Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Leonard James on August 05, 2015, 01:08:35 PM
-
http://www.queerty.com/scared-christian-mom-asks-how-to-keep-her-gay-teen-son-pure-internet-tears-her-a-new-one-instead-20150804
How can religion cause parents to be so heartless in the treatment of their children?
-
There's a famous Steven Weinberg quote about that ... >:(
-
There's a famous Steven Weinberg quote about that ... >:(
Indeed, and he was right! Religion makes good people do evil things.
-
Very SICK indeed! >:(
-
http://www.queerty.com/scared-christian-mom-asks-how-to-keep-her-gay-teen-son-pure-internet-tears-her-a-new-one-instead-20150804
How can religion cause parents to be so heartless in the treatment of their children?
American Christianity is NOT, I am extremely glad to say, not British Christianity - however, there are those in the UK who do believe like this and, I am convinced, might well act like this.
Suffer the little children - if they are gay they sure as Hell are going to suffer at the hands of parents like these.
The Christian God is a God of Love - not in about 90% of the US he aint!
-
There's a famous Steven Weinberg quote about that ... >:(
Indeed, and he was right! Religion makes good people do evil things.
No. It merely takes an ideology.
-
The American version of Christianity appears to be very nasty indeed. Many of those sick extremists seem to drool at the prospect of unbelievers burning in hell forever and ever. Of course we have some of those evil nutters over here, but fortunately for the UK they are recognised as such and don't have any political clout as they do in the USofA.
-
There isn't really any such thing as an American version of Christianity
-
There isn't really any such thing as an American version of Christianity
Really?
-
The 'purity' movement is big Stateside though, and straight teens are under just as much pressure to 'stay pure'.
-
There isn't really any such thing as an American version of Christianity
Really?
Yep, really. Or are you suggesting there is a specific Christian Church in the States to which all U.S. Christians belong and which they all agree with?
-
I'd just like to protest at the title as "Catholic parents" is misleading and unfair to a large number of decent Catholics.
How do I know this?
My partners family are Catholics. I'm not saying they didn't struggle with the issue at first - but they are now just as accepting as my largely agnostic family are. I feel sure this applies to many, many Catholics worldwide; who despite the teachings of their Church use birth control, accept gay people for who they are and are generally just quite nice ordinary/extra ordinary human beings.
-
I'd just like to protest at the title as "Catholic parents" is misleading and unfair to a large number of decent Catholics.
How do I know this?
My partners family are Catholics. I'm not saying they didn't struggle with the issue at first - but they are now just as accepting as my largely agnostic family are. I feel sure this applies to many, many Catholics worldwide; who despite the teachings of their Church use birth control, accept gay people for who they are and are generally just quite nice ordinary/extra ordinary human beings.
Outstanding post.
-
The 'purity' movement is big Stateside though, and straight teens are under just as much pressure to 'stay pure'.
The actions described in the link though are specifically taken by the family to deal with same sex attraction. They are not being taken out of a general concern for purity, so for the individual affected, that other parents may treat their het kids similarly isn't really useful.
-
As so often I agree with trentvoyager, this simplistic portrayal of Catholics or 'American Christians' as if they are all the same is a vacuous generalisation which ironically mirrors the issue it seeks to condemn.
Disagree with individuals and make the argument against them but there is a mephitic hogo of totalitarianism in such posts or indeed, Leonard's one yesterday stating that anyone who is a creationist should not be allowed to be a teacher.
-
There isn't really any such thing as an American version of Christianity
Really?
Yep, really. Or are you suggesting there is a specific Christian Church in the States to which all U.S. Christians belong and which they all agree with?
I am saying that many of those claiming to be 'Christians' in that flipping country seem to be very extreme in their views.
-
There isn't really any such thing as an American version of Christianity
Really?
Yep, really. Or are you suggesting there is a specific Christian Church in the States to which all U.S. Christians belong and which they all agree with?
I am saying that many of those claiming to be 'Christians' in that flipping country seem to be very extreme in their views.
Which does not amount to any such thing as an American version of Christianity
-
There isn't really any such thing as an American version of Christianity
Really?
Yep, really. Or are you suggesting there is a specific Christian Church in the States to which all U.S. Christians belong and which they all agree with?
I am saying that many of those claiming to be 'Christians' in that flipping country seem to be very extreme in their views.
Which does not amount to any such thing as an American version of Christianity
That is your opinion, not mine!
-
There isn't really any such thing as an American version of Christianity
Really?
Yep, really. Or are you suggesting there is a specific Christian Church in the States to which all U.S. Christians belong and which they all agree with?
I am saying that many of those claiming to be 'Christians' in that flipping country seem to be very extreme in their views.
That's the same the world over Floo. But they aren't representative of the US population anymore than Jimmy Saville is representative of the UK population. You have to remember that we only see the extremes, its the way our media work. You don't get a balanced picture - it is distorted by the need to make a headline out of something, anything.
I mean look at our papers today - apparently Zayn Malik is very important because of something he has done. Would you wish the people of the Uk to be judged by those standards?
-
I'd just like to protest at the title as "Catholic parents" is misleading and unfair to a large number of decent Catholics.
If you follow the links to the responses to the original post, you'll see many of the responses are from Catholics (some gay) and they are universally critical (or stronger) of the original post, so the title of this thread should more accurately be
"Sick wickedness of two Catholic parents"
-
There isn't really any such thing as an American version of Christianity
Really?
Yep, really. Or are you suggesting there is a specific Christian Church in the States to which all U.S. Christians belong and which they all agree with?
I am saying that many of those claiming to be 'Christians' in that flipping country seem to be very extreme in their views.
Which does not amount to any such thing as an American version of Christianity
That is your opinion, not mine!
Yes, but your opinion in this case is demonstrably wrong. There is no American Church to which all US Christians belong. There is a huge spread of opinion between US Christians. There is no view that is unique to US Christians and not held by those from other countries.
You are as everyone is entitled to your own opinions just not your own facts, and factually you are wrong.
-
There isn't really any such thing as an American version of Christianity
Really?
Yep, really. Or are you suggesting there is a specific Christian Church in the States to which all U.S. Christians belong and which they all agree with?
I am saying that many of those claiming to be 'Christians' in that flipping country seem to be very extreme in their views.
That's the same the world over Floo. But they aren't representative of the US population anymore than Jimmy Saville is representative of the UK population. You have to remember that we only see the extremes, its the way our media work. You don't get a balanced picture - it is distorted by the need to make a headline out of something, anything.
I mean look at our papers today - apparently Zayn Malik is very important because of something he has done. Would you wish the people of the Uk to be judged by those standards?
I agree we see the extremes, but the worrying thing is that these extremes filter into their politics unlike in the UK.
-
There isn't really any such thing as an American version of Christianity
Really?
Yep, really. Or are you suggesting there is a specific Christian Church in the States to which all U.S. Christians belong and which they all agree with?
I am saying that many of those claiming to be 'Christians' in that flipping country seem to be very extreme in their views.
That's the same the world over Floo. But they aren't representative of the US population anymore than Jimmy Saville is representative of the UK population. You have to remember that we only see the extremes, its the way our media work. You don't get a balanced picture - it is distorted by the need to make a headline out of something, anything.
I mean look at our papers today - apparently Zayn Malik is very important because of something he has done. Would you wish the people of the Uk to be judged by those standards?
I agree we see the extremes, but the worrying thing is that these extremes filter into their politics unlike in the UK.
And again simply wrong factually. Having spent some time trying to ensure that one member of the Scottish Parliament's bid to get creationism giving special privilege, and campaigning against MSPs opposed to assisted dying because of their religion, your post is laughable and I don't even live in Northern Ireland
-
There isn't really any such thing as an American version of Christianity
Really?
Yep, really. Or are you suggesting there is a specific Christian Church in the States to which all U.S. Christians belong and which they all agree with?
I am saying that many of those claiming to be 'Christians' in that flipping country seem to be very extreme in their views.
That's the same the world over Floo. But they aren't representative of the US population anymore than Jimmy Saville is representative of the UK population. You have to remember that we only see the extremes, its the way our media work. You don't get a balanced picture - it is distorted by the need to make a headline out of something, anything.
I mean look at our papers today - apparently Zayn Malik is very important because of something he has done. Would you wish the people of the Uk to be judged by those standards?
I agree we see the extremes, but the worrying thing is that these extremes filter into their politics unlike in the UK.
And again simply wrong factually. Having spent some time trying to ensure that one member of the Scottish Parliament's bid to get creationism giving special privilege, and campaigning against MSPs opposed to assisted dying because of their religion, your post is laughable and I don't even live in Northern Ireland
Sorry I forgot about Northern Ireland!
-
You have to ignore Floo: she doesn't do facts.
-
Sorry I forgot about Northern Ireland!
Any posters here from N.Ireland?
How to win friends and influence people! ;D
-
You have to ignore Floo: she doesn't do facts.
If I only responded to people on here who 'do facts', my History of the World in Incredible Detail (including the 4000 page supplement on Hair Styles of Harry Styles) would be complete
-
I'd just like to protest at the title as "Catholic parents" is misleading and unfair to a large number of decent Catholics.
How do I know this?
My partners family are Catholics. I'm not saying they didn't struggle with the issue at first - but they are now just as accepting as my largely agnostic family are. I feel sure this applies to many, many Catholics worldwide; who despite the teachings of their Church use birth control, accept gay people for who they are and are generally just quite nice ordinary/extra ordinary human beings.
Is it that the parents of the title aren't Catholic or your in-laws aren't? How far from the central tenets do you have to roam before you're not considered Catholic any more - are you Catholic simply because you say you are?
Don't get me wrong, it sounds like they've struggled and have come to terms with it, and that's great, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they are representative of Catholics as a whole or, more importantly, of the precepts of Catholicism.
O.
-
You have to ignore Floo: she doesn't do facts.
If I only responded to people on here who 'do facts', my History of the World in Incredible Detail (including the 4000 page supplement on Hair Styles of Harry Styles) would be complete
You miss my point. Nobody deals in facts all the time, not even the Einsteins of the world: the point being, Floo never does.
-
I'd just like to protest at the title as "Catholic parents" is misleading and unfair to a large number of decent Catholics.
How do I know this?
My partners family are Catholics. I'm not saying they didn't struggle with the issue at first - but they are now just as accepting as my largely agnostic family are. I feel sure this applies to many, many Catholics worldwide; who despite the teachings of their Church use birth control, accept gay people for who they are and are generally just quite nice ordinary/extra ordinary human beings.
Is it that the parents of the title aren't Catholic or your in-laws aren't? How far from the central tenets do you have to roam before you're not considered Catholic any more - are you Catholic simply because you say you are?
Don't get me wrong, it sounds like they've struggled and have come to terms with it, and that's great, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they are representative of Catholics as a whole or, more importantly, of the precepts of Catholicism.
O.
Isn't that just pandering to a No True Pape argument? The title refers to all Catholic Parents and does not offer a definition in a lazy condemnatory fashion.
-
You have to ignore Floo: she doesn't do facts.
If I only responded to people on here who 'do facts', my History of the World in Incredible Detail (including the 4000 page supplement on Hair Styles of Harry Styles) would be complete
You miss my point. Nobody deals in facts all the time, not even the Einsteins of the world: the point being, Floo never does.
Sometimes a funny line is just a funny line. It was a joke. Have a toke.
-
Isn't that just pandering to a No True Pape argument? The title refers to all Catholic Parents and does not offer a definition in a lazy condemnatory fashion.
It runs that risk, I appreciate, but there has to be a line drawn somewhere or Catholicism as a concept becomes meaningless, you just have 'people that believe in unevidenced phenomena' and particular individuals.
If they cite their Catholicism as a motivator for the actions, and it's in keeping with at least some of the tenets of the Catholic church, then I don't think it's unfair to describe them as 'Catholic Parents'.
It's always worth bearing in mind that there are modernising forces at work in and around Catholicism, but there are also recidivist forces at work, too, and to ignore them and pretend that they don't do real harm to real people is to give Catholicism a free pass that other groups and organisations, rightly, aren't afforded.
O.
-
But no one has said it is unfair to describe them as Catholic Parents just that the title implies this is true for all Catholic Parents and that that is both factually wrong and a lazy generalisation
-
No, the title implies that they are Catholics - in the article they explicitly tie their behaviour to their Catholicism.
They might not be representative of the entirety of Catholicsm, agreed, but they are representative of a significant 'brand' of it - why should Catholicism only be associated with the acceptable (to us) actions that are done in its name?
Otherwise, as I say, the word Catholic becomes meaningless: if it can only ever refer to those things that represent all Catholics it becomes a synonym for 'Christian'... but because of the variety within that it becomes 'Abrahamic devotees' which becomes 'religious people' which becomes 'people who believe unevidenced phenomena.
If there actions were out of kilter with the predominant teachings of the authorities that Catholicism recognises then it might have been unfair, but whilst the Papacy has advocated tolerance and acceptance, it still describes homosexuality as 'intrinsically disorderers'. That's a pretty fundamental discrepancy, to say 'we accept you, but you're intrinsically disordered'.
You can accept gay people, and claim that's your Catholicism or you can reject gay people and claim that's your Catholicism - if they were the only people rejecting homosexuality and claiming it was for their religion you'd have a case, but they are far from the only ones.
O.
-
http://www.queerty.com/scared-christian-mom-asks-how-to-keep-her-gay-teen-son-pure-internet-tears-her-a-new-one-instead-20150804
How can religion cause parents to be so heartless in the treatment of their children?
I don't quite see what the problem is. They've done nothing "wicked".
-
I'd just like to protest at the title as "Catholic parents" is misleading and unfair to a large number of decent Catholics.
How do I know this?
My partners family are Catholics. I'm not saying they didn't struggle with the issue at first - but they are now just as accepting as my largely agnostic family are. I feel sure this applies to many, many Catholics worldwide; who despite the teachings of their Church use birth control, accept gay people for who they are and are generally just quite nice ordinary/extra ordinary human beings.
Outstanding post.
I'm well aware of that, Trent, but you will notice that the title is in the form of a headline. Articles and quantifiers are normally missed out in such cases. It simply meant THESE Catholic parents ... not all of them.
-
http://www.queerty.com/scared-christian-mom-asks-how-to-keep-her-gay-teen-son-pure-internet-tears-her-a-new-one-instead-20150804
How can religion cause parents to be so heartless in the treatment of their children?
I don't quite see what the problem is. They've done nothing "wicked".
Yes they have.
By their every action they are telling their child that there is something wrong with him. Please do not underestimate the effect on a young persons self esteem in cases such as these. At the bottom of the article is a post about somebody taking their own life. An all too common occurence due to parents who are unable to handle the fact that their child is gay. Acceptance is key.
-
But no one has said it is unfair to describe them as Catholic Parents just that the title implies this is true for all Catholic Parents and that that is both factually wrong and a lazy generalisation
I repeat ... it was a headline and clearly did not imply ALL catholic parents. Not even I would be that daft!
-
http://www.queerty.com/scared-christian-mom-asks-how-to-keep-her-gay-teen-son-pure-internet-tears-her-a-new-one-instead-20150804
How can religion cause parents to be so heartless in the treatment of their children?
I don't quite see what the problem is. They've done nothing "wicked".
Yes they have.
By their every action they are telling their child that there is something wrong with him. Please do not underestimate the effect on a young persons self esteem in cases such as these. At the bottom of the article is a post about somebody taking their own life. An all too common occurence due to parents who are unable to handle the fact that their child is gay. Acceptance is key.
Well, I disagree. The patents quite naturally do not want their son to fall into sinful behaviour.
-
http://www.queerty.com/scared-christian-mom-asks-how-to-keep-her-gay-teen-son-pure-internet-tears-her-a-new-one-instead-20150804
How can religion cause parents to be so heartless in the treatment of their children?
I don't quite see what the problem is. They've done nothing "wicked".
Yes they have.
By their every action they are telling their child that there is something wrong with him. Please do not underestimate the effect on a young persons self esteem in cases such as these. At the bottom of the article is a post about somebody taking their own life. An all too common occurence due to parents who are unable to handle the fact that their child is gay. Acceptance is key.
Well, I disagree. The patents quite naturally do not want their son to fall into sinful behaviour.
Sinful behaviour is things like drinking to excess or gambling.
Not acting on your homosexuality.
-
http://www.queerty.com/scared-christian-mom-asks-how-to-keep-her-gay-teen-son-pure-internet-tears-her-a-new-one-instead-20150804
How can religion cause parents to be so heartless in the treatment of their children?
I don't quite see what the problem is. They've done nothing "wicked".
You don't consider making their child's life a misery, and possibly making him suicidal, wicked? Your standards need question, ao.
-
http://www.queerty.com/scared-christian-mom-asks-how-to-keep-her-gay-teen-son-pure-internet-tears-her-a-new-one-instead-20150804
How can religion cause parents to be so heartless in the treatment of their children?
I don't quite see what the problem is. They've done nothing "wicked".
Except isolate him from his peers, deny him the treatment his older brothers got, bring him up with the idea that his nature means he'll always be a disappointment and threaten to cut off his financial aid (implied to have been given to his brothers, but not explicitly stated) if he falls in love.
'Wicked' is a vague term, I appreciate - whether it's outright abusive is open to question, but it's certainly unfair, backward and discriminatory from the very people he should be able to turn to in anything.
O.
-
There isn't really any such thing as an American version of Christianity
Really?
Yep, really. Or are you suggesting there is a specific Christian Church in the States to which all U.S. Christians belong and which they all agree with?
NS
It is quite notable that, if there is a "moderate wing" to the Christian Church in the US, it has made "keeping a low profile" into a stupendously successful form of invisibilty cloak, to the point that, to all intents and purposes, it does not appear to exist.
-
You have to ignore Floo: she doesn't do facts.
If I only responded to people on here who 'do facts', my History of the World in Incredible Detail (including the 4000 page supplement on Hair Styles of Harry Styles) would be complete
. . . the point being, Floo never does.
In your (highly biased) opinion.
-
You have to ignore Floo: she doesn't do facts.
If I only responded to people on here who 'do facts', my History of the World in Incredible Detail (including the 4000 page supplement on Hair Styles of Harry Styles) would be complete
. . . the point being, Floo never does.
In your (highly biased) opinion.
Can you demonstrate otherwise?
-
http://www.queerty.com/scared-christian-mom-asks-how-to-keep-her-gay-teen-son-pure-internet-tears-her-a-new-one-instead-20150804
How can religion cause parents to be so heartless in the treatment of their children?
I don't quite see what the problem is. They've done nothing "wicked".
Yes they have.
By their every action they are telling their child that there is something wrong with him. Please do not underestimate the effect on a young persons self esteem in cases such as these. At the bottom of the article is a post about somebody taking their own life. An all too common occurence due to parents who are unable to handle the fact that their child is gay. Acceptance is key.
Well, I disagree. The patents quite naturally do not want their son to fall into sinful behaviour.
This from a poster whose Avatar is two men kissing!
-
You have to ignore Floo: she doesn't do facts.
If I only responded to people on here who 'do facts', my History of the World in Incredible Detail (including the 4000 page supplement on Hair Styles of Harry Styles) would be complete
. . . the point being, Floo never does.
In your (highly biased) opinion.
Can you demonstrate otherwise?
FFS - the infamous "prove it" - cracked 78 yet again!
-
http://www.queerty.com/scared-christian-mom-asks-how-to-keep-her-gay-teen-son-pure-internet-tears-her-a-new-one-instead-20150804
How can religion cause parents to be so heartless in the treatment of their children?
I don't quite see what the problem is. They've done nothing "wicked".
Yes they have.
By their every action they are telling their child that there is something wrong with him. Please do not underestimate the effect on a young persons self esteem in cases such as these. At the bottom of the article is a post about somebody taking their own life. An all too common occurence due to parents who are unable to handle the fact that their child is gay. Acceptance is key.
Well, I disagree. The patents quite naturally do not want their son to fall into sinful behaviour.
Isn't Catholicism founded on the concept that we are all inevitably sinners and that we do not earn redemption - our Earthly behaviour is not an attempt to 'deserve' entry to heaven.
Even if you accept the patent nonsense of 'sin', from her point of view she has abandoned and isolated her child, made him feel alone, unloved and unworthy: if she wants him to be resisting temptation, he's going to need a support mechanism which should be her and won't be.
Even with her own goals and misguided conceptualisation in mind she's working against her own interests.
O.
-
http://www.queerty.com/scared-christian-mom-asks-how-to-keep-her-gay-teen-son-pure-internet-tears-her-a-new-one-instead-20150804
How can religion cause parents to be so heartless in the treatment of their children?
I don't quite see what the problem is. They've done nothing "wicked".
Yes they have.
By their every action they are telling their child that there is something wrong with him. Please do not underestimate the effect on a young persons self esteem in cases such as these. At the bottom of the article is a post about somebody taking their own life. An all too common occurence due to parents who are unable to handle the fact that their child is gay. Acceptance is key.
Well, I disagree. The patents quite naturally do not want their son to fall into sinful behaviour.
If you really believe that to be true, you are as nasty as that poor guy's ghastly parents! >:(
-
I think you're nasty but there you go.
-
http://www.queerty.com/scared-christian-mom-asks-how-to-keep-her-gay-teen-son-pure-internet-tears-her-a-new-one-instead-20150804
How can religion cause parents to be so heartless in the treatment of their children?
I don't quite see what the problem is. They've done nothing "wicked".
Yes they have.
By their every action they are telling their child that there is something wrong with him. Please do not underestimate the effect on a young persons self esteem in cases such as these. At the bottom of the article is a post about somebody taking their own life. An all too common occurence due to parents who are unable to handle the fact that their child is gay. Acceptance is key.
Well, I disagree. The patents quite naturally do not want their son to fall into sinful behaviour.
Isn't Catholicism founded on the concept that we are all inevitably sinners and that we do not earn redemption - our Earthly behaviour is not an attempt to 'deserve' entry to heaven.
Even if you accept the patent nonsense of 'sin', from her point of view she has abandoned and isolated her child, made him feel alone, unloved and unworthy: if she wants him to be resisting temptation, he's going to need a support mechanism which should be her and won't be.
Even with her own goals and misguided conceptualisation in mind she's working against her own interests.
O.
But she clearly, as does the male (not the son), she is following her God's commands and instructions and as far as she is concerned the boy is not only disobeying her but her God!
-
Some of you are so blatantly biased against the USA. You get the shock stories on your little island and make your pathetic, outrageous, childish and plain stupid, anti US comments. Each one of you is a fool if you think what you bitch at the USA about, can't be found in your little Utopia.(snork) Somebody says moderate Christianity keeps a low profile there. Absolute lie, it certainly does not. And we can look at some presidents for example, Obama, Carter, Clinton, Ford, Bush #1, LBJ, Nixon, Kennedy, all very liberal. No, what the true issue here is the fact that the conservative evangelicals get politically involved as is the right of every single American. You get the shocker stories over there but if you were smart, you would actually take in all the American news not just what feeds your pathetic anti USA addiction. Here's a news flash silly ones, there is anti gay religious people and non religious living on your island. That is fact.
from the being watched
-
But she clearly, as does the male (not the son), she is following her God's commands and instructions and as far as she is concerned the boy is not only disobeying her but her God!
They think if he acts upon his sexual attractions he'll be committing sin - I get that. I disagree, but I get that.
If she wants him to resist, though, he's going to need support, and he's not going to feel like he's got that from them.
Sex outside of marriage is a sin for anyone, masturbation is a sin for anyone, pornography is a sin for anyone, but her other children didn't have their doors removed or their entitlement to a phone curtailed.
She has failed to accept or love her son for what he is, sinner or no. That's unfathomable to me, way beyond the crazy idea of 'sin'.
O.
-
Some of you are so blatantly biased against the USA. You get the shock stories on your little island and make your pathetic, outrageous, childish and plain stupid, anti US comments. Each one of you is a fool if you think what you bitch at the USA about, can't be found in your little Utopia.(snork) Somebody says moderate Christianity keeps a low profile there. Absolute lie, it certainly does not. And we can look at some presidents for example, Obama, Carter, Clinton, Ford, Bush #1, LBJ, Nixon, Kennedy, all very liberal. No, what the true issue here is the fact that the conservative evangelicals get politically involved as is the right of every single American. You get the shocker stories over there but if you were smart, you would actually take in all the American news not just what feeds your pathetic anti USA addiction. Here's a news flash silly ones, there is anti gay religious people and non religious living on your island. That is fact.
from the being watched
The fact is, the guys on here, the atheists, anyway, pontificate about all and everything as though they are experts, when in fact they are largely ignoramuses. Noe of them has any idea of the state of religion in the US, except what they've googled, and that is no guide.
-
That's very true BA. I recall one poster claiming Americans talk a certain way because some author wrote that way.
-
The American version of Christianity appears to be very nasty indeed. Many of those sick extremists seem to drool at the prospect of unbelievers burning in hell forever and ever. Of course we have some of those evil nutters over here, but fortunately for the UK they are recognised as such and don't have any political clout as they do in the USofA.
Clearly you have a great deal of experience and knowledge of the American version of Christianity, Floo. Possibly more than most American Christians have. After all, we have ECUSA which is quite happy to ordain and promote gay priests of both genders - even to the extent of having then as bishops. Then we have the Southern Baptists whose theology is about as diverse as the population of London, UK - but is often characterised as being as literal as one can get, even to treating Biblical poetry as literally true; then you get the one-offs - like Westboro Baptist (though iirc, WBC are [or were] part of the Southern Baptists. Then Tere is Vineyard, whose main characteristics are evangelicalism and social action in equal amounts. And that is but a microcosm of the breath of the groupings.
-
NS
It is quite notable that, if there is a "moderate wing" to the Christian Church in the US, it has made "keeping a low profile" into a stupendously successful form of invisibilty cloak, to the point that, to all intents and purposes, it does not appear to exist.
What is this 'Christian Church' thing - there are many many denominations and as with Floo portraying it as a monolith is simply factually incorrect. As to moderate Christians, there seem to me to be tons in the US - yes there are some loons but there are loons everywhere. Is Obama keeping a low profile?
-
Sinful behaviour is things like drinking to excess or gambling.
Not acting on your homosexuality.
No, not even that, for any atheist. Sin is a religious term that only has traction within a religious context (sin is whatever a god is deemed not to like/disapprove of). Remove the god, and you remove the concept of sin with it.
There are wrong and bad things to do, but there are no sins; they're wrong and bad because they cause harm to other sentient creatures, not displeasure to any nonexistent gods.
-
But no one has said it is unfair to describe them as Catholic Parents just that the title implies this is true for all Catholic Parents and that that is both factually wrong and a lazy generalisation
I repeat ... it was a headline and clearly did not imply ALL catholic parents. Not even I would be that daft!
The headline clearly does imply this, a headline which you chose as the title of the OP and which is not in quotation marks so reads as the clear implication of the thread
-
But she clearly, as does the male (not the son), she is following her God's commands and instructions and as far as she is concerned the boy is not only disobeying her but her God!
They think if he acts upon his sexual attractions he'll be committing sin - I get that. I disagree, but I get that.
If she wants him to resist, though, he's going to need support, and he's not going to feel like he's got that from them.
Sex outside of marriage is a sin for anyone, masturbation is a sin for anyone, pornography is a sin for anyone, but her other children didn't have their doors removed or their entitlement to a phone curtailed.
She has failed to accept or love her son for what he is, sinner or no. That's unfathomable to me, way beyond the crazy idea of 'sin'.
O.
Agreed
-
http://www.queerty.com/scared-christian-mom-asks-how-to-keep-her-gay-teen-son-pure-internet-tears-her-a-new-one-instead-20150804
How can religion cause parents to be so heartless in the treatment of their children?
I don't quite see what the problem is. They've done nothing "wicked".
Yes they have.
By their every action they are telling their child that there is something wrong with him. Please do not underestimate the effect on a young persons self esteem in cases such as these. At the bottom of the article is a post about somebody taking their own life. An all too common occurence due to parents who are unable to handle the fact that their child is gay. Acceptance is key.
Well, I disagree. The patents quite naturally do not want their son to fall into sinful behaviour.
This from a poster whose Avatar is two men kissing!
The Blessed Apostles Ss. Peter and Paul greeting each other.
-
http://www.queerty.com/scared-christian-mom-asks-how-to-keep-her-gay-teen-son-pure-internet-tears-her-a-new-one-instead-20150804
How can religion cause parents to be so heartless in the treatment of their children?
I don't quite see what the problem is. They've done nothing "wicked".
You don't consider making their child's life a misery, and possibly making him suicidal, wicked? Your standards need question, ao.
If you've learned nothing else about him by now you should at least have learned that he has none.
-
Sinful behaviour is things like drinking to excess or gambling.
Not acting on your homosexuality.
No, not even that, for any atheist. Sin is a religious term that only has traction within a religious context (sin is whatever a god is deemed not to like/disapprove of). Remove the god, and you remove the concept of sin with it.
There are wrong and bad things to do, but there are no sins; they're wrong and bad because they cause harm to other sentient creatures, not displeasure to any nonexistent gods.
The only sin is to believe in the concept of sin
-
The Blessed Apostles Ss. Peter and Paul greeting each other.
Looks like some right old hot and heavy guy-on-guy action.
-
Well, I disagree. The patents quite naturally do not want their son to fall into sinful behaviour.
This from a poster whose Avatar is two men kissing!
The Blessed Apostles Ss. Peter and Paul greeting each other.
Or - if you are like the mentioned parents - a pair of poofs snogging!
See, it is all a matter of your point of view!
-
The Blessed Apostles Ss. Peter and Paul greeting each other.
Looks like some right old hot and heavy guy-on-guy action.
Preaching with tongues
-
The Blessed Apostles Ss. Peter and Paul greeting each other.
Looks like some right old hot and heavy guy-on-guy action.
Is this why the Pope, the direct descendent of the Apostles, wears a dress?
-
Most male cross-dressers are straight, or so I've heard.
But then again, what do we know about Catholic clergy ... ?*
* (No, not that ...).
-
'Sin' is a very silly little word which often refers to things no reasonable person would think wrong like homosexuality!
-
'Sin' is a very silly little word which often refers to things no reasonable person would think wrong like homosexuality!
Indeed - as Saint Oscar once observed: "Wickedness is a myth invented by good people to account for the curious attractiveness of others."
-
How can religion cause parents to be so heartless in the treatment of their children?
Probably for the same reason that atheism can cause parents to be just as heartless. My wife used to be a child-minder. Two of the children she cared for came from a family where the mother was a mix of spirituality, and the father was a die-hard atheist. He was determined that his son and daughter should have absolutely no interaction with anyone who had a faith; he was determined that if they didn't agree with his belief system, they would not be allowed out of their house, wouldn't get any pocket money, or enjoy any friendships. Fortunately for them, he worked long and often weird hours, so their mother's hours and interests tended to take precedence over her husband's. When he discovered this, he became severely abusive to all the family, and eventually the three left him.
-
'Sin' is a very silly little word which often refers to things no reasonable person would think wrong like homosexuality!
Reasonable people regarded homosexuality as wrong for centuries. It is only in the last 50-odd years that social attitudes have changed. It could be argued that the number of reasonable people have dropped dramatically over that period. ;)
-
Reasonable people regarded homosexuality as wrong for centuries.
What was reasonable about them?
It is only in the last 50-odd years that social attitudes have changed.
The ancient Greeks would be amazed ...
It could be argued that the number of reasonable people have dropped dramatically over that period. ;)
Go on then - argue it.
-
It is acceptable in the USA Rose, that's why Carter and Obama made it to the White House. But we can agree that your socialism isn't French socialism and American socialism isn't Brit nor French socialism. And Canadian socialism? Well we have our own brand as well. My Uncle moved back to the USA because he couldn't stand our brand. Of course that was just when things were heating up in Korea and those pinko commies started marching south.
Please don't tell me that you were taught that communism is so very right. If you do that then my love for the UK has taken a nose dive.
-
There isn't really any such thing as an American version of Christianity
Really?
Yep, really. Or are you suggesting there is a specific Christian Church in the States to which all U.S. Christians belong and which they all agree with?
NS
It is quite notable that, if there is a "moderate wing" to the Christian Church in the US, it has made "keeping a low profile" into a stupendously successful form of invisibilty cloak, to the point that, to all intents and purposes, it does not appear to exist.
That's not actually true. The Episcopalian Church - the U.S. branch of the Anglican Communion - is just about the most liberal there is, allowing both female and gay bishops. Similarly the Catholic church is often bringing American monastic houses back into line for being too liberal, especially on the position of women.
There is of course a large number of vocal right-wing conservative Christians in the USA who have used politics as a way of gaining attention. Their policies though appear to be losing ground, as with the recent ruling on gay marriage.
-
It is acceptable in the USA Rose, that's why Carter and Obama made it to the White House. But we can agree that your socialism isn't French socialism and American socialism isn't Brit nor French socialism. And Canadian socialism? Well we have our own brand as well. My Uncle moved back to the USA because he couldn't stand our brand. Of course that was just when things were heating up in Korea and those pinko commies started marching south.
Please don't tell me that you were taught that communism is so very right. If you do that then my love for the UK has taken a nose dive.
No, we are taught that persecution of communists and socialists simply for their political beliefs is wrong.
-
How can religion cause parents to be so heartless in the treatment of their children?
Probably for the same reason that atheism can cause parents to be just as heartless. My wife used to be a child-minder. Two of the children she cared for came from a family where the mother was a mix of spirituality, and the father was a die-hard atheist. He was determined that his son and daughter should have absolutely no interaction with anyone who had a faith; he was determined that if they didn't agree with his belief system, they would not be allowed out of their house, wouldn't get any pocket money, or enjoy any friendships. Fortunately for them, he worked long and often weird hours, so their mother's hours and interests tended to take precedence over her husband's. When he discovered this, he became severely abusive to all the family, and eventually the three left him.
Yes, some people are evil, even non-religious ones. But we can't change the way evolution works, we can only try to control the misfits.
-
Some of you are so blatantly biased against the USA. You get the shock stories on your little island and make your pathetic, outrageous, childish and plain stupid, anti US comments. Each one of you is a fool if you think what you bitch at the USA about, can't be found in your little Utopia.(snork) Somebody says moderate Christianity keeps a low profile there. Absolute lie, it certainly does not. And we can look at some presidents for example, Obama, Carter, Clinton, Ford, Bush #1, LBJ, Nixon, Kennedy, all very liberal. No, what the true issue here is the fact that the conservative evangelicals get politically involved as is the right of every single American. You get the shocker stories over there but if you were smart, you would actually take in all the American news not just what feeds your pathetic anti USA addiction. Here's a news flash silly ones, there is anti gay religious people and non religious living on your island. That is fact.
from the being watched
I think I know what Floo is referring to.
American culture is very capitalistic and materialistic and their Christianity is too.
Ours is often much more socialist in comparison.
There is a difference between Christianity in the UK and Christianity in the USA.
It's to do with outlook on life.
Americans have been taught that communism is so very wrong and their version of Christianity often clashes with ours.
Socialism is acceptable here, but not in the USA.
That's too much of a generalisation. Politics aside, there are churches here that exemplify what we think of as U.S.-style - conservative, 'Biblical', prosperous, judgemental. But equally there are very liberal churches that have mainstream CofE bishops raising their eyebrows. I've read a lot of American Christian writing ranging from Elaine Pagels to Thomas Merton and I had more in common with them than many UK writers.
-
Sinful behaviour is things like drinking to excess or gambling.
Not acting on your homosexuality.
No, not even that, for any atheist. Sin is a religious term that only has traction within a religious context (sin is whatever a god is deemed not to like/disapprove of). Remove the god, and you remove the concept of sin with it.
There are wrong and bad things to do, but there are no sins; they're wrong and bad because they cause harm to other sentient creatures, not displeasure to any nonexistent gods.
The only sin is to believe in the concept of sin
No, we don't choose our beliefs. The sin is for a believer in sin to think he or she knows it when they see it and has a duty to judge or prevent it in others.
-
http://www.queerty.com/scared-christian-mom-asks-how-to-keep-her-gay-teen-son-pure-internet-tears-her-a-new-one-instead-20150804
How can religion cause parents to be so heartless in the treatment of their children?
I don't quite see what the problem is. They've done nothing "wicked".
Trust me on this, ad-o, regardless of what you think of homosexuality it is wicked beyond belief to make a child feel dirty and ashamed and isolate them because you feel that they cannot control themselves sexually. Even more so when you do not treat their siblings in the same way.
-
No, we don't choose our beliefs. The sin is for a believer in sin to think he or she knows it when they see it and has a duty to judge or prevent it in others.
But as history shows, as soon as you give a religion a chance to do this, it will do exactly that. For the most part in the secular-liberal-democratic West religions have been declawed and have had their teeth pulled; they can't enforce anything as they would have done - and did - a few centuries ago; now they just sit and grumble and sulk on the sidelines when they don't get their own way, which thank goodness* is most of the time. But there are benighted parts of the world where religion still sees it as a duty to judge and to prevent what it sees as sin in others.
Give a religion a chance to rule the lives of people and to curtail their freedom of thought, belief, expression and action and it will always, always, always take it.
* Literally.
-
No, we don't choose our beliefs. The sin is for a believer in sin to think he or she knows it when they see it and has a duty to judge or prevent it in others.
But as history shows, as soon as you give a religion a chance to do this, it will do exactly that. For the most part in the secular-liberal-democratic West religions have been declawed and have had their teeth pulled; they can't enforce anything as they would have done - and did - a few centuries ago; now they just sit and grumble and sulk on the sidelines when they don't get their own way, which thank goodness* is most of the time. But there are benighted parts of the world where religion still sees it as a duty to judge and to prevent what it sees as sin in others.
Give a religion a chance to rule the lives of people and to curtail their fredom of thought, belief and action and it will always, always, always take it.
* Literally.
You didn't need the 'but'.
I wonder what it is about homosexuality that scares the religious conservatives so much. They don't freak out in the same way about divorce, yet the Bible is much clearer in its condemnation of that.
-
Sinful behaviour is things like drinking to excess or gambling.
Not acting on your homosexuality.
No, not even that, for any atheist. Sin is a religious term that only has traction within a religious context (sin is whatever a god is deemed not to like/disapprove of). Remove the god, and you remove the concept of sin with it.
There are wrong and bad things to do, but there are no sins; they're wrong and bad because they cause harm to other sentient creatures, not displeasure to any nonexistent gods.
The only sin is to believe in the concept of sin
No, we don't choose our beliefs. The sin is for a believer in sin to think he or she knows it when they see it and has a duty to judge or prevent it in others.
It wasn't an entirely serious point but I would suggest in effect your post is a rephrasing of it. The concept of sin would I suggest encompass the judging and prevention.
Also there are tons of things that those of us who do not believe in sin judge others on and try to prevent them doing.
-
No, we don't choose our beliefs. The sin is for a believer in sin to think he or she knows it when they see it and has a duty to judge or prevent it in others.
But as history shows, as soon as you give a religion a chance to do this, it will do exactly that. For the most part in the secular-liberal-democratic West religions have been declawed and have had their teeth pulled; they can't enforce anything as they would have done - and did - a few centuries ago; now they just sit and grumble and sulk on the sidelines when they don't get their own way, which thank goodness* is most of the time. But there are benighted parts of the world where religion still sees it as a duty to judge and to prevent what it sees as sin in others.
Give a religion a chance to rule the lives of people and to curtail their freedom of thought, belief, expression and action and it will always, always, always take it.
* Literally.
Sorry, but this seems like bizarre anthropomorphising of religion to me. It is merely the opinions of humans. It does not have intentions, or actiins, and the individuals attached to religions behave in as many different ways as the rest of us.
-
I wonder what it is about homosexuality that scares the religious conservatives so much. They don't freak out in the same way about divorce, yet the Bible is much clearer in its condemnation of that.
Because their lives would be greatly affected if divorce were banned ... homosexuality affects only a small percentage of them, and even they are mostly closeted.
-
Care to tell me who exactly in the USA is telling Americans to PERSECUTE communists? Get real Rhi, Cuba just reopened their embassy in Washington and Vietnam USA relations are quite good. Truth is, during the cold war there was as much anti commie preaching being done in your nation and mine as there was in the USA. You think an evangelical/conservative getting involved in politics is an attention seekers? Are you for real? What about an atheist or pagan getting involved in politics, what about any person exercising their right as an American to get involved in politics? Are you just biased against them because the conservative/evangelicals are better organizers or is it because you, like so many over your way, go for the shock stories and ignore the whole picture? Let's get real for a moment Rhi, Americans were killing the unborn legally long before you liberal Brits got around to killing them. And the truth is you were not far ahead of my American cousins with regards to gay marriage.
-
Sinful behaviour is things like drinking to excess or gambling.
Not acting on your homosexuality.
No, not even that, for any atheist. Sin is a religious term that only has traction within a religious context (sin is whatever a god is deemed not to like/disapprove of). Remove the god, and you remove the concept of sin with it.
There are wrong and bad things to do, but there are no sins; they're wrong and bad because they cause harm to other sentient creatures, not displeasure to any nonexistent gods.
The only sin is to believe in the concept of sin
No, we don't choose our beliefs. The sin is for a believer in sin to think he or she knows it when they see it and has a duty to judge or prevent it in others.
It wasn't an entirely serious point but I would suggest in effect your post is a rephrasing of it. The concept of sin would I suggest encompass the judging and prevention.
Also there are tons of things that those of us who do not believe in sin judge others on and try to prevent them doing.
That's very true. The on-line petitions around Katie Hopkins and others like her are testament to that. But I do think it possible to believe in sin but choose not to judge others. It does seem to be an individual thing though, not something that churches as a whole are good at.
-
Care to tell me who exactly in the USA is telling Americans to PERSECUTE communists? Get real Rhi, Cuba just reopened their embassy in Washington and Vietnam USA relations are quite good. Truth is, during the cold war there was as much anti commie preaching being done in your nation and mine as there was in the USA. You think an evangelical/conservative getting involved in politics is an attention seekers? Are you for real? What about an atheist or pagan getting involved in politics, what about any person exercising their right as an American to get involved in politics? Are you just biased against them because the conservative/evangelicals are better organizers or is it because you, like so many over your way, go for the shock stories and ignore the whole picture? Let's get real for a moment Rhi, Americans were killing the unborn legally long before you liberal Brits got around to killing them. And the truth is you were not far ahead of my American cousins with regards to gay marriage.
We learn about persecution of communists in our history lessons. Don't you?
-
I wonder what it is about homosexuality that scares the religious conservatives so much. They don't freak out in the same way about divorce, yet the Bible is much clearer in its condemnation of that.
I wonder if it has anything to do with religious prohibitions on homosexual behaviour stemming from specific cultures and specific historical periods where the survival of the population was under threat? Now, today, we know that being gay doesn't render you infertile and doesn't prevent you from being able to procreate if you can force yourself go through with the sticky bit with a member of the opposite sex to whom you are not sexually, physically or emotionally drawn; nevertheless, it seems fair to say that a majority of gay people don't reproduce. It's generally the case that most gay people don't have children. If you live in a relatively small tribe/society, anybody who doesn't reproduce threatens the future existence of said tribe. Could that explain it? I'm not an anthropologist so I don't know, but it's presumably a testable hypothesis.
I've actually seen - remarkably often - people try to argue against homosexuality on the basis that if everyone was homosexual the human species would die out. The facts that exclusive homosexuals are a very small (though permanent) section of the human population and that the problems facing the world stem from overpopulation, not its lack, seems not to figure but you can't go intruding facts and reality on these people.
-
You don't know the Bible Rhi. Ignorance is your bliss, that's a fact.
-
Sin is a religious term that only has traction within a religious context (sin is whatever a god is deemed not to like/disapprove of). Remove the god, and you remove the concept of sin with it.
There are wrong and bad things to do, but there are no sins; they're wrong and bad because they cause harm to other sentient creatures, not displeasure to any nonexistent gods.
Absolutely true.
-
I wonder what it is about homosexuality that scares the religious conservatives so much. They don't freak out in the same way about divorce, yet the Bible is much clearer in its condemnation of that.
I wonder if it has anything to do with religious prohibitions on homosexual behaviour stemming from specific cultures and specific historical periods where the survival of the population was under threat? Now, today, we know that being gay doesn't render you infertile and doesn't prevent you from being able to procreate if you can force yourself go through with the sticky bit with a member of the opposite sex to whom you are not sexually, physically or emotionally drawn; nevertheless, it seems fair to say that a majority of gay people don't reproduce. It's generally the case that most gay people don't have children. If you live in a relatively small tribe/society, anybody who doesn't reproduce threatens the future existence of said tribe. Could that explain it? I'm not an anthropologist so I don't know, but it's presumably a testable hypothesis.
I've actually seen - remarkably often - people try to argue against homosexuality on the basis that if everyone was homosexual the human species would die out. The facts that exclusive homosexuals are a very small (though permanent) section of the human population and that the problems facing the world stem from overpopulation, not its lack, seems not to figure but you can't go intruding facts and reality on these people.
Well yes, if you go back to the times of the OT you are talking about a very small number of people - prohibition against gay relationships and adultery and divorce made sense. Similarly when Paul was writing he would have been observing a very different idea of homosexuality in Greek and Roman culture from what we generally mean when discussing gay relationships and marriage. So I guess you could say that after the Black Death being gay wasn't helpful in building up the population.
But that doesn't account for why in societies with booming populations and excellent health care we still have people with religious belief freaking out about it. Unless the church has replaced the tribe as the one under threat from non-procreation? :-\
-
Let's remember there was a time divorce was frowned on and fought by some religions. Even when I was growing up, there was a fair amount of discrimination against divorced people in the RCC.
I think that rather like divorce has become normalised, homosexuality will be too. There are denominations that already do. There is also a highly of classism in the history in that those in the aristocracy would have suffered less in the past for homosexuality or divorce. Indeed given that it used to need an act of parliament to get divorced, only they could achieve this . In the grand scheme 30 or so years that homosexuality is 'behind' divorce on its acceptance is nothing
-
You don't know the Bible Rhi. Ignorance is your bliss, that's a fact.
Err no, it is pretty much the definition of opinion.
-
You don't know the Bible Rhi. Ignorance is your bliss, that's a fact.
Ignorance about the Bible would, indeed, be bliss. Instead we have so much of the ignorance of the Bible..
O.
-
That's very true. The on-line petitions around Katie Hopkins and others like her are testament to that. But I do think it possible to believe in sin but choose not to judge others. It does seem to be an individual thing though, not something that churches as a whole are good at.
Surely most laws are testament to that? Or Leonard's idea that creationists shouldn't be teachers. Sin is merely nail varnish for morality.
-
You don't know the Bible Rhi. Ignorance is your bliss, that's a fact.
Good grief! JC, you are turning into a splendid partner for Sass!
-
That's very true. The on-line petitions around Katie Hopkins and others like her are testament to that. But I do think it possible to believe in sin but choose not to judge others. It does seem to be an individual thing though, not something that churches as a whole are good at.
Surely most laws are testament to that? Or Leonard's idea that creationists shouldn't be teachers. Sin is merely nail varnish for morality.
Have you believed in sin and then not? I have. And whilst I'm still a moral person, I don't beat myself up an nth as much.
-
Truth is, during the cold war there was as much anti commie preaching being done in your nation and mine as there was in the USA.
This is not merely bullshit but bullshit on stilts, spray-painted with gold paint, varnished, squirted with Hugo Boss and with hundreds and thousands sprinkled on top. Since this remark was directed at/a response to Rhiannon, the "your nation" in the quoted sentence refers to Great Britain (or the UK). I don't know, and if I'm brutally honest am not especially interested, in whether Canada ("mine") had its equivalent of the USA's Red Scare with an alcoholic politician soon to die a premature death of his addiction orchestrating a campaign of smear, innuendo, insinuation and suspicion against people of nothing more than socially liberal and progressive views (with the attendant destruction of careers and lives that ensued), but I do know one thing: this nation - my nation; Rhiannon's nation - didn't. I neither know nor care about Canada, but there wasn't "as much anti commie preaching being done" in our realm "as there was in the USA."
So give over with this fulminating horseshit and learn some history which extends beyond the borders of the USA's lumber room.
-
That's very true. The on-line petitions around Katie Hopkins and others like her are testament to that. But I do think it possible to believe in sin but choose not to judge others. It does seem to be an individual thing though, not something that churches as a whole are good at.
Surely most laws are testament to that? Or Leonard's idea that creationists shouldn't be teachers. Sin is merely nail varnish for morality.
Have you believed in sin and then not? I have. And whilst I'm still a moral person, I don't beat myself up an nth as much.
I was brought up RC but never bought into to it, that said Catholic guilt is, like the smell of vomit, pervasive.
I disagree with a lot of what Dryghten's Toe writes, but I agree that most people talk of morality, their morality in a sense which makes it sound objective and is in that sense indistinguishable from sin.
-
Can't remember any anti-Communism preaching in the UK in the '70's and 80's.
I DO know a fair few evangelicals who are unashamed socialists, and one communist who is a part tpreacher. None would spout their party politics from Church platform or pulpit.
Nor would I expect them to.
-
Can't remember any anti-Communism preaching in the UK in the '70's and 80's.
I DO know a fair few evangelicals who are unashamed socialists, and one communist who is a part tpreacher. None would spout their party politics from Church platform or pulpit.
Nor would I expect them to.
Though I have known priests in the RC tell their congregation to vote Labour because they were the RC party even when the SNP candidate was a member of their congregation and the Labour candidate not RC.
-
Truth is, during the cold war there was as much anti commie preaching being done in your nation and mine as there was in the USA.
This is not merely bullshit but bullshit on stilts, spray-painted with gold paint, varnished, squirted with Hugo Boss and with hundreds and thousands sprinkled on top. Since this remark was directed at/a response to Rhiannon, the "your nation" in the quoted sentence refers to Great Britain (or the UK). I don't know, and if I'm brutally honest am not especially interested, in whether Canada ("mine") had its equivalent of the USA's Red Scare with an alcoholic politician soon to die a premature death of his addiction orchestrating a campaign of smear, innuendo, insinuation and suspicion against people of nothing more than socially liberal and progressive views (with the attendant destruction of careers and lives that ensued), but I do know one thing: this nation - my nation; Rhiannon's nation - didn't. I neither know nor care about Canada, but there wasn't "as much anti commie preaching being done" in our realm "as there was in the USA."
So give over with this fulminating horseshit and learn some history which extends beyond the borders of the USA's lumber room.
Having lived at the time I can assure you that in Britain it was known as "the McCarthy red-scare witch-hunt".
-
Ah, now this is interesting. Having g done a quick google on the Red Scares I found this:
Homosexuality was classified as a psychiatric disorder in the 1950s.[53] However, in the context of the highly politicised Cold War environment, homosexuality became framed as a dangerous, contagious social disease that posed a potential threat to state security.[53] As the family was believed to be the cornerstone of American strength and integrity,[54] the stigmatisation of homosexuals as "sexual perverts" meant that they were both unable to function within a family unit and presented the potential to poison the social body.[55] This era also witnessed the establishment of widely spread FBI surveillance intended to identify homosexual government employees.[56]
Full text here.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism#Victims_of_McCarthyism
Which might go some way to explain why homosexuality still freaks out so many in the States.
-
Ah, now this is interesting. Having g done a quick google on the Red Scares I found this:
Homosexuality was classified as a psychiatric disorder in the 1950s.[53] However, in the context of the highly politicised Cold War environment, homosexuality became framed as a dangerous, contagious social disease that posed a potential threat to state security.[53] As the family was believed to be the cornerstone of American strength and integrity,[54] the stigmatisation of homosexuals as "sexual perverts" meant that they were both unable to function within a family unit and presented the potential to poison the social body.[55] This era also witnessed the establishment of widely spread FBI surveillance intended to identify homosexual government employees.[56]
Full text here.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism#Victims_of_McCarthyism
Which might go some way to explain why homosexuality still freaks out so many in the States.
Very likely! Thank goodness the younger generation won't be influenced by it.
-
How the hell did this thread get into communism?
-
How the hell did this thread get into communism?
I don't know and don't care, but I suspect that Len and trent, if thus inclined, may want to know more about the two bears* in your avatar.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bear_%28gay_culture%29
-
Sorry, did you say something?
-
No, but I did type something.
-
What?
-
Reply #107.
-
Pardon?
-
Acceptance is key.
There is 'acceptance' and 'acceptance'. To take the argument away from the emotive issue of sexuality for a moment; there are behaviours which society almost without exception regard with revulsion - rape and murder being two examples. Back in 1993, the Uk was rocked by the reports of the horrific death of James Bulger, at the hands of Robert Thompson and Jon Venables. How were the parents of these two 10-year olds to behave? Were they to accept the behaviour, or were they to reject the behaviour but continue to accept the individuals?
...........
I think the problem is less with the parents in this story but with society which insists that you can'y divorce the two elements in this way; in other words, one can't accept the individual without accepting the behaviour.
-
There is 'acceptance' and 'acceptance'. To take the argument away from the emotive issue of sexuality for a moment; there are behaviours which society almost without exception regard with revulsion - rape and murder being two examples.
Off the top of your head, why do you think that that might be the case?
-
There is 'acceptance' and 'acceptance'. To take the argument away from the emotive issue of sexuality for a moment; there are behaviours which society almost without exception regard with revulsion - rape and murder being two examples.
Off the top of your head, why do you think that that might be the case?
Read the rest of the post your have partially quoted from.
-
I have (indeed, did) and it doesn't answer the question I posed. That's why I asked it.
-
I have (indeed, did) and it doesn't answer the question I posed. That's why I asked it.
I explained in pretty simple English why I believe that there is 'acceptance' and 'acceptance'. I suppose I could rework it in words of one syllable for you, but it might take some time.
-
I explained in pretty simple English why I believe that there is 'acceptance' and 'acceptance'.
Where and when?
I suppose I could rework it in words of one syllable for you, but it might take some time.
I doubt you're doing anything else of any use, worth or value, so go for it.
-
I doubt you're doing anything else of any use, worth or value, so go for it.
That's right, the second assignment for my Institute of Fundraising Certificate in Fundraising qualification (due in next Tuesday) is of no 'use, worth or value'. Nor is preparing for a job interview I've got the day after that. Shan't be putting myself out for someone who clearly has limited understanding of basic English.
-
I doubt you're doing anything else of any use, worth or value, so go for it.
That's right, the second assignment for my Institute of Fundraising Certificate in Fundraising qualification (due in next Tuesday) is of no 'use, worth or value'. Nor is preparing for a job interview I've got the day after that. Shan't be putting myself out for someone who clearly has limited understanding of basic English.
All sounds like a load of idle wank of the late middle-aged unemployed. Somebody who a matter of a few hours ago labelled an ordinary post on this forum as containing "a lot of clever words" - actually, some very ordinary words, ordinarily arranged in clear and simple, comprehensible sentences - has no place or business in decrying anybody else's understanding of basic English as "limited."
-
Acceptance is key.
There is 'acceptance' and 'acceptance'. To take the argument away from the emotive issue of sexuality for a moment; there are behaviours which society almost without exception regard with revulsion - rape and murder being two examples. Back in 1993, the Uk was rocked by the reports of the horrific death of James Bulger, at the hands of Robert Thompson and Jon Venables. How were the parents of these two 10-year olds to behave? Were they to accept the behaviour, or were they to reject the behaviour but continue to accept the individuals?
...........
I think the problem is less with the parents in this story but with society which insists that you can'y divorce the two elements in this way; in other words, one can't accept the individual without accepting the behaviour.
If as I believe, and through years of interaction(stop sniggering at the back Shaker) within the gay community, know, being gay is a pretty much fixed state for a small but fixed % of the population. It is therefore plain stupid not to accept it as a parent. To do otherwise alienates your offspring and brings untold misery to them and to themselves. I have NEVER heard one happy story come out of rejection by parents of gay offspring. OF course you will have because you have a story for every occasion on gay issues. I wonder why that is.
Your introduction of Venables et al, is a straw man unworthy of even you.
-
If as I believe, and through years of interaction
*snigger*
(stop sniggering at the back Shaker
Ooh bugger.
Sorry.
Carry on.
-
I doubt you're doing anything else of any use, worth or value, so go for it.
That's right, the second assignment for my Institute of Fundraising Certificate in Fundraising qualification (due in next Tuesday) is of no 'use, worth or value'. Nor is preparing for a job interview I've got the day after that. Shan't be putting myself out for someone who clearly has limited understanding of basic English.
Another totally bloody useless qualification - why don't you get a qualification in something that is going to involve rather more than screwing money out of people for some dubious "good cause!".
And just because it is you, as a devoyted and committed Christian, doing it, does not make it a good or wothwhile casue.
-
Exactly Anchorman, The only anti communist barking I heard in the USA, Canada and the UK was from our politicians. Don't try and tell me yours didn't do their share of anti communist barking. As far as teaching, Rhi was being dishonest by using the word teaching, as if children were being taught this from their grade three teachers all across America. Nope, my cousins never said any anti pinko commie words to me and they were schooled in N and S Dakota, Nebraska, Minnesota, Colorado and Oregon. So Rhi is shoveling a load of her BS.
-
Acceptance is key.
There is 'acceptance' and 'acceptance'. To take the argument away from the emotive issue of sexuality for a moment; there are behaviours which society almost without exception regard with revulsion - rape and murder being two examples. Back in 1993, the Uk was rocked by the reports of the horrific death of James Bulger, at the hands of Robert Thompson and Jon Venables. How were the parents of these two 10-year olds to behave? Were they to accept the behaviour, or were they to reject the behaviour but continue to accept the individuals?
...........
I think the problem is less with the parents in this story but with society which insists that you can'y divorce the two elements in this way; in other words, one can't accept the individual without accepting the behaviour.
you really can't help yourself, can you? All it takes is a couple of posts on homosexuality and off you will go making an implicit comparison between trentvoyager's relationship and rape and murder.
-
But this is what loving parents do, NS. They accept the child whilst rejecting the behaviour. Being gay, murdering a toddler, all the same to Hope's loving Father.
-
Exactly Anchorman, The only anti communist barking I heard in the USA, Canada and the UK was from our politicians. Don't try and tell me yours didn't do their share of anti communist barking. As far as teaching, Rhi was being dishonest by using the word teaching, as if children were being taught this from their grade three teachers all across America. Nope, my cousins never said any anti pinko commie words to me and they were schooled in N and S Dakota, Nebraska, Minnesota, Colorado and Oregon. So Rhi is shoveling a load of her BS.
No I wasn't. We were specifically discussing McCarthyism and the Red Scare. I said we were taught about it in school - it formed a part of the syllabus on World History and I assume it still does. I asked if you were also taught about this in school.
-
Acceptance is key.
There is 'acceptance' and 'acceptance'. To take the argument away from the emotive issue of sexuality for a moment; there are behaviours which society almost without exception regard with revulsion - rape and murder being two examples. Back in 1993, the Uk was rocked by the reports of the horrific death of James Bulger, at the hands of Robert Thompson and Jon Venables. How were the parents of these two 10-year olds to behave? Were they to accept the behaviour, or were they to reject the behaviour but continue to accept the individuals?
...........
I think the problem is less with the parents in this story but with society which insists that you can'y divorce the two elements in this way; in other words, one can't accept the individual without accepting the behaviour.
Really, Hope? Really? Murder as analogy for homosexuality, now? Is the usual 'bestiality/paedophilia' analogy worn out?
I expected better of you, frankly.
O.
-
How can religion cause parents to be so heartless in the treatment of their children?
Probably for the same reason that atheism can cause parents to be just as heartless. My wife used to be a child-minder. Two of the children she cared for came from a family where the mother was a mix of spirituality, and the father was a die-hard atheist. He was determined that his son and daughter should have absolutely no interaction with anyone who had a faith; he was determined that if they didn't agree with his belief system, they would not be allowed out of their house, wouldn't get any pocket money, or enjoy any friendships. Fortunately for them, he worked long and often weird hours, so their mother's hours and interests tended to take precedence over her husband's. When he discovered this, he became severely abusive to all the family, and eventually the three left him.
This is a clearly made up, or at least exaggerated story. For one thing, your wife (assuming she is Christian) would never have got the job, if the husband were really as you described.
-
How can religion cause parents to be so heartless in the treatment of their children?
Probably for the same reason that atheism can cause parents to be just as heartless. My wife used to be a child-minder. Two of the children she cared for came from a family where the mother was a mix of spirituality, and the father was a die-hard atheist. He was determined that his son and daughter should have absolutely no interaction with anyone who had a faith; he was determined that if they didn't agree with his belief system, they would not be allowed out of their house, wouldn't get any pocket money, or enjoy any friendships. Fortunately for them, he worked long and often weird hours, so their mother's hours and interests tended to take precedence over her husband's. When he discovered this, he became severely abusive to all the family, and eventually the three left him.
This is a clearly made up, or at least exaggerated story. For one thing, your wife (assuming she is Christian) would never have got the job, if the husband were really as you described.
I think the story is plausible, but the father's a domestic abuser - he would be regardless of his faith or lack of it. Religion sometimes frightens or conditions people into abusiveness in a way that a lack of belief doesn't.
-
I think the story is plausible, but the father's a domestic abuser - he would be regardless of his faith or lack of it. Religion sometimes frightens or conditions people into abusiveness in a way that a lack of belief doesn't.
We're back at Hope's usual issue here of conflating atheism to be a belief system which it isn't.
-
I think the story is plausible, but the father's a domestic abuser - he would be regardless of his faith or lack of it. Religion sometimes frightens or conditions people into abusiveness in a way that a lack of belief doesn't.
No I don't claim that atheists are immune to being domestic abusers. The second part of the story is all too credible, unfortunately. However, the bit at the beginning where he insists his children aren't allowed contact with anyone religious is not credible, unless Hope's wife is an atheist.
-
I think the story is plausible, but the father's a domestic abuser - he would be regardless of his faith or lack of it. Religion sometimes frightens or conditions people into abusiveness in a way that a lack of belief doesn't.
No I don't claim that atheists are immune to being domestic abusers. The second part of the story is all too credible, unfortunately. However, the bit at the beginning where he insists his children aren't allowed contact with anyone religious is not credible, unless Hope's wife is an atheist.
Depends how involved the father was with choosing the childcare etc. but he could equally have decided he wanted no contact with vegetarians, or meat eaters, or people who wear crocs - he wasn't driven by belief but by the need for control. An aunt of mine married an abuser and they converted to the LDS. He carried on being an abuser, but post-conversion he used religion as his excuse.
-
I think the story is plausible, but the father's a domestic abuser - he would be regardless of his faith or lack of it. Religion sometimes frightens or conditions people into abusiveness in a way that a lack of belief doesn't.
No I don't claim that atheists are immune to being domestic abusers. The second part of the story is all too credible, unfortunately. However, the bit at the beginning where he insists his children aren't allowed contact with anyone religious is not credible, unless Hope's wife is an atheist.
Depends how involved the father was with choosing the childcare etc. but he could equally have decided he wanted no contact with vegetarians, or meat eaters, or people who wear crocs - he wasn't driven by belief but by the need for control. An aunt of mine married an abuser and they converted to the LDS. He carried on being an abuser, but post-conversion he used religion as his excuse.
Sadly many who are already religious are the same! A case of any excuse will do!
-
Agreed. The question is whether religion can condition somebody to be abusive who wouldn't be otherwise. If you really are convinced that your child will be estranged from God because of their sexual behaviour then yes, I think it can.
-
Agreed. The question is whether religion can condition somebody to be abusive who wouldn't be otherwise. If you really are convinced that your child will be estranged from God because of their sexual behaviour then yes, I think it can.
I'm not sure that 'condition' is the right word but I can see the point in that if you subscribe to such a view then you don't see the activity as wrong. That said I think that applies to almost any set of beliefs (rather than the absence of one) - in Hope's example the father has to believe it is wrong to talk to non atheists , and that is a specfic belief.
-
Agreed. The question is whether religion can condition somebody to be abusive who wouldn't be otherwise. If you really are convinced that your child will be estranged from God because of their sexual behaviour then yes, I think it can.
I'm not sure that 'condition' is the right word but I can see the point in that if you subscribe to such a view then you don't see the activity as wrong. That said I think that applies to almost any set of beliefs (rather than the absence of one) - in Hope's example the father has to believe it is wrong to talk to non atheists , and that is a specfic belief.
Yes, we can think of atrocities such as those committed by adherents to Naziism.
I think that religion can be conditioning because of the influence that church leaders and pastors have. There are accounts of parents standing by during 'exorcisms' and I wonder in cases such as this whether the parent isolates their child at the suggestion of their church leadership or through reading 'advice' on Christian parenting.
I once was involved in an online discussion with a new convert to Christianity who had fallen under the spell of an evangelical couple in France. They quite literally had a rod, a small fine stick, to beat their child with, and this woman dropped into the conversation that she was planning to do the same when her child was old enough. Fortunately the horror of our reaction brought her up short and we were able to point her in the direction of more balanced approaches to Christian parenting, but had she not had such hero worship for the couple she knew I doubt such a horrific idea would ever have occurred to her, and maybe they still convinced her that they were right.
-
Yes, we can think of atrocities such as those committed by adherents to Naziism.
I think that religion can be conditioning because of the influence that church leaders and pastors have. There are accounts of parents standing by during 'exorcisms' and I wonder in cases such as this whether the parent isolates their child at the suggestion of their church leadership or through reading 'advice' on Christian parenting.
I once was involved in an online discussion with a new convert to Christianity who had fallen under the spell of an evangelical couple in France. They quite literally had a rod, a small fine stick, to beat their child with, and this woman dropped into the conversation that she was planning to do the same when her child was old enough. Fortunately the horror of our reaction brought her up short and we were able to point her in the direction of more balanced approaches to Christian parenting, but had she not had such hero worship for the couple she knew I doubt such a horrific idea would ever have occurred to her, and maybe they still convinced her that they were right.
Yes, I suppose in one sense it is metonomy again, the conditioning is done by the religious rather than the religion itself but once established it is like a vicious circle. I suppose also that might be used though about anything we see as 'good; behaviour from the religious as well.
-
I wonder what it is about homosexuality that scares the religious conservatives so much. They don't freak out in the same way about divorce, yet the Bible is much clearer in its condemnation of that.
I wonder if it has anything to do with religious prohibitions on homosexual behaviour stemming from specific cultures and specific historical periods where the survival of the population was under threat? Now, today, we know that being gay doesn't render you infertile and doesn't prevent you from being able to procreate if you can force yourself go through with the sticky bit with a member of the opposite sex to whom you are not sexually, physically or emotionally drawn; nevertheless, it seems fair to say that a majority of gay people don't reproduce. It's generally the case that most gay people don't have children. If you live in a relatively small tribe/society, anybody who doesn't reproduce threatens the future existence of said tribe. Could that explain it? I'm not an anthropologist so I don't know, but it's presumably a testable hypothesis.
I've actually seen - remarkably often - people try to argue against homosexuality on the basis that if everyone was homosexual the human species would die out. The facts that exclusive homosexuals are a very small (though permanent) section of the human population and that the problems facing the world stem from overpopulation, not its lack, seems not to figure but you can't go intruding facts and reality on these people.
Well yes, if you go back to the times of the OT you are talking about a very small number of people - prohibition against gay relationships and adultery and divorce made sense. Similarly when Paul was writing he would have been observing a very different idea of homosexuality in Greek and Roman culture from what we generally mean when discussing gay relationships and marriage. So I guess you could say that after the Black Death being gay wasn't helpful in building up the population.
But that doesn't account for why in societies with booming populations and excellent health care we still have people with religious belief freaking out about it. Unless the church has replaced the tribe as the one under threat from non-procreation? :-\
There is no evidence to show that prohibitions on same-sex sex is anything to do with possible (but nonexistent) effects on population numbers.
Everyone seems (tact or PC?) to be ignoring the yuk factor and the chemistry involved in choosing whom to have sex with and who to avoid. Most likely religions, which generally were more concerned with politics than beliefs, just latched on to existing cultural mores.
It is not as if we were all happily swanning about in a sexual paradise and god came along and forced everyone to follow a rule book.
-
There is no evidence to show that prohibitions on same-sex sex is anything to do with possible (but nonexistent) effects on population numbers.
Everyone seems (tact or PC?) to be ignoring the yuk factor and the chemistry involved in choosing whom to have sex with and who to avoid. Most likely religions, which generally were more concerned with politics than beliefs, just latched on to existing cultural mores.
It is not as if we were all happily swanning about in a sexual paradise and god came along and forced everyone to follow a rule book.
Most likely religions, attempting to enforce tribalism and readily identify an 'in' group and an 'other', latched on to readily identifiable traits and highlighted them to build unity within the in-group - that's a reasonably well-studied facet of sociology.
O.
-
I think the story is plausible, but the father's a domestic abuser - he would be regardless of his faith or lack of it. Religion sometimes frightens or conditions people into abusiveness in a way that a lack of belief doesn't.
No, Rhi. His abuse (and it wasn't sexual or physical, by the way) was very much tied to his atheist beliefs.
-
Everyone seems (tact or PC?) to be ignoring the yuk factor and the chemistry involved in choosing whom to have sex with and who to avoid. Most likely religions, which generally were more concerned with politics than beliefs, just latched on to existing cultural mores.
Udayana, I would disagree that 'Everyone seems (tact or PC?) to be ignoring the yuk factor'. It is regularly brought up by those who are in favour of the liberalisation of the law on homosexuality, as a way of trying to dismiss the views of their opponents. I often wonder whether their regular use of this is actually hiding the fact that they feel there's a yuk-factor, something that few of their opponents seem to have even thought about.
-
No I don't claim that atheists are immune to being domestic abusers. The second part of the story is all too credible, unfortunately. However, the bit at the beginning where he insists his children aren't allowed contact with anyone religious is not credible, unless Hope's wife is an atheist.
My fault for not making it clear that when the two kids started with my wife, the father was working abroad, so wasn't in a position to easily control what happened. Apparently, he had originally been 'posted' abroad for 2 or 3 months, but it stretched to 10 and a bit. That was why the family hadn't accompanied him.
-
I think the story is plausible, but the father's a domestic abuser - he would be regardless of his faith or lack of it. Religion sometimes frightens or conditions people into abusiveness in a way that a lack of belief doesn't.
No, Rhi. His abuse (and it wasn't sexual or physical, by the way) was very much tied to his atheist beliefs.
There are no atheist beliefs - it is a lack of belief in one thing.
-
Udayana, I would disagree that 'Everyone seems (tact or PC?) to be ignoring the yuk factor'. It is regularly brought up by those who are in favour of the liberalisation of the law on homosexuality, as a way of trying to dismiss the views of their opponents. I often wonder whether their regular use of this is actually hiding the fact that they feel there's a yuk-factor, something that few of their opponents seem to have even thought about.
What 'yuk-factor'? There's nothing two men do that a man and a woman can't and don't do. there's nothing two women do that a man and a woman can't do.
There is nothing inherently 'yuk' in what gay people do with each other that isn't equally as 'yuk' when straight people do it. Whilst we, as a culture, have a reticence about discussing sexual activity, that's not specific to homosexuality.
O.
-
It's just how people tend to feel subjectively. Many heterosexuals have an inbuilt "disgust" at the idea of having sex with someone of the same sex. Probably homosexuals have an opposite tendency. It doesn't mean that there is something inherently disgusting about it or that cannot be overridden by culture. But as there is a significant difference in the relative numbers, this would be enough to bias tribal mores.
Then later this was probably picked up and codified by some religions.
-
I think the story is plausible, but the father's a domestic abuser - he would be regardless of his faith or lack of it. Religion sometimes frightens or conditions people into abusiveness in a way that a lack of belief doesn't.
No, Rhi. His abuse (and it wasn't sexual or physical, by the way) was very much tied to his atheist beliefs.
I know far more than I'd like to about emotional abuse. As with my LDS uncle (by marriage, thank god) religion and atheism are both excuses used by abusers to justify their behaviour.
-
It's just how people tend to feel subjectively. Many heterosexuals have an inbuilt "disgust" at the idea of having sex with someone of the same sex.
Do you have any evidence for this assertion? I have yet to meet any such heterosexuals.
In fact, the heterosexuals I know are actually far more interested in working for things like childrens' rights, healthcare, trade justice, education and overseas aid, and only really take part in a debate like this when they are told what they believe about homosexuality by those who believe that legislation regarding homosexuality has to be changed.
-
I know far more than I'd like to about emotional abuse. As with my LDS uncle (by marriage, thank god) religion and atheism are both excuses used by abusers to justify their behaviour.
I'd agree, Rhi.
-
It's just how people tend to feel subjectively. Many heterosexuals have an inbuilt "disgust" at the idea of having sex with someone of the same sex.
Do you have any evidence for this assertion? I have yet to meet any such heterosexuals.
In fact, the heterosexuals I know are actually far more interested in working for things like childrens' rights, healthcare, trade justice, education and overseas aid, and only really take part in a debate like this when they are told what they believe about homosexuality by those who believe that legislation regarding homosexuality has to be changed.
Udayana wasn't talking about what people are interested in working for. She/he (sorry I don't know) was talking about peoples feelings. Talk about tangents that aren't relevant.
-
It's just how people tend to feel subjectively. Many heterosexuals have an inbuilt "disgust" at the idea of having sex with someone of the same sex.
Do you have any evidence for this assertion? I have yet to meet any such heterosexuals.
In fact, the heterosexuals I know are actually far more interested in working for things like childrens' rights, healthcare, trade justice, education and overseas aid, and only really take part in a debate like this when they are told what they believe about homosexuality by those who believe that legislation regarding homosexuality has to be changed.
The only evidence I have are myself and most people I have discussed homosexuality with. How about yourself Hope? Can we take it that if it weren't for various religious edicts you would be perfectly fine with making out with another man?
-
It's just how people tend to feel subjectively. Many heterosexuals have an inbuilt "disgust" at the idea of having sex with someone of the same sex. Probably homosexuals have an opposite tendency. It doesn't mean that there is something inherently disgusting about it or that cannot be overridden by culture. But as there is a significant difference in the relative numbers, this would be enough to bias tribal mores.
Then later this was probably picked up and codified by some religions.
In-built, or culturally ingrained? If it were ingrained we wouldn't expect to see civilisations and cultures around the world and through history that were quite accepting of it, and yet we do.
O.
-
It's just how people tend to feel subjectively. Many heterosexuals have an inbuilt "disgust" at the idea of having sex with someone of the same sex. Probably homosexuals have an opposite tendency. It doesn't mean that there is something inherently disgusting about it or that cannot be overridden by culture. But as there is a significant difference in the relative numbers, this would be enough to bias tribal mores.
Then later this was probably picked up and codified by some religions.
In-built, or culturally ingrained? If it were ingrained we wouldn't expect to see civilisations and cultures around the world and through history that were quite accepting of it, and yet we do.
O.
Even old cymrudinnion was up for some if it was two women to be watched.
-
No doubt that it could be "culturally ingrained", but I suspect that there is an in-built element. We evolved from and are still animals, and nearly all human morality can find its origins in instinctual disgust reactions of one kind or another.
In our washed, shaved, antiperspirant'd, deodorized then cologne'd world we've lost touch with our animal senses.
Even if it were fully in-built it doesn't mean that it wouldn't be accepted or tolerated, but might be treated, culturally, as an exception - eg as a third sex or parallel community. Even in ancient Greece it was fine for men as pederasty, but not really for adult partnership with our "equal marriage" concept.
Ancient peoples must have had pretty much the same discussions that we do, just with less known facts to hand.
-
No doubt that it could be "culturally ingrained", but I suspect that there is an in-built element. We evolved from and are still animals, and nearly all human morality can find its origins in instinctual disgust reactions of one kind or another.
In our washed, shaved, antiperspirant'd, deodorized then cologne'd world we've lost touch with our animal senses.
Firstly, that it's 'natural' doesn't make it right - I know you didn't make that claim, but it's worth remembering. Secondly, whether all 'morality' can be traced back to instinctive reactions is questionable - if that were the case we'd expect to see broadly the same moral precepts across all cultures, and we don't.
Even if it were fully in-built it doesn't mean that it wouldn't be accepted or tolerated, but might be treated, culturally, as an exception - eg as a third sex or parallel community. Even in ancient Greece it was fine for men as pederasty, but not really for adult partnership with our "equal marriage" concept.
Which makes my point - if homosexual activity were instinctively 'yuk', and embedded in morality because of that, it wouldn't be acceptable under certain circumstances in such a broad range of cultures. One or two, perhaps, would have special circumstances which culturally had emerged, but they would be isolated and, within that community, exceptional. This isn't the case.
O.
-
It's just how people tend to feel subjectively. Many heterosexuals have an inbuilt "disgust" at the idea of having sex with someone of the same sex.
Do you have any evidence for this assertion? I have yet to meet any such heterosexuals.
In fact, the heterosexuals I know are actually far more interested in working for things like childrens' rights, healthcare, trade justice, education and overseas aid, and only really take part in a debate like this when they are told what they believe about homosexuality by those who believe that legislation regarding homosexuality has to be changed.
Udayana wasn't talking about what people are interested in working for. She/he (sorry I don't know) was talking about peoples feelings. Talk about tangents that aren't relevant.
From Hope -
Quote - In fact, the heterosexuals I know are actually far more interested in working for things like childrens' rights, healthcare, trade justice, education and overseas aid . . . - Unquote
Holy Moley, does no-one you know do a normal job of work instead of things that they can boast about to show that they are 'more socially aware than thou!'
-
From Hope -
Quote - In fact, the heterosexuals I know are actually far more interested in working for things like childrens' rights, healthcare, trade justice, education and overseas aid . . . - Unquote
Holy Moley, does no-one you know do a normal job of work instead of things that they can boast about to show that they are 'more socially aware than thou!'
Often these activities are part of their normal, everyday jobs - such as healthcare, education, business and the like. One doesn't have to separate normal work and these activities.
-
From Hope -
Quote - In fact, the heterosexuals I know are actually far more interested in working for things like childrens' rights, healthcare, trade justice, education and overseas aid . . . - Unquote
Holy Moley, does no-one you know do a normal job of work instead of things that they can boast about to show that they are 'more socially aware than thou!'
Often these activities are part of their normal, everyday jobs - such as healthcare, education, business and the like. One doesn't have to separate normal work and these activities.
You didn't say that! And you make it sound like every single hetero that you know works in these areas exclusively.
-
This link (if it lets you past the NS firewall) is about a general link between "disgust" and moral judgement:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21528731-800-the-yuck-factor-the-surprising-power-of-disgust/
and has further links to a couple of relevant papers, eg:
http://www.yale.edu/minddevlab/papers/DS_Gay.pdf
I agree it's not definitive and that something being "natural" doesn't make it any more right or wrong. But I think it is of interest in trying to work out why people behave in one way or another. And, indeed, it is as natural to be gay as straight anyway.
Elsewhere, I expect there are studies showing differences in response to pheromones between straights and gays.
-
Hmm - Straights and gays.
All human males and all human females are physically capable of same sex sexual activity. The physical responses to sexual stimulation in human males and females are the same regardless of which sex the person providing the stimulation is.
Quite some time back, I forget how far, experiments were undertaken in the States during which males and females were sexually stimiulated by both males and females.
Tests were crried out and responses measured.
In the first series of tests the person being stimulated was blindfolded so that they were not aware of the sex of the person stimulating them. The results showed that the intensity of the reaction was far greater when the stimulation was proviided by a person of the same sex.
The tests were then repeated without the blindfolds and quite a few of those being stimulated balked when it came to same sex stimulation despite the fact that they had reacted more tio such stimulatioin when blindfolded. This information was not passed on to the subjects.
This would seem to suggest that revulsion to same sex activity is more a case of nurture rather than nature.
-
mmm .. Great, I'll just have to give a try next time then! ;D
-
In fact, the heterosexuals I know are actually far more interested in working for things like childrens' rights, healthcare, trade justice, education and overseas aid, and only really take part in a debate like this when they are told what they believe about homosexuality by those who believe that legislation regarding homosexuality has to be changed.
Lets try how this sounds.
In fact, the white people I know are actually far more interested in working for things like childrens' rights, healthcare, trade justice, education and overseas aid, and only really take part in a debate like this when they are told what they believe about rac e by those who believe that legislation regarding race has to be changed.
Do you see how bad this sounds Hopalong?
-
What a dishonest, cheap, underhanded and dirty thing you did there Jakie. How childish and pathetic to muddy things with your gutter tabloid approach.
-
What a dishonest, cheap, underhanded and dirty thing you did there Jakie. How childish and pathetic to muddy things with your gutter tabloid approach.
Not as cheap as dragging Venables into the argument though.
-
Yes, people really need to leave the Venable alone. They hate being dragged around I hear.
This is low, even for you, so I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you have no idea who the Venables mentioned is.
Jon Venables was one of two 10 year old boys who abducted a two year old boy, James Bulger, took him to a disused railway cutting and brutally tortured and murdered him.
Venables was released in 2001, but returned to prison in 2010 on charges relating to child pornography.
May I now suggect that you delete your message!
-
Thanks Matty,
You are quite correct. I never heard that word before and looked it up and took it to be about an accident prone gangster. And like the moderators, i don't read every post. In this case I'm glad you gave me a heads up about this.
My apologies to trent.
-
What a dishonest, cheap, underhanded and dirty thing you did there Jakie. How childish and pathetic to muddy things with your gutter tabloid approach.
In what way is it dishonest?
-
What a dishonest, cheap, underhanded and dirty thing you did there Jakie. How childish and pathetic to muddy things with your gutter tabloid approach.
In what way is it dishonest?
Anything that anyone says that JC disagrees with MUST, by that definition be dishonest or a lie.
-
Matt,
JC did apologise above for one of his misunderstandings. I think it important to acknowledge that.
-
Thanks Matty,
You are quite correct. I never heard that word before and looked it up and took it to be about an accident prone gangster. And like the moderators, i don't read every post. In this case I'm glad you gave me a heads up about this.
My apologies to trent.
Thanks for that - please do me a favour, offer a prayer for Jamie Bulger's family sometime, huh!
-
I don't think our nation's ever come to terms with what happened to that little boy. Which makes it all the more sick of Hope to bring it into this discussion.
-
Dearest Matty,
Tell me about that family, how they are doing and so on. I don't know them nor have I heard their name before. Do you really want me to pray for them? What specifically do they need prayer over? Have they told you they need prayer. Are you praying daily for them?
-
Dearest Matty,
Tell me about that family, how they are doing and so on. I don't know them nor have I heard their name before. Do you really want me to pray for them? What specifically do they need prayer over? Have they told you they need prayer. Are you praying daily for them?
I don't know whether anyone else will share my views here, but I think that one of the tragedies of the Jamie Bulger affair was the way in which Mrs Bulger was trapped by and manipulated by the Murdoch press.
She should have been given the time, space and opportunity to grieve and come to terms with the loss of her child, receiving whatever help she required. Instead every time any story with even the slightest relevence to Jamie's death, she was dragged out, asked for her views and opinions and comments and given every opportunity to revisit her own tragedy for the benefit of the despicable redtops, in particular the Sun.
I believe the family fell apart.
The legal establishment didn't behave much better either. The two 10 year old boys were demonised and became public objects of hatred. When they were transported to courts, large crowds gathered and behaved in threatening and potentially dangerous fashions. They were tried in an adult court using adult criteria of guilt and eventually named. They were then given anonimity for life and served prison sentences.
My opinion is that everything that could have been handled badly in an exptremely sensitive legal situation was handled appallingly.
-
Lets try how this sounds.
In fact, the white people I know are actually far more interested in working for things like childrens' rights, healthcare, trade justice, education and overseas aid, and only really take part in a debate like this when they are told what they believe about rac e by those who believe that legislation regarding race has to be changed.
Do you see how bad this sounds Hopalong?
It sounds very much like the type of thing that you would suggest that another poster has said in order to make it appear that what they say is invalid.
-
Dearest Matty,
Tell me about that family, how they are doing and so on. I don't know them nor have I heard their name before. Do you really want me to pray for them? What specifically do they need prayer over? Have they told you they need prayer. Are you praying daily for them?
The family split up not long after they had another child.
-
Dearest Matty,
Tell me about that family, how they are doing and so on. I don't know them nor have I heard their name before. Do you really want me to pray for them? What specifically do they need prayer over? Have they told you they need prayer. Are you praying daily for them?
I don't know whether anyone else will share my views here, but I think that one of the tragedies of the Jamie Bulger affair was the way in which Mrs Bulger was trapped by and manipulated by the Murdoch press.
She should have been given the time, space and opportunity to grieve and come to terms with the loss of her child, receiving whatever help she required. Instead every time any story with even the slightest relevence to Jamie's death, she was dragged out, asked for her views and opinions and comments and given every opportunity to revisit her own tragedy for the benefit of the despicable redtops, in particular the Sun.
I believe the family fell apart.
The legal establishment didn't behave much better either. The two 10 year old boys were demonised and became public objects of hatred. When they were transported to courts, large crowds gathered and behaved in threatening and potentially dangerous fashions. They were tried in an adult court using adult criteria of guilt and eventually named. They were then given anonimity for life and served prison sentences.
My opinion is that everything that could have been handled badly in an exptremely sensitive legal situation was handled appallingly.
I agree. Even your post gives away something of that - apparently his family never called him 'Jamie'.
Don't forget there was also the first boy arrested by mistake who was almost lynched by a mob outside his home.