerant people who, in having the temerity to think that males are males and females are females for a reason, are the only ones who make determinations. But is that true?
What about the "determinations" the promoters of the film make in regard to sexual orientation? These are people, after all, who think that gay people are born that way. I can't think of any belief more determinative that the belief that homosexual are born homosexual.
But, of course, we say that homosexuals are born that way when it suits our politics, and then conveniently ignore or deny it when it doesn't. In fact, as I have said before, it is a strange anomaly characteristic of the modern liberal mindset that it claims that everything, including gender, is culturally constructed and then turns right around and claims that homosexuality is inborn.
Go figure.
And are the determinations of those of us who unaccountably think that boys are born boys and girls are born girls really "based on nothing"? How about, oh, I don't know, ... nature? That, after all, has been the belief of cultures time immemorial. If you don't agree with it, fine. What's your argument against it? You got something more than--dare I say it?--a bias?
According to the promo for the film, which features a bunch of confused teenagers trying to articulate, like, something about gender, ya know, the basic premise is that gender is just as subjective as the colors and the clothes you wear. And, apparently, like your clothes, your gender can be chose and changed at will. In other words, people aren't really born male and female.
Now, put your finger on that page to hold your place and turn back to the earlier chapters of this whole debate over gay rights and read the chapter on how homosexuality is inborn. Whoa! Gender is not inborn, but homosexuality is? How can this be?
It is just one more measure of the crack-up of the modern secular mind that people who can't figure out whether they are male or female should be the first ones to demand recognition for "who they are."
HT: Richard Day
Merlene Davis of the Lexington Herald-Leader doesn't miss her chance to promote the movie, which was shown this weekend and sponsored by the Central Kentucky Council on Peace and Justice. Here's her description of the movie:
On Saturday, several organizations are hosting the first local screening of "Straightlaced: How Gender’s Got Us All Tied Up," a documentary that explores the pressures teens endure to conform to accepted gender boundaries. That film is dedicated to Hannah, who was one of the 50 young people producers interviewed to gauge the restrictions society puts on teens in defining their masculinity or femininity. [emphasis added]That's Merlene, who is presumably female, although she could apparently have been something else had society decided differently.
The film is about a boy named "Josh," an openly gay student at Lexington, Kentucky's Paul Lawrence Dunbar High School who committed suicide and a fellow student name "Hannah" who was his friend and who later died in a car accident. Josh is described as having a "flamboyant personality," which attracts the negativity of his peers. It's never stated outright, but you get the definite impression that Josh's death is to be laid at the feet of anyone who has a traditional view of human sexuality.
Here is the description of the film on the Kentucky Theatre's website:
The message of the film is one of acceptance of others regardless of their dress, sexual orientation or desire to wear a particular color, said Woloch. That epitomizes what Hannah stood for. “In the movie she said people ask her why she was friends with Josh, and she said, ‘Why not?’” Woloch said. “These are stories of kids who identify as gay, straight, bisexual or whatever,” she said. “It’s about the biases we have and the determinations we make based on nothing. Hers was just acceptance and love. Acceptance for who they are.” [emphasis added]What, exactly, does "acceptance" mean here? Is this, like, some neutral kind of acceptance that just means I'm supposed to recognize and respect others as human beings despite the fact that I think their lifestyle is abnormal and in many cases self-destructive (and in some cases just silly)?
Wait. Self-destructive? How could I say that? That's so insensitive and intolerant. Am I not ashamed of myself for saying this?
Well, actually, no. I know that in modern liberal secular society, which has constantly championing social policies that contribute to the disconnection of people from real cultures and real relationships, we are supposed to have compassion for people we don't know. This is one of the premises behind all the rhetoric about so-called "global culture." Which, by the way, not only doesn't exist, but can't.
I'm sure, if I had known the boy, I would have felt very sorry for him--for a number of reasons. I'm sure his parents too are understandably distraught and grieving. If I knew them, I'm sure I would feel equally sorry for them. But I didn't and I don't.
And he did, after all, kill himself. If there's something more self-destructive than that, I guess I haven't figured out what it is.
So does this "acceptance" simply mean being respectful of someone's humanity, or is it more on the order of I'm supposed to deny the basic principles of the Good the True and the Beautiful because they are right and I'm wrong?
I'd like to think it is the first, but I have the sneaking suspicion that it is really the second. In fact, the evidence for the accuracy of my suspicion is right there in the description. What are the beliefs of traditionally-minded people? They are "the biases we have and the determinations we make based on nothing." In other words, the views of those who think that males are not designed to be masculine and females are not designed to be feminine are to be accepted by those who disagree with them. On the other hand, those who think males are designed to be masculine and females are designed to be feminine are "biases based on nothing" and are to be rejected as unacceptable.
In other words, we use the language of moral neutrality to hide the fact that acceptance only goes one way. If you reject traditionalism, your views should be "accepted," and if you are a traditionalist, your views are not to be accepted, and furthermore you are to be characterized as intolerant in the process. If Group A rejects the views of Group B, then Group A is intolerant. But when Group B rejects the views of Group A, it is actually an exercise in tolerance despite the fact that it is no different in kind than the rejection exercised by Group A.
You agree with me, okay? But I don't have to agree with you. That's how the game works. Are you ready to play?
And what about these"determinations we make"? It doesn't take long to figure out that the people promoting the film want us to think, first, that it is only those evil, biased, intolerant people who, in having the temerity to think that males are males and females are females for a reason, are the only ones who make determinations. But is that true?
What about the "determinations" the promoters of the film make in regard to sexual orientation? These are people, after all, who think that gay people are born that way. I can't think of any belief more determinative that the belief that homosexual are born homosexual.
But, of course, we say that homosexuals are born that way when it suits our politics, and then conveniently ignore or deny it when it doesn't. In fact, as I have said before, it is a strange anomaly characteristic of the modern liberal mindset that it claims that everything, including gender, is culturally constructed and then turns right around and claims that homosexuality is inborn.
Go figure.
And are the determinations of those of us who unaccountably think that boys are born boys and girls are born girls really "based on nothing"? How about, oh, I don't know, ... nature? That, after all, has been the belief of cultures time immemorial. If you don't agree with it, fine. What's your argument against it? You got something more than--dare I say it?--a bias?
According to the promo for the film, which features a bunch of confused teenagers trying to articulate, like, something about gender, ya know, the basic premise is that gender is just as subjective as the colors and the clothes you wear. And, apparently, like your clothes, your gender can be chose and changed at will. In other words, people aren't really born male and female.
Now, put your finger on that page to hold your place and turn back to the earlier chapters of this whole debate over gay rights and read the chapter on how homosexuality is inborn. Whoa! Gender is not inborn, but homosexuality is? How can this be?
It is just one more measure of the crack-up of the modern secular mind that people who can't figure out whether they are male or female should be the first ones to demand recognition for "who they are."
HT: Richard Day
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)