Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[yavanna]

Also, not to get off topic, but this is going towards earlier posts (I think it was Joost who asked me if it was a bad thing to not be religious,,,if i'm wrong sorry), but if there was no religion, what would be the inspiration for people to actually be good? Why wouldnt people just go murder or steal from people without a conscious? I remember growing up and my family would actually leave for a day or two without locking the doors to our house. That would never happen now. The world has changed and I blame it on lack of religion. The bad part is society is pushing to accept that. I cant do that.

Indeed that's easy: There is a strong reason for being 'good' even if you're not religious. If any society would accept murder or theft it would be dangerous for every single one. So it's kind of evolutionary interest to have some basic rules like that. You can base ethic behaviour almost 'logical'. You simply can't do to others want you don't want them to do to you.

[Joost]

Yet,some of our greatest leaders were people who were greatly driven by their religious convictions. Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., and Abraham Lincoln spring to mind.

Oh, but I wasn't trying to say that non-religious people are better than religious people... Indeed, some of the greatest people that ever lived were religious... The people you mentioned, Mother Teresa, Desmond Tutu, Major Bosshardt... My point is that there are rotten apples in both camps... I think that if you would compare crime rates for atheists with crime rates for people who consider themselves to be Christians... I bet there won't be that much of a difference.

[Sondra]

For sure. It comes more down to human nature than anything else. I would think.

[DaveRam]

 
The controversial "Kinsey Reports" from the late 1940's early 1950's shocked the world when it reported that 46% of the American male population had "Reacted to both sexes sexually in the course of their adult lives "
Doe's this mean almost half the male population is "Bisexual" ?

[Joost]

The controversial "Kinsey Reports" from the late 1940's early 1950's shocked the world when it reported that 46% of the American male population had "Reacted to both sexes sexually in the course of their adult lives "
Doe's this mean almost half the male population is "Bisexual" ?

Of course 'reacting' (whatever than may mean) to both sexes doesn't mean that you're actually interested in having sexual intercourse with both sexes.

[DaveRam]

True Joost the reports did'nt say 46% of males questioned had sexual intercourse with another man , it illustrated different sexual contact from mild to full intercourse .
I remember looking at this report when i was doing my social work training , we were having a similar debate when the lecturer through "The Kinsey Report " into the mix , i thought i would do the same .
The findings and the reports have been very controversial since they were published .
It still poses the question what is the " Norm " in terms of human sexuality ?

[Joost]

It still poses the question what is natural in terms of human sexuality ?

Every material thing is made from natural resources and everything we do is in our human nature... So the word 'natural' really doesn't make much sense because actually everything is natural... Some things more indirectly than others, but still...

[DaveRam]

Every material thing is made from natural resources and everything we do is in our human nature... So the word 'natural' really doesn't make much sense because actually everything is natural... Some things more indirectly than others, but still...

Maybe natural is not the right word Joost it implies nature , "Norm" is better .

[Joost]

Maybe natural is not the right word Joost it implies nature , "Norm" is better .

People who always want to fit the norm are usually incredibly dull and uninteresting... So in that case, hooray for unnatural people!  

[DaveRam]

My guesstimate is that  10% of the population is gay and a further 13%  have had more than one bisexual experience and a further 2% have done it once .
I think the headline figure of 46% in "The Kinsey Report" is way to high .
I  think around 25% of the population , are leading pretty interesting lives , behind closed doors.
And what is thought to be a small minority behaving outside the norm is infact a sizeable chunk of the adult population .
And  more to the point if it is going on , it's nobodies business what consenting adults get up to . (beer)

[tkitna]

Thanks for the response Todd. I appreciate it. I guess I was taught the opposite. That the New Testament is the book Christians are to follow. But I haven't been to church or religious classes for quite some time now! I don't even know what I believe in anymore. Sort of agnostic at this point. But that Catholic upbringing is HARD to shake. I'm telling you. They do a number on kids for sure.  ??)

I'm in the same boat as you Sandra. I havent dwelved deep into religious classes or studies for a long time either. The reason being is that my wife and I's preacher, that we really liked, left our church for another one. I was brought up Christian, but the church we belong to now is Baptist. Anyways, we would attend an adult bible study class on Wednesday nights and would really get into it. There was definately some heated debates. I just couldnt accept that a person could murder another person and be automatically forgiven when they asked for forgiveness by Jesus. I'm wrong, but it just doesnt sit with me and the preacher and I would debate that for awhile. I miss those evening classes, but I cant get into the new preacher. We'll probably look for another church soon.

[Geoff]

And  more to the point if it is going on , it's nobodies business what consenting adults get up to . (beer)

Agree completely.

... and I'm always open to suggestions myself.  (teeth1)


(angel2)

[tkitna]

People who always want to fit the norm are usually incredibly dull and uninteresting... So in that case, hooray for unnatural people!  

Yes, but the people that usually live outside the box are usually described as 'strange' and 'weird'.

Listen to us Joost, i'd almost swear that your a liberal while i'm a conservative.

(Just joshing man. Please no politics. I'd have to bail.)

[Joost]

Yes, but the people that usually live outside the box are usually described as 'strange' and 'weird'.

I think there's nothing wrong with being a little 'strange' or 'weird', to a certain extend. Wouldn't life be boring if everybody was perfectly normal?

[Sondra]

Yes, but the people that usually live outside the box are usually described as 'strange' and 'weird'.

Not where I live. Those living inside the box are the weird ones!  

[Kevin]

I'm in two minds about this. I accept that laws don't exist just to punish but to set a moral code (drugs and prostitution.)
Re gay marriage - part of me thinks "let them do what they want." But I can also see a big difference in tolerating gayness (as we do now) and putting it on an equal basis with "normal" marriage. I know in my heart of hearts that our society is built around the family, and we should do all we can to encourage that.
At the  end of the day I don't think our western you-can-do-anything attitude has made us one jot happier or freeer (sp).
So I would agree to civil partnerships, but not marriage

[DaveRam]

I think the traditional family is a fantastic model for bringing up children , im very pro family  .
We should do everything we can to support mums and dads bringing up children , every study i've read shows it's the best model by far .
Thats not to say single parents don't do a good job most  do , ive also had experience of lesbian foster parents who have worked wonders with very difficult young people .
I think civil partnerships are a good thing and should be extended to include hetrosexual couples who choose not to marry .
Civil Partnerships came about in the Uk basically to give longterm gay cohabiting couples some legal safeguards around property as many of them were been penalized by " Inheritance Tax "
I see civil partnerships as a sensible alternative to marriage for couples with a different lifestyle . It is not and was never intended to be on a par with a christian marriage .
This distinction is why when the legislation was put before the UK Parliament it was passed with very little oppersition it also had significant support from the public in the UK .
I think it's a good law which gives gay and lesbian couples some important legal protection .

[Joost]

But I can also see a big difference in tolerating gayness (as we do now) and putting it on an equal basis with "normal" marriage.

Why? What does allowing homosexuals to marry change about the value of a heterosexual marriage? "Honey, being married to you just doesn't feel the same ever since these gays got the right to get married..."

I know in my heart of hearts that our society is built around the family, and we should do all we can to encourage that.

And how are we encouraging that by not legalizing gay marriage?

And another thing... If you feel that marriage is meant as the base you built a family on, then shouldn't you also forbid people who don't want or can't have children to get married?

[Joost]

Here in the Netherlands gay marriage has been legal since 2001. And I honestly don't see how this development affected 'normal' family life in any way.

[Kevin]

Here in the Netherlands gay marriage has been legal since 2001. And I honestly don't see how this development affected 'normal' family life in any way.

ah - but it's like waves lapping against a mighty cliff - apparently harmless but crumbling bit by bit until one day it just falls into the ocean.
Actually I haven't really given a lot of thought to the issue. You raise some good points.