Homosexual Living Together

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='Norseman82' post='1110460' date='Nov 4 2006, 12:53 AM']
I think you just answered your own questions.
[/quote]

It was his question from above.

[Norseman82]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1110348' date='Nov 3 2006, 09:42 PM']
(And if you'll notice, hardly any single "straight" people are pressing for same-sex "marriage" or "civil unions" for themselves. The issue almost always involves homosexuality.)
[/quote]

What if a person who had multiple personalities had one personality that wanted to enter into a civil union with another?

[kamiller42]

[quote name='KizlarAgha' post='1110452' date='Nov 3 2006, 11:47 PM']
I take it you're not a historian, saying that the overall progress of history is for the better. It's impossible to make a quality judgment on something like that.

The male and female bodies were designed (by who?!)

Evolution. But it wasn't an intelligent design, it just worked the best for reproduction.
[/quote]
You can quantify the progress (towards the better) man has made. It's silly to think you can't. You can measure lifespans, number of cured diseases, access to communications, education, and a whole lot more. There are many yardsticks you can use. A student of history such as yourself should know this.

Norseman82,

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='kamiller42' post='1110501' date='Nov 4 2006, 01:20 AM']
You can quantify the progress (towards the better) man has made. It's silly to think you can't. You can measure lifespans, number of cured diseases, access to communications, education, and a whole lot more. There are many yardsticks you can use. A student of history such as yourself should know this.

[/quote]

You can quantify yardsticks all you want, but you can't say that one time period was objectively [i]better[/i] than another. You can say that people in X country at Y time lived longer than people in X country at Z time. You can say people in X country had a higher literacy rate at Y time than at Z time. But even that latter is harder because records (especially for my period, the medieval period) are hard to come by, and they don't always record things like that. But, even if you and I both agreed longer lifespans and higher literacy rates were better, someone else might not. Historians don't make quality judgments. We leave that to the Journalists who write trashy popular histories.

[123]

[quote]Is a sin for homosexuals to live together as long as they don't indulge in sexual activity? [/quote]

Why else would they move in together?

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='GloriaIesusChristi' post='1110507' date='Nov 4 2006, 01:26 AM']
Why else would they move in together?
[/quote]

To have roommates that don't treat them like carp?

Edited November 4, 2006 by KizlarAgha

[kamiller42]

[quote name='KizlarAgha' post='1110505' date='Nov 4 2006, 12:23 AM']
You can quantify yardsticks all you want, but you can't say that one time period was objectively [i]better[/i] than another. You can say that people in X country at Y time lived longer than people in X country at Z time. You can say people in X country had a higher literacy rate at Y time than at Z time. But even that latter is harder because records (especially for my period, the medieval period) are hard to come by, and they don't always record things like that. But, even if you and I both agreed longer lifespans and higher literacy rates were better, someone else might not. Historians don't make quality judgments. We leave that to the Journalists who write trashy popular histories.
[/quote]
Historical relativism. Good grief! This wouldn't be hard to shoot down, but I'm tired of doing Google searches for you.

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='kamiller42' post='1110538' date='Nov 4 2006, 01:38 AM']
Historical relativism. Good grief! This wouldn't be hard to shoot down, but I'm tired of doing Google searches for you.
[/quote]

None of the professional historians I have studied under make quality judgments. That's just the way it is. Your stupid little searches on google aren't going to "shoot down" anything. I have a degree in medieval history. I have studied the middle ages intensely. I have worked with multiple professors with numerous publications on the subject. You have done none of these things. I cannot say, as a historian, that one time period was better than another time period. Better is a meaningless, unquantifiable term - especially when using period documents.

I have to add, it's also an irrelevant question. Judging one period better or worse than another is simply not what we do. We study the past in order to better understand it, to better understand how we got to where we are today, and to better understand ourselves as human beings. Nobody has a PhD thesis asking if modern day America is better than Ancient Rome. That doesn't make any historical sense. What benchmarks would you use to "prove" that case? What studies could you get from period Roman documents to bolster that case? It's not like we have archives lying around filled with ancient Roman infant mortality rates. Figures like that can be rough guesses even under the best of circumstances. You fundamentally don't know a thing about history and it drives me absolutely crazy that you think you can simply google some philosopher's opinion on the subject of historical relativism and then "shoot down" what I've been working on for years. It just doesn't work that way.

If I still believed in God, I would be certain he sent you to test my patience.

Edited November 4, 2006 by KizlarAgha

[123]

[quote]To have roommates that don't treat them like carp[/quote]

You know sadly enough, I dont believe that because, its always homosexuals who are rude to me and treat me with great ill. Plus, what do homosexuals expect? They are going againt nature. Its only natural to other humans to be offended by this, religion or not.

[Justified Saint]

[quote name='KizlarAgha' post='1110545' date='Nov 3 2006, 11:41 PM']
None of the professional historians I have studied under make quality judgments. That's just the way it is. Your stupid little searches on google aren't going to "shoot down" anything. I have a degree in medieval history. I have studied the middle ages intensely. I have worked with multiple professors with numerous publications on the subject. You have done none of these things. I cannot say, as a historian, that one time period was better than another time period. Better is a meaningless, unquantifiable term - especially when using period documents.

I have to add, it's also an irrelevant question. Judging one period better or worse than another is simply not what we do. We study the past in order to better understand it, to better understand how we got to where we are today, and to better understand ourselves as human beings. Nobody has a PhD thesis asking if modern day America is better than Ancient Rome. That doesn't make any historical sense. What benchmarks would you use to "prove" that case? What studies could you get from period Roman documents to bolster that case? It's not like we have archives lying around filled with ancient Roman infant mortality rates. Figures like that can be rough guesses even under the best of circumstances. You fundamentally don't know a thing about history and it drives me absolutely crazy that you think you can simply google some philosopher's opinion on the subject of historical relativism and then "shoot down" what I've been working on for years. It just doesn't work that way.
[/quote]

That doesn't mean that "better" is a meaningless word, it just means that it is subjective. What difference is there between thinking one period is objectively better than another and that you could neutrally approach a period value-free? An illusion of objectivity is still there.

"Professional" historians are too specialized and insulated to make good judgments, so perhaps it is well that they stick to data mining.

Edited November 4, 2006 by Justified Saint

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='Justified Saint' post='1110574' date='Nov 4 2006, 02:11 AM']
That doesn't mean that "better" is a meaningless word, it just means that it is subjective. What difference is there between thinking one period is objectively better than another and that you could neutrally approach a period value-free? An illusion of objectivity is still there.

"Professional" historians are too specialized and insulated to make good judgments, so perhaps it is well that they stick to data mining.
[/quote]

I'm in a much better position to make judgments about the time period I study than are those who don't study my period as intensely. I didn't say I couldn't have an opinion one way or the other, I just don't publish that opinion - that's not responsible history. I personally prefer the modern era to the medieval in most ways. So, I suppose you could say I think it better. However, I'm not going to write a historical essay justifying why the modern world is better than the medieval world - that's irrelevant to the study of history.

[quote name='GloriaIesusChristi' post='1110573' date='Nov 4 2006, 02:10 AM']
You know sadly enough, I dont believe that because, its always homosexuals who are rude to me and treat me with great ill. Plus, what do homosexuals expect? They are going againt nature. Its only natural to other humans to be offended by this, religion or not.
[/quote]

Yeah, well, what you believe doesn't change the way the world is. And saying they deserve it is absolutely pathetic. You would think a Christian would be charitable to others when nobody else is, but it's quite the reverse.

[Justified Saint]

[quote name='KizlarAgha' post='1110577' date='Nov 4 2006, 12:17 AM']
I'm in a much better position to make judgments about the time period I study than are those who don't study my period as intensely. I didn't say I couldn't have an opinion one way or the other, I just don't publish that opinion - that's not responsible history. I personally prefer the modern era to the medieval in most ways. So, I suppose you could say I think it better. However, I'm not going to write a historical essay justifying why the modern world is better than the medieval world - that's irrelevant to the study of history.
[/quote]

It is irrelevant because its anachronistic. The great historians of the past were always great systematizers, but history seems too scientific now for that. I suspect we will never see another Burckhardt, Huizinga, Acton, or Gibbon.

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='Justified Saint' post='1110586' date='Nov 4 2006, 02:27 AM']
It is irrelevant because its anachronistic. The great historians of the past were always great systematizers, but history seems too scientific now for that. I suspect we will never see another Burckhardt, Huizinga, Acton, or Gibbon.
[/quote]

In a sense, you're right. However, there are still some historians who feel that it is their duty to make big claims. One such historian is RI Moore who wrote "The Formation of a Persecuting Society." It is a book that tries to tie down the reasons behind all of the persecutions in western Europe in a systematic way. It's a brilliant book, but I disagree with areas of it, and I ultimately think the theory needs about four volumes to really be fully understood and developed. Still, it's proof that historical systemizers still exist - though perhaps none like Gibbon.

[Justified Saint]

[quote name='KizlarAgha' post='1110589' date='Nov 4 2006, 12:30 AM']
In a sense, you're right. However, there are still some historians who feel that it is their duty to make big claims. One such historian is RI Moore who wrote "The Formation of a Persecuting Society." It is a book that tries to tie down the reasons behind all of the persecutions in western Europe in a systematic way. It's a brilliant book, but I disagree with areas of it, and I ultimately think the theory needs about four volumes to really be fully understood and developed. Still, it's proof that historical systemizers still exist - though perhaps none like Gibbon.
[/quote]

True, metahistory has its problems, but they have always been more representative of the imaginative process. It's just nauseating for me to think about some of the most trivial things that historians write about these days. Sure those studies have their value, but I hesitate giving them the title of history.

Edited November 4, 2006 by Justified Saint

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='Justified Saint' post='1110597' date='Nov 4 2006, 02:38 AM']
True, metahistory has its problems, but they have always been more representative of the imaginative process. It's just nauseating for me to think about some of the most trivial things that historians write about these days. Sure those studies have their value, but I hesitate giving them the title of history.
[/quote]

Actually, that's the reason I opted not to pursue my PhD. I realized that I didn't want to be compartmentalized into studying one event in one city in one decade of the period. As one example, one of my favorite professors specialized in slavery in the kingdom of Valencia in the late 15th century. Her work is really interesting, but I couldn't foresee myself being so narrow in my own work. But if you aren't that narrow, you're usually labeled a "dabbler." So, yeah...there are definitely problems in academia these days.