luvluv

"While that would be the ideal approach, it is not your decision. One can hardly force a woman to terminate her pregnancy due to financial considerations."

I would not ask her to terminate her pregancy. I would like for her to not put herself in a position to get pregnant if she doesn't have the capacity to care for the child.

It is not your decision whether or not I believe in God, yet you feel totally justified in sharing that opinion with me. I don't attack you for that, I simply deal with your arguments. It would be nice if you could treat me with the same respect.

"At what colleges, in what fields, at what salary levels?"

Maybe it would help if you, who made the claim about the educational inequities between men and women, gave some documentation to verify the claim.

"The income of men is generally higher than that of women. As for raising a child on a single income, that is exactly what happens with one stay-at-home parent. Are you advocating that both parents work full-time?"

Generally speaking, if there is a stay at home parent in a household that household can afford a stay at home parent. I just made the general statement that in most working class and poor homes, this is not an option.

"Marriage is still important to the majority of people in this society. So is the nuclear family. As for the sex act, frankly, that is none of your business."

Of course, in speficic instances, the sex life of an actual individual who has no relationship to me is none of my business. But I believe I do have a right to state and to advocate what I believe the role of sex to be in general. That is my business as much as it is anyone elses. Is there a good reason why I should not be allowed to have an opinion on this? Again, it is none of your business how or what I worship. Does that stop you from advocating your opinion about it?

"I am a sexually active woman with access to birth control. I do not need to marry or live with a man to have a fulfilling sex life. The lifestyle I practice is acceptable enough to society that I do not have to hide it or suffer persecution because of it. Those are all the benefits I care to share with you on this board. I assure you that those alone are substantial."

My basic point was that the sexual revolution gave women one thing: sex. And that sex was increasingly with men who were less and less committed to the woman they were engaging in sex with. There have been enormous trade-offs for this right, and in my opinion (I do get to have one of those right?) what we have gained is insignificant compared to what we have lost. Is full access to expression of our sexuality worth the loss of family and commitment? I don't think so.

"I have known several single mothers. They are dedicated parents who do an excellent job of raising their children. Whether they are alone because they prefer it that way, or because they have not met a suitable partner, as long as they are adequate parents, it is neither the concern of you nor Mr. Fukuyama."

The "it's none of your business" defense is really an absurd position when we are talking about social phenomena which has a massive effect on the continuity of society. A nation full of children from single parent households will be a radically different populace than the one we have now. In the black community, the phenomenon of fatherlessness has had staggering effects. 70 percent of black children are born to single-parents, and the rest of the nation is headed in that direction. That, my friend, will be a radically different world... and in all likeliehood a worse one. Again, with any particular woman it is of course none of my business, but it is certainly my business to deal with the phenomenon in the aggregate. I think you are taking some of these statements too personally.

"Given the horrors I have seen perpetrated by many two-parent families, I find your insistence on this fact to be somewhat naïve."

I come from one of about 3 two-parent families in my particular neighborhood that managed to remain intact through to my adulthood. Most of my friends who have no fathers or whose parents divorced are in much more difficult positions than I am now in any number of areas. Have you ever read the book "The Unintended Legacy of Divorce?" It details some of the psychological consequences of the break-up of the family union on the children of a family.

"No doubt two loving, kind, ideal partners would be an optimal environment for child-rearing."

That's all I've been saying.

"I suspect it is not realities we are dealing with, but your own personal prejudices against sexual activity or motherhood outside marriage."

They aren't my prejudices. They aren't prejudices. I have seen first hand the unintended consequences of recreational sex and fatherlessness in my community. They aren't pretty. I want to keep them from happening, and I only see one way that can happen: people valuing their sexuality as a gift to be shared with only within the context of commitment between two loving partners. I actually think it is you who is getting defensive because of your own lifestyle choices.

"You would guess wrongly. I can name a dozen examples that I know of personally, both through volunteer work and my own personal acquaintance."

What I was referring to was the fact that before no-fault divorce laws, there must have been many thousands of unhappy marriages that stayed together for the sake of the children. Furthermore, the children of those unhappy marriages, when they came into adulthood, did not demonstrate the social pathology that is demonstrated in the children of divorce or children who were raised without their fathers. Basically, if your hypothesis is correct, and bad marriages lead to worse social consequences than divorce or single-parent households, then statistical measures of social pathology should have gone DOWN since the institution of no-fault divorce laws and the break down of sexual taboos. Do you think this is the case? Fukiyama's book makes a good case that the pathologies have increased, and that dramatically, since the breakdown of marriage.

"Simple spousal incompatibility can express itself through many behaviors which can create severely stressed and neurotic children."

I'm willing to bet that divorce and fatherlessness are AT LEAST as damaging.

"See your remarks concerning remaining in a marriage gone bad, for example."

I don't remember advocating putting a gun to their heads. I would like to encourage any couple to stay together for their children, but to say that I therefore advocate the use of force or coercion to maintain matrimony is simply a juvenille distraction from the issue at hand. I never said anything about controlling anyone.

"Again, each adult makes life choices for themselves. Can you grasp that?"

Yes. I am expressing my opinon about broad social trends. Can you grasp that?

"How about getting over it? Women may or may not work. They may or may not have sex. They may or may not bear children. They may or may not marry. You cannot control them. Perhaps that is what bothers you, and not concern for the downfall of society?"

Again, this has nothing to do with the issue. I am well aware that I do not make any of these decisions for anyone. To advocate the sanctity of sex is not to desire to control women. I myself am willingly celibate and I advocate celibacy for men as well.

"I have already expressed my dissatisfaction with the quality of your “statistical documentation.”

You've only expressed to me an unwillingness to face facts that make you uncomfortable. You have refused to read or accept any information that is contrary to the position you dogmatically and largely anectdotally hold. It is ridiculous to refer to the data tables I refer you to as "my" statistical documentation. The following is a list of the sources that Fukiyama pulled from to compile his statistics on unwed mothers:

"S. J. Ventura, J. A. Martin, T J. Mathews, and S. C. Clarke, Report Official Natality Statistics, 1996, Monthly Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 46, No. 11 supplement (Hyattsville, Md.: National Center for Health Statistics, 1998); S. J. Ventura, Births to Unmarried Mothers: United States, 1980-1992, National Center for Health Statistics, Vital Health Statistics 21(53) (Hyattsville, Md.: National Center for Health Statistics, 1995); U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Vital Statistics of the United States, Vol. 1: Natality)~ Publication No. (PHS) 96-1100 (Hyattsville, Md.: National Center for Health Statistics, 1996); S. C. Clark, Advance Report of Final Divorce Statistics, 1989 and 1990, Monthly Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 43, No. 8 supplement (Hyattsville, Md.: National Center for Health Statistics, 1995); National Center for Health Statistics, Births, Marriages, Divorces and Deaths for 1996, Monthly Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 45, No. 12 (Hyattsville, Md.: National Center for Health Statistics, 1997).

That you can so casually dismiss such an array of sources shows only your capacity to ignore unpleasant facts.

[ June 17, 2002: Message edited by: luvluv ]</p>

luvluv

The following is a site to statistical data on Sexually Transmitted Diseases. Though the information deals primarily with a particular state (Washington) the graphs do show statistics from the entire U.S.

The graphs indicate that with the exception of gonherrea, incidence of STD's have increased steadily since 1988. The graph dealing with age and sex distribution of STD's shows that women between the ages of 14 and 19 are at the greatest risk of sexually transmitted diseases.

Of course, this is none of anybody's business. These people obviously keep these statistics in an angry effort to control women.

<a href="http://www.metrokc.gov/health/apu/std/menustats.htm" target="_blank">http://www.metrokc.gov/health/apu/std/menustats.htm</a>

This is obviously not data covering the entire period in question, but it is the best I can find right now. I'll keep scouring the internet...

bonduca

luvluv, this is becoming tiresome and repetitive. I am addressing your post, but beyond this, I will not dicuss this with you further, as you are wandering far afield from the original discussion, making unrelated comparisons to your religion, and losing any sort of focus.

It appears that you would like to see sex confined to the institution of marriage, and that you would like to put an end to single motherhood. You appear to censure couples who choose to divorce, though you yourself have never been married or had a living arrangement with a romantic partner. You appear to think the "sexual revolution" a destructive force in society.

I feel the so-called "sexual revolution" was nothing more than women being able to have the pill and a shag without being damned forever. To call that a revolution shows what repressive attitudes we have had toward women and sex.

I think that we as a society still have too many hangups regarding sex, and that ignorance and lack of responsible use of birth control is what causes unwanted pregnancy.

I think if a woman chooses to have a child alone, she should not be condemned out of hand for having made that decision. If she is a bad mother because of immaturity, poverty, emotional problems, or drug use, it is those factors that are to blame, not her single status, and they are not negated by bonds of holy matrimony.

I feel that two people who no longer love each other should be able to part with dignity and seek happiness. Change is a fact of life, as is death, and while divorce is often hard on children, lying to them is worse.

I believe that if a woman says she danced topless in a club for a living, and suffered no ill effects, that I should believe what she says as long as she appears sane and articulate.

I believe that I do not automatically emotionally bond with every person who gives me an orgasm (I cannot help but imagine every woman who masturbates frozen like Narcissus, captured by their own reflection). I do not believe that I am so very different from other women of sense and spirit (though those who prefer a more weak, traditional image of women and are easily shocked may feel differently).

If you choose to defer sexual activity until marriage, that is your right. If you decide, should your marriage not work out, to cling to it with grim determination, it is your choice. But chasing others around with dire prophecies and a chastity belt will only earn you contempt.

You may believe you are a voice crying out in the wilderness. I cannot help but think of you as merely a puppy incessantly barking.

Bree

How true! I grew up in the typical two-parent family. My church WAS like my family - no one had problems with smacking another parent's child if that child had somehow acted out of line.

And yet I emerged one of the most fucked up people everywhere! Thank goodness for psychotherapists and drugs...

Panta Pei

Hey luvluv, thanks for the thoughtful response.

I have been out of town for the weekend and have been unable to revisit some posts in a timely manner.

I found your assertions quite an anomaly from my usual 'Christian' encounters and appreciate your bold clarifications regarding your 'belief' status.

Of course, I find my post on the subject is still an accurate characterization of the popular Christian mythos.

Your recent offering requires another viewpoint, IMHO. I think you may find another perspective of thoughtful interest.

Regarding my claim that Christianity obviously places a despicable priority on its imaginary creator/father/shephard, etc., over we toys/children/sheep, etc., you claim:

[Not true exactly. James said that He who claims to love God and does not love his brother is a liar, and doesn't have the truth in him.]

luvluv, the Christian God is not real, it is a fable to usurp natural human compassion for true loved ones and sets us at variance against each other.

There is no ‘James’ and, quite simply, you should love your ‘brother’ based upon simple human compassion available without metaphors or fairy sky deities.

Since you seem well versed in the lore of the Christian holy book, I’m sure you are also familiar with these writings from the same book of ‘Matthew’ you quoted:

10:33
But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.

10:34
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

10:35
For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

10:36
And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

10:37
He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

10:38
And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.

10:39
He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.

[So here, Jesus seems to be the first soliditarian, putting himself on equal footing with humanity.]

Well, as you can see by these ‘Matthew’ verses, the Jesus character puts himself well above humanity (though, this might just be one of those pesky 'contradictions' I've heard don't exist in this magic spell book )

As a matter of fact, the only ‘crime’ worthy of the eternal torment provided by the loving Christian deity, conveniently enough, is the mere act of disbelief in ‘Him’.

[So, it's not true of Christianity that it puts love of God over and above a love of humanity. In fact, many Christian thinkers believe that it is the same thing. Ghandi said that if you do not find God in the next person you meet, there is no reason to look any further.]

Of course, I live in the southern US where the protestants run amok. So, your claim that many Christians put the love of ‘God’ and human love as virtual equivalents is absolutely ludicrous to me.

Like any compassionate human, I can appreciate your use of the peaceful Ghandi model to bolster your rather liberal, nearly pantheistic, claim that you can find ‘God’ in every person (BTW Ghandi = non-christian, I'm sure you knew).

However, that merely indicates that you appear to be very enigmatic regarding the fundamental core of your ‘belief’.

My assertion is further bolstered by your statement:

[Convieniently enough, no I don't belileve it. I believe that the Eden story is a fable. I believe it's only intention was to show that through acquiring moral choice mankind was made by God to be responsible for his actions.]

Yet, then you convert to a more literal interpretation of another part of the same fable, which is that of the resurrection of ‘God’ in Jesus form.

You flow, quite credulously, into the sinister Christian mindsnare that this supernatural event was ‘historical’ and even quote from the author of the Christian myth, Paul (a quote, by the way, I find wholly accurate )

Here is your conversion from fable to historical event:

[I don't even necessarily believe in substitutionary atonement. I believe it is possible that Jesus ressurection, and not his crucifixion, was the key momment in Christian history (as Paul said: "if Christ be not risen, we are of all men most foolish". I think Jesus time on earth was meant to give us information on how to live, and his Ressurection to give us the hope that He was who He claimed to be.]

This is a very cafeteria-style approach to theism and very indicative of how you have exhibited yourself regarding the topic of "Porno and Morality".

Another classic vascillation comes near the end of the post and is a personal favorite of mine:

[For all intents and purposes, out of everything in the Bible, this looks MOST like something that was NOT meant to be taken literally, but only figuratively. So that's how I take it.]

As you and others may know by now, I simply disagree, using the same ability to apply critical thinking skills you apparently use to pick and choose that which is literal versus that which is figurative.

IMHO, the entire reading of the Christian holy book provides ample evidence that it is a collection of plagiarized myths and legends.

And, while I do appreciate your candor and assertions, I cannot find much of value in the thing taken in its entirety.

Human civilization has progressed significantly due to recent secularization and has much to lose within a theistic mindset.

As do personal relationships, I have also discovered.

You conclude:

[I'm not a biblical literalist, just so you know.]

Thanks for being forthright, luvluv, for I have no quarrel with mystics the like of Meister Eckhart, Brother Bruno or Bishop Spong as it is my understanding that you will join the rest of us heathens at the 'Great Bonfire' for your heretical interpretations of “God’s Word”.

Daggah

luvluv, it's interesting and ironic that you refer to STD statistics to support your POV, when, in fact, the more sexually liberal countries of Europe have MUCH lower STD rates (and teen pregnancy rates) than America.

Dark Jedi

Great, now you went and brought up facts.
I also wanted to point out that the statistics she pointed out were based on a rise in incidence, particularly in a noted age range.
What they do not point out is a rise in population that shows a reduction in percentage of the same groups getting STD's. Do we leave out the inconvenient facts now?

luvluv

Daggah: It may be true that Europe has less of an incidence of illegitimacy than in the US, but as Fukiyama's graphs DO ACTUALLY SHOW (if you'll bother to take the link and look at them) is that rates of illegitimacy are on the rise in those sexually liberated countries since the introduction of the widespread use of contraception. I don't see the relevance of the relative rates between the two countries. I also would like you to define the term "more sexually liberated"? Do you think they are more sexually liberated because they have nude beaches? It is sexual activity, not attitudes towards sexual behavior, that increases risk of STD's and pregnancies. And, again, I encourage you to read the statistics on European countries in the Fukiyama link provided above.

Dark Jedi, I will look up whether the population growth for Washington state between 1988 and 2000 explain the increases.

"What they do not point out is a rise in population that shows a reduction in percentage of the same groups getting STD's. Do we leave out the inconvenient facts now?"

Can you refer me to some statistics that back this up?

Pantai:

"luvluv, the Christian God is not real."

How do you know this?

"you should love your ‘brother’ based upon simple human compassion available without metaphors or fairy sky deities."

Why should I?

I agree with Jesus statement that he came to set brother against brother. The commitment to Christ is a primary commitment before which all other temporal claims to our allegiance must fail, but that Matthew 10 must be understood in context with Matthew 25: yes our primary allegiance must be to God but one of the two PRIMARY requirements of that allegiance is to "love our brothers as ourselves". There is no question the gospel of Christ requires a love of humanity. They are not at all in contradiction.

"Well, as you can see by these ‘Matthew’ verses, the Jesus character puts himself well above humanity'

As well He is, which makes it all the more remarkable that He would lower himself to become human, and then go further and equate Himself with the "least of these": the sick, the imprisoned, the poor, the hungry. You do well to point out the beauty of a deity which is mindful of it's place above humanity yet, because of it's love, willing to be numbered as equal with what we consider the worst of humanity.

"As a matter of fact, the only ‘crime’ worthy of the eternal torment provided by the loving Christian deity, conveniently enough, is the mere act of disbelief in ‘Him’."

Not "disbelief in Him" but failure to put your trust in Him. As Paul says "devils also believe, and do tremble". To put your trust in God, or in anyone, is a much greater act of vulnerability and openness than to simply mentally assent to a proposition. I can believe that a shaky rope ladder over an enormous canyon exists. It is an entirely different matter whether or not I shall trust that rope ladder to support me if I walk over it. Trust is orders of magnitude more intimate and more involved than simple mental assent. Haven't you ever trusted anyone? This is the sort of relationship I have with God. To describe it as simple belief is to trivialize and, emphatically, misunderstand it. And it is at best premature to dismiss something you do not yet understand.

"Of course, I live in the southern US where the protestants run amok."

I live in North Carolina. Tell me about it.

"So, your claim that many Christians put the love of ‘God’ and human love as virtual equivalents is absolutely ludicrous to me."

I didn't say anything about "Christians" I said Christianity, and more importantly, Christ Himself. You can't judge the merit of a concept by the ability of it's adherents to continually live up to it. You cannot use a mathematician's mistaken sum to call into question the validity of arithematic. The extent to which Christians fail to put the love of God and human love as virtual equivalents is the extent to which they fail to be Christian: the failure is with the practioners, not with the theory. To the extent to which men obey the teachings of Christ and that obedience causes acts of unkindness, that is the extent to which you can blame Christianity. If a doctor gives me a bottle of medicine with specific instructions, and instead of ingesting the medicine within the bottle I bash the bottle against my brothers head, what right have I then, when my symptoms are much the same as they were before, to dispute modern medicine? Many Christians have not yet taken the medicine that Jesus has prescribed, but you cannot declare Jesus a failure as a physician because of that. I would wager that you are at times not the friend, or daughter, or employee that you would like to be, but that does not invalidate friendship or family or work. Christians at times fail to be the Christians they want to be (I know I do). Judge the Christian faith by the extent to which Christians adhere to it, not by the extent to which they fail to live up to it.

"However, that merely indicates that you appear to be very enigmatic regarding the fundamental core of your ‘belief’."

"This is a very cafeteria-style approach to theism..."

"As you and others may know by now, I simply disagree, using the same ability to apply critical thinking skills you apparently use to pick and choose that which is literal versus that which is figurative."

"Thanks for being forthright, luvluv, for I have no quarrel with mystics the like of Meister Eckhart, Brother Bruno or Bishop Spong as it is my understanding that you will join the rest of us heathens at the 'Great Bonfire' for your heretical interpretations of “God’s Word”."

Am I hearing this right? It seems that you, an unbeliever, are in some sense accusing me of heresy. I am tempted to believe that you are chastising me for not being an easy mark.

I am completely unbowed at the charge of heresy dear sir. I owe no man any belief, only God.

"Yet, then you convert to a more literal interpretation of another part of the same fable, which is that of the resurrection of ‘God’ in Jesus form."

Well, firstly, that is not part of the same fable. Secondly, I do not believe that Jesus was God, I believe He was the Son of God or the Messiah. I believe He was more than human, but less than God. I'm sorry if this does not help you belittle me. But this is my sincere belief. The crucifixion and ressurection of Jesus is not presented in a way that is consistent with mythology. It is given in what was a modern historical context in a nearby setting and it was claimed to have occured within the lifetimes of most of it's first hearers. Many of the main characters, like Pontius Pilate, were historical figures who were named. There were no talking animals, no "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" or other such allegorical reductions anywhere present. Indeed, critically thinking it looks as if this story were one that was meant to be taken literally, so that is how I take it. That is not at all a "vascillation", that is an opinion that is a very sane and rational inference given the structural differences of the two texts.

"IMHO, the entire reading of the Christian holy book provides ample evidence that it is a collection of plagiarized myths and legends."

I won't deny that there are myths and legends in the Bible, but your mistake is in believing that you have nothing to gain from myths and legends. Myths and legends, stories of great kindness and great faith, often have much to teach regardless of their historical veracity. The story of Good Samaritan, for example, is a story which no Christian would claim to be historically accurate, but it is accurate in painting a picture of love for a neighbor. It is not factual, but it does contain a truth in a beautiful and useful form. Myths that convey morals or hint at greater truths are very necessary to human endeavor. They often contain truths that cannot be communicated otherwise.

"Human civilization has progressed significantly due to recent secularization and has much to lose within a theistic mindset."

Secularization has also provided us with the nuclear bomb which could well make theistic mindsets, and every other mindset, inconsequential... and non-existant to boot. The God of Human Progress is at least as deficient, inept, and dangerous as you make the God of the Bible out to be.

[ June 18, 2002: Message edited by: luvluv ]</p>

Sauron

Wrong.

The primarily and secondary syphilis graph shows a marked decrease since 1988, from a high of 20.3 cases per 100K in 1990, to a low of 2.6 per 100K in 1998.

The latent syphilis graph shows another marked decrease since 1988, from a high of 22.3 cases per 100K in 1990, to a low of 2.6 per 100K in 1998.

Gonorrhea falls from a high of 300 cases per 100K in 1988, to 132 cases per 100K in 1998.

So the bottom line here is that the only STD that is on the increase in the USA is chlamydia. The other ones are in retreat.


And you either cannot read charts, or have decided to fudge the data - in an angry effort to push your view of the proper "traditional family".

luvluv

bonduca:

"luvluv, this is becoming tiresome and repetitive. I am addressing your post, but beyond this, I will not dicuss this with you further, as you are wandering far afield from the original discussion, making unrelated comparisons to your religion, and losing any sort of focus."

My only point was that it was not really honest to say that the overall sexual trends of a nation are not my concern. I think they are everyone's concern. And if you read my posts it is not the sex that I am concerned about. If you can have sex all day long and twice on Sundays, and avoid any negative consequences, I am not at all worried about you. You have been reacting to me as if I were saying that sex was bad or women working was bad. I was only referring to the negative consequences of sex. I assume we would both like to do away with those negative consequences, we only disagree as to the means.

My point was that if the cultures sexual life is none of my business, then the cultures spiritual life is none of your business. To be consistent with your claim, you would not allow yourself to have an opinion about any political, economic, or spiritual issue in the world. But if the long range implications of sex are as potentially influential as the implications of politics, economics, and spirituality. Somehow, we as a culture are able to differentiate between global market trends and invading someone's stock portfolio and telling them what they should buy. But we are not able to distinguish between discussing global trends in sexuality and their consequences and "a desire to control women" or "getting involved in someone else's business". We are not talking about a single or specific indvidual here, we are talking about national and increasingly global trends which have national and global ramifications.

I think we both have been guilty have taking the issue too personally and as a result have been less than rational in our approach. I have reason to believe we are both emotionally invested in this far beyond the facts. I apologize for my harsh statements to you, but I implore you to recognize I am trying to tone things down and make this civil.