Colbert makes the case for Holsinger.
By on Jun 15th, 2007 at 10:10 am
Colbert makes the case for Holsinger.
Last night, Colbert urged the Senate to approve James Holsinger, President Bush’s nominee to be the next Surgeon General. Holsinger wrote a 1991 report on the “dangers” of “anal eroticism,” arguing that homosexuality was “unnatural” by comparing human anatomy to “pipe fittings.”
For years, we have tolerated smoking just like we currently tolerate homosexuality. But the surgeon general alerted us to the dangers of smoking with warning labels. With Holsinger at the helm, we can use the same approach for homosexuality. Every gay man and woman should come with a label: “Warning! Plumbers have found homosexual behavior to be dangerous and unnatural.” And that’s the word.
Watch it:
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Health Care
Hoffman
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Plumbers have found homosexual behavior to be dangerous and unnatural.
Jake?
Michael?
Daryl?
See, it’s dangerous. I don’t care what Gannon told you.
June 15th, 2007 at 10:20 amI am always both amused and outraged by the “natural” argument.
June 15th, 2007 at 10:30 amMuch of what we do as a civilized people is “unnatural” – including committing ourselves to a long term relationship, helping others, not lying, not stealing. And the “Christian Pharisees” say our “natural state” is sinful. The decision about what we as a collective support or prohibit through our laws should be based on whether or not someone is harmed, not some confused notion of “natural”.
The decision about what we as a collective support or prohibit through our laws should be based on whether or not someone is harmed, not some confused notion of “naturalâ€.
AMEN, BROTHER!! If people would stop worrying about what others are doing that they don’t personally like and concern themselves with being good, caring, compassionate people, the world would be a better place.
Of course, that’s not gonna happen, but one can dream!
June 15th, 2007 at 10:38 amSince one of the answers to the question, “How many homosexuals want to be married?†is “More than you might think,†I suggest the behavior in the below article is more representative of the homosexual lifestyle.
This article left me feeling very empty.
I imagine this to be the feeling one would have on watching the victims of a car wreck be immolated.
You watch knowing there’s nothing you can do and knowing that they’re suffering the results of their own behavior – speeding, drinking, or like recklessness.
Not for the squeamish or those easily offended or depressed…
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/5939950/bug_chasers
June 15th, 2007 at 10:42 am
It’s really way past due to pass national legislation enforcing on every state to allow gays to marry and serve openly in the military. I, for one, don’t feel any safer banning gays from their private affairs and full benefits of marriage.
I wish my fellow conservatives weren’t so hard on them. It’s a waste of time, truthfully.
CONSERVATIVES, MOVE ON! PLEASE!
June 15th, 2007 at 10:45 am#4
That psychisis does not apply to any gay folks I know.
June 15th, 2007 at 10:45 amI meant # 5,
June 15th, 2007 at 10:46 amYou are an idiot bitblt. A true sub-standard intellect. That MUST be what a lot of homosexuals want!!!
June 15th, 2007 at 10:46 amI love Colbert. But can we stop shilling his show, and get back to progressive thinking?
June 15th, 2007 at 10:48 amroo, why not spotlight his show?
June 15th, 2007 at 10:49 amKill “conservatism”…
June 15th, 2007 at 10:49 am#8
You could be correct #8, I certainly won’t argue your assessment.
However, I question your ability to make that assessment.
I bring this article to TPs poster’s attention because of the recent posts on homosexual marriage. I wanted posters to know that there’s another image of homosexuality that’s not two cute little grooms on the top of the wedding cake.
June 15th, 2007 at 11:01 ambitblt (#4)
I think it is time you went out and actually met a homosexual or two. I think you’d find you didn’t need to so afraid.
June 15th, 2007 at 11:02 amNothing that a person does sexually can possibly approach the unnatural act of jumping out of an airplane.
June 15th, 2007 at 11:12 amHey all,
I think bitblt’s link is tongue in cheek, similar to Mr.Colbert’s editorial.
I mean, why else bring up someone’s psychosis from 2003, especially on a surgeon general thread.
You are being sarcastic, aren’t you?
June 15th, 2007 at 11:13 ambitblt
OK, so I have a heterosexual aunt who stuck needles her in eyes, blinding herself, because of her mental health problems. Does that now mean that heterosexuality is a problem? Your “logic” is flawed to the extreme.
June 15th, 2007 at 11:14 am#14
You do mean if this is done without a parachute, don’t you?
Or,
June 15th, 2007 at 11:16 amare you trying to make a sexual metaphor?
#4 Comment by bitblt — June 15, 2007 @ 10:42 am
Nice work.
June 15th, 2007 at 11:16 amComment by Mr. President
Good morning fellow troll ™
June 15th, 2007 at 11:21 am#12 One, bitblt, this is not a homosexual marriage thread. Two, Lorena Bobbit likes cutting off male genitalia. Does that mean all heterosexual women do?
To say “Since one of the answers to the question, “How many homosexuals want to be married?†is “More than you might think,†I suggest the behavior in the below article is more representative of the homosexual lifestyle.” is simply just an ignorant generalization.
June 15th, 2007 at 11:21 am#4 Comment by bitblt — June 15, 2007 @ 10:42 am
Nice work.
Comment by Mr. President
_______________________________
Oh, oh! bitblt is about to be fired.
June 15th, 2007 at 11:22 amDRxJ, unless my memory is faulty bitblt is one of the more venomous trolls around (albeit a bit more rare than most of our resident trolls).
June 15th, 2007 at 11:23 amComment by Mr. President
Mr. President, It really is me, but I can’t help myself. I have liberal views when it comes to gay rights. I won’t bash conservatives over theirs, but it’s just my position.
I apologize anyways, sir.
Don’t worry, that still makes me at least 65% conservative. Make your own assessment, good friend.
June 15th, 2007 at 11:25 amUm, I hate to point this out, but Colbert is a comedian. Whatever he says on his show should be viewed as part of his routine. At least that’s how I take it.
June 15th, 2007 at 11:27 amComment by Mr. President
For example, I support a full and unconditional pardon for Scooter Libby. Libetrolls hate that assertion.
June 15th, 2007 at 11:27 amI like Stewart,especially the monologue;
June 15th, 2007 at 11:27 amBut I find Colbert basically unwatchable; too hyperactive,and most of the time not funny.
Why does he show up on this site so much?
For example, I support a full and unconditional pardon for Scooter Libby. Libetrolls hate that assertion.
Comment by CompTROLLER V-1 — June 15, 2007 @ 11:27 am
It’s OK, CT.
I know it’s still early, and besides…
you can always deny what you said later.
June 15th, 2007 at 11:30 amJPark,
I know. I was trying to convey a sarcastic tone, it just didn’t “type” over very well.
bitblt(hold the mayo),
you know, some hetero men like to wear women’s underwear.
Should they be banned from Victoria’s Secret?
(that’s rhetorical, and a sarcastic parallel to bilblt’s link)
June 15th, 2007 at 11:32 amOf course it is unnatural to go into a male’s rectum. Why do you think this act is forbidden in the bible. Sex is supposed to be enjoyable, not painful.
June 15th, 2007 at 11:35 amDaryll, just because your wife doesn’t like it when you “slip” doesn’t mean some women don’t like it. Some actually love it. And men have prostates so I am guessing it is enjoyable for some men as well.
June 15th, 2007 at 11:39 amComment by Mr. President
I believe I will deny is later. Thank you for keeping all options on the table, sir.
(Nancy called-in by the way, says she’s passing more “failure” letters to you.)
June 15th, 2007 at 11:40 amCorrection #31: I believe I will deny it later.
June 15th, 2007 at 11:41 amDaryll
with every post, it becomes more and more clear that you’ve had some sort of male on male contact, and you’re just too ashamed to admit that you enjoyed it.
Where, oh where to begin?
it is unnatural to go into a male’s rectum
to go? as in urinate? why yes, here i agree.
if you meant to penetrate, why are you preoccupied with the male rectum? Shouldn’t you have posted “to go into anyone’s rectum”?
Why do you think this act is forbidden in the bible. Sex is supposed to be enjoyable, not painful.
June 15th, 2007 at 11:45 amI dunno, why is eating shellfish forbidden?
and if I remember correctly, “the act”, as you so graphically detailed, is never mentioned in the Bible.
as for the “enjoyable, not painful” part, I really don’t know what to tell ya. May I suggest the latest edition of the JOY OF SEX?
Daryll, just because your wife doesn’t like it when you “slip†doesn’t mean some women don’t like it. Some actually love it. And men have prostates so I am guessing it is enjoyable for some men as well.
Comment by JPark
Actually, Daryll said is was unnatural to “go” into a male’s rectum. He doesn’t mention women’s rectums at all, so he clearly believes that’s ok.
June 15th, 2007 at 12:02 pmWhy do you think this act is forbidden in the bible. Sex is supposed to be enjoyable, not painful.
Comment by Daryll
The Bible also forbids you to eat pork or shellfish or to trim your hair or beard, Daryll. We’re still waiting to hear how you obey those Biblical laws.
Waiting . . .
June 15th, 2007 at 12:03 pm#14
Not being sarcastic.
My summary on this article: The guy Carlos said that the moment he caught his death, HIV, would be the most erotic in his life. I have difficulty accepting this attitude as being genetically based.
But this attitude certainly supports the phrase, “…culture of death.â€
Is the surgeon general suppose to be concerned with the health of the citizens of the U.S?
Only to the extend that the “RollingStone†article is fiction.
#15
It’s not clear to me what you mean. I’m sure you can find similar behavior in heterosexuals.
I was not trying to say this article is representative of all homosexuals though I believe I’ve read the remarks of a homosexual who wrote that you couldn’t fully appreciate the experience unless you were promiscuous. You might want to note that the article includes a paragraph in which other homosexuals make fun of the idea of having safe sex.
June 15th, 2007 at 12:06 pmbitethebullet and St. Daryll are both rare and toxic trolls. They can always be counted on to show up when the aroma of butt sex is in the air.
Makes you wonder doesn’t it? I think you hit the nail on the head DRxJ, both of these trolls have had some experience in the past that they are fighting to supress.
June 15th, 2007 at 12:07 pm#22
Believe you’re completely misrepresenting me . There seems to be quite a bit of that on TP. Seems to me that many prefer the misrepresenting over actually sharing worthwhile views.
You know of course that bitblt…
doesn’t call other posters names…
doesn’t belittle the intelligence of other posters…
reads post with an eye toward reading something worthwhile…
posts scripture and explains why his views are influenced by his belief.
Ah… Let me guess. You must think bitblt is venomous because of that last one. I do hope that you get the impression that biblt really believes something.
Bet you missed the part in bitblt’s post – 4 – where he described his feelings? His feelings probably aren’t important, are they?
Perhaps you simply shouldn’t read bitblt’s posts.
June 15th, 2007 at 12:09 pmPatrioticLiberalChristian,
You’re entirely right that the notion of the “natural” is confused. Many people (like Holsinger and various trolls here) think the meaning of the term is clear and beyond doubt because they think they can differentiate between our fixed natural state and natural behaviors as biological organisms, on the one hand, and our variable sociocultural values, on the other, and of course they side with the former against the latter. But this is false, for many reasons.
For example, what people allege to be biologically natural is in reality highly imbued with subjective value judgments and dependent in part on society’s technological and medical knowledge, which enable it to intervene in the human organism. Miscegenation was considered an “unnatural” mixing of the sexes. People override the natural process of eliminating hunger by fasting for religious reasons. Vaccinations and immunizations are unnatural in that they introduce organisms and genetic material not “naturally” found in the human organism. The pill and condom are technological interventions in sexual activity, separating procreation from recreation. Numerous other examples could be found.
Another common error is that many people don’t realize that homosexual behavior is found in the animal kingdom; at least 450 species have been found to engage in it. Nature has evolved many species to engage in what Holsinger and other trolls would condemn as unnatural. The absurd conclusion that Holsinger and the trolls would be forced to reach is that nature itself is unnatural.
In short, the natural-unnatural distinction is highly problematic.
June 15th, 2007 at 12:11 pm#38 bitblk, why would your ignorant opinion not be addressed? You take a story and say that that is probably how most homosexuals think. Go find yourself a homosexual (or more than one if you want it to be scientific) and ask them if they want to contract HIV. Then get back to me. Prove me wrong.
June 15th, 2007 at 12:26 pmIt’s OK, CT.
I know it’s still early, and besides…
you can always deny what you said later.
Comment by Mr. President — June 15, 2007 @ 11:30 am
After all, that’s what conservatives DO when their statements later prove inconvenient.
June 15th, 2007 at 12:30 pmComment by Prof. Mark Colby — June 15, 2007 @ 12:11 pm
Hey “PROF,” long time no see!!!
June 15th, 2007 at 12:33 pmComment by spit take
After all, you bring no new left-tard Talking Points ™ to the table.
June 15th, 2007 at 12:33 pm#20 & #40
You could very well be correct.
Since all of the following remain somewhat nebulous –
the cause(s) of homosexuality,
number of homosexuals in the population,
the different ways of expressing homosexuality among its practitioner
the number of homosexuals who want to be married,
the number of homosexuals who want to be monogamous,
the number of homosexuals who want to be promiscuous,
the number of homosexuals who want to serve in the military,
the number of homosexuals who expect to be happy through their lifestyle choices,
the number of homosexuals who will die young because of their sexual preferences,
the benefit of the practice to the species,
….
Generalities many be all we have.
You want something proven, you prove that homosexuality is not deadly to its practitioners.
June 15th, 2007 at 12:35 pmMy summary on this article: The guy Carlos said that the moment he caught his death, HIV, would be the most erotic in his life. I have difficulty accepting this attitude as being genetically based.
…
I was not trying to say this article is representative of all homosexuals though I believe I’ve read the remarks of a homosexual who wrote that you couldn’t fully appreciate the experience unless you were promiscuous. You might want to note that the article includes a paragraph in which other homosexuals make fun of the idea of having safe sex.
Comment by bitblt — June 15, 2007 @ 12:06 pm
bitbit, you stated clearly “I suggest the behavior in the below article is more representative of the homosexual lifestyle.” What supports this judgment? Besides your wanting it to be true, I mean. Peer-reviewed studies? Clinical observation? Personal experience?
It seems that one would be similarly justified in deciding that the “culture of death” evident in straight sex that involves near-asphyxiation is also “more representative of the heterosexual lifestyle” than the “family values” ideal presented on TV commercials.
June 15th, 2007 at 12:37 pmAfter all, you bring no new left-tard Talking Points â„¢ to the table.
Comment by CompTROLLER V-1 — June 15, 2007 @ 12:33 pm
That’s true. No Talking Pointsâ„¢ of any kind here (that’s for you guys). Thanks for noticing.
June 15th, 2007 at 12:40 pmMr. President,
I note your implied sarcasm in capitalizing my title and putting it in quotation marks. Does it threaten you that a professional thinker (which is what a professor of philosophy is) contributes to the discussions here? Do you have anything more substantive to offer, such as a rebuttal to my claims? If I’m right, Holsinger and other “unnaturalists” are wrong. Let’s have your strongest argument against my claims.
June 15th, 2007 at 12:43 pmLet’s have your strongest argument against my claims.
Comment by Prof. Mark Colby — June 15, 2007 @ 12:43 pm
Colbster, where are ya???
I gotta go in 20min.
June 15th, 2007 at 1:08 pmOkay PseudoPROF ,
I’m going now, so feel free to take your time.
June 15th, 2007 at 1:26 pmMr. President,
I’m still waiting for your rebuttal. I’m assuming that you have enough intellectual integrity to offer one instead of more juvenile sarcasm.
June 15th, 2007 at 1:31 pmI’m assuming that you have enough intellectual integrity to offer one instead of more juvenile sarcasm.
Comment by Prof. Mark Colby
That’s quite an assumption. Where’s the evidence?
June 15th, 2007 at 1:36 pmMr. President,
I’m still waiting for your rebuttal. I’m assuming that you have enough intellectual integrity to offer one instead of more juvenile sarcasm.
Comment by Prof. Mark Colby — June 15, 2007 @ 1:31 pm
You’re expecting too much. On another thread, long long ago, I nboxed this troll into a corner, and he told everyone right out; he’s not here for discussions, he’s here strictly for the enjoyment of dropping bombs and getting a rise out of people. Engage him at your peril.
June 15th, 2007 at 1:38 pmNamtillaku,
Thanks for the sage advice. I had my suspicions, and you’ve confirmed them. I’ll ignore him from now on.
June 15th, 2007 at 2:07 pmAnother common error is that many people don’t realize that homosexual behavior is found in the animal kingdom; at least 450 species have been found to engage in it. Nature has evolved many species to engage in what Holsinger and other trolls would condemn as unnatural.
Comment by Prof. Mark Colby — June 15, 2007 @ 12:11 pm
This only has meaning for those of you who make no distinction between people and animals. We who believe people are above animals expect more from people than we do from animals. Pretty cool how that works, eh Mark?
——
Does it threaten you that a professional thinker (which is what a professor of philosophy is) contributes to the discussions here?
Comment by Prof. Mark Colby — June 15, 2007 @ 12:43 pm
Most people are able to think and hold real jobs at the same time. Don’t be so quick to announce that it takes you a lot longer, buddy. ;)
June 15th, 2007 at 3:00 pmUm, I hate to point this out, but Colbert is a comedian. Whatever he says on his show should be viewed as part of his routine. At least that’s how I take it.
Comment by are you kidding me — June 15, 2007 @ 11:27 am
Really?
Thanks for the tip.
I guess it has eluded you that political satire has been a long standing tool in the hands of the commonwealth in this country for the last 200 years, in holding politicians and officials accountable.
Stephen Colbert, Jon Stewart, Bill Maher, have all been stalwart voices of reason for the last 6 years, fighting against this executive run amuck.
It is satire that compels the masses to examine the logic or morality of an issue, and it works for most, except the most dull witted and ignorant. (who already follow Bush).
Just once, I wish guys like you would just join the other side.
You’d do us more good there.
June 15th, 2007 at 3:12 pmI love Colbert. But can we stop shilling his show, and get back to progressive thinking?
Comment by roo — June 15, 2007 @ 10:48 am
Ladies and Gentlemen, we are in the presence of genius.
This genius for instance, thinks its a good idea for us to NOT promote the voice of a man who’s show reaches millions every day with our message.
After all, we as “progressives” don’t want anyone as popular or VISIBLE as Stephen Colbert promoting our cause.
Someone might actually “hear him”, and be persuaded to see the lunacy in the Bush administration.
:|
And nobody wants that….
June 15th, 2007 at 3:35 pmAnd you people wonder why we keep losing?
June 15th, 2007 at 3:38 pm# You want something proven, you prove that homosexuality is not deadly to its practitioners.
Comment by bitblt — June 15, 2007 @ 12:35 pm
#
Um, doesn’t the fact that they exist pretty much prove that?
June 15th, 2007 at 4:14 pmDid you have to study up to be so idiotic?
Mr. President,
I’m still waiting for your rebuttal. I’m assuming that you have enough intellectual integrity to offer one instead of more juvenile sarcasm.
Comment by Prof. Mark Colby — June 15, 2007 @ 1:31 pm
You little bitch. So you finally decide to show your face when you know I’ve left!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You’re a fake, and… I dub thee:
Professor Mark Trollby
June 15th, 2007 at 5:19 pmWhat the fukc,
TP took my post down.
You gotta understand Prof… jeez… stuff like this happens all the time.
Anyway, here is what I said (rephrased of course):
Prof. Colby,
Your position on NOMOS vs. PHYSIS is very Aristotelian, and I agree with what you have said about contributing societal factors. But tell me, Prof., just because humans have certain capacities “by nature” does that mean that all of those capacities should be embraced?
June 15th, 2007 at 5:27 pmProf. Colby is a propogandist.
He is impressed with himself.
He has to tell you he is a Prof. otherwise you would never know.
June 15th, 2007 at 7:54 pmUpright left,
Of course there are distinctions between humans and animals. I never said otherwise. But the argument that I specifically addressed and refuted tries, as Patriotic Christian Liberal pointed out, to appeal to a notion of the biologically unnatural, and this is fallacious. By the way, your insult is unworthy of you. The disparaging comment to which I was responding by mentioning my profession was not made by you but by someone else, or are you unsure of your identity? In case you haven’t noticed, a little intellectual and moral integrity goes a long way in life; I suggest that you try some.
Mr. President,
Perhaps you hope it’s true, but why are you so quick to assume that I fled? If you look at the time stamps of our post, you’ll see that I asked you to rebut my argument. Not only did you fail to do so when I was still waiting for your reply, but you added more insults. And you seem to have a problem with gender in calling me a “bitch”: since when is “Mark” a woman’s name? As for your later post, you’ve conceded that you accept Aristotle’s distinction, so you’ve conceded the core of my specific argument, which builds on it. And no, not every natural capacity should be embraced. But as I said above to Upright, I addressed and refuted a specific argument about the allegedly biologically unnatural. If you want to move the goalposts to a different argument, I’m happy to accommodate you. But I’m sure you agree that intellectual integrity requires that we be as rigorous as possible in keeping distinct arguments distinct. And perhaps you can tell me why someone who has enough education and intelligence to understand Aristotle feels the need to descend to insults and sarcasm. Is it that your intellectual self-confidence is somewhat shaky?
Flaco,
First, learn how to spell “propagandist.” Second, learn what it means; nothing I said is propaganda. Just because you disagree with it doesn’t make it propaganda. Third, I find it amusing that you think I’m impressed with myself. Judging by your posts, you may not be able to understand this, but the reason why I indicate my title in my posts is that my profession could not possibly be more relevant to the concerns of anyone reading or posting here. I would think that anyone who cares about the truth and good thinking, whether on the left or right, should welcome an occasional contribution from someone who earns his living by teaching critical thinking and philosophical thinking about ethics and poltics. I would like people to know that my opinions ought to carry special weight as they think about the issues for themselves. (Not that my opinions are necessarily correct. But they are particularly well informed by many years of study of such matters as the natural and the unnatural–and you’ll notice that Mr. President agreed with me on this.) Fourth, do you engage in insults because you’re intellectually incapable, lacking in good character, or possibly both? For the sake of the quality of your life, you should try to do better–as Aristotle would say, right, Mr. President?
June 15th, 2007 at 9:30 pmMr. President,
Perhaps you hope it’s true, but why are you so quick to assume that I fled? If you look at the time stamps of our post, you’ll see that I asked you to rebut my argument. Not only did you fail to do so when I was still waiting for your reply, but you added more insults. And you seem to have a problem with gender in calling me a “bitchâ€: since when is “Mark†a woman’s name? As for your later post, you’ve conceded that you accept Aristotle’s distinction, so you’ve conceded the core of my specific argument, which builds on it. And no, not every natural capacity should be embraced. But as I said above to Upright, I addressed and refuted a specific argument about the allegedly biologically unnatural. If you want to move the goalposts to a different argument, I’m happy to accommodate you. But I’m sure you agree that intellectual integrity requires that we be as rigorous as possible in keeping distinct arguments distinct. And perhaps you can tell me why someone who has enough education and intelligence to understand Aristotle feels the need to descend to insults and sarcasm. Is it that your intellectual self-confidence is somewhat shaky?
Comment by Prof. Mark Colby — June 15, 2007 @ 9:30 pm
Yeah, sorry about the mix up early Prof., it seems TP took down my post but my page did not refresh so I thought it was still up.
Regardless, given that we both agree on the Aristotelian conception of “nature,” I thought we could move on and apply Aristotle’s thought to the topic of this thread, namely homosexuality. Do you object?
June 15th, 2007 at 9:39 pmMr. President,
No, I don’t object, but what is the specific argument against homosexuality that you have in mind? Certainly Aristotle doesn’t have one. The conservatives who oppose it tend to argue that it’s biologically unnatural. This is relatively specific, which is why it’s so easy to dismantle it. Once it’s shown that the “biologically unnatural” is so hard to identify, let alone use as a normative objection to homosexuality, the argument comes down to sociocultural values. I would imagine that you would agree that, without the benefit of a factual element like biological considerations, an argument based solely on sociocultural values degenerates into a mere value disagreement. Conservatives want more than that, of course–hence why Holsinger tries to appeal to the facts of human anatomy.
June 15th, 2007 at 10:41 pmComment by Prof. Mark Colby — June 15, 2007 @ 10:41 pm
Certainly Aristotle doesn’t have one.
Actually, he does.
As you know the ancient Greeks had homoerotic relationships. But, according to old Aristotle, the reason one does something is an important factor when determining if that action is moral or not. Therefore, homosexual relationships (serving no purpose as opposed to heterosexual relationships which do) were deemed, deficient, and hindered one’s chances at achieving happiness (eudaimonia).
Look it up:
Politics, Book I
Nicomachean Ethics, Book VIII
(this is Mr. President, by the way)
June 16th, 2007 at 12:25 amWell, homosexual relationships did serve a purpose, namely, pleasure. But procreation is part of the TELOS of mankind.
June 16th, 2007 at 12:31 amMr. President,
Sorry, I disagree with your attempt to apply Aristotle. The Greeks–and I assume Aristotle as well–believed that homosexual relationships had pedagogical and moral purposes, not just a hedonistic one. (If you disagree, I’d like textual support, whether from Aristotle or any other ancient Greek source on sexual mores.) Now, if “right reason” (Thomson translation) is indeed an important factor, as you suggest, and homosexual relationships are valued for these extra-hedonistic purposes, then by your own argument, right reason affirms that homosexual relationships are moral.
I would argue that the doctrine of friendship in Book VIII affirms the central value of homosexual relationships (as part of perfect friendship) in the eudaimon life. But I haven’t taught it in awhile, so I admit that this may be false.
I see nothing in Politics, Book I (Reeve translation) which specifically denies that homosexual relationships have any function. I don’t see that kind of relationship even mentioned. Unless you can provide specific textual support for your interpretation, I would say that you’re distorting Aristotle’s teleological argument by trying to apply it to a specific matter which he never addresses.
Even if procreation is part of the telos of mankind, as of course it is, this doesn’t entail that sexual activity that does not aim at procreation is not part of the telos. Remember that Aristotle has a differentiated view of the telos, and that the telos is inextricably linked to eudaimonia. Pleasure is part of it (although the lowest), then politics, then philosophical contemplation. “Eudaimonia” is an inclusive term, at least, according to Urmson’s interpretation.
Last but not least, why are we confining ourselves to Aristotle’s views? I realize that you invoked Aristotle to concede my argument against Holsinger et al. that the allegedly biologically natural has a sociocultural element. But this doesn’t mean that we have to become teleologists and eudaimonists in Aristotle’s specific sense, does it?
You seem like an intelligent and well-educated individual, and it’s a pleasure to debate with you. But I don’t understand why so many posts that purport to be from “Mr. President” are so vitrolic, uncritical, insulting, replete with ad hominems, and generally devoid of any intellectual integrity or rigor. Do you have a split personality? Can I debate with Primus Inter Pares from now on?
June 16th, 2007 at 11:28 amComment by Prof. Mark Colby — June 16, 2007 @ 11:28 am
O.K., I don’t like to post copyrighted material, but it seems necessary here.
I assume Aristotle as well–believed that homosexual relationships had pedagogical and moral purposes, not just a hedonistic one. (If you disagree, I’d like textual support, whether from Aristotle or any other ancient Greek source on sexual mores.)
Here we are going to look at the Politics Book I, as I have already mentioned.
1252a15
“What I am saying will be clear, if we examine the matter according to the method of investigation that has guided us elsewhere. For as in other cases, a composite has to be analyzed until we reach things that are incomposite, since these are the smallest parts of the whole, so if we also examine the parts that make up a city-state…”
So here A. has stated that he is going to examine the constituents of a city-state in order to gain understanding of the whole. I’m going to leave out a little text to save room,
1252a25
“If one were to see how these things develop naturally from the beginning, one would, in this case as in others, get the best view of them. First, then, those who cannot exist without each other necessarily form a couple, as [1] female and male do for the sake of procreation (they do not do so from deliberate choice, but, like other animals and plants, because the urge to leave behind something of the same kind as themselves is natural)”
Now, I believe that if you read the rest of these passages, it will be clear, for Aristotle, part of the eudaimon’s “work” is to procreate.
So know let’s look at the Nicomachean Ethics, Book VIII
The point of this book is to examine friendship (and incidentally homosexual relationships are discussed). It seems that the most perfect friendship is one that is mutually beneficial to both friends involved (meaning that the friendship facilitates the “happiness” of both, because eudaimonia is the TELOS of men).
1156b33
“This kind of friendship [the mutually beneficial kind], then, is perfect both in point of duration and in all other respects; and in it each party receives from the other benefits that are in all respects the same or similar, as ought to be the case between friends.”
1157a
“Friendship for the sake of pleasure has a resemblance to perfect friendship, because good men give each other pleasure; and so does friendship for the sake of utility, because good men are also useful to each other. In these associations too friendships last longest when each receives from the other the same benefit – e.g. pleasure – and not merely that, but from the same source, as in the case of two witty people, and not as in the relation of lover and beloved. For the latter do not take pleasure in the same things: the one finds it in looking at his beloved, and the other in the attentions of his lover…”
I suggest that you read Book VIII again. However, I am going to skip ahead to,
1161b17
“Friendship between relatons also appears to be of several different kinds, but they all seem to be ultimately derived from paternal affection. For parents love their children as part of themselves, whereas children love their parents as the authors of their being…
[1162a16] The love between husband and wife is considered to be naturally inherent in them. For man is by his nature a pairing rather than a social creature, inasmuch as the family is an older and more necessary thing than the state, and procreation is a characteristic more commonly shared with the animals. In the other animals partnership goes no further than this; but human beings cohabit not merely to produce children but to secure the necessities of life. From the outset the functions are divided, the husband’s being different from the wife’s; so they supply each other’s deficiencies by pooling their personal resources. For this reason it is thought that both utility and pleasure have a place in conjugal love… Children too, it is agreed, are a bond between parents, which is why childless marriages break up more quickly. For the children are an asset common to them both, and common possession is cohesive.”
I don’t want to copy the whole of these books, but I suggest you read them over again.
As for your question in the fifth paragraph of post #67,
Of course not, we do not have to speak of Aristotle. I am a thorough analyst however, and you seemed to have made a claim regarding “nature/nurture” which had strong Aristotelian overtones, so I went straight to the source. We have to take the argument one step at a time so that everything is in order and we are both clear about definitions (this way we can keep the ambiguities to a minimum).
Thus far, we do not have to be teleologists or eudaimonologists, but when our understanding of “nature” is in question, I for one, understand that, sure, we humans have the potential for a wide variety of actions “by nature,” but this does not mean that those natural actions should be acted upon.
June 16th, 2007 at 1:39 pmTP keeps taking down my posts, so I can only give you the Bekker numbers:
Politics Book I, 1252a15, 1252a25
Now, I believe that if you read the rest of these passages, it will be clear that, for Aristotle, part of the eudaimon’s “work†is to procreate.
Now let’s look at the Nicomachean Ethics,
June 16th, 2007 at 2:24 pmNicomachean Ethics, Book VIII, 1156b33, 1157a, 1161b17
The point of this book is to examine friendship (and incidentally homosexual relationships are discussed). It seems that the most perfect friendship is one that is mutually beneficial to both friends involved (meaning that the friendship facilitates the “happiness†of both, because eudaimonia is the TELOS of men).
As for your question in the fifth paragraph of post #67,
June 16th, 2007 at 2:25 pmOf course not, we do not have to speak of Aristotle. I am a thorough analyst however, and you seemed to have made a claim regarding “nature/nurture†which had strong Aristotelian overtones, so I went straight to the source. We have to take the argument one step at a time so that everything is in order and we are both clear about definitions (this way we can keep the ambiguities to a minimum).
Thus far, we do not have to be teleologists or eudaimonologists, but when our understanding of “nature†is in question, I for one, understand that, sure, we humans have the potential for a wide variety of actions “by nature,†but this does not mean that those natural actions should be acted upon.
What is with the gratuitous French-bashing by Colbert. Is he trying to emulate Glenn Beck?
June 16th, 2007 at 3:17 pmPrimus,
My edition (Reeve) has 1252a15 referencing statesmen and political science, so I think your post has a typo; 1252a25 is where the relevant passage begins, but at 1252a28 he specifically excludes deliberate choice for the “natural.” What does not involve choice does not involve right reason, so this claim would not, strictly speaking, involve morality as you defined it above. So the text doesn’t support your claims. Yes, “part of the eudaimon’s ‘work’ is to procreate”; but the part is not the whole. The fact that homosexuals do not procreate does not by itself mean that they cannot be eudaimon. Eudaimonia is underdetermined by procreation, as it is by the lives of pleasure and politics. It includes them (on the inclusive reading) but is best exemplified by the life of self-sufficiency and use of reason. This means that eudaimonia, the most choiceworthy life, must be as far removed from animal activity as possible.
Moreover, if you persist in wanting to follow Aristotle on the natural, he also claims that it’s natural for males to rule females and Greeks to rule non-Greeks, and he endorses natural slavery. If you disagree with these three claims, you’ve got a problem with arbitrariness: you can’t pick and choose which actions are naturalistically grounded and which aren’t.
It’s too bad your posts were deleted since you may have answered my other questions. In any case, I have a new question for you: why do you even think that Aristotle’s teleological view is valid, let alone normatively binding for moderns? I thought it was replaced by the Newtonian world-view as an account of nature. As for the “ergon” argument, I think it’s valid; there is no determinate function for “man.”
Nothing that you’ve said about Aristotle on procreation provides a reason to oppose homosexual behavior on natural grounds, which was my original point and which I thought you conceded in acknowledging “societal factors.” Unless you want to say that you think Aristotle is right on all these matters, I think it would be far more productive if you were to provide a non-Aristotelian argument against homosexual behavior–but one building on your concession that physis and nomos must be distinguished. My suspicion is that, since you wouldn’t be able to appeal to the natural, you’d be forced into a mere value disagreement with me. And aren’t you forced to accept that the naturalistic fallacy governs good reasoning if you make that concession?
June 16th, 2007 at 3:27 pmPrimus,
I made a typing error: I meant to say that the ergon argument is invalid.
June 16th, 2007 at 3:28 pmI was addressing your post #39 above:
You’re entirely right that the notion of the “natural†is confused. Many people (like Holsinger and various trolls here) think the meaning of the term is clear and beyond doubt because they think they can differentiate between our fixed natural state and natural behaviors as biological organisms, on the one hand, and our variable sociocultural values, on the other, and of course they side with the former against the latter. But this is false, for many reasons.
I agreed, and asked the following:
Your position on NOMOS[custom] vs. PHYSIS [nature] is very Aristotelian, and I agree with what you have said about contributing societal factors. But tell me, Prof., just because humans have certain capacities “by nature†does that mean that all of those capacities should be embraced?
Comment by Mr. President — June 15, 2007 @ 5:27 pm
You responded:
As for your later post, you’ve conceded that you accept Aristotle’s distinction, so you’ve conceded the core of my specific argument, which builds on it. And no, not every natural capacity should be embraced. But as I said above to Upright, I addressed and refuted a specific argument about the allegedly biologically unnatural.
So I said:
given that we both agree on the Aristotelian conception of “nature,†I thought we could move on and apply Aristotle’s thought to the topic of this thread, namely homosexuality. Do you object?
You replied:
No, I don’t object, but what is the specific argument against homosexuality that you have in mind? Certainly Aristotle doesn’t have one.
So I provided specific passages from the text which illustrate this argument. I will now paraphrase because TP will erase my comment if I quote too much.
Aristotle’s Argument Against Homosexuality
The specific argument is that “the Good of Man” is to perform his function, this function is the TELOS of human life. This function is eudaimonia and, being the TELOS and supreme Good of Man, all of our actions seem to aim at this Good. But it is the task of Political Science to investigate how this might be achieved.
Man is a Political/Rational Animal, so it is in a city-state with an ideal politeia (in which the TELOS of the polis and the TELOS of the citizens are identical) that a man can fulfill his function as a man (indicated by eudaimonia (which is not merely “happiness” but rather an activity of the soul in accordance with virtue)).
So, Aristotle’s method is to examine the various relationships amongst the people that constitute a polis in order to determine the most just (see NE Book V) and hence the best way for man to fulfill his function.
All actions that are not done for the sake of the function/TELOS of man are subordinate and defective. Part of Man’s TELOS is procreation, if a person has sex for alternative reasons, then those actions are subordinate and defective, he or she is not acting with his or her soul in accordance with virtue, and will not fulfill his or her function as a human.
That is (a paraphrase of) Aristotle’s argument against homosexuality.
I do not necessarily endorse the entire theory, teleology, or eudaimonism, but you asked about Aristotle’s argument,
No, I don’t object, but what is the specific argument against homosexuality that you have in mind? Certainly Aristotle doesn’t have one.
So I have answered your question.
June 16th, 2007 at 4:10 pmWhat is with the gratuitous French-bashing by Colbert. Is he trying to emulate Glenn Beck?
Comment by bernarda — June 16, 2007 @ 3:17 pm
Ok. One more time.
For all of those like bernarda here who just doesn’t “get” Stephen Colbert, allow me to illuminate you.
Stephen Colbert’ is portraying a character, nothing more. The character he plays, is a neocon pundit, similar to Bill Oreilly, Rush Limpballs and yes, you can include Glen Beck in there. Everytime you see him he is “in character”.
This makes it hard for slow people who do not get Stephen Colbert, to know why he says so many strange things. An example of this of course is his tendancy to emasculate the French, something right wing neocons love to do (wonder if they ever heard of the Battle of New York?). When TP posts one of his rants on something, they are “playing along”. Their hope is you will get it, and play along too.
June 16th, 2007 at 4:47 pmWhat Colbert does, is takes the neocon ideology and logic, and serves it up softball fashion, so the people who have been swallowing the horse manure out of the mouth of the RNC for the last 6 years, can “get it” too.
He shows us with the character he’s created, that you don’t need to argue against right wing logic to defeat it. You merely have to mimic it and maybe toss in an augment or two in your performance, and watch the masses laugh.
And as they laugh, they learn.
Are we learning yet?
June 16th, 2007 at 4:51 pmPrimus,
Your post finally appeared.
You claimed, “All actions that are not done for the sake of the function/TELOS of man are subordinate and defective. Part of Man’s TELOS is procreation, if a person has sex for alternative reasons, then those actions are subordinate and defective, he or she is not acting with his or her soul in accordance with virtue, and will not fulfill his or her function as a human.”
This is too hasty. The fact that part of man’s telos is procreation does not entail that if a person has sex for alternative reasons, those actions are subordinate and defective, for the following reasons:
(1) “Subordinate” does not entail “defective.” I see no textual support for your conflation. What does “subordinate” mean to you? On the inclusive reading of eudaimonia, the life of pleasure is subordinate to the life of contemplation, but this doesn’t make it defective, i.e., lacking any virtue. If it were defective, Aristotle would be advocating asceticism, which he certainly is not (because of the doctrine of the mean and because Aristotle affirms that the natural is best and the best is natural, and so pleasure, being natural, is a good–it just needs to be recognized as a “lower” good). The life of pleasure is defective only when pursued to the exclusion of the virtues and contemplation.
(2) As I said, homosexuality had a pedagogical and moral function for the Greeks. You treat sexuality as if it were solely for procreation, which is untrue for the Greeks. It’s also untrue for us: we have sex to bond, for recreation, etc. And it’s untrue for those 450 known animal species that engage in homosexual behaviors since those behaviors promote the survival of the species by reducing conflict, promoting cooperation, etc. The telos of sex is only partly procreation (of course, a major part, but not constitutive). Your interpretation needs to be supported by a passage where Aristotle specifically says that sex has a single, determinate telos, and that that telos is procreation. This is not what the passage you cited on males and females says; it says that they “cannot exist without each other,” which is a weaker claim. And, for the sake of argument, if he were to say there is a single telos of sex, he would violate his own method in the Ethics, which is to articulate and clarify the values of his audience, and this includes the aforementioned belief in the value of homosexual behaviors as exhibiting the virtues of one kind of friendship.
So I don’t accept your claim that non-procreative sex is defective from the standpoint of Aristotle’s virtue theory. I don’t think it matters much because the ergon argument and Aristotle’s teleology are not persuasive (there is no single telos of man or good for man, and nature contains no intrinsically normative directives), and my only aim was to undermine the appeal to naturalism of such people as Holsinger.
You wrote, “I do not necessarily endorse the entire theory, teleology, or eudaimonism, but you asked about Aristotle’s argument.” Yes, but I didn’t mention Aristotle, you did, in conceding my point. So you haven’t answered my question: what is your specific argument (in a nutshell) against homosexuality?
And how do you explain the discrepant conduct of “Mr. President” and “Primus Inter Pares”?
June 16th, 2007 at 5:00 pmSamantha Bee and Rob Wriggle are very good at that technique too.
June 16th, 2007 at 5:05 pmComment by Prof. Mark Colby — June 16, 2007 @ 5:00 pm
(1) “Subordinate†does not entail “defective.†I see no textual support for your conflation.
True, but I said “actions that are not done for the sake of the function/TELOS of man are subordinate and defective.”
I did not say that “subordinate” entails “defective.”
(Some translations have “deficient” rather than “defective.”)
You wrote, “I do not necessarily endorse the entire theory, teleology, or eudaimonism, but you asked about Aristotle’s argument.†Yes, but I didn’t mention Aristotle, you did, in conceding my point. So you haven’t answered my question: what is your specific argument (in a nutshell) against homosexuality?
And how do you explain the discrepant conduct of “Mr. President†and “Primus Inter Pares�
Comment by Prof. Mark Colby — June 16, 2007 @ 5:00 pm
I am merely trying to be as clear as possible as to your argument. I noticed a strong Aristotelian influence in the first paragraph of your post #39, so I asked you a question regarding your statements (which was deleted by TP, so I had to rephrase and post after I noticed the blunder). You responded that, indeed, “Aristotle’s distinction,” was at the “core of [your] specific argument.” You then agreed to entertain my applying the Aristotelian notion of “nature” to homosexuality, but you claimed that one could not be found in the text. So, this last claim of yours is what I have been addressing thus far (one step at a time, one step at a time).
I have given a rough outline of the argument, TP will not tolerate specific quotes. But generally speaking, the Corpus Aristotelicum argues that the world is governed by essences and causes, the essence of Man is his function, he is different from animals because he has rational capabilities so his ergon is an activity of the soul in accordance with virtue. Virtuous actions are done in turn, for the benefit of the soul, sex (an activity which we share with lower animals), being an action, has a cause, if this cause is pleasure/money/revenge/etc. then the person is not acting virtuously (remember, this is Aristotle we are talking about, not me per se) and therefore is not fulfilling his function as a man.
June 16th, 2007 at 5:33 pmYou guys can’t even spell correctly. Enough of the bullshit argument already.
You’ve successfully buried the thread.
June 16th, 2007 at 6:32 pmPrimus,
I appreciate your desire to be as clear as possible. I see now why you thought I was appealing to Aristotle. I should have made it clear that his distinction between physis and nomos is at the foundation of my criticism of Holsinger et al., but that I regard this distinction as metaphysically and epistemologically independent of Aristotle’s specific corpus. (And I conjecture that most philosophers and natural and social scientists do too.) Aristotle gets the historical credit for the distinction, I believe.
Having clarified this, what’s your reply to post #75? Do you stand by your interpretation?
I realize that you did not specifically state that “subordinate” entails “defective,” but your argument needs to be that it does, since your thesis is that what is wrong with an action not performed for the sake of the function of man is that it impede his fulfilling that function and therefore impedes his being eudaimon. (It’s not enough to say that it does “not fulfill that function,” since that phrase could mean that it is neutral with respect to that function. You want a stronger conclusion–that it is incompatible with that function and therefore ruled out as vicious or immoral.)
Bartlebee,
I don’t know if your vague comment refers to my debate with Primus Inter Pares, but anyone is free to post here and we’re not preventing anyone from doing so. Also, you must have noticed by now that many threads responding to articles posted on TP involve micro-debates between two or more individuals. If you don’t like ours, just ignore it. And considering how many posts involve people hurling mindless insults at one another, I’d like to think–and I’m sure Primus agrees–that our debate is educational.
June 16th, 2007 at 7:17 pmHaving clarified this, what’s your reply to post #75? Do you stand by your interpretation?
I can only provide a sketch here, so understand that if my posts seem lacking, it is because when I cite the text TP takes down the comment.
Post #75 is Comment by BARTLEBEE — June 16, 2007 @ 4:51 pm
But I can say that I stand my interpretation of Aristotle’s eudaimonism and teleology, in that the TELOS is that for which a thing has being, in the case of MAN it is to cultivate the soul by acting in such a way that the soul (in the philosophical sense of the word “soul,” of course) is in accordance with virtue.
This involves doing the right things at the right time for the right reasons. When it comes to reason for action “pleasure” is viewed as merely an indication of eudaimonia, however, it is not always an accurate indication.
June 16th, 2007 at 7:35 pmI am always both amused and outraged by the “natural†argument.
Much of what we do as a civilized people is “unnatural†– including committing ourselves to a long term relationship, helping others, not lying, not stealing. And the “Christian Pharisees†say our “natural state†is sinful. The decision about what we as a collective support or prohibit through our laws should be based on whether or not someone is harmed, not some confused notion of “naturalâ€.
Comment by PatrioticLiberalChristian(PLC)
This is guy is PLC twisted. I like how he has to tell you he is PLChristian.
June 17th, 2007 at 9:19 pmThis opinion is just an opinion that’s all. Thanks for sharing.
#45
You are correct spit take. I said that.
I don’t have any special insight in this area. I do have my impressions.
I don’t believe any TP poster has felt that having actual answers to any questions like those in #44 is requirement to have an opinion about this subject.
You can tell me what you think.
Do you think most, or many, homosexuals are more toward the “two cute grooms on a cake†or more toward a “bug chaser†like in the article at the link in #4. Or, are there lots of little “in between waypoints†separating these extremes?
How about these: “two cute groomsâ€, “happy home bodiesâ€, “pride participantâ€, “bar cruiserâ€, â€Southern Decadence attendeeâ€, “bug chaser?†Yeah, I know. There’re probably heterosexual analogues here.
We can call it monogamous on the left and promiscuous on the right if you like. Hope this “right is left†and “left is right†orientation doesn’t confuse anyone.
For an interesting historical perspective on homosexual behavior we can look in the Old Testament book of Isaiah. Apparently, the destruction of Sodom ( of Sodom and Gomorrah fame – there were actually five cities destroyed ) became a really good example of a really bad example of what became of its homosexual inhabitants. The story of the destruction of these five cities is record in Genesis 19, and references to the destruction of Sodom are made throughout the Bible. Even Christ uses Sodom in a comparison.
Back to Isaiah. The book of Isaiah uses the phrase, “…parade your sin like Sodom†as a comparison. Of course, the name of the city becomes a metaphor for the consequences of the sin of the inhabitants. Now, spit take where would you imagine the folks in Sodom would be on the above scale? More toward the “left is right†or more toward the “right is left?â€
The last person with whom I’ve had to deal who suffers from his homosexual behavior could have been “Carlos†in the “RollingStone†article. He was the saddest person I’ve ever met, and I’d say he’s gone past the point where he ever expects to be happy in his life. When I ask him if he was healthy, he told me had knowingly slept with a man who was HIV+. He said he just didn’t care at the time..
Now you know how I felt in my dealings with this man – like watching some be immolated in a car wreck.
BTW, I take any comparison of homosexual behavior to heterosexual behavior – as you did in #45 – to have the implied message of “one is as good as the other.†Is this what you mean?
June 18th, 2007 at 11:44 am