(no subject)

[dv8nation.livejournal.com]

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.

Comments

[raichu100.livejournal.com]

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

lol...

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

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.

[raichu100.livejournal.com]

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.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

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

[raichu100.livejournal.com]

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.

[404.livejournal.com]

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.

[dv8nation.livejournal.com]

You're forgetting "make obscure historical references whenever possible; especially about the Civil War."

[404.livejournal.com]

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

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

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.....

[blue-mangos.livejournal.com]

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.

[raichu100.livejournal.com]

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.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

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?

[dv8nation.livejournal.com]

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

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

The Catholic priesthood certainly is a haven of pedos and those who cover them up. The laity not so much.

[dv8nation.livejournal.com]

Might want to be clearer about that in your posts then.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

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.

[raichu100.livejournal.com]

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.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

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.

[raichu100.livejournal.com]

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

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Perhaps the confusion is one of doctrine v. practice? Because the Bible explicitly bans loans on interest but no Christians advocate to shut down insurance companies. Same principle, different ban.

[raichu100.livejournal.com]

Perhaps. However, your original comment - the one I took offense at - addressed a matter of neither doctrine nor practice, but rather of attitude.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

No, it addressed doctrine, just not one the greedy philandering tax-evading 21st Century Evangelicals backing murderers in the Third World want to talk about. They'd rather circlejerk to their anti-gay cult.

[raichu100.livejournal.com]

"its resolute hatred of the mere existence of the sex drive."

That refers to an attitude. Not a doctrine, and not even a practice, but an attitude. Hatred is an attitude.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

No, it refers to the writings of the influential Church fathers and thinkers which consider sex in general to be evil and icky. Hatred is too mild a term, some of them frankly verge into VHEMT territory.

[raichu100.livejournal.com]

That is an attitude. What they wrote reflects their ATTITUDE about sex. What about that is so hard to understand?

And some Christian writers and thinkers =/= all Christians. Yes, even if you are talking about Paul.