talkpolitics | (no subject)

Current Mood: pleased
Current Location: Korea, Republic of,

Entry tags:

(no subject)

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/15/us/15gay.html?_r=2&hp

California will become the first state to require public schools to teach gay and lesbian history.

As expected, Gov. Jerry Brown signed a bill on Thursday that mandates that the contributions of gays and lesbians in the state and the country be included in social science instruction and in textbooks. School districts will have until next January to begin implementing the new law, which was also promoted in part as a way to combat bullying of gay and lesbian students.

Well, now this is a surprise.After Prop 8 I was forced to revise my opinion on just how progressive California really was. But this makes me think that maybe things might not have been what I though. Sure, their will be opposition. But while this will take some time to fully kick in I think that the genie is out of the bottle and as California goes so goes the rest of the nation. However more slowly.

With this and the ruling against DADT it looks like gay rights is really picking up some steam.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Fairly sure this is not the case. It's hard for instance to discuss the history of Ancient Greece without pederasty or Christianity without noting its resolute hatred of the mere existence of the sex drive.

"Christianity without noting its resolute hatred of the mere existence of the sex drive."

lol...

This is a very real side of Christianity both as it is now and as it was. It's just nowadays they tend to emphasize the hatred of gay sex, and quietly overlook their hatred of heterosexual sex.

I see. Well, it must not be a particularly large portion of Christians who feel that way. Certainly none of the Christians I've met have expressed hatred of or even distaste for sex.

It's an integral part of Christian doctrine. But then so are condemnations of greed and gambling.....

I see. So, you are telling me that my faith has a doctrine I've never heard of...

Now, most Christians believe that sex should be practiced only in a loving and faithful marriage. But how that translates to a "hatred" of sex is beyond me; the other Christians I've talked to, as well as myself, see sex as a sacred and beautiful act which God intended us to enjoy fully.

It's the underlankers mode of argumentation: to find an extreme view of a sect within a larger group, and extrapolate those views into the larger group, which is used to cast the larger group in a negative light while feeding his internal biases.

You're forgetting "make obscure historical references whenever possible; especially about the Civil War."

Yeah I didn't do my due diligence especially when that example is right below this thread...

No, I'm simply arguing that the Bible, when it raises celibacy over sex as holier than coitus actually means what it says. Well, the New Testament. The old has plenty of actual human beings who have lots of sex and wives in it. It even records God burning gays but approving of incest between Lot and his two daughters.....

Yes but by saying that sex should only be practiced in a marriage (some) Christians are condemning all other practices of sex and the people who engage in them. Especially ironic when you consider all the people who can't get married in your country.

Condemning and act and condemning the people who engage in it are to very, very different things. And in fact to confuse them demonstrates a lack of understanding of the very basis for Christianity, literally.

Condemning (or, at least, disliking) non-marital sexual practices, furthermore, =/= hating the mere existence of a sex drive. That is a wild exaggeration.

The Bible in the New Testament, in all books, raises the celibate over the married. The Catholics at least understand the point in theory (in practice it's a haven of pedos). I'm sorry that this seems foreign to you, have you ever actually read the Bible?

You're taking cheap shots on that one, Lankers. Being Catholic is no more or less likely to make someone a pedo.

(no subject)

underlankers.livejournal.com - 2011-07-17 01:54 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

dv8nation.livejournal.com - 2011-07-17 02:55 (UTC) - Expand

Yes, I'm telling you that in Christianity celibacy is holy and even heterosexual sex is icky. If you're ignorant of the Faith I am not obligated to do that research for you. Both Jesus and Paul praised the celibate and damned sex.

Some Christians (mainly Catholics) choose to honor God with celibacy. That is a personal choice and does not mean that all Christians hate sex.

I've read the Gospel, more than once, but don't remember every single detail; do you mind citing where Jesus damned sex?

And I'm telling you that in Christianity, from my experience, sex is celebrated as a holy act to be practiced in marriage. I'm not just pulling this out of a hat, I'm telling you what I've read and experienced with a variety of people and sources as a Christian myself. Perhaps there are some Christians who are truly squicked out by sex, but by no means should you attempt to describe the entire faith that way, especially not with the sarcastic and offensive language that you chose to use.

Actually it does mean that. Jesus praised Eunuchs born for the Kingdom of Heaven, damned divorce (never homosexuality, and His attitude on divorce was far harsher than that of Rabbinic Judaism), admitted Heaven is sexless and chaste, claimed that merely looking at a woman was adultery, where the Rabbinic law was much less stringent and even Rabbi Shammai was less than that....there is no means to read Jesus's words and see anything positive about sex. And Paul is this up to 11, considering celibacy holy and recommending marriage only if you can't keep in your pants "as it is better to be married than to burn." Too, the 144,000 Jews of Revelation are considered holy and virgins. The Bible is very blunt that sex is evil. Now, what Christians write to justify being on their fourth marriage in a row sleeping with whores in diapers is a different story.

None of this proves how modern-day Christians "hate the mere existence of a sex drive."

(no subject)

underlankers.livejournal.com - 2011-07-17 01:55 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

raichu100.livejournal.com - 2011-07-17 02:40 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

underlankers.livejournal.com - 2011-07-17 11:18 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

raichu100.livejournal.com - 2011-07-17 15:23 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

underlankers.livejournal.com - 2011-07-17 19:00 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

raichu100.livejournal.com - 2011-07-17 19:43 (UTC) - Expand

Um, not it is not, especially at the primary and secondary level.

In primary school those issues don't even deserve mention, in secondary school they don't deserve mention beyond that they occurred because Greece's contributions to history and culture were not in any way related to the prevalence of homosexuality or pederasty in their culture, those things are facts without historical significance. Similarly with Christianity the Christian view of sex is really only relevant historically within the context of the events leading up to the reformation and basically the church's 2 faced attitudes towards sex and realistically even this would be an AP level history class.

Sparta might beg to differ with that, as would any history of the wars of the Greeks. The Christian hatred of sex also explains for instance some of those blood libels aimed at the Jews.....

Oh so Sparta became the dominant military power in Greece specifically because they commonly practiced Homosexuality? Seriously? I mean it's not like Homosexuality and pederasty were common in any of the other greek city states at the time and of course we all know that the entire crux of the war with the Persians was just because Leonidas wouldn't give Xerxes a reach around right?

Or you know maybe that whole homosexuality thing is not so important when you're getting 2 weeks to cover the entirety of ancient Greek Culture and history

Not Sparta. Thebes, which kicked Spartan ass. That's why they'd beg to differ. The elite Theban units smashed up the one Classical Age fascist polis so bad it never recovered.

According to Xenophon, the Spartans thought that sexual relations were too trivial to be a consideration in matters of talent.

I was referring to the Battle of Leuctra, where the all-gay Sacred Band ended Spartan military power for the rest of the Polis's existence.

Well we got a lot of St. Augustine in my Catholic schools and the whole routine literally in 6th grade that sperm was sacred, but there was never any mention of routine bisexuality or homosexuality in the Ancient Roman world, and never the story about Lot being hit on in Sodom (evangelical charismatic friends were the ones that told me that). Then I came across John Bosworth's book(s) about some Christian rites of union for same sexed couples. To be fair, the book was controversial and was challenged within the scholarly world.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only