Teen Abstinence

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Blackheart

Wrong. I'm not concerned with such behaviors. There are already laws that deal with those types of behaviors.

Right. And if there weren't, I assume you'd want to lobby to put them into place, since you think they're wrong, as you say later on in your post.

That's all I'm trying to point out - that neither one of us are concerned with other people's acceptable sexual acts, but that we BOTH are concerned with what we think are HARMFUL acts of others involving sexual behavior, such as rape. We may differ as to what we think is acceptable and non-harmful, that's all.

We're also both concerned with harmful acts of others that do NOT involve sexual behavior, but that wasn't what your original quote was on.

They were not germane to the discussion about abstinence education, i.e. a discussion about what to teach teenagers about normative sexual behaviors.

IMO, YOUR comment about Lawrence was the first off-topic one, and I responded to it But again, we have different opinions - so what? Makes for interesting discussions!

Wrong again. You decided that it would be an effective tactic to toss irrelevant behaviors into the mix on a discussion about abstinence education, which is again, discussion nominally about normative sexual behaviors.

Irrelevant in YOUR opinion, not in mine. Totally relevant in response to your comment on Lawrence.

Anyone with any common sense would have known that sexual behavior in the context of such a discussion referred to normative sexual behavior.

Yes, so why did you throw in the comment about Lawrence and minding other people's sex lives? IMO, that was off-topic. Not that I mind (see my title), but please don't criticize me for being off-topic if you went there first!

If you think that means I changed my position, or my meaning, or my intent, you are mistaken.

Blackheart, I honestly don't think it changed your meaning, but your meaning was unclear, and by being unclear, it was an insult, based on faulty logic, to people that happen to think Lawrence was a bad decision. My comments made you clarify your position, which is fine, and which takes away you (apparently intended) insult for those who disagree with the Lawrence decision. Your clarified position is now: "I meant I'm against the government in any form minding other people's normative sexual behavior." I TOTALLY agree with you! The only difference we have is in our definition of "normative", and our definitions are based on our unproven and unproveable worldviews. So we're equal

Oh, I'm sorry, I should have explained it more clearly to you. People who generally voice such objections equate behaviors like rape and pedephillia with homosexuality and sodomy. Which is exactly what the legal decision was about. I'm sorry you don't find homosexual behavior and sodomy acceptable, but I do. So no, you can't put words in my mouth by saying that because I find sodomy and homosexual behavior acceptable, I must find rape and pedophelia acceptable.

I didn't put those words in your mouth - I'm sorry if you misunderstood me. I was only saying that sodomy, and heterosexual sex, and rape, and pedophilia, all involve some type of sexual behavior. It's that simple. Classic male/female rape is probably the easiest example - intercourse between a male and female - when forced, we both think it's wrong. When consensual, and in a man/woman marriage, we both think it's right (at least I do, and as far as I can tell, you do too). You also think it's OK in other situations, based on your worldview. You're certainly entitled to your opinion, and so am I.

I'll only state once more, that the only reason I am concerned with those types of behaviors, are because they are violent predatory behaviors. The fact that they have sexual connotations are of only secondary concern to me.

I completely agree with you here.

No I don't. I don't care what people do in their bedrooms, on stage, or in their cars. As long as it it is consensual, i.e. violence isn't used to coerce someone i.e. it isn't an ASSAULT, I don't think it's any of the government's business.

Yes, you DO care - you just said "as long as it is consensual". See, you have limits that you put on these types of things, and so do I. So what's the big deal if we disagree? I'm perfectly willing to even say that you might be right, because I'm openminded. Are you willing to say I might be right?

Of course I didn't say so, because anyone should have known that such a statement meant normative sexual behavior in the current context. You were the one who dragged those kinds of irrelevant behaviors into the discussion, by insinuating that I must be for repealing rape and pedephelia statutes.

All I did was point out something that IMO is extremely important - that we both have opinions on what is normative/acceptable. Lawrence happens to support an opinion of what YOU think is acceptable and I don't, and you made what I took to be a snide comment on minding other people's sex lives that hinges ENTIRELY on the UNSTATED fact that you were talking about normative/acceptable behaviors. To me, that's a CRITICAL point to establish, so ... I established it. That's all.

Since I obviously am NOT, I could only conclude that since you seem in favor of regarding those types of behavior as sexual behaviors, and the discussion context was about normative sexual behaviors, you must regard them as normative. I'm relieved to find that you do not.

You know, if it wasn't for the comment about minding other people's sex lives, I would never have even brought this up.

But it sucks to have someone purposefully "misunderstand" you doesn't it? If you want the real reason, it was to illustrate graphically how such tactics are destructive to discussions. You knew quite well that such behaviors were not within the scope of what I was talking about, but you chose to throw them in anyway.

Yes, because again, IMO it's critical to establish that you're talking specifically about normative/acceptable behaviors! Once this is established, it's obvious that it's only personal opinions on BOTH sides, and your comment about minding other people's sex lives falls flat on its face as far as an insult, because you do the same thing.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Blackheart

only 8000 words?!

irritating, innit?!

I added the word "primarily" to get you to try and understand that the "primary" concern about such behaviors is that they are violent. Not that they have a sexual component. That would be "secondary".

I don't have any problem with this, and I think clarification is a good thing. What I do mind is when people say things like "rape is about power, and not about sex!" That is just untrue. I can grant that it is somewhat or even mostly about power, but to TOTALLY remove sex from the picture is just ridiculous and misleading, IMO.

If you are really wondering, and not just being facetious, I can probably give you an intelligable explination of why "sex crimes" are called "sex crimes" when almost any crime has a sexual element. But then you seemed not to understand when I pointed out that watching TV has a sexual componant, so I may be wrong in my estimate of explaining it in a comprehensive enough manner...

I understood what you were saying about the commercials (and btw, I was talking about only the show, not the commercials, and specified that it had nothing to do with the people). I just really object to all this (IMO) weird and illogical blending of everything into everything - blinking my eyes when I step into the sunlight is about sex; spitting out a sour grape is about sex, etc., but rape is somehow NOT about sex in any way?! I'm not saying YOU are saying this, but it started to look like we were going there when you were giving me a hard time about sexual behaviors. And you clarifying it to "normative" sexual behaviors cleared up the whole problem, anyway.

However you might not understand the sexual componant of a crime such as a seemingly random assault on a same sex stranger. It does, of course, depend on the individual involved, but such crimes are often linked to the individual's fear of their own latent homosexual tendancies.

Other times it is related to psycho-sexual conflicts with a father-figure who was somehow viewed as a competitor (instead of a care-giver) for mother's affection. Which (without going into a deep explination of post-Freudian thinking) basically means that the individual grows up viewing most males as competitors for sex and affection. Sex and affection (for males especially) are deeply linked to necessary love from females, because of the desperate need that children have for mother's affection. It's a survival issue, because children who aren't loved by their mother often do not survive very long.

I can understand what you're saying here. I may not totally agree, but I understand.

Again, since you clarified to "normative", as far as I'm concerned, the whole issue is cleared up, at least as far as I'm concerned. Both you and I think that other people should NOT be concerned with people's normative sexual behavior. We just differ on the definition of "normative".

I'm assuming you meant to insult those who thought Lawrence was a bad decision with the "minding other people's sexual behavior " statement - am I right? But since you clarified your statement to "normative", your statement can no longer be an insult, since everyone acts the same way.

[Blackheart]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

That's a valid point, altho a 14-yr-old was considered an adult in some societies, and personally, I think many might have been mature enough for a marriage.

So there were some people mature enough for marriage in the middle ages at 14. A reasonable enough statement. But how do you reconcile it with the idea that no 16 or 17 year olds in today's society are mature enough to decide for themsleves whether or not to have sex? Or even to handle information about sex?!

But based on your objection, I'll clarify my statement to reflect more accurately what I thought and say this :

"What it IS saying, IMO, is that humans share a physical design, and that we are wonderfully designed to express our sexuality in the context of a committed marriage between a man and a woman, and that any other option is damaging to us in varying degrees. Not uninteresting and stale at all - just part of the reality of any design."

See, I have no problem with that statement at all, except for the part where you state that any other option is damaging. Which I will point out is cultural bias. Certainly sex within a marriage is nice and healthy. However it does not logically follow that other types of sex are therefore damaging. You have yet to give any support for that statement.

Now do you have any objections with that statement? (note how I granted your objection and phrased my statement more accurately. Will you rephrase YOUR statement, now, about minding other people's sexual behaviors?)

Objection Noted above. Reiteration of statement about (normative) sexual behavior in preceding post. But I'll certainly state it once more, even though I think I said I wouldn't.... If I can find it. Ahh. I'll go ahead and try to sum it up, so it will remain in context:

You seem to imply that "minding other people's sexual behavior" is wrong, and that you don't do this. Unless you want to repeal ALL laws against sexual behavior, then this just isn't true - you DO mind other people's sexual behavior.

The only reason for those types of behavior to be illegal are because they are violent predatory behaviors. The fact that they have sexual connotations are of only secondary concern to me. I'm against the government in any form minding other people's normative sexual behavior.

Note that I have substituted "government" now for "people" Since that might have been construed as meaning that I really cared what other people think. It is certainly their right to say whatever they think. It is not however, their right to impose their thinking on me or anyone else by trying to legislate morality.

Note also that I have included the term normative. Which will perhaps clarify again that we are talking about normative sex not involving coercion by violence or authoritarian means. Or any other method of coercion that you may decide you want to interject.


continued....

[Blackheart]

Again with the 8k word limit. I'm just going to have to stop being so verbose and start killing tangental points.

Is this an all-inclusive statement? I'll agree that for SOME things, "What is emotionally or physically damaging to one individual is not damaging to others, and vice versa." but not for ANY thing.

I think that we can safely assume that it does not mean ANYthing. There are of course things that approach a level of absolute danger, such as jumping off a 120 story building (And I won't get cute and say that even that is relative because it excludes base jumpers... oh wait too late). Other things are more subjective, such as alcohol. Good for some people, indifferent to others, and very bad for some people. You have also probably noted that I have stated that sex is one of those subjective things. I.e. it is a behavior that has relative effects based on the individual engaging in the behavior.

Yes, you do it quite often!

Touche'. I can only say that it is an intentional tactic that I use in response to over-simplifications.

But I wouldn't tell them that

No you wouldn't. Because you know that such a thing is usually quite safe. AND you are also aware of the fact that your children understand the difference between Hot pots and Cold pots. Safe pots and Unsafe pots.

However the point is do you object to children learning about the relative dangers of sex, and the difference between safe(er) sex and unsafe sex and the methods and differences? Because that is information they may not know, and desperately need to know. Because there are things out there that are MUCH more interesting to stick your fingers in than pots....

Why would I tell them that? I would explain how cars are designed and how they work, and how to maintain them, and how to drive as safely as possible, but that life isn't simple, and even if they drive safely, others could NOT drive safely and crash into them.

I feel exactly the same way about sex. In fact I think it's MORE important. In fact, I'm not sure I could have stated it better. Abstinence only education does not go nearly far enough in giving them enough information to effectively evaluate the risks.

But IMO, it's WORTH the risks to drive a car properly!

I feel exactly the same way about sex. Or is that redundant.... hrmmm.

And I will tell them how sex is designed and works, and how to maintain a great sex life, and how to have sex as safely as possible, but life isn't simple, and even if they have safe sex practices, others might not, and they might get hurt. But IMO, it's WORTH it to have sex properly!

Excellent strategy. But... What about all those children out there who don't have someone to explain those things to them? To continue the analogy of driving, don't you want those other children on the road to have defensive driving skills also? After all: "even if they drive safely, others could NOT drive safely and crash into them."

The more information available, the better the chances of avoiding such a "crash".

Abstinenece only education is like teaching children about driving, but neglecting to tell them about things like speed limits and stop signs...

And what data supports this opinion? ' "Relatively" recent" '? Usually people that make that claim base it on the TOTALLY unproven idea that primitive man didn't have marriages! I suppose since they can't find a rock newspaper with a marriage column in it, they think the concept of marriage didn't exist ...

It's unknown what kind of ceremonies, if any, neo-lithic humans had. No that wasn't what I was reffering to. I'm talking about pre-hebrew societies. Of which, where there are written records, the types of "marriage" they practiced would hardly be considered as marriage by western conservative standards. 5-10000 years ago is what I mean by it being a "recent" phenomenon.

It is also, while I'm at it, totally a cultural phenomenon. There are existing cultures without marriage that function perfectly well. Which again leads to the conclusion that since it is a cultural phenomenon, and at most what we regard as "modern western" culture extends back to the hellenic period, it's definately "recent".

Both "religious" and secular studies show that a committed, man/woman marriage is the best possible structure for children.

Someone needs to tell all those tribes they are ruining their children. What you are neglecting to state is that those "secular" studies show that two committed parents are better than one. They do not generally show that man/woman committed parents are better than say commited man/man or woman/woman parents. Nor do they show that they are better than three parents, or four parents, or say a child rearing structure in which EVERY ADULT in the entire society regards themsleves as the child's parent.

But it's probably wishful thinking that our society could be like that. We are too fractured as a society to last much longer than another couple of hundred years. And far too big to engage in such tribal behaviors. Hell we can't even figure out how to get single mothers to be committed to their children, much less an entire community.

[Blackheart]

Originally Posted by inked

Blackheart,

Try here for the issue of marriage. A little sociology and history would do you well.

http://entmoot.com/showthread.php?t=11533

'Moot style, of course!

Oh no. I'm not getting into that one right now. And I'm familair enough with the historical and sociological implications of marriage as well as the cultural limitations.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Blackheart

So there were some people mature enough for marriage in the middle ages at 14. A reasonable enough statement. But how do you reconcile it with the idea that no 16 or 17 year olds in today's society are mature enough to decide for themsleves whether or not to have sex? Or even to handle information about sex?!

I won't try to reconcile someone else's opinion. I don't hold that opinion.

See, I have no problem with that statement at all, except for the part where you state that any other option is damaging. Which I will point out is cultural bias.

No, it is NOT cultural bias - it has nothing to do with the culture I live in. It is an opinion that has lived thru many, many cultures and many different times. It is an opinion based on many, many hours of thoughtful consideration that have led me to conclude that Christianity is true. Christianity is in hundreds of cultures, across thousands of years! And since, on available evidence, I think Christianity is true, it makes perfect sense to think that sex outside of a man/woman marriage is harmful, based upon the concept that the One who knows best has designed us a certain way, and things that a designer states are harmful, are indeed harmful. It has nothing to do with a cultural bias. In fact, I hold several opinions that go against my culture.

Certainly sex within a marriage is nice and healthy. However it does not logically follow that other types of sex are therefore damaging. You have yet to give any support for that statement.

See my explanation above, and I can reference a longer post written previously, if you would like.

Note that I have substituted "government" now for "people" Since that might have been construed as meaning that I really cared what other people think. It is certainly their right to say whatever they think. It is not however, their right to impose their thinking on me or anyone else by trying to legislate morality.

I think each person should vote according to what they think is best for society. Do you agree?

And "government" is made up of people, anyway.

[Blackheart]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

And exactly how do you know it "springs from the same fear response"? Are you claiming that everyone who supports abstinance-only education does it out of fear? If so, how can you support that? Of course you can't; obviously, it's just your opinion.

No, I'm stating that it is the most common reason. Are you stating that one of the common objections to abstinence only education isn't the FEAR that teens will suddenly choose to engage in sex once they learn about other options? No of course not, you're just engaging in obfuscation again.

I don't support abstinance-only education, btw. Am I motivated by fear? Wait - you think those who support ab-only ed. are motivated by fear, so I can't be motivated by fear, right? Or are both sides motivated by fear? Is everyone motivated by fear, according to you, or just everyone but you? Just what IS your unfounded opinion on this matter?

If you don't support abstinence only education, then why would you POSSIBLY think I was talking about you? Did you jump to the conclusion that it was addressed specifically at you? Or are you saying that the people who objected to Lawrence v Texas weren't motivated by a fear response?

And where do you get that I'm stating that my motivations have no basis in fear? Of course they are. I'm afraid that reactive individuals want to stifle social freedoms and censor important information that teens should have.

I may have opinions, but If you think they are unfounded then you need to ask for an explination.

No, you changed the words you used. I'll go find an example - hold on.

I don't doubt that I did. It's a common tactic in discussions to use a synonym to clarify what you are trying to communicate. Are you sure you're not trying to say that I've somehow changed what the intent of my communication was? Because I haven't.

What an arrogant, insulting (and totally incorrect) statement to the Mooters here.

Arrogant? yes. Insulting? YES! totally incorrect? no. Because it was not specifically directed at the frequenters of this board, but the population in this country at large.

Did you actually think I wouldn't think it was an assault? Boy, do you misunderstand people.

I'm quite sure you understood the implications. It was a rhetorical device used to reply to your assertion that my statement meant that forcing a child to wear a jacket was equivilant to rape. The response was intended to show that what was important was not WHY the violence was being perpetrated but that it WAS. Did you misunderstand my intentions?

I say the same to you. Or we could be more considerate and not insult each other, and assume that each of us has arrived at our opinion with lots of thought. I know that I have; have you?

Yes I have. Nor am I easily insulted, but I do take issue when I'm purposefully being mistated. Now that we have clarified that we are talking about normative sexual behavior, perhaps we can quit puzzling about why each of us has odd views about predatory behavior.

Can you point to ONE post to support this totally untrue representation of my views on sex? Of course not. Would you please try to not make unfounded accusations about me If you've ever read anything that I've posted about sex, you'd see that I think in the right context, it is a wonderful, amazing, fun, marvellous invention. It is by NO means the "ultimate source of all of humanities sins" IMHO. Please stop making up viewpoints and attributing them to me.

As I stated, now that we have clarified that we are talking about normative sexual behavior, we can stop wondering why the other has such odd views on predatory behaviors.

I'm not interested in what the baptist convention thinks. I prefer to think for myself.

You'll excuse me if I sometimes undergo fits of expediency and lump all conservatives into a single pot. it's not correct but it is at times expedient. The point is, I'm sure that if we discussed the matter ad nauseum, we would discover that there are certain behaviors that you consider to be sexual, and others do not, and vice versa.

I was trying to be considerate to the thread starter and show that I was open to stopping this discussion if they considered it to be off-topic. I'm into being considerate of others.

I'm into trusting others to step in and speak up if they think the discussion has gone too far off topic. I can see where the discussion is still relevent, but I do agree that it was tangential for a time.

And you base this opinion on what? Your own unfounded opinion? Well, I know how much weight to give to that! [/QUOTE]

Are you asking for an explination for the underlying reasoning for my opinion? I've already explained what a fear response is. And you probably know what a taboo is. Oh, I get it, you're trying to be insulting! All this explaining for nothing.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Blackheart

Touche'. I can only say that it is an intentional tactic that I use in response to over-simplifications.

*hee hee!*

However the point is do you object to children learning about the relative dangers of sex, and the difference between safe(er) sex and unsafe sex and the methods and differences?

I don't object to that concept. I probably would differ from you in how it's presented.

Abstinence only education does not go nearly far enough in giving them enough information to effectively evaluate the risks.

Why do you keep bringing abstinence only when you quote my posts? As I've said before, I'm still considering the question, but am leaning towards I don't think abstinence-only is the best way to go. Are you confusing me with someone else?

Excellent strategy. But... What about all those children out there who don't have someone to explain those things to them? To continue the analogy of driving, don't you want those other children on the road to have defensive driving skills also? After all: "even if they drive safely, others could NOT drive safely and crash into them."

The more information available, the better the chances of avoiding such a "crash".

Abstinenece only education is like teaching children about driving, but neglecting to tell them about things like speed limits and stop signs...

See above comment.

I'll leave inky to comment on the rest - too late now - got to get some sleep!

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Blackheart

I'm into trusting others to step in and speak up if they think the discussion has gone too far off topic.

We have different styles

Are you asking for an explination for the underlying reasoning for my opinion? I've already explained what a fear response is. And you probably know what a taboo is. Oh, I get it, you're trying to be insulting! All this explaining for nothing.

I put a winkie-smilie by the "Well, I know how much weight to give to that!" comment, but I still prob. went too far - I'm sorry if I insulted you, would you please forgive me? I only meant to stress that it's a case of opinion against opinion, but I could have worded it in a kinder way. I didn't mean to insult you at all.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Blackheart

I am a utilitarian relatavist when it comes to definitions of morality. If it doesn't hurt anyone else, then leave it be, because you do more harm in trying to change the behavior.
That is not the same as saying that everyone can decide what their own morality means.

You may also note for your records that I am not an athiest, however I do maintain that western religion is completely back asswards and wrong in their worldview regarding man's relationship to the divine.

The idea that humans can live together in a society with each man as an island is one of the common misconceptions people have about relativism. Did you really fall prey to that misconception or are you being obfuscatory again?

(a quick off-topic post...)

To answer your last sentence, no and no.

Would you like to be next on the "hot seat" on the "why you believe what you believe" thread? I'd love to ask you questions on your beliefs and learn more about them!

[/offtopic]

[Blackheart]

I'm only going to address new points lest the entmoot server burst into flames.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

IMO, YOUR comment about Lawrence was the first off-topic one, and I responded to it But again, we have different opinions - so what? Makes for interesting discussions!

Ah, but that's just it, I don't consider the comment about it off topic at all. It directly relates to the conservative sentiment about sexual taboos. Meaning that if those people are concerned enough about sex to want to peek into consenting adults bedrooms, then it's small wonder they don't want people to tell teens about condoms etc.

Irrelevant in YOUR opinion, not in mine. Totally relevant in response to your comment on Lawrence.

Then I'll have to ask you to explain the relevance, because I certainly don't see it.

Yes, so why did you throw in the comment about Lawrence and minding other people's sex lives? IMO, that was off-topic. Not that I mind (see my title), but please don't criticize me for being off-topic if you went there first!

Already explained above.

Blackheart, I honestly don't think it changed your meaning, but your meaning was unclear, and by being unclear, it was an insult, based on faulty logic, to people that happen to think Lawrence was a bad decision. My comments made you clarify your position, which is fine, and which takes away you (apparently intended) insult for those who disagree with the Lawrence decision. Your clarified position is now: "I meant I'm against the government in any form minding other people's normative sexual behavior." I TOTALLY agree with you! The only difference we have is in our definition of "normative", and our definitions are based on our unproven and unproveable worldviews. So we're equal

I'm sure that our definitions of NORMAL differ, but normative means roughly "widely" practiced. I use the term normative precisely because no one ever agrees what "normal" is, other than most washing machines have a setting called that. As such behaviors like homosexuality and sodomy are normative, because they are "widely" practiced. I understand what you mean well enough, but I'm not sure you understand that normative isn't an opinion based standard like "normal".

In fact, quite a few sexual practices I consider not to be normal, I don't want to see the governemnt regulate. I don't CARE if the man wants to dress up in women's clothing and hump black leather boots, I don't think the government should regulate it (and I certainly don't want to KNOW about it). As long as there's no violence involved in obtaining the boots, I'd just as soon not think about it.

And I only omitted the insult for brevities sake. I still think that people who want to regulate ... for the sake of clarity I'll say .... what other people do in the privacy of their own homes .... are reactionary snooping busybodies.

I didn't put those words in your mouth - I'm sorry if you misunderstood me. I was only saying that sodomy, and heterosexual sex, and rape, and pedophilia, all involve some type of sexual behavior. It's that simple. Classic male/female rape is probably the easiest example - intercourse between a male and female - when forced, we both think it's wrong. When consensual, and in a man/woman marriage, we both think it's right (at least I do, and as far as I can tell, you do too). You also think it's OK in other situations, based on your worldview. You're certainly entitled to your opinion, and so am I.

Well then that's settled. Because I was getting a little weirded out with the mixed signals. As long as we agree that in those types of behavior the overiding concern is the violence, then it's probably best to let sleeping dogs lie.

Yes, you DO care - you just said "as long as it is consensual". See, you have limits that you put on these types of things, and so do I. So what's the big deal if we disagree? I'm perfectly willing to even say that you might be right, because I'm openminded. Are you willing to say I might be right?

Right about what? That laws concerning sexual assault are the same as laws concerning prostitution, sex education, sodomy etc.? I'm afraid I'm not understanding you again.

Consensual is an adjective that I'm going to apply to a WIDE range of behaviors. If you, for example, take money out of my pocket, that's stealing. If however I told you it was ok, that makes it consensual, and NOT stealing!

Does that clarify matters?

All I did was point out something that IMO is extremely important - that we both have opinions on what is normative/acceptable. Lawrence happens to support an opinion of what YOU think is acceptable and I don't, and you made what I took to be a snide comment on minding other people's sex lives that hinges ENTIRELY on the UNSTATED fact that you were talking about normative/acceptable behaviors. To me, that's a CRITICAL point to establish, so ... I established it. That's all.

I still have to note that we are talking at some cross purpose here, since normative includes by definition same sex behaviors. It WAS a snide comment. I'm sorry but that's how strongly I feel about any government intervention in individual's private lives or civil liberties. However I'm sorry that you took it personally, because it wasn't directed at any particular individual.

You know, if it wasn't for the comment about minding other people's sex lives, I would never have even brought this up.

Well I thought it was a light at the end of the tunnel, but look out, it's a train!

Yes, because again, IMO it's critical to establish that you're talking specifically about normative/acceptable behaviors! Once this is established, it's obvious that it's only personal opinions on BOTH sides, and your comment about minding other people's sex lives falls flat on its face as far as an insult, because you do the same thing.

To clarify further: Normative doesn't mean acceptable or normal. Normal is too squidgy a term because it is based on opinion. So is acceptable, though it is less so because there you can at least point to widespread social mores and tabboos to try and nail the jello to the wall.

Normative probably includes some behaviors that you find objectionable. To be compeltely honest it probably includes some that I also find objectionable. I don't want to know what grown men do with furry blue suits, I object to even knowing about it. But judging by the number of unavoidable porn site ads about such things it quite likely qualifies as a normative behavior, at least by his point.

I'm going to have to state again for the record that I don't care what other people do in their sex lives, even if I find it objectionable. I don't care if they trade sex for money, swap wives, or (shudder) dress up in blue suits for hot man sex, if they aren't forcing me or anyone else to watch it, or participate in it, in other-words it is consensual (and remember consensual is not a term limited to sexual practices), no coercion in other words, then it's not anyone elses business, and especially not the governments business.

[Blackheart]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I won't try to reconcile someone else's opinion. I don't hold that opinion.

Another perfectly good argument wasted. Just as well, I'd worry about someone who held those two competing opinons.

No, it is NOT cultural bias - it has nothing to do with the culture I live in. It is an opinion that has lived thru many, many cultures and many different times. It is an opinion based on many, many hours of thoughtful consideration that have led me to conclude that Christianity is true. Christianity is in hundreds of cultures, across thousands of years! And since, on available evidence, I think Christianity is true, it makes perfect sense to think that sex outside of a man/woman marriage is harmful, based upon the concept that the One who knows best has designed us a certain way, and things that a designer states are harmful, are indeed harmful. It has nothing to do with a cultural bias. In fact, I hold several opinions that go against my culture.

Sigh. I'm not trying to be mean or anything, but I am going to have to take a very deep breath. Christianity IS a culture. It crosses international boundries and has existed for a couple of millenia, but so do a lot of cultures. Because it is religious doesn't make it any less of a culture. Even if it were all absolutely true and angels fall out of the sky tomorrow, it wouldn't make it any LESS of a culture.

cul·ture "culture" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (klchr)
n.

1. The totality of socially transmitted behavior patterns, arts, beliefs, institutions, and all other products of human work and thought.
2. These patterns, traits, and products considered as the expression of a particular period, class, community, or population: Edwardian culture; Japanese culture; the culture of poverty.
3. These patterns, traits, and products considered with respect to a particular category, such as a field, subject, or mode of expression: religious culture in the Middle Ages; musical culture; oral culture.
4. The predominating attitudes and behavior that characterize the functioning of a group or organization.

Note especially number 4.

bi·as Audio pronunciation of "bias" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (bs)
n.

1. A line going diagonally across the grain of fabric: Cut the cloth on the bias.
2.
1. A preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment.
2. An unfair act or policy stemming from prejudice.

Note especially 2.1 and lets not for the sake of polite discussion go into 2.2

Everyone has cultural bias. It's unavoidable. It's one of the reasons I find things like child abuse abhorrent. But in being objective, I try to be rational, and think of other reasons why something may be harmful, other than my inherant distaste for something or what other people have told me, or what has been handed down as tradition or scripture...

It's not hard to think of why child abuse is damaging or harmful, it inhibits development and passes such behavior on to future generations. Those are empirically demonstrable reasons.

That's what I mean by the difference between cultural bias and objective. If I can't find a compelling objective reason for something being harmful, then I have to state up front that I am basing my opion on my own bias.

On the rare occasions that I bother to talk about such things on this board, I try to remember to do that.

See my explanation above, and I can reference a longer post written previously, if you would like.

Before I go wandering off and lose my train of thought I'm going to ask if a) this post contains any empirically based studies or references to such studies, and b) for the sake of clarity it is possible to BRIEFLY summerize them if it does.

Because otherwise I'm going to point out that references to scripture or traditions or inculcated preferences are cultural bias. Now you may THINK that is an insult, but I'm going to have to remind you that cultural bias is something that you have to work very hard to avoid, and as such it is not something I normally go around lightly insulting people about... Unless they are snooping busybodies wanting the government to spy on me that is...

I think each person should vote according to what they think is best for society. Do you agree?

I used to think so. I'm sad to say that my faith in democracy has been sorely tested lately however

I'm starting to understand what happened to the Roman Republic before Augustus solidified the Imperial model. And it is not a comfortable thought at all.

Democracy works best when everyone has all the available information so that they can make informed decisions. But there has been a disturbing trend lately away from government disclosure. Coupled with the disturbing tactics in the most recent US Presidential election, and then again in the Ukraine, one could only wish someone would discover a better system.

And "government" is made up of people, anyway.

Lincoln's government of government for the people, by the people, and of the people passed away a while ago I'm afraid. I looked into what it took to seriously run for office. I was dismayed by the impossibility of running a remotely succesful campaign. It is literally nearly impossible as a private citizen to run effectively for office. You must be either independantly wealthy, or sell your soul to one the parties and/or special interest groups in order to have a remote chance of even qualifying for the primary.

I don't view that as government made up of "the people". I mean, I think they're human. They certainly screw up enough....

[Blackheart]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Why do you keep bringing abstinence only when you quote my posts? As I've said before, I'm still considering the question, but am leaning towards I don't think abstinence-only is the best way to go. Are you confusing me with someone else?

I'm afraid that you are in the unenviable position of having to pick out from a text based conversation which points are salient to you, and which are meant as a rhetorical response for a wider audience. All I can say is that if it doesn't apply to you personally, then you don't need to address it.

[Blackheart]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

(a quick off-topic post...)
Would you like to be next on the "hot seat" on the "why you believe what you believe" thread? I'd love to ask you questions on your beliefs and learn more about them!

[/offtopic]

I feel somewhat like the christian who was asked by the roman if he'd like to go to the zoo and see the lions...

[Rían]

Aw, c'mon! I was on the hotseat for weeks, and took ALL questions tossed at me!

If you feel you can't logically defend your position, tho, that's another thing ...
(just teasing!)

Seriously, I think it would be interesting and fun. But let me tell you, the people in the hotseat know ahead of time that they will be challenged with no-holds-barred questions (politely, of course - I"m the thread starter, and them's my rules!) and asked to explain and defend their worldview and give good reasons why they hold it. If you don't feel like fielding questions on your worldview, then don't get in the hotseat. If you're up to taking all sorts of questions, and thinking them over honestly and carefully and with an open mind, and responding to them for us, we'd love to have you!

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Blackheart

Sigh. I'm not trying to be mean or anything, but I am going to have to take a very deep breath. Christianity IS a culture. It crosses international boundries and has existed for a couple of millenia, but so do a lot of cultures. Because it is religious doesn't make it any less of a culture. Even if it were all absolutely true and angels fall out of the sky tomorrow, it wouldn't make it any LESS of a culture.

If you want to go by that definition, then that's fine. Of course, then, YOUR beliefs are part of a culture, too.

I thought you were referring to culture as in our modern culture and its associated biases. But I'm willing to work with the other definition of culture, as long as you're willing to admit that your beliefs are part of a culture, too.

[inked]

Well, Christianity is in fact supraCultural on the historical evidence and existent world data. It is not however a single monolithic entity in a cultural mode. It is a mere influence over varied cultures. There is no dominant form of Christian culture in the world, though there is a dominance of mere Christian belief. The Roman Catholic Church would be a branch of Christianity with the most influence in the most cultures in most people's minds, I suppose. But the Greek Orthodox, Anglicans, and Protestants and Pentecostals are branches with cultural influences.

Thus, to use Jesus' metaphor, He is the Vine, we are the branches. But if you put a Pentecostal cultural influence next to a Greek Orthodox one, you might have much trouble identifying them.

There are no "cookie cutter" Christian cultures, howsoever much you might wish it so, Blackheart.

There are consistent moral teachings and foundations and beliefs. These generally result in identifiable behaviours within each society/culture in which Christians live. They result in high ethical and moral values in "practicing" Christians. Cultural "christians" are living off the legacy of formerly Christian influenced cultures and much of what is thought is the mere remnant of Christian ethical and moral teaching which has been abandoned in favor of "relativism". As the basis erodes in "Christian" Europe and "Christian" America, the "Christian" West is culturally less christian and technically post-modern.

I have seen the world according to Nietsche and it is not an enticing view even when compared with Machiavelli!

[Blackheart]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Aw, c'mon! xxxsnipxxx If you don't feel like fielding questions on your worldview, then don't get in the hotseat. If you're up to taking all sorts of questions, and thinking them over honestly and carefully and with an open mind, and responding to them for us, we'd love to have you!

It's not the inclination, it's the time factor. I barely have time to post in the couple of threads I am following. Perhaps once they reach some kind of lull, I can find time to explain what is likely to be rather a rather mysterious and unsatisfying experience for anyone other than myself.

[Blackheart]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

If you want to go by that definition, then that's fine. Of course, then, YOUR beliefs are part of a culture, too.

I thought you were referring to culture as in our modern culture and its associated biases. But I'm willing to work with the other definition of culture, as long as you're willing to admit that your beliefs are part of a culture, too.

If you read more carefully you will note where I stated that, and further note where I tried to explain the process of how to go about being objective.

[Blackheart]

Originally Posted by inked

There are no "cookie cutter" Christian cultures, howsoever much you might wish it so, Blackheart.

And that makes a significant difference to the point how?

I apologize for simplifying the matter, but it really doesn't change much. I could have said CONSERVATIVE culture, and it would have made absolutely no difference, even though there are many different types of of conservatives.
All cultures have sub-cultures, and are themselves made up of individuals, so of course there is a RANGE of opinions. But there is a common base.

I have seen the world according to Nietsche and it is not an enticing view even when compared with Machiavelli!

Sorry, I prefer De' Sade to Machiavelli. Much more interesting to read for one thing....