School suspends kid for voicing opinion in opposition to homosexuality

[werepossum]

SNIP
What Atreus has shown is that things that make him uncomfortable are deemed "immoral." This is the same thing that all bigots say. Just the newest way to rationalize and justify bigotry. "Eww, that must be immoral!"

You have that exactly backward. What Atreus has done is to adopt a time-proven system of morality he deems given by G-d and live by it, whether it is convenient or not, whether it is the popular position or not. You should be able to recognize that and admire it whether or not you agree with it, as long as he is not attempting to force his morality on others by force of law rather than by persuasion.

I don't have the same understanding of homosexuality and G-d as does he, but I admire anyone who adopts a morality system based on love and goodness and then stands by it. Thus I admire a Jew or evangelical who, say, doesn't eat pork, even though I personally think it's an outdated prohibition, or a Buddhist who won't kill flies.

 

[Moonbeam]

sometimes in a republic the rights of the many have to be suborned to the rights of the few to preserve the greater principle.)

You do not suborn the rights of the many to preserve the rights of the few, you preserve the rights of the many when they are the few.

 

[werepossum]

You do not suborn the rights of the many to preserve the rights of the few, you preserve the rights of the many when they are the few.

True. Almost everyone is eventually in the minority in something.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

I don't have the same understanding of homosexuality and G-d as does he, but I admire anyone who adopts a morality system based on love and goodness and then stands by it. Thus I admire a Jew or evangelical who, say, doesn't eat pork, even though I personally think it's an outdated prohibition, or a Buddhist who won't kill flies.

This is the single biggest problem I have with religion; it is resistant to change. You say that it is a good thing for people to steadfastly stand behind their beliefs. I would argue that clinging to outdated beliefs is a major problem, and the inability to update one's morality based on contemporary standards or scientific evidence is a major failing of certain religious people. If Catholocism hadn't been so resistant to change, Galileo's proof of heliocentrism could have become widely accepted and expanded upon rather than landing him under house arrest for his entire life. If early Americans didn't take their cues from millenia old scripture, slavery would have been made illegal far before the 1860s, and the Civil War could have been avoided. People like Atreus are the reason interracial marriage was illegal in certain states until the 1960s when the Supreme Court had to intervene; sure, there's absolutely no logical reason to prevent blacks and whites from marrying, but it's "icky" and that makes it immoral.

No, the steadfast refusal to change one's beliefs is not something that we should place pride in. It's one thing if Atreus was being tortured by terrorists who wanted access to America's nuclear launch codes; then his steadfast refusal to give in would be noble (although a bit unbelievable, since it's very unlikely he has access to that information). But clinging to outdated beliefs because "it is icky and I don't like to think about it, therefore I will label it immoral" is just asinine. Why should we support that? What system of morality based on love and goodness is so quick to judge others as immoral based around their own consensual actions? Just because Atreus is disgusted by anal sex, every homosexual is immoral? I'm disgusted by brussel sprouts, but that doesn't mean I should label anyone who eats them as immoral. I should let them live their lives and I will live mine... Why is their choice any of my concern?

 

[shadow9d9]

You have that exactly backward. What Atreus has done is to adopt a time-proven system of morality he deems given by G-d and live by it, whether it is convenient or not, whether it is the popular position or not. You should be able to recognize that and admire it whether or not you agree with it, as long as he is not attempting to force his morality on others by force of law rather than by persuasion.

I don't have the same understanding of homosexuality and G-d as does he, but I admire anyone who adopts a morality system based on love and goodness and then stands by it. Thus I admire a Jew or evangelical who, say, doesn't eat pork, even though I personally think it's an outdated prohibition, or a Buddhist who won't kill flies.

There is zero proof that a supernatural creature exists. Is that how we should judge people now? Just claim a super creatures deems we should?

A morality system based on love and goodness and judging people for how and who they have sex with, conveniently allowing them to change how they treat others based on interpretations of 2000 year old texts by desert dwellers?

 

[xBiffx]

There is zero proof that a supernatural creature exists. Is that how we should judge people now? Just claim a super creatures deems we should?

A morality system based on love and goodness and judging people for how and who they have sex with, conveniently allowing them to change how they treat others based on interpretations of 2000 year old texts by desert dwellers?

 

[werepossum]

This is the single biggest problem I have with religion; it is resistant to change. You say that it is a good thing for people to steadfastly stand behind their beliefs. I would argue that clinging to outdated beliefs is a major problem, and the inability to update one's morality based on contemporary standards or scientific evidence is a major failing of certain religious people. If Catholocism hadn't been so resistant to change, Galileo's proof of heliocentrism could have become widely accepted and expanded upon rather than landing him under house arrest for his entire life. If early Americans didn't take their cues from millenia old scripture, slavery would have been made illegal far before the 1860s, and the Civil War could have been avoided. People like Atreus are the reason interracial marriage was illegal in certain states until the 1960s when the Supreme Court had to intervene; sure, there's absolutely no logical reason to prevent blacks and whites from marrying, but it's "icky" and that makes it immoral.

No, the steadfast refusal to change one's beliefs is not something that we should place pride in. It's one thing if Atreus was being tortured by terrorists who wanted access to America's nuclear launch codes; then his steadfast refusal to give in would be noble (although a bit unbelievable, since it's very unlikely he has access to that information). But clinging to outdated beliefs because "it is icky and I don't like to think about it, therefore I will label it immoral" is just asinine. Why should we support that? What system of morality based on love and goodness is so quick to judge others as immoral based around their own consensual actions? Just because Atreus is disgusted by anal sex, every homosexual is immoral? I'm disgusted by brussel sprouts, but that doesn't mean I should label anyone who eats them as immoral. I should let them live their lives and I will live mine... Why is their choice any of my concern?

I think you do Atreus a disservice. He is following Judao-Christian philosophy as put forth in the Bible, not simply qualifying things he finds icky as immoral. I don't think he has any problem letting others live their lives as they wish, even where they do things he thinks are morally wrong. (Abortion being the big exception, granted, but abortion involves a genetically different individual rather than just personal choices.) Personally I think men can screw up anything, even divine inspiration, so I take everything in the Bible with a grain of salt or at least some thought, but I can also respect those who do not. There is a fine line though between steadfastly clinging to principle and refusing to see the light. I suspect that if we discussed enough issues, everyone here would disagree with everyone else on some issue as to where that line should be drawn. (Which is fine and good; if two people agree absolutely, then one of them is redundant. /Boortz)

And I agree about brussel sprouts. I personally find those more disgusting than anal sex, although perhaps not as uncomfortable.

 

[Moonbeam]

werepossum: I think you do Atreus a disservice. He is following Judao-Christian philosophy as put forth in the Bible, not simply qualifying things he finds icky as immoral.

M: I think the icky feeling is why it's in the Bible in the first place. This kind of bigotry is easy for straight people to have. The idea of having sex with a guy makes my skin crawl and makes me want to puke, but I don't have to transfer that feeling over to folk who have a completely different reaction or say they are sick.

w: I don't think he has any problem letting others live their lives as they wish, even where they do things he thinks are morally wrong. (Abortion being the big exception, granted, but abortion involves a genetically different individual rather than just personal choices.) Personally I think men can screw up anything, even divine inspiration, so I take everything in the Bible with a grain of salt or at least some thought, but I can also respect those who do not.

M: I can't respect them. They would as likely take Nazism on faith.

w: There is a fine line though between steadfastly clinging to principle and refusing to see the light.

M: They look like the same thing to me. It seems to me that real piriciple is arrived at by revelation over against the acceptance of dogma.

w: I suspect that if we discussed enough issues, everyone here would disagree with everyone else on some issue as to where that line should be drawn. (Which is fine and good; if two people agree absolutely, then one of them is redundant. /Boortz)

M: Probably

w: And I agree about brussel sprouts. I personally find those more disgusting than anal sex, although perhaps not as uncomfortable.

M: I can guess maybe a few wouldn't hurt but I'd think 30 rounds in a poop shooter might start to hurt, depending on how you load.

 

[werepossum]

werepossum: I think you do Atreus a disservice. He is following Judao-Christian philosophy as put forth in the Bible, not simply qualifying things he finds icky as immoral.

M: I think the icky feeling is why it's in the Bible in the first place. This kind of bigotry is easy for straight people to have. The idea of having sex with a guy makes my skin crawl and makes me want to puke, but I don't have to transfer that feeling over to folk who have a completely different reaction or say they are sick.

w: I don't think he has any problem letting others live their lives as they wish, even where they do things he thinks are morally wrong. (Abortion being the big exception, granted, but abortion involves a genetically different individual rather than just personal choices.) Personally I think men can screw up anything, even divine inspiration, so I take everything in the Bible with a grain of salt or at least some thought, but I can also respect those who do not.

M: I can't respect them. They would as likely take Nazism on faith.

w: There is a fine line though between steadfastly clinging to principle and refusing to see the light.

M: They look like the same thing to me. It seems to me that real piriciple is arrived at by revelation over against the acceptance of dogma.

w: I suspect that if we discussed enough issues, everyone here would disagree with everyone else on some issue as to where that line should be drawn. (Which is fine and good; if two people agree absolutely, then one of them is redundant. /Boortz)

M: Probably

w: And I agree about brussel sprouts. I personally find those more disgusting than anal sex, although perhaps not as uncomfortable.

M: I can guess maybe a few wouldn't hurt but I'd think 30 rounds in a poop shooter might start to hurt, depending on how you load.

Perceived ickiness might have something to do with homosexuality being proscribed in the Bible, but there are other and more pressing issues for a subsistence level civilization. Male homosexuality has health issues that simply aren't relevant in a modern Western society. Female homosexuality has survival issues, removing population growth by removing child-bearing females from breeding. Ancient societies lived and died by population, for in a very violent world where war is practiced mainly by force of arms, the tribe with the largest population usually wins out. It can capture more land (and breeding females) and better protect itself from other tribes, as long as it can control sufficient productive land to sustain itself with a surplus and enough varied sources of food and/or wealth to endure the frequent famines. I can understand why an ancient civilization might well need to prohibit homosexuality for reasons that no longer apply, just like eating pork and shellfish, once major health hazards, are now safe and enjoyable.

And just to clarify, I find neither brussel sprouts nor anal sex disgusting, I just don't personally care for either.

 

[Moonbeam]

Perceived ickiness might have something to do with homosexuality being proscribed in the Bible, but there are other and more pressing issues for a subsistence level civilization. Male homosexuality has health issues that simply aren't relevant in a modern Western society. Female homosexuality has survival issues, removing population growth by removing child-bearing females from breeding. Ancient societies lived and died by population, for in a very violent world where war is practiced mainly by force of arms, the tribe with the largest population usually wins out. It can capture more land (and breeding females) and better protect itself from other tribes, as long as it can control sufficient productive land to sustain itself with a surplus and enough varied sources of food and/or wealth to endure the frequent famines. I can understand why an ancient civilization might well need to prohibit homosexuality for reasons that no longer apply, just like eating pork and shellfish, once major health hazards, are now safe and enjoyable.

And just to clarify, I find neither brussel sprouts nor anal sex disgusting, I just don't personally care for either.

Good grief, you mean that gay people are dragged to death in chains behind cars because some Jews four thousand years ago wanted to win wars and you want to give Atreus a pass on his bigotry?

Shouldn't we change our Holy Scripture now to say that bigots are going to Hell. And shouldn't gay people themselves craft these new Divine Laws because, well after all, gays are masters of fashion and set all manner of trends.