Public Education Discrimination...

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by train, Jul 28, 2003.

  1. Reverend Love New Member

    Actually this school isn't the first. If I remember correctly a school geared towards openly homosexual teens was opened in Texas during the late 90's....well at least I'm pretty sure it was Texas. What might be different however is that maybe this school in New York is state certified unlike the Texas version where the students only got GEDs.


    I'm going to open a school where children with "learning disabilities" can come and learn English by playing Magic, Physics by playing FPS, Social Studies by playing board games and history by playing historical war sims....all I'd have to do is call their "disabilities" a disease and I'd be off.
  2. Thallid Ice Cream Man 21sT CeNTuRy sChIZoId MaN

    Yeah, the reason is the bible was translated wrong contextually.
    If you want, we can get into an argument. I can get sources and you can get sources. But as you haven't backed that up with anything yet I won't back my statement up either (yet).
    If you want we can agree to disagree. I just want to point out that there are some people who think of that interpretation as contrived falsehood.


    Anyway...


    I think this school may not have been created to defend homosexuals etc. from the rest of the world but to allow them a chance to be in a gay community in high school and not later.

    This may actually help deal with promiscuity... if homosexuality is seen more and more as healthy by the people themselves then they won't be much more promiscuous than the typical teenager.
    Also they'd be somewhat less likely to look to adults for love.

    It may also help people who think they might be gay come to terms with the consequences. Whereas otherwise they might keep quiet about it, because telling people would not help anything, they might be able to transfer to the school and be able to see more people that way.
    I don't think it's a good idea to prevent violence but to prevent needless emotional and eventually psychological suffering.
    However, DÛke pointed out that this behavior could be suppressed forcibly. For the sake of the students I hope the administration are competent people for the job, which is to say that they have a professional, not overbearing, relationship with the students.
    And most of all, remember, this is in New York. It's surely not the homosexual capital of the world but there must be a large homosexual community there. People already live adult lives that way. They might as well grow up that way too if they want to.
  3. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    train: So again, no real problem there. They must have had some success with the two classroom thing and are expanding it.

    DUke: Yeah, I probably still don't understand, unless we're talking about two different things. To me, since science has (now) determined that homosexuality is determined by a gene, I was reading your statements as science has come to the point of affecting the "direction" of the gene so that homosexuality might becoming more dominant. It pretty much boils down to that. Psychology or society effects have nothing to do with the determination of that gene itself.

    They may have an effect on whether people feel more comfortable "coming out" and going public with their homosexuality. In that case, I could see their numbers growing simply because more are known now to be "counted". But in the overall population, I find it difficult to believe that the minority hidden is actually the majority exposed, due to the nature and reproductive practices I mentioned earlier.

    As for wars, in the past, there may have been wars of conquest but called "wars of liberation" as an excuse, just as surely as some people see the Iraqi war today. I guess my point is that the term itself is not new, the way you seemed to be describing. It's really probably an old excuse.
  4. EricBess Active Member

    TICM,

    I'm not going to argue about the translation of the Bible because I agree with you that there are mistranslations throughout. However, I find that in discussions like these, it is best to try to leave religion out of it. I realize, I opened the door with the Bible reference, but if all you have to go on is "...some people argue..." I think then that we will indeed have to agree to disagree.

    You'll notice that I haven't posted in this thread since I put up that original comment. Mostly, it is because I don't feel like there is anything that I could say here that would add anything constructive. I don't agree with much of what has been said, but I also don't think it would be productive to say anything that would undoubtedly degenerate into what would ultimately be simply a flame war.

    Now that I have posted again, however, I feel I need to add my viewpoint. For the record, I have a lot of respect for a lot of homosexual people. At least one of them posts to these boards and he knows who he is. I consider them good friends and good people.

    However, I do not believe, as some, that homosexuality is "natural". I do believe that perhaps there are some people who are inclined to have affection for men whether this be something genetic or social has never been definitively proven either way. Perhaps it's a case by case thing or perhaps it is not.

    From what I have seen of people that I know that are homosexual, there seem to be patterns within their history. Perhaps this leads to the inclination and perhaps it doesn't.

    Regardless, we have been given divine powers of procreation and while these powers may also be used for intimacy purposes, there are certain things which are perversions and which ultimately serve no purpose in the eternal scheme of things.

    I believe that everyone has challenges and things to overcome here in this life and that manifests itself differently in different people.

    There you have it. I have said my peace. Please understand that I do so with no disrespect or intent to offend. I enjoy reading other viewpoints, but this particular topic is one that in general is very deep-rooted for some people. I can respect a person without agreeing with everything they do or believe and hopefully, so can you.
  5. DÛke Memento Mori

    ...

    Wow...I have a lot to say.

    No, my suggestion is not one of "science has come to the point of affecting the 'direction' of the gene so that homosexuality might becoming more dominant." In fact, that statement flies right over what I've have been saying Spiderman. :) What I am saying is that science is, to be blunt, not responsible to all or much alternations in our behavior and our existence in general. Science is, for a lack of better terms, spiritless. How science can be of an influence is only indirectly - it opened the ways to so many different roads, and we, for two thousand years now, have chosen to take the following road:

    Science is truth. Science is the only truth. Science as the leading force in man's life. With that, we have downplayed the power of all other facets of life. Psychology, for example, is unimportant. But the way science can influence our minds, our view of the world...does that not need a psychology, to know exactly what happens, for example, when a three year-old child is born surrounded by computers, cars, everything remote-control, and everything so "spiritless"? But where has there been a study that's "keeping up" with science? Philosophy shies before science, it kneels before science, when more honestly it should stand over science because it is the foundation of all our civilizations. Any society that you believe to be well-going is due to philosophy, firstly, and not science. Science is only an aftermath, a "spoils of war," after a philosophy had been successful enough to generate a well-thriving society. Like America. But, as soon as science takes flight, philosophy must take flight with it to keep the basis of society and science close together, and then psychology must fly as well to keep man healthy as he investigates the science and rebuilds with philosophy - to keeps morals, social duty, social foundations and science all tied up together, to make sure that man moves with balance, and not with distortion, as such been the case.

    Today science is "truth." It is nothing but "truth." Anyone who suggests otherwise has got to be either religious, philosophically strayed, or mad. But is science indeed the only truth, the only “fact” out there? Is it a scientific fact that science is the only fact? In the long run, our reliance on science must necessarily be our downfall for a simple reason: science moves at lightspeed...the foundation to sustain science, however, moves at a slugspeed. The foundation of science is society - a well-off society to be exact. This well-off society is no longer well-off when its science flies over it, when science leaves it behind. A reevaluation of all values must accompany all science so as to keep a certain needed balance...yet where has this been present? Science plays by itself, in its own playground, while philosophy and psychology, which are in themselves very slow subjects, strive to catch on. At the end, you'll see a society of too much science but with a lot of mental problems. Does it surprise you that in the West children are generally diagnosed with depression? That suicide rates are in general increasing? That rape is way more popular in the West than in the East? That mental disorders such as schizophrenia and insanity are more popular in the West than in the East? Back in the Middle East, for example, we don't have schizophrenia or suicidal cases. When someone commits suicide we tremble in disbelief. In the West, in America, it's a very probable case. It’s “natural.”

    Third world countries they are indeed, indeed, but when it comes to mental health? They are first world countries. There is no balance yet, in society and civilization, no balance between science and philosophy and psychology. In all cases where science is seen as "truth" and necessary, it always leaves other human-related studies back in the corner.

    At the end, statements like “Psychology or society effects have nothing to do with the determination of that gene itself” really show the general attitude and misunderstanding amongst people. They treat science as a “thing of itself,” that it doesn’t interrelate and intermuddle with other affairs, that it does not intermeddle with anything else. “Science as truth; science as necessity” – when that becomes the motto, expect the worst. Yes, psychology and society, and philosophy, don’t shape genes, but the unexamined science does. In turn, all of life shapes our genes. The lack of psychology and philosophy shapes our genes, how? It enables science to do whatever it wants without having the proper moral level, proper social foundation, proper philosophies and human analysis.

    Why is this so hard to grasp?

    I’ve taken it upon myself to show Chaos Turtle how what I have been saying does indeed have basis. Now it’s your turn. You say you don’t agree. That’s noble. Now I above all want to know why. As long as children and little no-nothing kids don’t join the discussion, it will keep going like it has been: hot but civil. :)

    Well, many people don’t believe many things. For example: you believe that what happened on September the 11th was an act of “evil,” of “terrorism” I believe pigs can fly at night. Please tell us why you don’t believe it’s natural – no – why its’ not completely natural.

    I’m sure you haven’t been in contact with more homo and bisexuals than I have. In general, most of my friends are either homosexual or bisexual. There is no “repeated pattern” in their history. In fact, their history is as natural and as original, if not average, as any others.
    It’s a case by case thing.

    And how does your God fit into the eternal scheme of things? Other than, say, rewarding you with an eternity which you so desire, an immortality, a reconciliation with your own desires? Once again, you need your God because you need yourself, you need your body, you need, above all, your desires – the supererotic and the other desires. Your God, too, serves no purpose but to reward you. Or I suppose you’re willing to tell me that God will judge you, that you are not yet of the “saved,” that there is a chance you are a one to be scorned by this God? I suppose if this was the case, you would not need your God – you would go on a quest once again for a more loving God: a God that rewards you invariably. To put in your own words: nothing fits the “eternal scheme of things” unless we make it so, unless we interpret it to be so.

    And that’s the popular belief. Everyone will tell you that there are challenges and things in one’s life to be “overcome.” Everyone. Even me.

    Eric, I myself sway towards the belief that homosexuality is not Natural. But I have been trying to support my viewpoint without recalling the “divine” into here. I do not understand the “divine.” You do not, have not, and will not understand the “divine.” So let us speak our language then. :)
  6. Thallid Ice Cream Man 21sT CeNTuRy sChIZoId MaN

    There is a growing moral, existential, and certainly psychological vacuum o'er this land. DÛke thinks it manifests itself more and more these days in strangeness like homosexuality, for example.
    I would agree, though I don't think it's bad.
    What we should do about it is either change the circumstances that allow it to exist in the first place, or allow it free reign, so to speak, as another dimension to human society.
  7. EricBess Active Member

    Duke, you touch upon the root of why I had not posted previously. My argument hinges on the fact that the powers of procreation are a divine, God-given gift and the fact that there is an eternal plan and purpose to our existance here.

    If that is rejected, then I have nothing I can add. But I certainly hope that by now, my view comes as no surprise to anyone. And I happen to think that there is no reason not to allow things to remain "hot but civil" :D

    And yes, Duke, I do believe that there will be a judgement. There is but one God who is the Father of all of us. Anyone who is a father themselves can begin to comprehend the relationship between us and God. The nature of family is a pattern in part for that specific purpose.

    TICM - For the most part, I agree with your assessment, though I think that in the long run, it will be shown that a moral decay of society as a whole can indeed be harmful to the society as well as to the individual.
  8. DÛke Memento Mori

    ...

    Eric, from our past religious talks here, even though they were in my eyes "brief," I don't see a religious man when I look at you. With all honesty, every religious person who I have come in contact with, including my philosophy professors who are supposed to be just a tinge more realistic about life, still stifle around when the matter turns religious. As I have gathered from my very short but condescend experience with religious men, the one thing I've seen over and over again is that they are men with numerous amount of issues and problems - one of them is the deterring of responsibility and action on this Earth and this life, laziness and lack of strive, symptoms of "contentment," of carelessness and downright irresponsibility concerning politics, society, culture, wars, and so on...because they plunge themselves in the hands of the "divine," the great good "beyond." Whatever.

    Decaying life and lack of caring for this world has always meant to be religious. No offense whatsoever Eric.
    That's not what I asked. I asked if you believe that you will be judged, if you believe that there is a chance of you being scorned to eternity. I asked if you believe that God might not be rewarding and all forgiving, that he is punishing and avenging. I asked...if you believe your God to be worthy of being your God if he did not reward you, or if you knew not of a reward whatsoever.

    I don't want to hear about judgment. No. I want to hear about your judgment and your trembling. That's what I'm interested in. "Case by case," Eric, and not mass judgment...

    Tell me, do you secretly think you're "saved"?

    Please don't get into Christianity. You claim that God and man can have a..."relationship." Alright. So Christianity is the bridge between you and your God. Now tell me, beyond the bridge, after you crossed it, how saved do you feel? And if you don't mind telling me what you are saved from, that'd be quite nice too. If this is too personal, feel free to go to shadows, Eric, but just realize that not answering me after I asked the questions does not escape the questions...they'll be inside you until your last day. Please be honest if you answer - as you may know, I usually hide the intention of questions...so I'm pretty good at catching an insincere moment.
    It's not actually TICM who's been suggesting this. It's me. And I know why a religious man would like this assessment - it gives him something to be "saved" from. It makes life out to be unbearable, it invents suffering so as to have him say how "God" can "liberate him from this suffering." But I already said that my argument was arrived at from a different view - a view free of religious and divine poison.

    And Eric, I was serious about you reading Philosophy in the Bedroom. All my philosophy professors have shied away from reading it. I wish you can. I'll send you my copy if you want!
  9. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    Duke:
    I'm not sure how you can say "really show the general attitude and misunderstanding amongst people" when you really haven't offered anything beyond your own theories and beliefs (or a groups). When you say that statement, it means that YOU are correct when it could easily be that your school of thought is incorrect one and my thought is the misunderstood one by you. We're arguing different beliefs where so far one is not more correct than the other.

    You seem to make the connection between "unexamined science shaping genes" and I personally reject that connection. A gene is shaped by whatever can affect its DNA or components or whatever, and to my knowledge, as of now philosophy and psycology do not directly affect or manipulate those components. If it is later shown that they can, we can revisit it. But all I can do is reiterate that what you're saying can affect how comfortable homosexuals feel in the world and accepted in society and that in turn can affect their "numbers" by more being known to be counted, but that's it.

    The unexamined science can affect how society chooses to USE science, the application of it, but cannot materially affect it. Society could have chosen to use nuclear energy solely as an alternate energy source instead of weapons. Society might choose to alter the gene that affect homosexuality in a fetus, either for or against. But as the latter is not in practice, it has not affected the development of that gene as a natural course.

    Actually, I believe it is a more religious stigma, at least it was in America. It has only been in the last 50 years or so that suicide has become more "accepted". Before that, it was largely kept hush-hush and that was largely due to the religious association (especially for Catholics). The Middle East may have such cases but are kept under wraps.

    EricBess:
    I asked it before but never really received a response: Exactly why do you believe that acceptance of homosexuality is tied to the moral decay of society?
  10. DÛke Memento Mori

    ...

    Spiderman, you, once again, misunderstand me completely. No, what I have been saying is not merely my opinion. One thing I don't like is when I say something only to have it rejected because it's my "opinion." Opinion is when someone says "yes" and "no" to a different theories. Opinion is when someone off the street comes to you and presents you with his "philosophy" of life. What you have been rejecting is your up to your opinion. What I have been saying I have backed up over and over again - you somehow manage to not see what I'm saying, while TICM, for example, summarized it quite nicely.

    Anyone can reject. Entire philosophies have been rejected. Entire psychologies have been disregarded. It doesn't mean it's merely an "opinion." It could mean its misunderstood, for one. Or it could mean that people choose to misunderstand it because accepting it competely shatters their belief systems. Or it could be that the philosophy is unfit with what is current.

    I haven't given my opinion. I have given an entire lecture here composed of what I know of psychology and philosophy. You, on the other hand, have been rejecting and accepting, saying "Yes" to whatever, and saying "No" to whatever based on...nothing other than your opinion. That, my friend, is an opinion. What I'm doing is a little more "official." You misunderstand me, and that's of course always my fault - but nevertheless, you misunderstand me.

    Please, describe how evolution works, then. This is a solid proof that you 100% misunderstand me...or maybe you want to drive me mad, because I have been trying to be as clear as possible in this thread. I want to explain more, but the more I explain, the more you misunderstand...and reject based on the misunderstanding.

    I'm really not up for the challenge at the moment...because it is actually a challenge saying the same thing 3 different ways and still have it misunderstood completely. At this point, all I can do is say oh well...maybe if I was a little more clear.
  11. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    I've said that to you before, if I recall :)

    Having someone understand you doesn't necessarily mean that it's "accepted". It means they understood you better than I :)

    I probably wasn't clear either - I didn't mean for it to imply this was "solely" your opinion; I included "or a groups" when I thought of it but it was hidden. In any case, yours is a school of thought that doesn't sound plausible to me. And all I was really saying is that when you say "see, you along with most people have the general attitude and misunderstanding..." either means that you believe your school of thought is correct (which is quite possible since you're defending it) or you're implying that should be the correct one and everyone else needs to "open their eyes" and get with your program. To which I reply: it's not necessarily correct and your school could easily be the ones misunderstanding.

    Evolution is the how species adapt to their surroundings and how a particular gene helps that species survive. For instance, I'll give the famous moth in England example. White moths were prevalent because they lived on white trees and thus were camoflaged from their bird predators. Mutations in their genes caused a couple to develop a darker color so that they were more easily seen and eaten; yet not all were (or the mutation kept occurring). Regardless, they were in the minority. Then during the Industrial Revolution, the trees turned dark with all the soot and pollution coming out of the factories and the tables were turned. The darker moths could hide easier and it was the white ones that were eaten. Then the factories cleaned up their act, trees became whiter, and white moths thrived again

    Nowhere did something directly affect the gene that causes the coloring of the moth. I suppose something in the factories could have affected whatever moths eat or directly affected their bodies somehow, like a radiation type effect, but that wasn't shown to my knowledge. It was the changes in the environment, or society if you will, that caused one type of moth to either thrive to be the majority or huddle in the minority.

    I just think you have difficulty separating what can affect a gene and what can't, being the philosophical type thay you are. :) That and/or perhaps you have misunderstood science throughout your life :)
  12. Lotus Mox New Member

    Could someone point me to some site, which explains what genes affects homosexuality and how do they do it?
    It could be by altering what you find attractive or by changing your behaviour in a way which makes you chose to actually live out your homosexuality instead of hiding it from the society and from yourself, or something completely different.

    Just curious.


    And about the whole procreation: I've just read in an article that in several years/decades, scientists will find ways to give 2 men a child out of their genes (first with some sort of rented child-bearer, later maybe with just an emptied egg). The genetic material of men can be placed into an egg and then everything works as normal (just make sure you don't get YY).


    edit: While I think such schools are a bit silly, it's probably a good thing for some ppl, I guess.
  13. train The Wildcard!!!...

    Chemical changes in one's environment or anatomy, through diet, introduction of chemicals, or chemicals created within the body, are assimilated and adaptation of the body to these chemicals begins. Diet/adaptation to living habits are main causes of change...

    Knowledge or Learning, playing an essential role in the survival of every living organism, changes behavioral patterns that also affect how the organism functions daily... This new intelligence can be passed to offspring by teaching, or learning, and can be enhanced by the discovery of new techniques which gain the same outcome or improve upon the prior outcome.

    Basically an ape would learn something through much trial and error, and once a suitable outcome is achieved, it can be a great benefit to all other apes so it is shown to them. Young apes are taught it from birth and they may improve upon it... as for genetics - the diet may change and allow for not as much hair growth, but more bone development. Less and more of respective chemicals is then produced within the body, causing the body to adapt to new chemical changes - which are then passed on to offspring... Different uses of parts of the anatomy, adapt to the new uses, and changes may begin to occur... Behavioral patterns change but always revert to survival...

    That's why evolution takes so long...

    "It's a neverending story..."
  14. Aku Necromancer Headlights off

    Most of you who find it a bad idea probably don’t know or have never met a homosexual in real life. You people realize there are many people still with minds in the stone ages…this mixed with the hatred a homosexual generally has for himself, I think it is a fair decision.
  15. EricBess Active Member

    I think you've asked the question backwards. I don't think that the acceptance of homosexuality contributes to the moral decay of society. I do think that the moral decay of society leads to the acceptance of homosexuality. It's the whole concept of "casual sex" and "free love with no consequences" that is the essence of the moral decay. After you accept that sex is simply a casual act with no real consequences, you open the door to an acceptance.

    Edit - I want to make it clear here that I distinguish between the acceptance of "homosexuals" and the acceptance of "homosexuality". I can like someone and respect them without agreeing with what they do. In fact, if I can't, then it is I that has the bigger problem in the long run.

    Duke - Yes, I believe that I will be judged. I believe the judgement will indeed be a case-by-case basis. I don't think it could possibly be otherwise because we will each be judged by our circumstances. If I were to go out and kill someone, I have no doubt that this would be something that would keep me from reaching my goals (as it were). On the other hand, I cannot say that everyone that kills is automatically not going to "make it to heaven" because they will be judged based on the circumstances that led them to that act. For example, it is entirely feasible that those hijackers of 9/11 sincerely thought what they were doing was correct. As long as they desire to seek truth, who am I to judge whether or not they were "justified". That's between them and their Lord.

    As far as "being saved from what", that's another issue. It's not a question of "being saved". What most people consider "hell" is reserved effectively for those who flat out reject the truth when they know what the truth is fully. And I can't help but feel that it is a self-inflicted torment.

    As far as the rest of us, we all chose to come to this earth to be tested. What awaits us after depends upon many things, including our desires, our self-control, how we've used the talents given us, and so forth. The degree of glory we obtain will be based on these factors. Many of us will choose to continue much the same way we are now as far as day-to-day "living".

    And do I think I'm "saved". That depends on what you mean. I certainly am not guarenteed "exhaultation", which is the highest degree of glory. Anything short of that would be accompanied by regret that some might consider "hell" even though they have a degree of glory.

    Aku - I have met homosexuals, though I admit there are very few that I have had the honor of calling a "good friend", but that is simply for lack of opportunity than because I would flat out reject them as a good person. I find it interesting that you comment on "...the hatred a homosexual generally has for himself..." I'm sure there are varying degrees, but I wonder if this is true in general. I would argue that this is because, deep down, these people know that this is not natural and is against the will of God. I know I have gone through various struggles to control certain things in my life and there are times when I have hated myself as well. I wonder if this is similar.
  16. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    I guess then the question is why must homosexuality be "unacceptable" in a morally upright society? And who decided what is moral or not? And why is homosexuality equated to "casual sex" or "free love without any consequences"?
  17. EricBess Active Member

    Again, that comes back to the fact that the power of procreation is a divine God-given gift. That's not to say that sex cannot be used simply for intimacy purposes.

    But the whole idea of "casual sex" completely removes the sex act from the divine gift of procreation, making sex akin to going to a movie or out to dinner (only less expensive). It trivializes sex and intimacy and encourages selfishness over family values.

    That is, in my oppinion, what the moral decay of society is.

    Now, the fact of the matter is that some people are promiscuous. And historically, there have been a good number of homosexual individuals as well. So, the question of moral decay of a society has little to do with what an individual person does or does not do, but rather with how society views it. And I don't ever think that a society should condemn someone for their actions unless they are infringing one someone else, but there is a difference between not accepting something and condemning it.

    So, if a society starts viewing casual sex as an acceptable norm, the natural next step is to start viewing "alternate lifestyles" as acceptable norms as well.

    Consider a youth who is just starting to mature and is becoming curious about his (or her) body. They are curious about sex and maybe even have same gender friends that they consider attractive. Because of this, they might wonder if they are homosexual. In most cases, this is simply harmless curiousity with no truth behind it. Some are going to experiment on curiosity and in many cases, this is going to lead to heartache and problems in the future.

    Today's society has gotten to the point where we don't bother telling children to learn from other people's mistakes. As a society, we encourage experimentation. We say things such as, "why even bother to teach abstinance because it is naive to think the kids won't have sex", to which I say you've just entered into a self-fullfilling prophecy.

    Its to the point where most "sex education" doesn't even present abstinance as an option. I would suggest that we should set abstinance as the expectation and then teach the children why we have set that expectation.

    But again, at some point this comes back to "why should this be the expectation", which turns back to the divine nature of procreation. I think society has stopped viewing children and child birth as the miracles that they truely are.

    Edit - I knew there was a reason I was staying out of this discussion. I knew if I got started I'd get drawn into it. Darn you TICM :D
  18. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    Fact, or just the method used to procreate given by "nature"? :)

    Nevertheless, the statement seems contradictory on the surface. Why can't homosexuals experience intimacy in their own way? Because of the procreation part? Then I'd be interested in hearing your views on other "sex acts" other than intercourse.

    It's probably time to separate "casual sex" from "sex outside of marriage", as that's the general vein I read your post in. While there are people who see nothing wrong with one night stands, there are others who are, in fact, in love with their partner yet not married.

    Personally, I think the sex you're talking about has always been part of society and it's just in recent years that it has become more open about it. It was just "hush-hush" in the past. "Kids" or people will always experiment, regardless what you tell them.
  19. Thallid Ice Cream Man 21sT CeNTuRy sChIZoId MaN

    That's why I said at the beginning I didn't want to get into it. :D
    I will let you three and the occasional visitor argue for now.
    One point though...


    I know, from a very strong relationship with homosexual and bisexual people, that the biggest barrier for most of them is this self hatred. You are almost right. The hatred comes from the fact that they think that their sexuality is not natural and against the will of God. Whether or not it is natural, or right, the truth is that each one of them has become much healthier for discarding this belief.
  20. DÛke Memento Mori

    ...

    Spiderman, you certainly misunderstand...seeing how you can write about evolution so..."naturally"...yet misunderstand what I'm saying. And the same I can say about train's summery of evolution. Yet, concerning what I write, I am met with comments like these:
    Now read that again, and read your description of evolution, and then tell me how painful you've been sounding to my ears. You say a gene can't be shaped by philosophy and psychology, or the lack thereof. Yet, when talking about evolution, the very first line of your description says:
    Now, read what I have said before:
    Now if you want to "disagree" with my "school of thought," you should know that you are disagreeing with the belief that philosophy, like Greek philosophy, has shaped our modern societies to the extremist extents. And that would be such an ignorant assertion. Our ethics mirror that of Aristotle, Kant, and Mill. Our Western civilization in its entirety (!), Christianity as a whole (!) tries to be and believe a Platonic (Platonic as in following Plato's footsteps) outlook of life. Philosophy is our foundation by necessity, and not by your choice or disagreement. With philosophy comes in psychology – they walk hand in hand. But now science has moved so far without a recreation of our values, so the well-off societies that we once might have been are no longer as clear, obscured by countless social issues, ethical debates, and one monstrous hive after another of mental deficiencies and illnesses that are more common in the West than in the East. We found our basis, we moved on to science. We forgot that our basis need renewal, since our lives are changed by science, our basis - philosophy - needs a new face as well: once again, to keep a healthy society with a solid base as we move further with science. But this has not been the case. Perhaps it can't be the case - because science moves fast. Philosophy takes few decades and centuries. Who in today's world is willing to suspend the activity of science so as to "catch" on, to recreate our now rotten foundations? No one. Because science makes money, and money makes happiness, and happiness "of the moment" is all that is cared about these days...and so, philosophy can't catch on. Because philosophy means suspending that instinctive, base happiness...it means true working, true striving. But as soon as I say "true," I must also look away. True is not believed anymore unless it is happy...which brings me to Ericbess and his belief of God...
    Since you know so much about divine God-given gifts, could you please tell me what else might be classified under here?
    In the East, or in the Middle East where I'm from - all men can tell other men how attractive they are, can casually kiss, hug, and admit their feelings right out. A majority of them are happily married men too. The same with women, especially the more civilized women. It's not a taboo when a man thinks another man is attractive in the Arabian world. In the Quarn, of course, like other poison as the Bible, homosexual activity is forbidden...but unlike the Bible, the Quran assures a place of admiration for the male body and male beauty later in Heaven. So perhaps that's where the "openness" comes from. The thing is, in the United States for example, a man cannot think another man attractive if he doesn't also begin to doubt his own sexuality - the entire social sphere forces this extreme: men for women, women for men...everything else is homo or bi. Did I mention that the word "gay" and "bi" have no existence in the Arabic dictionary, not until lately, perhaps? Everyone is what one is. The simple label of people creates a sense of anxiety and a ghost of an "ideal" to follow...in the case - homo and bisexuality are always viewed as the "lower," inferior sect of people, which alone might cause this "self-hatred" Aku is talking about. And like TICM pointed out - it may lead them to think that their sexuality is against the will of some divine, higher, all-around invisible power.

    Nevertheless, the entire assertion of "divine will" is lacking on so many levels. There is nothing whatsoever that tells us this, other then they who believe it. I would like to add how they only believe it because it suits them, and not because it is "right" or "divine." That's exactly why Eric refers to the terrorists and "their Lord." They're all classified under different Lords. Because Eric has his own Lord - his own affirming, Yes-saying, ever-nodding Lord - a Lord that is a pure incarnation of Eric's likes and dislikes, moods, and desires. If Eric is not homosexual, then his God is not homosexual. If Eric is bisexual, you can count on his Lord being one too. If Eric likes this or that, his Lord loves it too. What Eric says Yes to, the Lord agrees. It's not the Lord who commands Eric, but Eric who commands the Lord. Eric is the one being on this Earth. It's Eric's pure subjectivity we're dealing with when he says "divine will." What he means is: "my will, but with superiority over anyone elses." Right Eric? :) There is nothing wrong with superiority...but it needs substance to back it up, a personality, a talent, some spirit...not something that is of no relevance to this Earth, something as shallow and irresponsible as a "divine will." No offense. Well, maybe just a little. ;)

    But in the end, I am with Ericbess more than I am with anyone else: I believe homosexuality as a whole is degeneration. Except that I don't see it as the degeneration of society. Society does not degenerate. What we are actually referring to as "decay" is this: science moving by itself, people believing in science, and disregarding other life-shaping subjects, like philosophy and psychology...at the end, leads to a kind of "freedom" and acceptance of everything, since there is no solid foundation, no philosophy ingrained within the people. Science moves fast, it destroys the unexamined foundation, in turn bringing the damnation of entire societies. America calls itself "free" - a second glance at what free means here and it begins to resemble decay. And it's natural: when there are no more rules, which our values had been not reevulated while science has been, the only philosophy you can preach is "freedom," only because you do not know what to preach.

Share This Page