Derail from Planned Parenthood video thread

[Adrift]

Just that I want some popcorn when Judgement day come for him and all fundy atheists and all prochoicers and all abusers. But I don't like popcorn...

I don't think you're going to be eating much popcorn on judgement day. How bout instead of looking forward to atheists and pro-choicers and abusers being dealt with on judgement day, we continue to speak the word with wisdom and boldness, and pray for those who are not currently in Christ to have a change of heart that awakens a desire to know Him. I know plenty of people, personally, who were atheists, who had abortions and who were pro-choice, who were abusers, and things far worse, who eventually came to Christ. As Christians, we don't delight in other people's suffering, and we don't delight in seeing people condemned to eternal death. To the contrary, we are to be lights in this world, and ambassadors for Christ, so that the love Christ showed us while we were still sinners is made manifest.

[Christianbookworm]

I know... I was just making a bad joke. I just want them to get a lecture, that's all.

[Jaecp]

I know... I was just making a bad joke. I just want them to get a lecture, that's all.

You'll need to write the lecture then.

[lilpixieofterror]

I consider you a troll too. The way to not be a troll is to discuss the topic and not the people. Try adding to the discussion using thoughtful and logical and informed posts, rather than just insulting people.


Cool, you hope to see others suffer. How stereotypically Christian.

Irony at it's finest.

[Christianbookworm]

Irony at it's finest.

Why did he think I want people to suffer? I just want them to get a lecture and never hurt anyone else.

[lilpixieofterror]

Why did he think I want people to suffer? I just want them to get a lecture and never hurt anyone else.

When I was talking about the issues, earlier in this thread, he turned it into a personal issues to call me a 'troll' because he nor his buddies in this thread are capable of refuting a word I said. They always turn threads into personal issues to whine about how mean and evil I am for daring to disagree with them. The hypocrisy is so thick, you could cut it with a knife.

[Christianbookworm]

When I was talking about the issues, earlier in this thread, he turned it into a personal issues to call me a 'troll' because he nor his buddies in this thread are capable of refuting a word I said. They always turn threads into personal issues to whine about how mean and evil I am for daring to disagree with them. The hypocrisy is so thick, you could cut it with a knife.

Apparently he thought I was a troll too...


I guess everyone is supposed to kneel before starlight. Like this.

Except less intimidating.

[Starlight]

Leonhard,

I came across this new article today in which (in the midst of a long and boring ramble that I can't recommend reading) a women explains the level of sex-ed she received at her Christian school. The entirety of her description of the sex-ed is:


I think I understand now what you mean when you speak of sex-ed teaching 'values'. That's how conservative Christians think it should be taught: 95% values, 5% facts. Whereas everyone else doesn't consider that to be actual sex ed, and thinks facts should actually constitute at least 95% of the actual lessons.

[Leonhard]

Leonhard,

I came across this new article today in which (in the midst of a long and boring ramble that I can't recommend reading) a women explains the level of sex-ed she received at her Christian school. The entirety of her description of the sex-ed is:


I think I understand now what you mean when you speak of sex-ed teaching 'values'. That's how conservative Christians think it should be taught: 95% values, 5% facts. Whereas everyone else doesn't consider that to be actual sex ed, and thinks facts should actually constitute at least 95% of the actual lessons.

I'm not sure what the point of that was. Do you want me to find examples of bad liberal classes as well? You don't answer an opponent by finding the worst example of what they're proposing, and offering that to him, but the best of what he's proposing. All I have to say to that class is that it sure sounds like shoddy class.

Its also not what I propose.

[Leonhard]

Well when you say "consistently", I'll grant you that in recent centuries, this has consistently been their position. In the first several centuries of Christianity, there was a lot of idealization of marriages where both spouses pledged celibacy.

Two celibate persons living together is a great ideal, their marriage is perfectly valid even if they choose not to consumate it. If they don't consumate it, technically they aren't married... they're not making a family unit after all. They've chosen to abandon that for the sake of God, but live together. However the fact remains that they can consumate their marriage. They're a man and a woman, none of them essentially infertile.

Its no problem at all for me to say that what they have is a valid marriage, but that they remain two celibate persons living together.

It happens sometimes, I know some Catholic couples who've started out their marriage like that for a while. The patron saints of married couples did that for a while since Blessed Loius Martin and Marie Zelie Martin did that, since Blessed Marie apparently hadn't been taught at all by her parents about the natural facts, and was frightened about what was going to happen on the wedding night. So he graciously waited until she was ready, after having received counseling.

This couple will be canonized for sainthood during the Synod on the Family in the coming October.

The Catholic Church very much encourages education on sex, but it is very much against contraception. That is the only reason I'm against sex-ed in its current form.

Non-vaginal methods of sex have been around since the beginning of time.

I did not deny this. Got any evidence that when men and women got together in the old days they mainly used other means of pleasuring, and that they managed to avoid the unwanted 'side-effect' of having kids?

You're being a bit myopic in your focus on the modern Western world...

Nice subject change. So you deny the sexual revolution?

True. A sex-ed class is highly relevant to the subsequent lives of >99% of the children, while a geology class will be subsequently relevant to <1% of the children. Gee, I wonder which one it would be better to make compulsory...?

The geology class, as that's the only part that's really needed in order open further doors to education. That the other should be made compulsary, in the particular form you desire, depends upon a certain ideal of what a modern citizen should be. You don't tolerate alternatives, I get that. The class is relevant only in so far as you think its a good class.

I have also said that most of a sex ed class is fine. However contraception as a good is not reckognized as a universal good. Only by seculars. And because you think its good, you think it should be taught to everyone. I don't, and if I had kids I'd want them to sit that class out. Could they survive such a class? Of course. But they shouldn't have to.

The types of parents who want to take their children out of such classes, are the types who wrongly believe that such classes teach morality and not facts.

I was told plenty of things during my time in a sex ed class, it wasn't just a dry litany of facts. Homosexuality was discussed, and the only allowable tone was favorable. At that time I was an atheist and didn't care much either way. Thankfully we only had one such class.

I want to see homeschooling banned in general

Good luck on that, even your fellow liberals wouldn't support a venture that draconic, forcing people to attend private or public schools. And preventing parents from taking kids out of substandard public schools in order to give them a better education themselves.

Secondly, hiding behind the word "family" is nearly always an attempt to disenfranchise the majority of people ... anyone in the public sphere that doesn't fit properly into the stereotype of belonging to a 'traditional family' gets disenfranchised or ostracized.

No, I don't advocate that people who are somehow no longer living in a family, that they have no rights, or a voice. I have more friends who live in such a situation, than I suspect that you do. Close friends that I've known for several years. I've housed some of them when they went homeless, because they didn't have anyone but the state to take care of them. And guess what? The state does a lousy job of doing just those things. The state loves you, until you're not an effective worker unit anymore, then you're a problem and you're treated like one.

Family doesn't do that. Thankfully I have the priviledge of having a large and well-functioning family, and its part of what's kept me sane and this well for this long. With this surplus I've been able to help others. And its also why I think the destruction of the family, and any efforts to make this a reality, is a great problem.

In such a world people will increasingly look to the state as an erhatz family authority structure, and it just isn't ever going to be able to shoulder this task.

Within the family itself, the children and wife are generally expected to be subservient to the desires and will of the husband, who is the 'head' of the family.

This is good and proper.

Your own explicit purpose of bringing up the family in this conversation is as justification for why the education of the child and desires of the child are irrelevant compared to the whims and will of the parents, so you are openly in favor of disenfranchising the child in order to give the parents more power.

All you want is to remove power from the families, give it to the state so that the state can educate children the way you want it.

I hope you can see that you are openly advocating the loss of freedom for some people and advocating giving their freedoms and choices to other people to make those choices for them.

Actually I can't, connect the dots for me like I'm a ten year old. Explain how what I propose would be bad for them, how they'd lose jobs, or opportunities, or means of support, or friends?

I did recently see a much more values-based school workshop/intervention on sexuality that seemed to have an anti-bullying theme, that the Ministry of Education here had done a review of. I assume some Christian parents would be horrified their children are encouraged not to bully gay kids at school, since some Christians appear to think bullying gay people at every opportunity is a core Christian teaching (I wish I lived in a world where this sentence could be sarcastic).

Would my son be able to explain, kindly to an LGBTQIA2SP student that he's against homosexuality, and considers it a disordered attraction, and that homosexual acts are a sin, when asked on it? Would that be bullying?

Because as far as I understand what liberals understand bullying to be, that appears to be sufficient.

[Starlight]

So you deny the sexual revolution?

There was obviously a cultural shift within the Western world during the 20th century on the subject of sex. I question, however, the merits of your overarching reading of history through that lens.

I want to see homeschooling banned in general

Good luck on that, even your fellow liberals wouldn't support a venture that draconic, forcing people to attend private or public schools.

Compulsory education...? Gee how draconian, good thing we don't have that...
I've heard a few people wanting to ban it out of concern that the majority of people doing homeschooling hold extremist religious views, and the idea is that the kids could benefit from being exposed to other views and not just whatever their crazy parents think.

And preventing parents from taking kids out of substandard public schools in order to give them a better education themselves.

If I actually believed that homeschooling consistently resulted in a better education, I would not be against it.

Within the family itself, the children and wife are generally expected to be subservient to the desires and will of the husband, who is the 'head' of the family.

This is good and proper.

Wow.
Wow.
I'd really expected you to deny that, and claim it was a straw-man.

All you want is to remove power from the families, give it to the state so that the state can educate children the way you want it.

You're the one that's obsessed with the 'state', I haven't mentioned the word. What I think is that we owe it to every child to ensure that they receive a quality education that equips them with the knowledge and skills they need in life. And I think that is a basic human right of the child, and the parents' whims and wishes and religion cannot be reasonably allowed to prevent that.

Would my son be able to explain, kindly to an LGBTQIA2SP student that he's against homosexuality, and considers it a disordered attraction, and that homosexual acts are a sin, when asked on it? Would that be bullying?

Because as far as I understand what liberals understand bullying to be, that appears to be sufficient.

Wow, that's misunderstanding the situation so badly that it's hilarious.

Firstly, and let's be very clear about this, the current problem in schools with gay bullying, is that students who are either known to be gay, or rumored to be gay, or fit some gay stereotype, get bullied. And that bullying consists of physical violence, verbal abuse (various insults being shouted at them, having derogatory terms or names shouted at them), and social ostracism (people deliberately force them out of social circles, deliberately don't associate them, and use peer pressure to ensure others do the same). It's classic schoolyard bullying that kids have done to other kids for a hundred years, triggered by whatever issues at the time they felt like bullying others over. Today in schools, homosexuality is a commonly selected issue that kids seem to regularly select as a reason to bully someone.

What can your son say about the issue when asked?! He'll never be asked. Students don't go around polling other students on the topic of "what is your position on this particular social or political issue?" That's just not a thing that happens. Even gay kids have zero interest in asking other kids what their religious views on homosexuality are. Gay people do not poll their friends on the subject of gay rights. All that gay kids want is to have friends at school like any other kids, and to not be beaten up physically and to not have other kids yell insults at them when they walk past.

What liberals would consider bullying would be if your son expressed a negative opinion about homosexuality in the direction of an openly gay student, when not asked.

[Leonhard]

What liberals would consider bullying would be if your son expressed a negative opinion about homosexuality in the direction of an openly gay student, when not asked.

Alright, he's part of a group of friends, and this homosexual person is there as well. I remember having discussions about what I believe in High School and also in Elementary, if he states that he believes that homosexuality is a sin... Is that a problem?

[Leonhard]

There was obviously a cultural shift within the Western world during the 20th century on the subject of sex.

Thank you for admitting it.

[Adrift]

I'm not sure what the point of that was. Do you want me to find examples of bad liberal classes as well? You don't answer an opponent by finding the worst example of what they're proposing, and offering that to him, but the best of what he's proposing. All I have to say to that class is that it sure sounds like shoddy class.

Its also not what I propose.

My sex ed class in Jr. High at a public school in New England back in the late 80s was an incredibly laid back affair. It was a co-ed, and included extremely graphic (though admittedly funny) stories from the female instructor on things like how she got her diaphragm stuck once and needed her friend's help, and inconvenient/embarrassing period accidents. Can't remember abstinence being taught. I didn't have much of a problem with it at the time. Probably thought it was pretty cool actually, but looking back I couldn't fault a parent if they wouldn't have been thrilled with their child taking that class.

[Starlight]

Alright, he's part of a group of friends, and this homosexual person is there as well. I remember having discussions about what I believe in High School and also in Elementary, if he states that he believes that homosexuality is a sin... Is that a problem?

Well it doesn't qualify as being the type of bullying of gay kids that is of major current concern.

Expressing stupid opinions in the context of a discussion about opinions is unlikely to ruffle many feathers. Expressing those opinions repeatedly and unasked in the explicit direction of a gay person can amount to harassment and bullying though.

In thinking about whether the opinion itself is a problem, the best analogy I can think of is if the boy were to state his opinion that slavery was a good idea in front of an African American student, or that he thought the Nazis had it right in front of a Jewish student. It's not that those opinions are illegal, or banned, or constitute bullying per se, it's more that they inspire a giant face-palm and nothing good is likely to come of the situation. So from the point of view of "would the liberal left want to ban that sort of thing?" the answer is of course not, and that I would want to see students prone to saying that sort of stuff given gentle advice about thinking before they spoke, and encouraged to consider how their words might affect other people around them.