antithesis gay

[Kuya]

What was that question you asked?

[Blarg]

good gay or bad gay?

[Blarg]

trick question btw

[Kuya]

Shue said that you were just an average poster, Blarg.

[thebearofscience]

there's so many of you gay people here.

[Blarg]

Shue said that you were just an average poster, Blarg.

Shue is wrong but maybe we are just opposite because I was surprised anyone really voted for him in those polls so it seems that I think he is worse that what other people think and he thinks the same about me.

[Antithesis]

Kuya a question if I may (Apologies if it is a bit off-topic.) This is just what I personally think but is society as a whole afraid of change? Granted humans naturally fear what they do not know but, why do people seem to fear it so much is what I do not understand. Why is it we stick to the same methods of doing things? Nothing can remain the same. It goes against the laws of nature. Things have to change because everything has to evolve. If no evolution takes place than doom is laid out on a silver platter for you. The best example I can think of is Religion but let us not get into that for it is just a point.

I personally feel Religion is nothing more than Soup for the spirit. If it helps your daily life that is fine. But people should not base their lives around archaic story's and myths.

http://www.bluegartr.com/forum/70952...ml#post2555947

[Kuya]

Well, conservatism is not necessarily reactionary, at least not in the pathological sense that you seem to imply it is. For example, conservatism according to a burkian point of view, sees tradition and culture as a dynamic (meaning constantly changing and growing) collective unconscious that is both legitimized by history and informed by it. The logic is, why rely on the knowledge of a single or small group of fallible humans when you have a body of knowledge produced and process throughout history by countless human thinkers, not only that, but this body of knowledge is also tempered by praxis, unlike say some theoretical or metaphysical idea of the world created without any experience to justify it. From this point of view then it is wise and safe to favour the beliefs and actions of the past over new beliefs that have not been tested by experience. It is true that everything changes, but change need not necessarily be created purposely, in a sense change happens whether we like it or not but it is safer to let change happen gradually instead of forcing it leading to consequences that you might not have intended.

In that case, what is aimed at is the avoidance of unforeseen consequences which intentioned human action is rife with. We humans are capable of planning into the future and take account many factors, but we can't take everything into account, so some would think that it is better to let change happen on its own, and if it's true that change happens naturally, then by your own logic there is no point in forcing it, since it will happen anyway.

Now, change that happens without intentioned human actions (because our history is the collusion of actions and their explicit and implicit consequences), can also be sudden and come without apparent cause, but this is not the same as planned human change, so another issue you could bring up is why people would take issue with sudden change that isn't explicitly caused by humans, in which case my short answer would be that sudden change is even scarier when you don't know why it happened, and it has more to do with reacting to something unknown rather than fear of change itself.

[Antithesis]

Greatly appreciate the response Kuya. Something else I wanted to add but I must eat dinner now so I'll be back shortly!

[Kuya]

To prod some thought into the issue for you, it is fallible human action that led to homosexuality becoming demonized, not on a religious basis, as many people seem to think now a days, but on the biological and gender related notions. If it weren't for certain intrusive actions taken during the 16-19th century, you might not have considered yourself a homosexual but still have sexual relationships with men.

The most ironic thing of all is that it was the modern scientific paradigm that really put the "nail on the coffin" for homosexuality, and not Christianity.