HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Warren DeMontague » Journal
Page: 1 2 Next »

Warren DeMontague

Profile Information

Name: Easy D Montague
Gender: Male
Member since: Thu May 20, 2004, 05:02 AM
Number of posts: 80,708

About Me

History always serves us right; I've got a few tricks left, a dog in this fight

Journal Archives

Look. I'm not gay. I have heard the objections -from my GLBT compatriots- to the meme of 'choice'.

Personally, I don't think it should matter whether it's a choice or not, and yes, personally, I think my brain is flexible enough to accept that some people are gay, some people are straight, some people are bi, and much of sexuality runs along a spectrum whereby not everyone fits into a neat little box.

My other point, which maybe I didn't communicate clearly, is that "choice" itself- what constitutes choice- is a thorny philosophical issue that I think is a fascinating topic, notwithstanding the fact that I don't think the "dumb ones" are even capable of gnawing on that sort of metaphysical bone. It's sort of like "God"... Okay, for the purposes of political discussion in this country, I self identify as an Atheist (and a Taoist, and a Buddhist, after a fashion, etc.) -- I self Identify as an Atheist because under the limited, low-brow terms of the debate, for most purposes in this country, that's what I am. I *don't* believe in anything resembling the "God" of the big Western Monotheisms, for instance.

But -and this is the discussion I don't normally get into- to call oneself an Atheist depends, to an extent, on a definition of what, precisely, you're not believing in. Is it 'any supernatural beings'? Okay, define that. My point is that "God" is such an opaque, ill-defined concept that calling myself an "Atheist", although a solid working description for the purposes of political discussion, is not necessarily a complete label or even true-in-all-cases. Dig?

Similarly, with "choice" or "innate"... I accept that for most people, sexual orientation seems to be hard-wired from early on, i.e. innate. And for purposes of political discussion, I strongly support the right of consenting adults to make their own decisions, i.e. choices. This assumes, (and for purposes of, say, legislation I absolutely do) that I believe "choice" is something fundamental that consenting adults are capable of making, free-will-exists-in-a-vacuum-as-a-platonic-ideal, that sort of thing. But I also think it's a fascinating question (having spent plenty of time around, for instance, addicts) as to exactly how much of what we think are our free will decisions actually are, how much is us and how much is programming.. how much is genetic, how much is environment, etc. My point, really, was that it's a complex and not easily cracked question with more to it than meets the eye, and really it's over the heads of the fundamentalists, which does NOT mean we should cede the terms of any debate to them.

And it's very different than the definition of terms like "marriage", which is a legal term, in fact much of the misconception around the debate (such as it is) re: marriage equality comes from conflation in the public mind between the legal and religious meanings of "marriage".

Rest assured I don't want to cede the terms of any debate to any bigots, and I wholeheartedly support your right to define yourself in whatever terms you choose.. If I have ceded the 'choice' question (or label) to anyone, it has been to my GLBT allies who have asked me to please drop it because they, themselves, would prefer (for simplicity's sake, apparently) to continue to reenforce the message that sexuality is NOT a choice.

Posted by Warren DeMontague | Sat Jan 28, 2012, 05:00 PM (1 replies)

She's bisexual, & should have the right to define her own sexuality in whatever terms she wants- BUT

she should also be aware that the idea of it being a "choice" is a club with which fundamentalists bludgeon members of the GLBT community. In that sense, I argree with Mr. Besen.

I will say that the truly thorny philosophical underpinnings of what, exactly, constitutes a choice versus something innate (how much of us is clockwork and how much of us is orange, in a sense) are worthy of some lengthy and deep analysis and introspection, but unfortunately the flatlander nature of our 2 dimensional, overly literal, overly simplified and frankly dumb political and cultural debates in this country (particularly when fundamentalist religion is involved) probably precludes that from being explored too greatly in detail at this time.
Posted by Warren DeMontague | Sat Jan 28, 2012, 07:28 AM (2 replies)

Yes. How sad that someone risks threats of violence to stand up for the constitution

because, really, it's all about the delicate, easily hurt feelings of your invisible sky-man, and the fact that several million acres of tax-exempt church property in this country on which to post proclamations of biblical yammering isn't enough.
Posted by Warren DeMontague | Fri Jan 27, 2012, 02:18 PM (3 replies)

Something NEEDS to be done about all the zombies & sock puppets. Seriously.

I've been saying this for a while. Some people brag at other sites about their multiple identities. There's one particularly prolific ex-du'er who specialized in creating flame-fest threads, whose other specialty seems to have been fielding a veritable army of "you go, girl " sockpuppets.

Of course, "she" is banned so I'm sure "she" doesn't post here, anymore.

I'm sure.

But like I said in another H&M thread; talk of "banning" is meaningless if there are no teeth in the TOS about returning from the dead or playing the 3 faces of Eve game.
Posted by Warren DeMontague | Thu Jan 26, 2012, 10:04 PM (1 replies)

"and so I said, I will need this much additional stretching in my sphincter

...to accommodate the concomitant growth of my cerebral containment vessel"
Posted by Warren DeMontague | Tue Jan 24, 2012, 08:45 PM (0 replies)

Folks.. we're DOWN TO THE FINAL FOUR CONTESTANTS. Can you taste the Excrement?... Er, Excitement?

Posted by Warren DeMontague | Tue Jan 24, 2012, 04:43 AM (8 replies)

We need to acknowledge that Sticky Ricky is doing us a great service

he's actually articulating, out loud- force rape victims to remain pregnant, outlaw contraception, etc.- all the crazy fucking shit the anti-choice movement actually believes, but usually knows better than to say any time there's a camera nearby.

Posted by Warren DeMontague | Mon Jan 23, 2012, 09:51 PM (1 replies)

this whole god-damn thread is doing it. Don't be facile.

Oh, yeah, let's play the game where we pretend we don't know what this is all about. Give me a fucking break.

Chris "I'm voting 3rd Party... again!" Hedges can fuck himself.

And he can take Ralph Nader along for the ride, too. Given all the money Nader has taken from Republicans over the years, they ought to be able to afford a real nice go-fuck-themselves vacation.
Posted by Warren DeMontague | Mon Jan 23, 2012, 06:18 PM (3 replies)

No, my point is that if the admin doesn't deal with the zombies and the sockpuppets

'banning' is meaningless.

So, really, if you want this to be taken seriously, then the TOS needs to be clear that everyone is allowed one "life" and one name, and the MIR team needs to figure out a technological way to put a stop to clark kent constantly changing into superman.

Otherwise, your concerns CAN'T be addressed through the TOS, because the TOS has no real teeth.
Posted by Warren DeMontague | Mon Jan 16, 2012, 07:38 PM (1 replies)

I posted my opinion on that downthread.. What I'm saying here, though, is that "banning"

is essentially meaningless when members have a green light from the TOS to "keep coming back" like this is a 12 step meeting.

Or when they have an essential green light to keep a closet full of alter-ego identities that they can slap on every time they find a phone booth to change in.

These are real problems, and on DU2 at least there was an appearance of trying to deal with them. As things stand, I have no idea if the MIR team is actively engaged in trying to keep the dead from returning, or even if that's something that is considered a rule break.

So "banning" is essentially meaningless, although I do understand that some people might be attached to their username and/or post count.
Posted by Warren DeMontague | Mon Jan 16, 2012, 06:54 PM (0 replies)
Go to Page: 1 2 Next »