Author Topic: Neoconservatism  (Read 42241 times)

Heradel

  • Bill Peters, EP Assistant
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 2938
  • Part-Time Psychopomp.
Reply #75 on: April 03, 2007, 01:02:47 AM
Homosexuality is not a religious subject.  It's a human behavior that verifiably exists and is a fit subject for study in a psychology, sociology, biology, or health class.

What on Earth is there to study on that particular subject?  I wouldn't want children having any sexual education from any Institution.  My experience is that schools teach sex, without any thoughts of love, responsibility or consequence.  Way too cold. 

Oi, in heath/science class yeah, because they're dealing with the physicality and grim realities of the situations. And from my experience, they do focus on the responsibility and consequences more than a bit. The love part, well, that's for English class to teach.

I Twitter. I also occasionally blog on the Escape Pod blog, which if you're here you shouldn't have much trouble finding.


SFEley

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 1408
    • Escape Artists, Inc.
Reply #76 on: April 09, 2007, 03:52:56 AM
What on Earth is there to study on that particular subject?  I wouldn't want children having any sexual education from any Institution.  My experience is that schools teach sex, without any thoughts of love, responsibility or consequence.  Way too cold.

Then maybe the answer isn't to ignore sex, but to address the related issues more deeply.

The downside of having no formal education on these topics is that all of what human beings learn about sex, relationships, and the ethics of intimacy is going to come from oral lore: from their peers, parents, and (sometimes) religious advisors.  The problem with this is that the quality of the information is unreliable.  These groups should all have input, but many parents are dangerously ignorant about sex and relationships; peers almost always are; and religions are wildly variable in their emphasis on the health of the individual.

These topics are all studied, and studied well.  But most people don't know that.  Giving young people access to good information about sex and relationships in real life can only help by giving everyone a common foundation.  Peers, parents, and religions can then serve as adjuncts, examples, and interpretive guides.  They needn't be the only sources.


Almost with you there. Rather than "empathize" I would say, "understand".  Your version suggests some agreement.  If you agree with everyone your in a world of confusion.

I don't agree that empathy connotes agreement.  I think it's fully possible to empathize with someone, to know where they're coming from and what their problems are, and still object to how they responded to them.

ESCAPE POD - The Science Fiction Podcast Magazine


Michael

  • Peltast
  • ***
  • Posts: 130
Reply #77 on: April 11, 2007, 09:08:05 AM
Quote
I don't agree that empathy connotes agreement.  I think it's fully possible to empathize with someone, to know where they're coming from and what their problems are, and still object to how they responded to them.

Many people confuse the words empathy and sympathy.  You can understand a persons position without having "feelings of favor, support, or loyalty" for that position.  My job is to be empathetic rather than sympathetic.   



Bdoomed

  • Pseudopod Tiger
  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5891
  • Mmm. Tiger.
Reply #78 on: April 18, 2007, 04:00:02 AM
The downside of having no formal education on these topics is that all of what human beings learn about sex, relationships, and the ethics of intimacy is going to come from oral lore: from their peers, parents, and (sometimes) religious advisors.  The problem with this is that the quality of the information is unreliable.  These groups should all have input, but many parents are dangerously ignorant about sex and relationships; peers almost always are; and religions are wildly variable in their emphasis on the health of the individual.

These topics are all studied, and studied well.  But most people don't know that.  Giving young people access to good information about sex and relationships in real life can only help by giving everyone a common foundation.  Peers, parents, and religions can then serve as adjuncts, examples, and interpretive guides.  They needn't be the only sources.
Hmm... personally, most of the sex-education ive recieved has been completely useless to me.  The only sex ed. class in which i kind of learned something was in 5th grade in elementry school, and back then, that was the last thing i cared about.  After that, all the highschool sex ed was just repeating stuff i already knew from convorsations.  Maybe i just have more common sense than other people my age, and dont fool around like everyone else. (im a good kid... i dont WANT to be but i am)
And yes. Sometimes, when my kids pray to themselves, either the teacher interrupts them with something or the kids tease them.
now, personally i dont care about prayer.  at my school we have a moment of silence after the pledge, but i have never seen anyone pray (maybe there are those who pray at my school but i dont see it).  Anyways, while it does not concern me whether people pray or not, it does kinda make me mad knowing that a teacher would interrupt a student during his/her time of prayer.  I understand the significance of prayer to some people, and that should be respected.  Teasing because of praying is even worse.  Those who tease are most likely Christian as well, and they should be even MORE respectful to those who choose to pray.  There is a difference between not believing in another's lifestyle and bullying them about it.

This also applies to gays.  I cant say i believe in their lifestyle, but i dont abhor it, i pretty much just dont care.  If yer gay, yer gay, i dont need to know, and if i do know, live and let live.  This is really the only thing i have against certain religious groups.  I dont like the people who say that being gay, athiest, whatever, is wrong.  Its not wrong, its a state of being, and everyone has the right to their own life.  being gay is NOT a choice, it has been scientifically, psychologically, and common sense-ly proven so. (and if ya thing being gay is terrible, food for thought: most everyone in ancient Greece and Rome slept with young boys... now sleepin with young boys is gross, im sure all of us agree on that, but hey, look at what theyve accomplished)  being an athiest or whatever is a choice.  no one HAS to believe in a higher power.  no one HAS to believe in anything.  personally, I've given up religion, yet i still believe in God. (i believe the actual correct term for that is infidel... doesnt sound too great of a name... damn you Islamic extremists!)  I just figure that i dont need a religion to govern how i believe in God, ill do that on my own terms.

And there is a big gap between empathetic and sympathetic.  It is one thing to understand someone and what they believe.  its another thing to care or support that belief.  I can empathize with someone who killed his wife because she cheated on him, but i'd be damned if i sympathize with him.

I'd like to hear my options, so I could weigh them, what do you say?
Five pounds?  Six pounds? Seven pounds?


RichGarner

  • Palmer
  • **
  • Posts: 73
  • Metalface Creator
    • Metalface RPG
Reply #79 on: April 18, 2007, 04:52:26 PM
And yes. Sometimes, when my kids pray to themselves, either the teacher interrupts them with something or the kids tease them.
now, personally i dont care about prayer.  at my school we have a moment of silence after the pledge, but i have never seen anyone pray (maybe there are those who pray at my school but i dont see it).  Anyways, while it does not concern me whether people pray or not, it does kinda make me mad knowing that a teacher would interrupt a student during his/her time of prayer.  I understand the significance of prayer to some people, and that should be respected.  Teasing because of praying is even worse.  Those who tease are most likely Christian as well, and they should be even MORE respectful to those who choose to pray.  There is a difference between not believing in another's lifestyle and bullying them about it.

This also applies to gays.  I cant say i believe in their lifestyle, but i dont abhor it, i pretty much just dont care.  If yer gay, yer gay, i dont need to know, and if i do know, live and let live.  This is really the only thing i have against certain religious groups.  I dont like the people who say that being gay, athiest, whatever, is wrong.  Its not wrong, its a state of being, and everyone has the right to their own life.  being gay is NOT a choice, it has been scientifically, psychologically, and common sense-ly proven so. (and if ya thing being gay is terrible, food for thought: most everyone in ancient Greece and Rome slept with young boys... now sleepin with young boys is gross, im sure all of us agree on that, but hey, look at what theyve accomplished)  being an athiest or whatever is a choice.  no one HAS to believe in a higher power.  no one HAS to believe in anything.  personally, I've given up religion, yet i still believe in God. (i believe the actual correct term for that is infidel... doesnt sound too great of a name... damn you Islamic extremists!)  I just figure that i dont need a religion to govern how i believe in God, ill do that on my own terms.

And there is a big gap between empathetic and sympathetic.  It is one thing to understand someone and what they believe.  its another thing to care or support that belief.  I can empathize with someone who killed his wife because she cheated on him, but i'd be damned if i sympathize with him.

I agree... to a point. But I subscribe to the thinking that there is a difference in "being" homosexual, and "practicing" homosexuality.

If I were a pedophile, I would have a natural desire in little children. Sleeping with them, touching them, hurting them... whatever. Now I can CHOOSE to ignore these desires and maybe only entertain them in thought or fantasy. Or I can CHOOSE to follow them and try to fulfill my desires. Which choice do you think would be best? Best for me? Best for society?

Now, I completely understand that homosexuals cannot be fairly compared to pedophiles... a gay relationship is based on trust between consenting adults. I get it. But the idea of allowing desires to define who we are is wrong in my mind... no matter what the desires are.

We all have desires that could be harmful if left unchecked. Some of us have dangerous or even deadly desires. Some of us have more peaceful and nurturing desires. But I believe that if we allow our desires to define us, we lose our identify... possibly even our soul.

My 6.5 cents.

"...for death is the destiny of every man; the living should take this to heart." -Ecclesiastes 7:2


Heradel

  • Bill Peters, EP Assistant
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 2938
  • Part-Time Psychopomp.
Reply #80 on: April 18, 2007, 06:49:38 PM
I agree... to a point. But I subscribe to the thinking that there is a difference in "being" homosexual, and "practicing" homosexuality.

If I were a pedophile, I would have a natural desire in little children. Sleeping with them, touching them, hurting them... whatever. Now I can CHOOSE to ignore these desires and maybe only entertain them in thought or fantasy. Or I can CHOOSE to follow them and try to fulfill my desires. Which choice do you think would be best? Best for me? Best for society?

Now, I completely understand that homosexuals cannot be fairly compared to pedophiles... a gay relationship is based on trust between consenting adults. I get it. But the idea of allowing desires to define who we are is wrong in my mind... no matter what the desires are.

We all have desires that could be harmful if left unchecked. Some of us have dangerous or even deadly desires. Some of us have more peaceful and nurturing desires. But I believe that if we allow our desires to define us, we lose our identify... possibly even our soul.

My 6.5 cents.

Well, I live in NYC. I look out the window around the Columbus Circle area and I'm easily seeing over a thousand people. I'd argue that propagation of the species isn't really as big a deal anymore. And at this point, with the large numbers of unadopted orphans (ignoring the no-gay-adoption arguments, which I find unconvincing), married/civil union-'ed gay couples that adopt can help make a dent in that population and I think we'd all rather have that than have the state raising them (not to belittle the workers in the state system).

Society is more complex these days than it was back in biblical times. Modern medicine, capitalist systems, exponentially increased global population (less than a fourth billion at the time of Christ versus 7 billion these days), and global communications. Relationships for love's sake and not for procreation are permissible, and in light of possible overpopulation, desirable in a percentage of the population.

You're saying it's not fair to homosexuals to liken then to pedophiles, but your argument rests on the "desire" which the pedophile feels, and which is bad for society. Then you start talking about gay desires, which reads to me to imply a link between the two desires in terms of their relative badness. Honestly, even if you do say that it's not fair, it doesn't absolve you of the fact that it really does seem like you're doing it anyway.

As for desires... I desire female companionship. I don't let that desire define me, but I do have a girlfriend who I love. My desire/attraction doesn't define me, but I don't ignore it either. Gay men/women desire members of their own sex. I've known more than a few, and I've never met one that's whole existence was based on their desire for members of the same sex.

Honestly, I think the loss of a soul would be quicker done by the ignoring of that desire and attempting to redefine themselves against an external coda rather than what is in them.

I don't think their desire is a dangerous one, nor is it an evil one. Judeo-Christian literalism does. It was also written a minimum of about 1600 years ago, and human society has gone through some fundamental changes since then. Some of the sayings in the bible are timeless(thou shalt not kill, love thy neighbor), and some aren't(slavery). But the inability to reevaluate old teachings against the modern world is one of the more troubling parts of any form of fundamentalism.

Back in those days, it's arguable that slavery was good and homosexuality was bad for society. These days?

I Twitter. I also occasionally blog on the Escape Pod blog, which if you're here you shouldn't have much trouble finding.


RichGarner

  • Palmer
  • **
  • Posts: 73
  • Metalface Creator
    • Metalface RPG
Reply #81 on: April 18, 2007, 11:22:57 PM
Good points.

As for slavery these days... I don't know. Some would argue that working for Sony or Electronic Arts constitutes slavery.

As for the rest. I guess as a true Christian (one who considers Jesus to be Lord of my life and not just a term to throw around to sound good), it obvious that I do not condone the act of homosexuality any more than pedophilia. But my point was simply to state that I do not judge a person to be bad or good regardless of their lifestyle. I have a few gay friends and they know that I stand up for my beliefs. But they also know that I am their friend and that will never change.

The fact is that desires CAN lead to self delusion. And, in my opinion, there is a Christian fundamental teaching that says certain desires are morally wrong. The difference is that if a person neither follows Christian fundamental teaching nor desires to learn about Christian fundamental teaching, that 'morally wrong' desire is suddenly an acceptable lifestyle decision.

It's completely in the power of the individual. But one should never underestimate the deceptive nature of one's own desires.

Gee. I don't preach this much at church. I should stop before I need to take up a collection.

"...for death is the destiny of every man; the living should take this to heart." -Ecclesiastes 7:2


SFEley

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 1408
    • Escape Artists, Inc.
Reply #82 on: April 18, 2007, 11:41:25 PM
Now, I completely understand that homosexuals cannot be fairly compared to pedophiles...

And yet you had to go there anyway.

This discussion is over.  Locked.  Any complaints, you know how to PM me.

ESCAPE POD - The Science Fiction Podcast Magazine