Bullying - What Can Be Done? - Page 18 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 05-05-2012, 01:51 PM   #256
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 08:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel View Post
Except nobody has said such a thing. Certainly technology doesn't make us wiser, we have it, but we have used it for just as many stupid things as we have for brilliant ones (though I would also note that every generation will likely find its innovations proof of its improvement over past generations, this attitude would be nothing new for those who do have such a thing). I have every single respect for people who are able to maintain simpler lifestyles.

All we're saying is that it seems a bit odd to use a book from 2,000 years ago to rule every aspect of our lives today. Certainly there are some lessons that matter to this day, but we're still using it today to legislate whether or not two people of the same sex can be married. We used it to legislate whether people of different races could mix. We used it to make women seem second class and subservient to their husbands, and to freak out over women's health issues (menstruation, pregnancy, hormonal stuff, etc.) that people of the eras the book was written in did not have any scientific basis for understanding. And so on. You should be able to see where this would pose a bit of a problem in our current culture, right?

You can learn from and respect the past in some sense, yes, but there is a reason why we have moved on from that time period. There is a reason why the culture of 2,000 years ago changed or died away. Because a new way of doing things and understanding things happened with each generation that followed. Thousands of years from now people will be doing things drastically different from what we do today. Things change. They always have and always will. And if they're detrimental changes, they should be dealt with, but some of them are not problematic at all, they're just the result of people learning more and understanding things better.



I was speaking in a general society sense, but I just find it bizarre in this day and age that we still have to have a debate over whether or not a 2,000 plus year old document should be the main basis for everyone living their lives today in terms of sexuality. Christians can model their sexual mores on the Bible all they wish, I don't care, but why do some of those same Christians think I need to follow suit? Why should I listen to the words of men from thousands of years ago who didn't have the first clue what the hell went on in my body during my time of the month, or didn't have a proper understanding of homosexuality, or thought you'd be punished by God for masturbating, or whatever?



There is a difference between a belief and flat out repeating falsehoods. If you believe there is an afterlife, for instance, I cannot disprove that for certain, and you cannot prove that for certain. So you are entitled to believe an afterlife of some sort exists, just as I'd be entitled to believe it doesn't. Neither side is automatically right or wrong, and we'll find out the answer when the time comes.

But if you sit there and say, for instance, that the sun revolves around the Earth, and the evidence is there to clearly prove you wrong, but you keep insisting it to be true anyway, either knowingly or unknowingly, then yes, you should be called out on your ignorance. Or stupidity. Or bullshit. Or whatever term you wish to use.

When facts stare you in the face and you refuse to acknowledge them, you do need to be called out on it.



I think we got onto that specific topic because of the original issue, which is bullying, and the fact that gay kids are getting a pretty good amount of bullying of late. Parents who won't accept them, kids at school who taunt them and harass them, politicians willing to make laws that discriminate against them, and being proud to do so, no less, schools being denied the opportunity to talk about the subject at all, thus adding to the idea that homosexuality is something that is shameful and mustn't be spoken of.

And what is one of the big reasons so many of those things are happening? Because those very people are using a Bible to justify such actions. So yeah, pardon Dan Savage for calling those people out and showing them just how insane and hurtful and damaging their attitudes are. Children are hurting and killing themselves because someone felt the need to beat it into their heads that the Bible says who they are is wrong and they should "repent" and "change their ways" otherwise they're committing some sort of horrific sin against God.

That is most definitely bullshit of the highest order, that mindset. And if someone's offended by him calling it that? Too bad. What they say is just as offensive, so I guess we're even, then.



That is not what he's calling "bullshit". Agh. Many would argue that those are indeed worthwhile values.

What he's protesting is this idea that only good religious people have that attitude. That if you're not Christian, somehow clearly this means you're all for sleeping with whomever you want without any consequences or control. That if you're a good Christian you'll be against sex outside of marriage, or homosexuality, or birth control, or masturbation, or "uncontrolled lust", whatever that means, or whatever other sorts of things "good Christians" don't do (and by the way, don't kid yourself, many of them have done, are doing, or will do most, if not all, of those things at some point).

Allow me to illustrate my point for you personally. As I've said, I am not a Christian. But here's a possible shocker for you: my sex life would be about as conservative as it comes! I haven't "been with" anyone, so to speak. No one specific reason as to why, it just hasn't happened for me yet. I prefer a monogamous relationship when I do date. I'm not big on the idea of sleeping with someone I'm not in a relationship with. This is how I personally wish to live my life.

HOWEVER, I don't care if other people do things differently in regards to their sex lives, because it's really none of my damned business. I don't see anything wrong with homosexuality. I think gay couples should be allowed to get married, and raise children, if they so wish. If you want to experiment with different sexual activities, if you don't want to get married, if you do the one night stand thing, whatever, go for it. I. Don't. Care.

The only things I ever care about in relation to sexuality and society are that everyone is safe and responsible when they have sex (using protection, getting tested for diseases, proper education on whatever sexual activities they're doing, etc.), are of legal age, and fully consenting. Beyond that, believe me, I have WAY more important, pressing things in my life to worry about than whether or not someone's involved in a threesome, or a gay couple is sleeping together, or a couple has an open relationship, or whatever. And I find it incredibly bizarre that so many people out there DO care so intently about such things, and that they use a centuries old book to legislate what people do in the privacy of their bedrooms. Those who do such things might want to learn the art of minding their own business. And if they're going to sit there and pass judgment, fine, that is their right, but then they shouldn't be surprised or complain when people turn around and do it to them in return (again, "eye for an eye", remember? As the Bible itself would say?), or demand a logical reason as to WHY they shouldn't do what they're doing. Especially if those doing the judging falter in their "good Christian" path and do some of the very things they told others they shouldn't do.

We're human. We're not perfect. Some would do well to remember this.
I concur with your premise but I'd add that natural law doesn't come with an expiration date. Most religions and societies throughout time have had laws against murder, stealing and lying. They all address marriage in some way too. Societies and laws evolve with time and that includes marriage. So I don't see defense of traditional marriage as clinging to 2,000 year-old dogma but rather recognizing what has served Western civilization well for 2,000 years and hesitating to redefine it without considering the ramifications.

The concepts of human rights and individual autonomy have evolved as well. I cherish that I live in a country that is always balancing the scales between the individual right to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness," and the need for social cohesion and the right to self-determination.

So, what do I mean by ramifications. Let's fast forward out of the Old Testament, past chastity belts, the Victorian era and getting to 2nd base with Mary Lou at the drive-in in your dad's 1957 Thunderbird. To heck with Disney flicks let's sneak into our first R rated movie, "The Sexual Revolution of the Sixties."

It certainly wasn't our first flirtation with loosening our sexual mores and books have been written on the subject--and I'm glad my puberty occurred post-revolution -- but isn't it fair to point out that society, in may ways, is worse off for it? That perhaps we threw out the baby with the bath-water (literally in the case of 54 million abortions since 1973). That many of our current problems stem in no small way from the liberation of society from the "hang-ups" of previous generations about sex. That we have guardrails and social stigmas on human behavior for good reason in many cases. That because, in hindsight, we moved too fast we all now pay a cost for the sharp increases in teen pregnancy, STD's, pornography addiction and out-of-wedlock births? That marriage behavior was also changed as people married later and divorce became easier.

Now we all could name the pill, women entering the workforce in large numbers, removal of censorship laws, inter-racial marriage and other changes as good things. And a lot was going on in the 60's & 70's, I don't mean to simplify this but, as I say, books have been written. My points:

1) Often there is wisdom in tradition.
2) Change should be informed by experience, have a purpose and be able to withstand deliberation.
3) A reasonless defense of the status quo is no defense but neither is advocating change that fails to preserve and improve society.
__________________

__________________
INDY500 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2012, 02:50 PM   #257
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 09:10 PM
What does any of that have to do with gay people and their right to get married?

People were gay before the 1960s.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2012, 04:11 PM   #258
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 09:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
That because, in hindsight, we moved too fast we all now pay a cost for the sharp increases in teen pregnancy, STD's, pornography addiction and out-of-wedlock births?
Of course you, a straight, white Christian male, would think that "we" moved too fast.

For the rest of us who may be non-white, female, gay, bisexual, transgendered, in interracial relationships or bearing interracial children, single by choice, common-law by choice that progress has a considerably more personal impact.
__________________
anitram is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2012, 04:12 PM   #259
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 09:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
What does any of that have to do with gay people and their right to get married?

People were gay before the 1960s.
Not if being gay is a "choice" or a "lifestyle" as has been commonly cited here. Then ya'all decided to be gay when it became the in thing to do (made so by evil Hollywood, of course).
__________________
anitram is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2012, 05:16 PM   #260
ONE
love, blood, life
 
digitize's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Dallas and around the Texas Triangle
Posts: 13,966
Local Time: 08:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
So I don't see defense of traditional marriage as clinging to 2,000 year-old dogma but rather recognizing what has served Western civilization well for 2,000 years and hesitating to redefine it without considering the ramifications.
It may have served people like you (and me) well for two thousand years, but it's absurd to say that it and the view of homosexuality associated with it have not caused strife for many, many people over the years.
__________________
digitize is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2012, 05:46 PM   #261
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 09:10 PM
Syphilis was much more of a 19th century issue, yes? Abortions have happened forever, and far fewer women have died getting abortions since 1973, yes?
__________________
Irvine511 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2012, 05:47 PM   #262
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 08:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
What does any of that have to do with gay people and their right to get married?
Let me put it this way. Since the sixties we've moved, for the better I'd argue, more behavior into the sphere of None Of Your Business. But that doesn't remove the sphere of public policy or Hey Wait A Minute, and when private behavior seeks to determine or change public policy those affected have the right to say "Hey wait a minute," don't they? I say debate is healthy. We both get to influence policy and we both get to yell "Hey wait a minute" now and then.

Sandra Fluke has the right to be as sexually active as she wishes but when she asks others to pay her $3,000 (her number) contraception bill I think, Rush's asinine comment aside, he and others have every right to say "Hey wait a minute!"

What does it have to do with gay people? If you want to make religious teachings or insulting speech against homosexuals a "hate crime" I think I get to say, "Hey wait a minute." The same for changes in public education policy that would introduce homosexuality to an age group I might deem inappropriate. And I think I can recognize your individual rights and Equal Protection rights though civil unions while preserving the uniqueness of marriage as between a man and a woman.

My "side" has its share of idiots I know but I can't help but think you might not be 0-30, or whatever it is, on ballots if there were less Dan Savage's advocating for gays and more Irvines. Thanks for your civility.
__________________
INDY500 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2012, 06:34 PM   #263
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 09:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
without considering the ramifications.
So now that you've danced around it for several posts, why don't you tell us what the ramifications will be if gay people get married
__________________
Jive Turkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2012, 06:35 PM   #264
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 03:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
I think I can recognize your individual rights and Equal Protection rights though civil unions while preserving the uniqueness of marriage as between a man and a woman.
And what does that uniqueness, which civil marriage must preserve, consist in? Since as you said, "A reasonless defense of the status quo is no defense."

The rationale I'm used to hearing is: historically marriage is associated with the bearing and raising of the biological children of the married couple, something gay couples by definition can't do. But the state doesn't require that (straight) married couples have only biological children, and indeed many (straight) married couples choose never to have children at all. So the 'nonprocreative' argument against same-sex civil marriage is an inherently unjust one, holding gay couples to a standard straight couples are not held to. What other reasoned arguments are there?
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2012, 06:37 PM   #265
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 09:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
would introduce homosexuality to an age group I might deem inappropriate.
Do you realize how completely retarded this is? When they teach kids about marriage, do they go into detail about the different ways a man and woman can fuck?
__________________
Jive Turkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2012, 06:43 PM   #266
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 09:10 PM
It's hard to accept that the need to "preserve the uniqueness" of something requires the denial of rights to a clear, specific, historically oppressed group.

As for the 0-30 talley, one can surely point to the rapidly changing polls and the tsunami of under-30 support, but even up to the 1980s I'd wager you'd see similar votes on interracial marriage.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2012, 06:47 PM   #267
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Pearl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 5,653
Local Time: 10:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
The same for changes in public education policy that would introduce homosexuality to an age group I might deem inappropriate.
You realize that there are plenty of young children out there with two moms or two dads? And those children have friends and schoolmates from more "traditional" environments? In other words, there are plenty of children who are aware of homosexuality and same-sex marriage, and are not ruined by it.

If you think it is inappropriate for a young child to know anything about same-sex relationships, what do you want done to those being raised by two moms or two dads? It wouldn't be right or fair for that child to be taken away from his or her parents just because someone is small-minded and/or hasn't moved with the times.

Face it, Indy. As Irvine once had on his sig, the world only spins forward. And you have a lot of catching up to do. Sorry the world isn't the way you want to be. Sorry the majority of people are increasingly seeing the world different than you. Sorry you apparently are in shock and denial over this. You might as well educate yourself, stop seeing homosexuality as a "lifestyle", and stop being left behind in the dust.
__________________
Pearl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2012, 07:21 PM   #268
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 09:10 PM
Admittedly, I was in first grade some 25 years ago but I seem to remember that there were pictures of different kinds of families in the books our teachers used. There was your nuclear family, the blended family, the single parent family (divorced or not), the extended family (that included grandparents and the like), the adopted family, the family where the kids were being raised by a more distant relative, etc.

So what is the problem with adding a photo of kids and two men/women? It isn't as if that goes into detail about religious teachings, sexual positions or anything else that might be controversial? I don't ever recall INDY or anyone else here saying that there is an age at which it's inappropriate to introduce the notion of single parenthood to children, and that's as contrary to Biblical principles...
__________________
anitram is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2012, 09:42 PM   #269
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 03:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jive Turkey View Post
Do you realize how completely retarded this is?
Please don't use this term towards another member. Especially for those of us who are 40ish or older and grew up having pounded into our heads never to use that word, it's really offensive.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2012, 09:50 PM   #270
Acrobat
 
ladyfreckles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Seattle
Posts: 402
Local Time: 07:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yolland View Post
Please don't use this term towards another member. Especially for those of us who are 40ish or older and grew up having pounded into our heads never to use that word, it's really offensive.
I'm not anywhere near 40 and I'm offended by that word.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pearl View Post
You realize that there are plenty of young children out there with two moms or two dads? And those children have friends and schoolmates from more "traditional" environments? In other words, there are plenty of children who are aware of homosexuality and same-sex marriage, and are not ruined by it.

If you think it is inappropriate for a young child to know anything about same-sex relationships, what do you want done to those being raised by two moms or two dads? It wouldn't be right or fair for that child to be taken away from his or her parents just because someone is small-minded and/or hasn't moved with the times.
I've known about homosexuality since I was around 6-7 years old. I didn't find it inappropriate. It didn't mess me up. My grandmother also gave me "the talk" when I was about five years old, and I turned out relatively okay. I'm very conservative sexually and learning about sex in detail at a young age had zero effect on that whatsoever.
__________________

__________________
ladyfreckles is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:10 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com