Bullying - What Can Be Done?

[indra]

Originally Posted by ladyfreckles

Processed foods were a godsend when they first came out. They didn't expire right away, resulting in food being more affordable and lasting longer for people. Art is art. I think they'd say "that's progress" to the fact that people are no longer dying of colds, starvation, or a lack of hygiene. They'd say "that's progress" to the streets no longer reeking of urine and feces. They'd say "that's progress" to the fact that women now rarely die in child birth, you no longer have to walk 10 hours to find food, and people now live over twice as long. They would definitely think our technological advances were progress, considering I can now communicate with people all over the world at the push of a button.

The fact is, they couldn't deliver their own babies. They had to have many children because most of them died shortly after being born. Women died in childbirth all the time. I think it's insulting to the women who want to have a doctor there to check the health of their baby that you think they "can't" give birth on their own. Tons of people can and do grow their own food today. Why do people not do this? Because we don't need to, thanks to technology. If you have a strong passion for it, you're in the business of providing for others.

Most of their homes are crumbling ruins and barely provided shelter as it was. We have architects today to make homes more functional. We no longer have to do these things unless we want to, and if we want to, we can. I view this as progress. Yes, many people of today are spoiled, but I'd rather live in a spoiled society than one where girls are forced to start having kids at the age of thirteen because we all died painful deaths at a young age from famine and disease.

Don't view the past through rose colored lenses.

I'll add yet another "Hell yeah!!"

[Moonlit_Angel]

Originally Posted by INDY500

The pretentiousness to think our technology and education alone makes us "wiser" than previous generations I find very off-putting.

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.

Originally Posted by INDY500

What discussion? It's FYM going off in a tangent over something nobody has said.

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?

Originally Posted by INDY500

That's not an endorsement of Old Testament legalism (that I've previously mentioned Christ rendered obsolete for his followers). But just because I don't proscribe to those laws I'm not condescending enough, historian or anthropologist enough to flatly judge their beliefs as "bullshit."

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.

Originally Posted by INDY500

Doesn't stop Dan Savage and y'all though !!

Dan Savage was talking about, "the bullshit of ...menstruation, virginity, masturbation... in the Bible" all off which fall into the category of human sexuality. So how does this become just about homosexuality?

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.

Originally Posted by INDY500

The Bible has a lot to say about sexuality. It tells me that sexuality is sacred. A gift from God. That's bullshit? The Bible teaches me the importance of faithfulness. Is that a bad thing? It talks about the dangers of uncontrolled lust. Is that not without merit? And yes, billions of people over thousands of years have lived very happy lives following this "bullshit."

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.

Originally Posted by INDY500

The Dan Savages of the word have nothing but contempt for moral absolutes. He claims to have the knowledge of moral bullshit and non-bullshit -- of good and evil. The Bible teaches about that too.

Yes, it does. Doesn't mean its take on the subject is automatically right any more than Dan Savage's take is.

Adding to the to ladyfreckles' post.

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Wonder what they'd think of processed foods, modern art, restless leg syndrome, 2,000 page bills that no one reads before passing or people so tethered by a digital umbilical cord to their electronic devices they suffer from separation anxiety at the thought of being without it for 5 minutes. I think they'd say, "That's progress?"

And call them stupid but they could sew their own clothes, grow their own food, deliver their own babies, build their own houses, make their own wine, forge a weapon or tool and construct a boat or wagon.

How many of those can you do?

The pretentiousness to think our technology and education alone makes us "wiser" than previous generations I find very off-putting.

... says the guy on the internet.

[yolland]

Originally Posted by INDY500

But just because I don't proscribe to those laws I'm not condescending enough, historian or anthropologist enough to flatly judge their beliefs as "bullshit."

Doesn't stop Dan Savage and y'all though !!

Did you read the followup piece by Savage I posted, INDY? He acknowledged that saying "pansy-assed" was "insulting, name-calling and wrong." He acknowledged he'd made the same points previously himself without saying "bullshit," and that that would've been more effective here. He agrees with you that the pejorative approach was wrong. And Savage is emphatically not the type to dutifully dole out, er, "bullshit" insincere, mealy-mouthed nonapologies.

To return to one of his analogies: Is divorce condemned in the New Testament? Well, yes it is. Jesus deemed it a grave sin to divorce for any reason other than serious sexual misconduct, Paul additionally allowed it when one spouse became Christian and the other didn't. And does US law uphold that standard? Well, no it doesn't. Our state actively facilitates and participates in the dissolution of marriages for all kinds of other reasons, thus rejecting an obligation to uphold the Biblical view of marriage as understood by billions of people for thousands of years. Yet there's no organized resistance to this from American Christians that I'm aware of; indeed many by that description have availed themselves of the option. Apparently, grace and forgiveness trump the risk that we might be making a mockery of the Biblical view of marriage, as understood by billions of people for thousands of years, in allowing our state to uphold a broader view. And yet we have people out there objecting to efforts to prevent and punish antigay bullying on the grounds that it would violate the Biblical view of sexuality to grant gay people that protection?--Because that objection was, after all, the explicitly stated occasion for Savage's critique of hypocrisy.

Is it just that you feel the inclusion of a couple harsh words undermines the integrity of an otherwise fair enough argument to make? Or is it that you believe the words tellingly expose something uniquely dangerous or illegitimate in the argument itself? Because when you introduce the topic like this...

Originally Posted by INDY500

It get's better? Not like this.

It would be really nice if those preaching civility, tolerance, diversity, inclusiveness and all that were a tad better at practicing what they preach.

What a creep.

Originally Posted by INDY500

Dan Savage is a vicious, hateful religious bigot.

then accuse him of...

Originally Posted by INDY500

hiding behind homosexuality to bash the Bible

Originally Posted by INDY500

use his fame to misrepresent the Bible in an attempt to alienate Christians from their peers and diminish their belief system

...I find it difficult not to get the impression that your revulsion is about more than Savage's well-known penchant for profanity and confrontationality. You seem to hold against him that people might find his accusations of hypocrisy to have merit and thus adopt that argument as their own, believing that opposition to gay rights unacceptably harms and wrongs gay people. You seem indignant that his argument attracts sympathy at all, and it sure sounds like that's about more than the presence of a couple bad words.

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase

... says the guy on the internet.

... says the guy who practices modern medicine daily.

... says the guy whose forum name is taken from a 100 year-old race that showcases cutting-edge technology and innovation.

What a hoot. I love that a defense of ancient civilization as perhaps something more than "stupid" is taken as a Unibomber-type manifesto against technology and 21st century comforts.

By all means, keep the levity coming.

[digitize]

Originally Posted by INDY500

... says the guy who practices modern medicine daily.

... says the guy whose forum name is taken from a 100 year-old race that showcases cutting-edge technology and innovation.

What a hoot. I love that a defense of ancient civilization as perhaps something more than "stupid" is taken as a Unibomber-type manifesto against technology and 21st century comforts.

By all means, keep the levity coming.

I still really don't see the connection between any of this and your viewpoint on homosexuality.

[maycocksean]

Originally Posted by maycocksean

I think that this has been clarified by more than one poster since you asked this question. I hope you won't pretend it hasn't been clarified.

. . .but it appears you will.

Originally Posted by INDY500

What a hoot. I love that a defense of ancient civilization as perhaps something more than "stupid" is taken as a Unibomber-type manifesto against technology and 21st century comforts.

By all means, keep the levity coming.

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by yolland

To return to one of his analogies: Is divorce condemned in the New Testament? Well, yes it is. Jesus deemed it a grave sin to divorce for any reason other than serious sexual misconduct, Paul additionally allowed it when one spouse became Christian and the other didn't. And does US law uphold that standard? Well, no it doesn't. Our state actively facilitates and participates in the dissolution of marriages for all kinds of other reasons, thus rejecting an obligation to uphold the Biblical view of marriage as understood by billions of people for thousands of years. Yet there's no organized resistance to this from American Christians that I'm aware of; indeed many by that description have availed themselves of the option. Apparently, grace and forgiveness trump the risk that we might be making a mockery of the Biblical view of marriage, as understood by billions of people for thousands of years, in allowing our state to uphold a broader view. And yet we have people out there objecting to efforts to prevent and punish antigay bullying on the grounds that it would violate the Biblical view of sexuality to grant gay people that protection?--Because that objection was, after all, the explicitly stated occasion for Savage's critique of hypocrisy.

Well, any organized effort by Christians to change U.S. divorce laws now would surely be met with a "theocracy watch" thread here. Different denominations have handled the issue differently. Catholics still teach it is immoral I believe. But I'm glad most churches are sensitive to the pain of divorce and don't shun those in need of spiritual comfort.
When I post in the same-sex marriage thread I'm careful to point out that I defend traditional marriage just as strongly against the fronts of the rise of single-parent families, polygamy and divorce. It isn't homophobia.

And which denominations of Christianity or Judaism are granting their flock permission to bully gays?

...I find it difficult not to get the impression that your revulsion is about more than Savage's well-known penchant for profanity and confrontationality. You seem to hold against him that people might find his accusations of hypocrisy to have merit and thus adopt that argument as their own, believing that opposition to gay rights unacceptably harms and wrongs gay people. You seem indignant that his argument attracts sympathy at all, and it sure sounds like that's about more than the presence of a couple bad words.

You're very astute to pick up on that. I didn't see the need to go into the past of Dan Savage vs religious conservatives before but yes, my opinion of Dan Savage as an repulsive bigot goes much deeper than his recent rant.

For starters, feel free to google Dan Savage and:
Rick Santorum
Michele Bachman
Gary Bauer
Saddleback Church

Can you feel the love?

[INDY500]

Thanks for your response Moonlit Angel. You make your points very well and I'll respond Friday.

We agree on very little but if my vote is to be canceled out by someone this November I'd like to think it is by someone who really does listen to opposing view points and retorts with intelligence and civility.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by INDY500

For starters, feel free to google Dan Savage and:
Rick Santorum
Michele Bachman
Gary Bauer
Saddleback Church

Can you feel the love?

You think there's an equivocation to be made between these people?

Rick Santorun thinks I might as well share my life with a border collie. Do you not see the difference between hateful bigots and those who mock hateful bigots?

And thanks for letting me know that I'm not much more dangerous than adultery and polygamy.

Do you not understand how a gay persons response to your sanctimonious implied superiority is, "fuck off"?

I have a hunch you, and others, are well aware that you're sitting in a house of cards and that you deep down dont really believe that gay people must forcibly be denies the right to marry.

However, to admit such would be to somehow admit that your religion got something wrong.

But don't sweat it. Most people who are for SSM were once against it. Virtually no one goes the opposite way. It's a big tent we're sitting under, and the music's better and the drinks stronger.

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by INDY500

... says the guy who practices modern medicine daily.

... says the guy whose forum name is taken from a 100 year-old race that showcases cutting-edge technology and innovation.

What a hoot. I love that a defense of ancient civilization as perhaps something more than "stupid" is taken as a Unibomber-type manifesto against technology and 21st century comforts.

By all means, keep the levity coming.

Says the guy who intentionally misinterpreted the original comment and started the whole thing (and continues to feign indignation in lieu of any coherent retort)

[Dfit00]

Seeing so many nested quotes of INDY500 is making my brain explode.

[Moonlit_Angel]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Thanks for your response Moonlit Angel. You make your points very well and I'll respond Friday.

We agree on very little but if my vote is to be canceled out by someone this November I'd like to think it is by someone who really does listen to opposing view points and retorts with intelligence and civility.

Thanks for the kind words. I look forward to your response .

[yolland]

Originally Posted by INDY500

And which denominations of Christianity or Judaism are granting their flock permission to bully gays?

Who said anything about denominations? Savage referred simply to "people" who say they "can't help with the anti-gay bullying, because it says right there in Leviticus, it says right there in Timothy, it says right there in Romans, that being gay is wrong." While there are specific higher-profile pastors one could name--e.g., Bryan Fischer (American Family Association), Louis Sheldon (Traditional Values Coalition), Scott Lively (Abiding Truth Ministries) have all denounced school anti-bullying programs as 'homosexual recruitment campaigns'--I doubt that's who Savage has in mind here. I assume he's just talking about ordinary evangelicals he's encountered who share these mens' paranoia about stealth 'special rights for homosexuals' and point to the Bible to justify why we shouldn't endorse these deceptively enlightened-sounding efforts. Certainly, I've personally encountered numerous people who talk like that. You have not?

When I post in the same-sex marriage thread I'm careful to point out that I defend traditional marriage just as strongly against the fronts of the rise of single-parent families, polygamy and divorce.

What "rise" of polygamy? Is there a concerted nationwide mass drive afoot to legalize it?

I don't see how anyone who isn't actively campaigning for narrow legal limits on divorce (in line with the 'Biblical view') can oppose civil marriage rights for gay people then credibly claim to "defend traditional marriage just as strongly" against divorce. Either you believe civil marriage contracts must dovetail with 'Biblical' ones, or you don't.

I didn't see the need to go into the past of Dan Savage vs religious conservatives before but yes, my opinion of Dan Savage as an repulsive bigot goes much deeper than his recent rant.

Again, I'm puzzled that someone who enjoys Rush Limbaugh and Ted Nugent would react so vehemently to abrasive and scurrilous rhetoric in this case. "Bigot" doesn't mean 'I disagree with the guy, plus he's rude as hell.' It indicates a malignantly provincial person, someone who hostilely refuses to climb out of his own little familiar box and understand the 'other.' I could maybe understand describing Savage as an embittered ex-Catholic, but not a "bigot." He's criticizing habits of judgment with which he was raised and educated and as a child accepted unquestioningly (at considerable cost to himself); he knows what he's railing against--hypocrisy--quite intimately. Can't say that for Rick Santorum.

I don't myself ever advocate obscene or personally aggressive rhetoric in service of a cause--I don't think it's a smart tactic, nor do I think it even makes longterm strategic sense in most cases (if what you really want is a place at the table, why soil the nest?). But I do distinguish between rhetorical style and the substance of an argument. I often find Rush Limbaugh's manner of speaking highly offputting, but I judge his mindset by his arguments, not his style.

Originally Posted by Irvine511

However, to admit such would be to somehow admit that your religion got something wrong.

Or, you know, one could simply reflect on the fact that 'our' assumptions about such matters as the place of the individual relative to society, or our understandings of marriage or sexual orientation, are all of a piece; and that all have changed dramatically during the last 500 years, let alone the last 3000. I don't share Aristotle's view of women and would have no wish to live in his world, but I'd find it rather strained and silly to label him 'misogynist' or 'antifeminist'--start by trying to understand the other's world, not by measuring it against ours. For example, our knowledge of the 'view of human sexuality' held by the ancient Hebrews during the time the Levitical codes emerged is vague and fragmentary; only outlines can be gleaned. The average person would've been married off to a spouse of his/her parents' choosing around Bar/Bat Mitzvah age (13/12), with an eye on the parents' part to the social and economic advantages the respective families might gain from the match. Fathering children to grow the tribe was the primary life responsibility of the adult male Hebrew, who in his 'seed' carried the vital force necessary to engender a new human being. 'Romantic' love, mutual 'fulfillment,' and modern (really, medical) concepts like full 'development' of each individual into a 'balanced' i.e. psychologically healthy person would not have been understood as priorities of marriage. None of which is to say these people as a group didn't know and experience erotic passion, intimate affection, bitter disappointment with their spouses and all that; just that those weren't guiding concerns of the contract as popularly understood. I certainly wouldn't say such a context 'justifies' the inevitable misery to people, especially men, who were inherently unable to derive emotional and erotic satisfaction from such relationships (though merely being hetero is no guarantee of 'satisfaction' from such arrangements either), but I do think we might be misconstruing the work of understanding them, insofar as we can, when we start from the standpoint of, 'Did they get human sexuality right?' 'Were they homophobic?' etc. And the more you understand the particular physical and conceptual world of some particular people at some particular point in time, the more you come to understand how particular, how unique our own world is as well.

My own denomination decided several years ago, after decades of debate and in light of modern understanding of sexual orientation as well as modern understandings of marriage and human dignity, that to deny the legitimacy and potential of committed, monogamous, ceremonially formalized intimate relationships between Jews of the same sex was to force them to stunt themselves, to ignore a precept prior even to 'be fruitful and multiply': that it is not good to be alone. It's all very much a work in progress--for a 'legalistic' religion where the most mundane aspects of life are often subject to various forms of ritual discipline, the implications can be huge--but it was the right decision. As for civil marriage? That shouldn't even be an issue. Anyone with their eyes open can see that gay people can and do build loving, committed, mutually supportive lives and households together (often including parenthood), lives just like those of the rest of us who've found marriage the right choice (whether we ever become parents or not). The only consistent difference is the mechanics of sex.

[PhilsFan]

Originally Posted by INDY500

You seriously have to stop putting words in my mouth. OK?

I apologize, that post waded towards Deep when it should not have. I will bring a fuller reply when I am at a computer.

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel

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.

[Irvine511]

What does any of that have to do with gay people and their right to get married?

People were gay before the 1960s.

[anitram]

Originally Posted by INDY500

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]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

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).

[digitize]

Originally Posted by INDY500

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.