This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Sodomy is a horrible sin and allowing it’s official sanction will convince more people to experiment, leading to their own damnation.
That doesn’t mean we should break out the construction cranes to rid ourselves of them. But from a Christian paternalist perspective a duty of the government is to discourage gay sex.
When you say that sodomy is a sin, why do you say that? Because the Bible says so? Or because you have some logical arguments? I think that "the Bible says so" is worthless as a moral argument.
I hope you understand why Christian paternalism would have a different attitude towards the Bible?
But in any case, gay couplings are incapable of performing the action that we can tell their organs are meant to do- the telos of the sexual act is PIV. It is quite trivially obvious from the design of the relevant anatomy that any natural law morals have to condemn sodomical acts; the consequences of routine sodomy make this doubly obvious. To say nothing that the sexes are different and meant to cooperate; the usual complaints about lesbian dating or the observed behavior of the gay male community make it clear that what they are missing is the opposite sex. The sexes complement each other not just in the design of their bodies but in their essential temperaments and inclinations, and a well ordered person is designed to seek out this complementarity through bonding with the opposite sex. Attempts to engage in the sexual act without this complementary bonding are trainwrecks, heterosexual sex without a unitive bonding experience is the basis for the legions of issues with modern heterosexual dating as criticized by almost literally everyone. Finally, we can tell that sex is meant to make babies, both from desire(contraceptors often report a drop in libido, women are both most attractive and most interested in sex during the most fertile time) and from results- the action these organs are clearly designed for makes babies without specific intervention to make it not do that. Homosexual sex can’t make babies inherently.
The normative sexual experience and telos for human sexual desires is clearly heterosexual, committed, fecund, and PIV. Everything about the act and everything involved in it tells us this. Moving too far from the norm and ideal for something important and public is probably a sin, even when the health consequences of sodomy or general bad behavior in the gay community are left out. Those are simply the nails in the coffin.
And sex is important and it is public. If you have sex with your coworkers all of your other coworkers will gossip about it and not feel bad about it. The same is not true for grabbing lunch- unless, that is, your having lunch is perceived as starting up the kind of relationship which usually leads to sex! Thinking of sex as a toy or mere private act is a childish mistake that one could only make having no familiarity with its social consequences.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link