This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
A rant about my Birther, YEC, Zionist parents.
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
292559
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Skreeran
I've already explained my definition of fundamentalist atheist in this thread.Well, yeah, I just don't think that that
particular
adjective is the best for describing the people you're talking about. I know exactly the type of person you're referring to, I just don't know if "fundamentalist" is the best word for them, since the only fundamental "doctrine" of atheism is the shared lack of belief in deities. But it's not really a big deal, really. I argue about semantics way to much with Squish and HSR, so I'm just going to let it slide right on by.
Heh, like Yahoo. They posted a story about a 2,000 year old metal-plate bible being found, but still used CE instead of AD =PPrecisely. I was initially a supporter of a move from A.D. and B.C. because I saw it as needless reference to a particular religion, but I stopped after someone made the argument that changing A.D. and B.C. for religious reason would be like changing the days of the weeks from religious reasons: Sunday, Moonday, Tyr'sday, Wodin'sday, Thor'sday, Freya'sday, and Saturn'sday.
Post by
Squishalot
So should we wrap up our children in cotton wool because what we say might be damaging to their self esteem?
Homosexuality isn't necessarily a choice in all cases. There is not a definitive answer on the nature of how homosexuality comes to exist, but there is some
evidence
to suggest that there may be genetic factors at work. The equivalent is saying you're in inferior person or 'worthless' because you are a certain height, which is attributable to both genetic and environmental factors.
Patty, everything about our sense of self is linked back to genetic and environmental factors, unless you're a dualist who believes that there's some spiritual thing that's not impacted.
Homosexuality is just as much of a 'choice' as being lazy is. If you're genetically predisposed to it, then that's what you are, so be it. What I'm arguing is that you can't pick and choose what morals you're 'allowed' to feed to your kids purely because 'homosexuality is genetic', because all of your tendencies are genetic. The idea that I can't tell my kids that being lazy is bad is absurd to me. Yet, being lazy is attributable to both genetic and environmental factors, just like homosexuality.
To be clear - I wouldn't tell my kids that homosexuality is bad, because to me, it's just a sexual orientation. But I'm willing to speak up for the right for other parents to do so, because a restriction is only a step away from preventing me saying that (being lazy / having premarital sex / being a teenage parent / being disrespectful to others / stealing from others / anything else attributable to both genetic and environmental factors, i.e. EVERYTHING) is bad.
Post by
Skreeran
I never said they should be restricted from doing it. I merely said that I think it's morally wrong for them to do that to their kids.
They think that homosexuality is morally wrong, but I don't think they should be allowed to restrict that, either.
Post by
Skreeran
Oh, and double post, but
lol
.
Post by
Squishalot
I never said they should be restricted from doing it. I merely said that I think it's morally wrong for them to do that to their kids.
What, to raise them with the same morals that they have? That's morally right, in most books.
The fact that they're starting off with a flawed set of morals has nothing to do with the fact that your mum is teaching your siblings with the morals that she has.
What, precisely, is the moral wrong that you think is being done? And if you replace the homosexual scene with the scene from Juno having sex and getting pregnant, or the entire movie Oceans 11 (regarding the romance of theft), what makes any acceptable but not the others? (Noting my above point to Patty on the environmental/genetic disposition to do anything.)
Oh, and double post, but
lol
.
And meh, you could replace all that with any actual scientific theory too. Stupid people will be stupid. However, if you're on a web forum and presenting yourself as intelligent, and talking to people who present themselves as intelligent, we expect a more intelligent discourse than that.
Post by
Skreeran
The thing that is unacceptable to me is the lack of sensitivity to a developing child's identity. It's one thing to carefully and sensitively explain that you don't approve of homosexuality, and that you don't think it's right. Then, if your child happens to be a homosexual, they can choose to follow your particular moral outlook or not (psychological issues of repression aside; at that point, it's their choice).
It's quite another thing, in my eyes, to simply write off homosexuality as "an abomination," which a child can infer to mean that you won't love them anymore if they have weird urges toward members of the same sex, and worse, that God won't accept them.
See, my mom, and people like her, didn't say "Those two women are good, equal people, but I happen to think that their behavior is sinful." she just said "Homosexuality is an abomination." and left it at that. It never even crossed her mind that one of her kids could possibly be a homosexual. Not
her
kids, that's ridiculous. No. She was drawing a line between "us" and "them," the righteous and the sinners. And when you don't get a choice in your sexuality, that's unfair and can be (but fortunately is not always) traumatically divisive. And that's why I don't think it's right.
Edit: Oh, and the "lol" up there was not intended as an actual argument. It just made me lol and was related to this thread.
Post by
Lombax
Wait, so some of you here are agianst homosexual people or are you just agianst pre marriage sex?
Sorry if I've missed something, it's to early in the morning.
Post by
Patty
The idea that I can't tell my kids that being lazy is bad is absurd to me. Yet, being lazy is attributable to both genetic and environmental factors, just like homosexuality.
To be clear - I wouldn't tell my kids that homosexuality is bad, because to me, it's just a sexual orientation. But I'm willing to speak up for the right for other parents to do so, because a restriction is only a step away from preventing me saying that (being lazy / having premarital sex / being a teenage parent / being disrespectful to others / stealing from others / anything else attributable to both genetic and environmental factors, i.e. EVERYTHING) is bad.
But a repression of being gay from a young age can't have a positive impact on an individual. Essentially, it's telling your children that it's not right to be born the way you were, which is absurd - as in some cases, people are clearly gay from a very early age. Furthermore, if someone gay is forced into a heterosexual relationship (I'm thinking more about countries with arranged marriages, but of course it is still applicable anywhere) it is also unlikely to have a positive impact.
Earlier, you mentioned some laws against discrimination, yet the argument you're putting forward is essentially "It's not okay to indoctrinate people into thinking people are inferior because of x/y/z, but it's okay for people to say that it is not acceptable to be or act x/y/z." That seems to have some dissidence to it.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
It's quite another thing, in my eyes, to simply write off homosexuality as "an abomination," which a child can infer to mean that you won't love them anymore if they have weird urges toward members of the same sex, and worse, that God won't accept them.
I think you're reading too much into the language. If I talk about the worthless teenage mothers who leech off hard working taxpayers, should I be worried that my child will infer that I won't love them anymore if they want a baby?
If you don't approve, you're not going to approve, whatever language you use. What's the difference between saying:
1) I don't like it.
2) I don't approve of it.
3) I don't approve of it, and I hope you don't turn out like that.
4) I don't want you turning out like that.
5) I don't approve, and I hope you don't turn out like that. Please don't turn out that way, it'd make mommy really unhappy.
6) It's a sin, and sinners go to hell.
7) It's an abomination, they're going to hell for that.
8) IT'S AN ABOMINATION, LORD STRIKE THEM DOWN AND MAKE THEM PAY!
Place those statements in the context of homosexuality. Then place it in the context of teenage pregnancy. What do you think?
But a repression of being gay from a young age can't have a positive impact on an individual. Essentially, it's telling your children that it's not right to be born the way you were, which is absurd
I'll agree with you as soon as you can tell me why being gay somehow means that you'll suffer more than desiring pre-marital sex/babies.
Earlier, you mentioned some laws against discrimination, yet the argument you're putting forward is essentially "It's not okay to indoctrinate people into thinking people are inferior because of x/y/z, but it's okay for people to say that it is not acceptable to be or act x/y/z." That seems to have some dissidence to it.
No, I said that it's not okay to indoctrinate to treat people differently because of x/y/z. That, in essence, is at the heart of discrimination. I can think that a woman is going to leave my workplace to go off and have babies. I can't choose not to hire her because of that. Do you see the difference?
Post by
Patty
If you don't approve, you're not going to approve, whatever language you use. That's true, but there's a difference between saying (in the example of a teen pregnancy) "You were stupid and I can't agree with you having a kid at the age of 14, but I'll help you through it." and "You are an abomination for having a child at 14 and I will sever all ties with you, unless you get an abortion. God will also hate you forever and you'll rot in hell forever." Two extremes, I know, but I think that was what Skreeran might have been getting at.
I'll agree with you as soon as you can tell me why being gay somehow means that you'll suffer more than desiring pre-marital sex/babies.I never said that.
No, I said that it's not okay to indoctrinate to treat people differently because of x/y/z. That, in essence, is at the heart of discrimination. I can think that a woman is going to leave my workplace to go off and have babies. I can't choose not to hire her because of that. Do you see the difference?Do you not see the difference between thinking that being gay isn't right, and then taking action to prevent your own child from being able to express that? Most parents don't want their children to be gay, they might disagree with it for whatever reason, but most parents in that situation would (or should) be accepting of their child's sexuality.
Post by
Squishalot
That's true, but there's a difference between saying (in the example of a teen pregnancy) "You were stupid and I can't agree with you having a kid at the age of 14, but I'll help you through it." and "You are an abomination for having a child at 14 and I will sever all ties with you, unless you get an abortion. God will also hate you forever and you'll rot in hell forever." Two extremes, I know, but I think that was what Skreeran might have been getting at.
That's purely an interpretation thing. At what point on the scale does 'bad', 'horrible', 'useless', 'worthless', 'abomination' become morally wrong? It's semantics. If my parents said that someone was 'worthless', I'd rank it about as meaningful as if they used 'idiot', 'stupid', 'useless', 'good for nothing', etc. It's just another word that means 'bad'. I think that Skreeran, as an older child who's been at odds with his parents over such things, is reading into it more than his younger siblings would. I personally think that he needs to give his siblings more credit - after all, if he was able to develop some level of rebellious thought, I'm sure his siblings will get there too by the time they hit his age.
In any event, it's clear that the vitriol is aimed at someone else, not the child. If the child can't distinguish between an attack aimed at others, and one aimed at themselves, or can possibly believe that the parent won't love them regardless, then that's suggesting problems with the family in the first instance (love/trust issues?), not the moral instruction itself.
I never said that.
What you did say was that repression of being gay will have a negative impact on an individual. I'd like to see you (and others) try to demonstrate that all other moral codes we feed to our children *won't* have a negative impact. Would you be happy if your kid went off and cut themselves (intentionally, in an emo sense)? Would you try to stop them? Wouldn't that be attempting to repress their expression of themselves?
Do you not see the difference between thinking that being gay isn't right, and then taking action to prevent your own child from being able to express that? Most parents don't want their children to be gay, they might disagree with it for whatever reason, but most parents in that situation would (or should) be accepting of their child's sexuality.
See point on emos and self-harm. It may repress their desire to feel pain and hurt themselves, but I would rank their safety and wellbeing above that desire. Skreeran's mum obviously puts the harm caused by homosexuality above the harm caused by repression of homosexuality. She honestly believes that they're going to be damned to hell if kids are homosexual, so why shouldn't she try to educate her kids away from the evils of homosexuality? Just like you might try to educate your kids away from things that you consider damaging?
Post by
Tartonga
Damn, if I had time I would have answered to you Squish, but I don't have any right now...
...See you soon.
Post by
xaratherus
So then you support the Ku Klux Klan's right to raise their children to believe that any non-Caucasian has a genetic inferiority and should never be treated with respect? After all, there's no law against teaching your children that blacks, Asians, and so on are inferior to whites.
Yes there are, they're called anti-discrimination laws, and most countries have them.
That's a law against discriminating against those races - not teaching that they should be discriminated against. There's a great difference there. If what you said were true - that anti-discrimination laws somehow mean you can't teach your kids that non-Caucasians are inferior - then every Ku Klux Klan member would be in prison for violating those laws. That isn't the case.
Again, the Church's policy is that homosexuals should be treated with respect, as with everybody else, but that acting on homosexual impulses (i.e. sleeping with someone of the same gender) is a sin. It's like saying that blacks, Asians, whites, lebos, etc. should all be treaten with respect, whether or not you like them, but once they do something dodgy, then that's bad. It's the action that's bad, not the people.
And in practice, from personal experience, and multiple instances of observation recorded by others, very few people are able to 'love the sinner and hate the sin'. It presumes that the listener will be able to rationally separate the action from the actor. When the listener doesn't do so, then the Church - whichever church you're speaking of, I'll assume Catholic based on the capital C - is guilty of indirectly inciting hate.
As an example: If I happened to jokingly say to a friend, "Dude, Jim so needs to just die already," and it turns out that friend is mentally unbalanced in a way of which I was not aware, and he goes and kills Jim, then am I guilty of that act? In my book, I am - at least by extension. Even though what I said was meant sarcastically, you can bet that I'm going to feel guilty, because my action - even indirectly - led to a crime.
*raises hand* I oppose it. In fact, I don't know anyone who would consider it normal to wait to date until you're out of college. High school is as much about socialization as it is learning; that socialization tends to include an introduction to romance.
On what grounds do you oppose it?
If you're arguing on social grounds, then consider that not every society is the US, and that there are actually some people who don't enter relationships until after high school / college.
I've read multiple studies supporting the concept that the formative years of high school are where we learn the majority of our social skills - including dating. I'm not saying there aren't exceptions to the rule - but just as you state that there are segments of the population that hold off on dating until after high school, there are others that don't - so at best your statement is a stalemate.
One of my roommates, who happens to be a transvestite, remembered at an early age (3) asking to dress up like his mom before going out, and his father would not let him, repeatedly; he does not ever remember being physically abused - only verbally reprimanded.
Although it was not the sole reason, that repression of self-image did play a part in major self-image issues during his teenage years, and resulted in a period of drug abuse and an attempted suicide.
So again - I'll ask you the same question - would you let your son go out in pretty dresses and carry a doll around with him, for fear of damaging his sense of self-image? Because it would appear to be hypocrisy to suggest that moral instruction in regards to homosexuality isn't allowed, but moral instruction in regards to self-image is.
I wouldn't stop him. I would advise him that others might look at him strangely, and I would make sure that I was available because I know that not everyone feels as I do. But I wouldn't let him do it "for fear of damaging his self-image"; I would let him do it because the action
should
cause no harm.
A moral code that leads you to repress who you are - as long as those facets do not cause any harm to others - is not a good code. In regards to the specific Christian moral code that pervades the American social landscape, the concept of a morality that leads you to be miserable starkly contradicts the concept of a loving god.
Like Iralima, you're jumping to the conclusion that I'm advocating one moral code or another. By definition, there is no 'right' moral code (unless you believe in divine morals). All I'm saying is that people should be free to teach whatever their morals are to their children.
No I'm not. I mentioned the Christian moral code because it is the most pervasive in American society. My response was toward your statement that a moral code can make you miserable. I disagree; something that automatically makes you miserable is immoral, accoridng to
my
moral code.
Can you argue that teaching that a marriage is between a man and a woman (from an early age) is going to be harming to a child in the long-run? Is that indoctrination? If you ask me, it's highlighting 'facts' by correlation - most marriages are between a man and a woman, so it's reasonable to sell it as such.
I can argue that teaching that the
only
valid marriage is between a man and a woman is harmful in the long run. Because it is. I live it every day, in a society that tries to tell me that my love is somehow less valid than a heterosexual couples' love.
What you did say was that repression of being gay will have a negative impact on an individual. I'd like to see you (and others) try to demonstrate that all other moral codes we feed to our children *won't* have a negative impact.
Again, I'll be glad to: My sole moral guideline is this: Take no action that unjustly limits the ability of another being to take the actions they desire; 'unjustly'.
Most religions and philosophies contain this same basic idea - from Confucianism to Christianity. They just muddy up with a ton of minutiae.
Post by
Patty
See point on emos and self-harm. It may repress their desire to feel pain and hurt themselves, but I would rank their safety and wellbeing above that desire.There's quite a distinct difference between self-harming and being gay. I know what you're saying, how Skree's mum feels, but still, I don't think it's an argument that stands with much weight behind it.
Post by
Pwntiff
Most religions and philosophies contain this same basic idea - from Confucianism to Christianity. They just muddy up with a ton of minutiae.
That's one of the main reasons I don't like organized religion.
Post by
Squishalot
That's a law against discriminating against those races - not teaching that they should be discriminated against. There's a great difference there. If what you said were true - that anti-discrimination laws somehow mean you can't teach your kids that non-Caucasians are inferior - then every Ku Klux Klan member would be in prison for violating those laws. That isn't the case.
Let's go back to what I originally said. I said that parents should be free to teach whatever morals they want, provided that it's not against the law. You brought up the Ku Klux Klan teaching discrimination. I said that there are laws against discrimination. Therefore, parents shouldn't be teaching discrimination. Does that make sense?
I've read multiple studies supporting the concept that the formative years of high school are where we learn the majority of our social skills - including dating. I'm not saying there aren't exceptions to the rule - but just as you state that there are segments of the population that hold off on dating until after high school, there are others that don't - so at best your statement is a stalemate.
That we form our social skills there doesn't mean that we *need* to form our social skills there. For example, the teenage sex rate at single-gender high schools is lower than at co-ed high schools (anecdotal). Does that mean that we're repressing our kids by sending them to single-gender schools?
There's no biological or social requirement to send our kids off to date at high school. You can be socially competent as a virgin who hasn't dated.
I wouldn't stop him. I would advise him that others might look at him strangely, and I would make sure that I was available because I know that not everyone feels as I do. But I wouldn't let him do it "for fear of damaging his self-image"; I would let him do it because the action should cause no harm.
At the age of 3, do you think he honestly has the capability to process such thoughts about the social implications of wearing a dress in public? (Actually, I'm not sure why I'm thinking age 3, someone brought something up about 3 year old kids somewhere. Point remains though - social awareness is something we really only gain as we hit puberty.)
No I'm not. I mentioned the Christian moral code because it is the most pervasive in American society. My response was toward your statement that a moral code can make you miserable. I disagree; something that automatically makes you miserable is immoral, accoridng to my moral code.
Telling your son that he can't have Maccas for breakfast, lunch and dinner will automatically make him miserable. Is that immoral, according to your code? Will that stop you from doing it, for his own good?
I can argue that teaching that the only valid marriage is between a man and a woman is harmful in the long run. Because it is. I live it every day, in a society that tries to tell me that my love is somehow less valid than a heterosexual couples' love.
Harmful for who, the kids or for you, personally? While I support your point that marriage should generally be between two people, and not specifically a man and a woman, it's up to each person whether they support that. I dislike the Mardi Gras celebration, I think it's distasteful, but I respect the right for the GLBT community to host it, just as I expect the right to tell my kids that I think it's distasteful.
Again, I'll be glad to: My sole moral guideline is this: Take no action that unjustly limits the ability of another being to take the actions they desire; 'unjustly'.
Keyword is 'unjust'. If you're doing it for their own good, then that makes your action 'just', potentially. As I mentioned to Patty, if you honestly believe that being gay will send you to Hell, then you're justifiably trying to protect your kids by telling them that they shouldn't be gay.
There's quite a distinct difference between self-harming and being gay. I know what you're saying, how Skree's mum feels, but still, I don't think it's an argument that stands with much weight behind it.
Why?
Post by
Patty
Because being gay doesn't lead to mental scarring/physical scarring, unless there are other underlying conditions
or are into the kinky stuff.
The main 'problem' that I could think of with being gay, from a (as close to neutral as I can get) stand-point, is that gay couples can't reproduce. However, humans are already overpopulated anyway, so there's not much of a problem with that, in my view. Unless everyone becomes gay, which is unlikely due to it being partially genetic in nature.
Post by
Monday
I say Merry Christmas to somebody, trying to be nice and cheerful, and I get a "$%^& you" in response. I literally cannot tell you how many times this has happened when I leave Utah.
I have an extremely hard time believing that. Unless you talk to complete morons who would tell you to %^&* off no matter what you say, but then that's not really relevant.
No, I talk to fundamentalist atheists, which is what I've been talking about.
So they tell you to #$%^ off then you engage them in a theological discussion long enough to discern their religious beliefs? Sounds unlikely to me.
"Why do you say that?"
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.