| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/05/2010 05:18:31 PM · #4876 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Incidentally, I find it amusing to consider that The Queen is in Toronto attending a church service just a few blocks south of where today's massive 1.2 million strong Pride Day celebrations will be happening, where there will undoubtedly be a few native queens.
(Okay okay, cue groaning.) |
So the question is:
Is She a Queen by choice or genetics?
(okay, sorry, had to, que more groaning)
|
|
|
|
07/05/2010 06:07:37 PM · #4877 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I'm guessing that somehow in your mind, you think that if no one ever slept around, whatever it is that "causes" homosexuality would magically go away, and since gays by practice cannot reproduce, you feel the "problem" would be gone. That's kind of what it seems to me that you're inferring. |
Nonono. Don't always assume the worst on my part. I really don't aim to insult people. My hypothetical was wondering more if the environmental trigger lay within out hypersexualized society and if suddenly everybody was exclusively monogamous (which would obviously lead to some large cultural shifts), would the trigger increase or decrease? I didn't even mean to infer that an increase would be "bad" and a decrease would be "good". It's just a question. I wonder things. It is part of what makes me who I am.
It's not that big a leap either. Go back to that study I posted for Louis, but didn't get much airplay. Why are so many girls lesbian or bisexual? The hypothesis there is that female sexuality is very plastic and that one possible change (the increase of young people's exposure to pornography) has led to perhaps a 700% increase in the number of young women who self-identify as being "lesbian or bisexual". (Note: DO NOT make the mistake of assuming that means the number of lesbians have made the same increase. There are obvious difficulties if you wanted to make that assertion.) Some natural conclusions from these statistics are that a) environment may play a very large role at least in female sexuality and b) the environment may be changing in our culture in dramatic ways and finally c) one doesn't necessarily realize the far-reaching effects such changes may invoke.
Message edited by author 2010-07-05 18:09:42. |
|
|
|
07/05/2010 10:23:11 PM · #4878 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The hypothesis there is that female sexuality is very plastic and that one possible change (the increase of young people's exposure to pornography) has led to perhaps a 700% increase in the number of young women who self-identify as being "lesbian or bisexual". |
Maybe I missed something, but how did you arrive at a 700% increase... Could be that I am getting old and my eyesight leaves a lot to be desired.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Some natural conclusions from these statistics are that a) environment may play a very large role at least in female sexuality and b) the environment may be changing in our culture in dramatic ways and finally c) one doesn't necessarily realize the far-reaching effects such changes may invoke. |
Item a) It could also be that young ladies find solace, comfort, empathy, understanding and patience from other young ladies when dealing with issues of the heart, something which may not necessarily be at the forefront when dealing with young hot blooded males;
Item b) There exists absolutely no doubt in my mind that the environment is indeed changing in our culture and that of many other cultures in dramatic ways. Change for the sake of change is not necessarily a good thing and only time will determine what changes benefited society as a whole;
Item c) You are absolutely right...if we did we would know what these were and guide ourselves accordingly.
Ray
|
|
|
|
07/05/2010 10:37:17 PM · #4879 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The hypothesis there is that female sexuality is very plastic and that one possible change (the increase of young people's exposure to pornography) has led to perhaps a 700% increase in the number of young women who self-identify as being "lesbian or bisexual". |
Maybe I missed something, but how did you arrive at a 700% increase... Could be that I am getting old and my eyesight leaves a lot to be desired. |
In the article he quotes a historic rate of lesbianism of about 2%. Here we found 14% among young women. But remember I put a big asterisk next to it for a number of statistical and methodological reasons.
The rest of your reply, I think, is something I can quite agree with.
Message edited by author 2010-07-05 22:37:46. |
|
|
|
07/09/2010 09:52:49 PM · #4880 |
A Massachusetts federal judge rules DOMA unconstitutional, twice!!!
Fed judge: Gay marriage ban unconstitutional
How about that... a post about how gay rights are evolving amid all the bickering!
Message edited by author 2010-07-09 21:53:24. |
|
|
|
07/09/2010 09:54:23 PM · #4881 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
A Massachusetts federal judge rules DOMA unconstitutional, twice!!!
Fed judge: Gay marriage ban unconstitutional
How about that... a post about how gay rights are evolving amid all the bickering! |
There was a lot of cheering on Cape Cod when this was announced :-)
R.
|
|
|
|
07/09/2010 10:19:34 PM · #4882 |
The ruling has led to some odd bedfellows with movements like the Tea Party cheering the decision as it was more a tenth amendment issue than a gay marriage issue.
NY Times Article |
|
|
|
07/09/2010 10:37:21 PM · #4883 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The ruling has led to some odd bedfellows with movements like the Tea Party cheering the decision as it was more a tenth amendment issue than a gay marriage issue.
NY Times Article |
...What's that old saying??? One step forward...two steps back. It baffles the mind.
Ray |
|
|
|
07/10/2010 01:38:11 AM · #4884 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
A Massachusetts federal judge rules DOMA unconstitutional, twice!!!
Fed judge: Gay marriage ban unconstitutional
How about that... a post about how gay rights are evolving amid all the bickering! |
Originally posted by From the Article:
BOSTON ΓΆ€” A U.S. judge in Boston has ruled that a federal gay marriage ban is unconstitutional because it interferes with the right of a state to define marriage |
Hey, I'm all for states rights! Good decision judge. Let the states figure it out. They didn't decide the ban was unconstitutional, just that the states should decide.
|
|
|
|
07/10/2010 07:48:43 AM · #4885 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
A Massachusetts federal judge rules DOMA unconstitutional, twice!!!
Fed judge: Gay marriage ban unconstitutional
How about that... a post about how gay rights are evolving amid all the bickering! |
Originally posted by From the Article:
BOSTON ΓΆ€” A U.S. judge in Boston has ruled that a federal gay marriage ban is unconstitutional because it interferes with the right of a state to define marriage |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Hey, I'm all for states rights! Good decision judge. Let the states figure it out. They didn't decide the ban was unconstitutional, just that the states should decide. |
Definitely a step in the right direction.
I just wish everyone would just allow others to make their own life decisions and let God deal with it if they feel others' lives are sinful. Especially when those decisions make no impact whatsoever on your lives.
"Judge not lest........and all that."
|
|
|
|
07/12/2010 11:12:15 AM · #4886 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
"Judge not lest........and all that." |
This is the most misinterpreted passage in the bible. It doesn't say you should judge, it explains you shouldn't be a hypocrite.
Originally posted by Matt. 7:1-5:
Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, "Let me take the speck out of your eye," when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye. |
Hopefully, most of us here have taken the log out of our eyes. Otherwise, we should go back to mass (or at least a good optometrist). |
|
|
|
07/12/2010 07:27:31 PM · #4887 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
"Judge not lest........and all that." |
This is the most misinterpreted passage in the bible. It doesn't say you should judge, it explains you shouldn't be a hypocrite.
Originally posted by Matt. 7:1-5:
Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, "Let me take the speck out of your eye," when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye. |
Hopefully, most of us here have taken the log out of our eyes. Otherwise, we should go back to mass (or at least a good optometrist). |
Lemme see... The Crusades, the Spanish inquisition, the Catholic Church support of Hitler,the Salem Witch Trials, and the list goes on... yes I can see where the religious types would want to ensure that hypocracy is indeed totally eradicated.
Ray |
|
|
|
07/12/2010 08:06:35 PM · #4888 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Lemme see... The Crusades, the Spanish inquisition, the Catholic Church support of Hitler,the Salem Witch Trials, and the list goes on... yes I can see where the religious types would want to ensure that hypocracy is indeed totally eradicated.
Ray |
Holy cow, Ray. This is so played. There are hypocrites in the church? Someone call the news! ;) And while the Crusades are a common target, you lay World War II at the Church's feet? And the Salem Witch Trials were carried out in US court, were they not?
I'm not here to make some defense that there is no hypocricy in the church, but I don't know why people haul these things out and think they make some point. |
|
|
|
07/12/2010 08:10:49 PM · #4889 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
"Judge not lest........and all that." |
Originally posted by Nullix:
This is the most misinterpreted passage in the bible. It doesn't say you should judge, it explains you shouldn't be a hypocrite. |
Um.....hyperbole aside, it says that you shouldn't judge others because you will be judged in turn, in the same manner.
Unfortunately, it too often doesn't work out that way, because it's perfectly okay to be rotten and abusive to your spouse, as long as it's a straight marriage, and that screwed-up, dysfunctional way to be *must* be preserved in its sanctity by not letting two men who have demonstrated their love, care, respect, and commitment to each other for two decades, by allowing them to marry.
After all, it's wrong, isn't it? But you really wouldn't want to be held up to their yardstick of spousal treatment in such a case, now would you?
Judge not.....
|
|
|
|
07/12/2010 08:13:28 PM · #4890 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Lemme see... The Crusades, the Spanish inquisition, the Catholic Church support of Hitler,the Salem Witch Trials, and the list goes on... yes I can see where the religious types would want to ensure that hypocracy is indeed totally eradicated.
Ray |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Holy cow, Ray. This is so played. There are hypocrites in the church? Someone call the news! ;) And while the Crusades are a common target, you lay World War II at the Church's feet? And the Salem Witch Trials were carried out in US court, were they not?
I'm not here to make some defense that there is no hypocricy in the church, but I don't know why people haul these things out and think they make some point. |
Wasn't it Ray's point that the quote in question, which supposedly is "the most misinterpreted passage in the bible" certainly plays out funny when the religious folks seem to forget they've played out some of the greatest hypocrisy of all, or did I miss something?
|
|
|
|
07/12/2010 08:28:38 PM · #4891 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Wasn't it Ray's point that the quote in question, which supposedly is "the most misinterpreted passage in the bible" certainly plays out funny when the religious folks seem to forget they've played out some of the greatest hypocrisy of all, or did I miss something? |
I guess I don't quite understand how the church is somehow guilty of "some of the greatest hypocrisy of all". These things don't rise any higher than any of the other atrocious acts of humanity. Why do we take some perverse pleasure in holding religious groups to some other standard? If the United States was likewise guilty of "some of the greatest hypocrisy of all" (and we all know it is), does that mean we should hold all things US with utmost derision?
Actually I think I do know why people like to do this. They feel judged by the church and it feels good to judge back. We see the behavior in children all the time, so it must be a very fundamental human reaction.
This sounds like a good topic for some LD debate! :)
Message edited by author 2010-07-12 20:29:18. |
|
|
|
07/12/2010 08:33:32 PM · #4892 |
Let me ask you this Jeb. :)
Being outside the church, do you think it's ok to judge other people?
If your answer is yes, then I'd ask what your issue was.
If your answer is no, I'd ask if you do judge other people?
Except I don't need your answer because you just did it in the post above (and lots of other posts).
So that would leave us with you saying it's not ok to judge others but doing so anyway.
And you are different from the church, how? ;) |
|
|
|
07/12/2010 08:50:08 PM · #4893 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Wasn't it Ray's point that the quote in question, which supposedly is "the most misinterpreted passage in the bible" certainly plays out funny when the religious folks seem to forget they've played out some of the greatest hypocrisy of all, or did I miss something? |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I guess I don't quite understand how the church is somehow guilty of "some of the greatest hypocrisy of all". |
Ray touched on a few of them in history, I see it on a regular basis because of the church I attend now compared to the place I was before. The ideals were there at the old place, but the follow through and actions aren't......yet they claim to be all about changing the world. They are, but in words only. This place I'm going now is poor, undermanned and underfunded......yet every week they make a difference, albeit small ones, in many folks lives in the neighborhood. I never in thye four years I attended my old church met one neighbor in the houses surrounding the church. I know people in this neighborhood where I am now.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
These things don't rise any higher than any of the other atrocious acts of humanity. |
That's true......but people like Stalin, Mussolini, Genghis Khan, and some of those other not-such-great fellows never claimed to be paragons of virtue. They were quite up front about wanting to take over the world.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Why do we take some perverse pleasure in holding religious groups to some other standard? |
Just because people want to point out to those who claim to be better, that they're the same fallible kind of people, doesn't mean that there's perverse pleasure being taken from it. sometimes, it is what it is......pointing out a fatal flaw.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If the United States was likewise guilty of "some of the greatest hypocrisy of all" (and we all know it is), does that mean we should hold all things US with utmost derision? |
Are you serious???? How much universal disdain does our country endure now for some of the things we've done??? At least 'til they want/need our help.......again.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Actually I think I do know why people like to do this. They feel judged by the church and it feels good to judge back. |
No, they feel judged by the church and won't sit still for it any more, and since, for the most part, stonings and crucifictions have gone by the wayside, at least here in the US for the most part, we don't have to put up with the crap for fear of our lives. We can express or displeasure at the absurdities that are spouted in spite of what common sense would dictate otherwise.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
We see the behavior in children all the time, so it must be a very fundamental human reaction. |
Yeah.......the church sure can come across as a spiteful, vindictive child when it feels threatened. Maybe some day, we can all sit down and talk sensibly without crazy ideas from long ago being held up as the only truths and then we could learn to get along with all kinds of people from all walks of life with ideas that are quite simply, different.......not wrong.
|
|
|
|
07/12/2010 08:55:16 PM · #4894 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
And the Salem Witch Trials were carried out in US court, were they not? |
Not.
Originally posted by Wikipedia:
The Salem witch trials were a series of hearings before local magistrates followed by county court of trials to prosecute people accused of witchcraft in Essex, Suffolk, and Middlesex counties of colonial Massachusetts, between February 1692 and May 1693. |
There was no "US Court" prior to July 2, 1776, some eighty years (and a change in governmental structure) later ... |
|
|
|
07/12/2010 08:59:53 PM · #4895 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
And the Salem Witch Trials were carried out in US court, were they not? |
Not.
Originally posted by Wikipedia:
The Salem witch trials were a series of hearings before local magistrates followed by county court of trials to prosecute people accused of witchcraft in Essex, Suffolk, and Middlesex counties of colonial Massachusetts, between February 1692 and May 1693. |
There was no "US Court" prior to July 2, 1776, some eighty years (and a change in governmental structure) later ... |
Sorry Paul, you are right, of course. I was being very loose in the use of my terms. I basically meant civil court or state court or colony court. It wasn't some Puritan version of Sharia court. So wouldn't we lay the blame for that on the colony of Massachusetts if we are apt to hold the institution guilty for such activity?
And before you say the state was heavily influence by the Church and thus the Church bears responsibility, I'd have to ask if that means anything good coming out of government activity for the States could likewise be attributed?
Message edited by author 2010-07-12 21:00:39. |
|
|
|
07/12/2010 09:05:11 PM · #4896 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Why do we take some perverse pleasure in holding religious groups to some other standard? |
Perhaps because of the "holier than thou" attitude so often professed by religious zealots adherents with deeply-held values.
If someone's going to claim to be "better" than I am, they better be prepared to back up that talk with action. "Love thy neighbor as thyself ... unless he prays to Allah or Buddha or Shiva -- in which case you must smite him dead" doesn't cut it in a post-tribal world.
Message edited by author 2010-07-12 21:05:31. |
|
|
|
07/12/2010 09:12:13 PM · #4897 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Let me ask you this Jeb. :)
Being outside the church, do you think it's ok to judge other people? |
First,when you say outside the church......let's be REALLY clear. You mean YOUR church, right? Because I am a member of a church.
No, I don't think it's okay to judge others, but it's human nature if you're raised to understand society should be a certain way and you're conditioned to have certain values. When you encounter behaviors outside those values, if you don't have the conditioning to understand that being different isn't necessarily wrong, then of course you're going to be inclined to be judgemental.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If your answer is yes, then I'd ask what your issue was. |
I do think you have to judge whether or not someone's effect in your life is positive or negative......that's simplistic, but regardless of how you're raised, you have to work within levels of what you find acceptable. For example, I was constantly in trouble as a teenager and young man because I would base my opinion of someone on how they interacted with me, not their breeding and background. So in a kneejerk situation where someone just totally rubs me the wrong way right out of the gate, I can easily assimilate the haughty, high-handed mannerisms that I grew up with as a child. I hate that, but as long as it doesn't continue on in the manner that my daughter relates to people, then great progress has been made because it stops with me. She has suffered because of the stance that Lisa and I have towards gay rights in the mainstream public school here in rural Pennsylvania. Unfortunately, in order to alleviate that issue, now she's been moved to a private school, where she's exposed to the same type of environment I was growing up. She does, however, see the behaviors as arrogant, and entitled, and does not want to emulate those behaviors.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If your answer is no, I'd ask if you do judge other people? |
I try not to, but I was ingrained with a pretty rigorous set of standards that I was told weren't negotiable. I try to break that trend......I fall short, especially if my ingrained sensibilities are seriously confronted.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Except I don't need your answer because you just did it in the post above (and lots of other posts). |
Well......be careful about intent. How I feel about a situation, and behaviors isn't always that I cast them aside as unacceptable, they may just not work for me. Despite your constant insistence to the contrary, I see a lot of varied ways that things can be perceived and interpreted. Some work for me, some don't. For instance, I'm not okay with the Catholic church in this day and age saying that birth control is wrong when in my opinion, that's somewhat irresponsible. Then it becomes uncovered that my state's Catholic diocese has been covering up case after case of molestation by priests dating back a half century, and the KNEW about it!!! Yeah, you're damn right I'm judgemental about that. Aren't you? You see anything that could possibly be mitigating circumstances there?
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So that would leave us with you saying it's not ok to judge others but doing so anyway.
And you are different from the church, how? ;) |
Again, not necessarily judgemental so much as disagree......I reserve the right to state degree of intent and meaning on my seemingly judgemental behaviors.
And again, I have *NEVER* offered up myself as an example of how to live. You, of all people, know better than that from the forums. I have to be one of the most confused and lost people here. WHY would you ever think I would suggest that someone live like me?
Edited for a bunch of typos....
Message edited by author 2010-07-12 21:20:58.
|
|
|
|
07/12/2010 09:12:59 PM · #4898 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
And the Salem Witch Trials were carried out in US court, were they not? |
And you're point? I sure hope you're not suggesting the cause of these trials were secular in nature...
Message edited by author 2010-07-12 21:19:23.
|
|
|
|
07/12/2010 09:25:31 PM · #4899 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
And the Salem Witch Trials were carried out in US court, were they not? |
And you're point? I sure hope you're not suggesting the cause of these trials were secular in nature... |
I'm not sure of the point. I don't quite know why Ray brought them up in the first place. But it seems that whatever attribute was meant to be illustrated by his example should be pinned on the commonwealth of Massachusetts. Read about Oyer and Terminer. The court was a special commission from the governor. Wouldn't that be as "secular" as anything else?
Message edited by author 2010-07-12 21:27:39. |
|
|
|
07/12/2010 09:40:41 PM · #4900 |
Down with Massachusetts! Wait! The institution that is responsible for the Salem Witch Trials is ALSO responsible for legalizing gay marriage! What does THAT mean? ;P
Ray is so busy throwing stones he wasn't sure who the real target was. So the question becomes, is Massachusetts now guilty of Ray's point? or will he somehow say it is no longer a valid point? or will he say it was STILL the Church's fault?
You guys make it easy sometimes... :)
Message edited by author 2010-07-12 21:41:09. |
|
