A rant about my Birther, YEC, Zionist parents.

Post by Skreeran

Whether or not it's within her right to believe that, it's damaging to a child's self esteem, and I don't think it's morally right to do.

There's a difference between simply damaging a child's self esteem and telling them they are worthless as a person.

Would you care to rephrase then? And being told that you're worthless is an attack on your self esteem. If not, then how does it differ?

I think you're scrounging for a distinction that doesn't exist. The main issue that you have is that they're teaching morals that you don't agree with, clear and simple.No, they are the same thing, but in different magnitudes.

Saying "Don't have premarital sex, because that's a sin," then making the choice to have premarital sex and getting your heart broken hurts, but you'll recover naturally, and obviously you'll hopefully be making the choice to engage in that activity at an age where you won't be as vulnerable developmentally.

Saying "Homosexuality is an abomination," or "Women are inferior to men," is damaging to the self esteem, but in a vastly more severe way. You cannot choose to be born homosexual or female (as far as I know), and rather than attacking a behavior they may choose to engage in, you're attacking a fundamental quality of themselves.

The distinction I'm making is like saying "There's a difference between getting knocked down by a big wave and getting hit with a tsunami." Yes, getting hit with a tsunami is getting hit by a big wave, but I don't think it's appropriate to treat them as the same thing.

Post by Squishalot

You cannot choose to be born homosexual or female (as far as I know), and rather than attacking a behavior they may choose to engage in, you're attacking a fundamental quality of themselves.

Are you saying that sexual appetite / desire isn't a fundamental quality of themselves, or something that people aren't born with?

If I tell a single nympho that 'premarital sex is bad', how is that any different to telling a gay guy that 'homosexuality is bad'?

In this respect, I do have to agree with the way the Church's official position on homosexuality deals with their message - it's not a sin to want to sleep with other guys, it's only a sin to act on it. Likewise, it's not a sin to want to sleep with someone before getting married, it's only a sin to act on it. That's a moral issue relating to a behaviour that they may choose to engage in, not an attack on a fundamental quality of themselves.

To tell your kids not to engage in homosexuality is just as reasonable (from a moral instruction point of view) as telling them not to be sexually promiscuous. Everything we do is biologically driven - you can't argue that homosexuality is the one moral thing that we can't control.

(Note - I don't agree with their message in the first instance, I just agree that it's an appropriate means of communicating their message.)

Post by Skreeran

But again, there is a difference in magnitude, and in sensitivity. She didn't simply say "I don't think you should have homosexual sex," but that "Homosexuality is an abomination."

For someone to be told by their parents at such a vulnerable age that what you are is abominable, that could cause untold amounts of trauma.

Do you disagree that that would be traumatic? I mean, I think it's morally wrong to cause trauma to your kids. I'm sorry if you disagree, and you think parents have the moral right to tell their kids whatever they want, but I don't. I wouldn't stand for a father telling his daughter she serves only to be a baby maker to her future husband and I wouldn't stand for a mother telling their child that they and their feelings are unnatural and abominable.

Post by HoleofArt

Ideally I'd like to live up in Washington state again.
Yay for Washington, that's where I live at the moment. If you do move here, make sure you stick to the coast -- Eastern Washington can be pretty backward.

Woo, Washington state!

(3 pages late, sorry, catching up on the discussion.)

Post by 173035

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Post by Squishalot

But again, there is a difference in magnitude, and in sensitivity. She didn't simply say "I don't think you should have homosexual sex," but that "Homosexuality is an abomination."

So your issue isn't in the issue of homosexuality being morally policed, it's in the delivery only?

You see, I wouldn't have an issue with that, but that's not at all how it came across originally.

Ugh. Religious people.

If you don't know what my views are, you shouldn't make assumptions, because it just makes an ass of you.

Sex before marriage is a choice. Choosing one way or another does not have a huge impact on someone's life. Sexual orientation, on the other hand, is something that's present from possibly birth or at least very early childhood.

See my point made to Skreeran. Sexual appetite is just as biologically driven as sexual orientation, and something that is just as much an unchangeable part of them.

Also note - the official Catholic Church line is that acting on homosexuality (i.e. sleeping with others of the same gender) is sinful, not simply being homosexual. Likewise, having a high sexual appetite isn't sinful, but sleeping around before marriage is. Anyone who suggests otherwise is out of step with the Church.

It's not a case of teaching a moral code, it's a case of a parent condemning their child for something that's an inherent part of they are, something they cannot change.

Again, sexual appetite is an inherent part of who a person is. Being attracted to the opposite sex is an inherent part of who heterosexuals are, but there doesn't seem to be any opposition to preaching the morals of 'not dating until you get out of college'.

I'm perfectly fine with parents preaching abstinence, I think it's rather naive and silly considering what their kids probably get up to behind their backs, but I don't mind. Teaching that homosexuality is wrong, however, is a practice I find absolutely disgusting.

Why? They're both moral judgements. Consider:

I'm perfectly fine with parents preaching that homosexuality is wrong, I think it's rather naive and silly considering what their kids probably get up to behind their backs, but I don't mind. Teaching abstinence, however, is a practice I find absolutely disgusting.

The reason they're so easily swappable is because you have no reasonable argument to treat one differently from the other.

All it does is cause kids with such parents to grow up hating themselves for who they are, and what am I supposed to think of a parent who does that to their own child?

Are you going to let your son wear pretty dresses when you go out in public if he wants to? Will not letting him do so, when all the girls do, make him hate himself, after you tell him that it's wrong? (Or don't you think it's wrong?)

Yeah, you can sleep with someone you're not attracted to, marry someone you don't love, and produce beautiful babies. Perfect control. Except you end up completely miserable.

Yeah, you can watch people sleep with others, have a relationship with someone you had a crush on, and produce beautiful babies. Perfect control. Except you end up completely miserable.

I'm sorry, at what point did you conclude that homosexuals are the only ones who can be miserable for following some sort of moral code?

You're telling a person that because any love and attraction they feel do not agree with your religious views, they are not allowed to have a relationship with someone they love and are attracted to.

No, I'm telling you and Skreeran that parents should be entitled to teach their kids any morals that they want, as long as they lie within the law. Why should they teach your morals over their morals?

Are you a proponent of arranged marriage as well?

You really like your rhetoric, don't you? I don't assume that you're a hairy arm-pitted trans-gender lesbian, why are you making assumptions about me?

Post by Lombax

This is the most non-retarded discision I've had in à week...

Post by Patty

So should we wrap up our children in cotton wool because what we say might be damaging to their self esteem?

Homosexuality isn't necessarily a choice in all cases. There is not a definitive answer on the nature of how homosexuality comes to exist, but there is some evidence to suggest that there may be genetic factors at work. The equivalent is saying you're in inferior person or 'worthless' because you are a certain height, which is attributable to both genetic and environmental factors.

Post by 606231

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Post by Pwntiff

I'm more tickled by the people who get offended by people who say "Happy Holidays" because as I said earlier Christians celebrate three holidays other the course of about five weeks that time of year, not counting the other belief systems.

Post by xaratherus

No, I'm telling you and Skreeran that parents should be entitled to teach their kids any morals that they want, as long as they lie within the law

So then you support the Ku Klux Klan's right to raise their children to believe that any non-Caucasian has a genetic inferiority and should never be treated with respect? After all, there's no law against teaching your children that blacks, Asians, and so on are inferior to whites.

At some point, exercising your freedoms to teach your child morals can delve into the realm of child abuse. Why? Because morals change along with society. 250 years ago, teaching your child that blacks were inferior to whites would have not caused any problems in the child's later life. Nowadays though? The child would have a major problem integrating into society.

And that's the real issue that I have with any religious 'moral law': They're static. They presume that some outside force keeps to one set of rules, and that those rules were clearly communicated to everyone, despite the rather obvious fact that the global community does not have a single set of morals.

Post by 324987

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Post by xaratherus

Again, sexual appetite is an inherent part of who a person is. Being attracted to the opposite sex is an inherent part of who heterosexuals are, but there doesn't seem to be any opposition to preaching the morals of 'not dating until you get out of college'.

*raises hand* I oppose it. In fact, I don't know anyone who would consider it normal to wait to date until you're out of college. High school is as much about socialization as it is learning; that socialization tends to include an introduction to romance.

Will not letting him do so, when all the girls do, make him hate himself, after you tell him that it's wrong? (Or don't you think it's wrong?)

Actually - yes, it can. One of my roommates, who happens to be a transvestite, remembered at an early age (3) asking to dress up like his mom before going out, and his father would not let him, repeatedly; he does not ever remember being physically abused - only verbally reprimanded.

Although it was not the sole reason, that repression of self-image did play a part in major self-image issues during his teenage years, and resulted in a period of drug abuse and an attempted suicide.

I'm sorry, at what point did you conclude that homosexuals are the only ones who can be miserable for following some sort of moral code?

A moral code that leads you to repress who you are - as long as those facets do not cause any harm to others - is not a good code. In regards to the specific Christian moral code that pervades the American social landscape, the concept of a morality that leads you to be miserable starkly contradicts the concept of a loving god.

No point you have made so far has been of Atheists trying to force there views on the public instead of getting rid of religion in government for everyone. If Atheists were forcing their views Atheistic views would be in the government instead of no religious views.

By definition, atheists have one view - that gods do not exist, or that evidence showing their existence is insufficient. There really are no 'views' to force, save that one. Thus far I haven't noticed a huge movement of atheists demanding that the government rule that gods don't exist; any lobbying on the part of atheism has been in response to an infringement on the atheists' freedom FROM religion by theistic groups.

However, I personally consider those 'atheists' who argue about Merry Christmas as being idiotically dense. What harm does it cause? None, really. Most of the people I've ran across who moan about people saying 'Merry Christmas' weren't atheists - they were anti-theists (a distinct difference).

Post by Monday

No point you have made so far has been of Atheists trying to force there views on the public instead of getting rid of religion in government for everyone. If Atheists were forcing their views Atheistic views would be in the government instead of no religious views.

No religious views in the government = atheist. I'm not trying to argue there should be religion in teh government, but it pisses me off when I say Merry Christmas to somebody, trying to be nice and cheerful, and I get a "$%^& you" in response. I literally cannot tell you how many times this has happened when I leave Utah.

Post by 240140

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Post by Monday

Post by Squishalot

So then you support the Ku Klux Klan's right to raise their children to believe that any non-Caucasian has a genetic inferiority and should never be treated with respect? After all, there's no law against teaching your children that blacks, Asians, and so on are inferior to whites.

Yes there are, they're called anti-discrimination laws, and most countries have them.

Again, the Church's policy is that homosexuals should be treated with respect, as with everybody else, but that acting on homosexual impulses (i.e. sleeping with someone of the same gender) is a sin. It's like saying that blacks, Asians, whites, lebos, etc. should all be treaten with respect, whether or not you like them, but once they do something dodgy, then that's bad. It's the action that's bad, not the people.

*raises hand* I oppose it. In fact, I don't know anyone who would consider it normal to wait to date until you're out of college. High school is as much about socialization as it is learning; that socialization tends to include an introduction to romance.

On what grounds do you oppose it?

If you're arguing on social grounds, then consider that not every society is the US, and that there are actually some people who don't enter relationships until after high school / college.

One of my roommates, who happens to be a transvestite, remembered at an early age (3) asking to dress up like his mom before going out, and his father would not let him, repeatedly; he does not ever remember being physically abused - only verbally reprimanded.

Although it was not the sole reason, that repression of self-image did play a part in major self-image issues during his teenage years, and resulted in a period of drug abuse and an attempted suicide.

So again - I'll ask you the same question - would you let your son go out in pretty dresses and carry a doll around with him, for fear of damaging his sense of self-image? Because it would appear to be hypocrisy to suggest that moral instruction in regards to homosexuality isn't allowed, but moral instruction in regards to self-image is.

A moral code that leads you to repress who you are - as long as those facets do not cause any harm to others - is not a good code. In regards to the specific Christian moral code that pervades the American social landscape, the concept of a morality that leads you to be miserable starkly contradicts the concept of a loving god.

Like Iralima, you're jumping to the conclusion that I'm advocating one moral code or another. By definition, there is no 'right' moral code (unless you believe in divine morals). All I'm saying is that people should be free to teach whatever their morals are to their children.

Can you argue that teaching that a marriage is between a man and a woman (from an early age) is going to be harming to a child in the long-run? Is that indoctrination? If you ask me, it's highlighting 'facts' by correlation - most marriages are between a man and a woman, so it's reasonable to sell it as such.

Post by 613797

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Post by Skreeran

I say Merry Christmas to somebody, trying to be nice and cheerful, and I get a "$%^& you" in response. I literally cannot tell you how many times this has happened when I leave Utah.

I have an extremely hard time believing that. Unless you talk to complete morons who would tell you to %^&* off no matter what you say, but then that's not really relevant.

No, I talk to fundamentalist atheists, which is what I've been talking about.I have a feeling it's not so much "fundmentalist atheists" (a bit of a misnomer, but I'll let it slide), as it is politically correct folks with a stick up their bum.

Christmas has as much in common with Christ these days as Kellogg's Frosted Flakes has in common with a complete breakfast. It's not a lack of belief in God that motivates most of the people I've heard of who object to saying "Merry Christmas," but just people who are super anal about being politically correct all the time and making sure other are too.

Granted, I'm not you, and I don't live where you live, and I don't know who you have talked to, so I'm just basing my judgment on my own experience.

Post by Monday

(a bit of a misnomer, but I'll let it slide)

I've already explained my definition of fundamentalist atheist in this thread.

as it is politically correct folks with a stick up their bum.

Heh, like Yahoo. They posted a story about a 2,000 year old metal-plate bible being found, but still used CE instead of AD =P

Granted, I'm not you, and I don't live where you live, and I don't know who you have talked to, so I'm just basing my judgment on my own experience.

/shrug. It's possible.

A rant about my Birther, YEC, Zionist parents.

Post Reply