Same sex marriage legalised in the United States

I think it serves as a useful example of a poorly edited work. I'm not sure it should be taught in schools given the sex and violence.

illram said:

It's one thing to not "believe" the Bible, it is another to essentially shun it or disparage it as lacking any usefulness whatsoever in education.

Click to expand...

Great strawman.

And it is an entirely different matter to think it a necessity to read it because one can't truly appreciate English literature unless you do.

For the record, I'm in the crowd that really doesn't see the connection between the bible and an English Lit course. I get that a lot of English Literature has biblical themes, just like a lot of it is more or less paraphrasing of Greek and other older sources, but I don't recall walking into an English Lit course and being met with "we will start by reading the source material."

I had English literature classes which included translated sections of the Odyssey. Including biblical passages makes at least as much sense as that.

MagisterCultuum said:

I had English literature classes which included translated sections of the Odyssey. Including biblical passages makes at least as much sense as that.

Click to expand...

Agreed, it does make as much sense as that.

I don't get it though. I could go on a six month binge and read nothing but genuine English literature. I can't grasp how any single semester course would run out and have to pad with Greek or Hebrew sources.

I think that English lit references the Bible or Homer enough that maybe you could justify such works as supplements.

Timsup2nothin said:

For the record, I'm in the crowd that really doesn't see the connection between the bible and an English Lit course. I get that a lot of English Literature has biblical themes, just like a lot of it is more or less paraphrasing of Greek and other older sources, but I don't recall walking into an English Lit course and being met with "we will start by reading the source material."

Click to expand...

In my case, I think this is more a function of how American school systems classify classes. And perhaps bad memory. "English" is typically just a category of classes. You could have for example an "English" section course called ENG 450: World Literature...or something... and it's "english lit" even though it's not really "english" lit. It's not as much "you must read this to understand literature." More that of all the classes barring a religious specialty, the very wide category of "English" was the category most likely to include the Bible. Or the Odyssey. Or any other book that happened to be translated into English and holding significance as a written work.

For "English" in HS and to an extent in College (that was my minor) anything written or translated in the English language was really fair game.

Formaldehyde said:

Great strawman.

And it is an entirely different matter to think it a necessity to read it because one can't truly appreciate English literature unless you do.

Click to expand...

I mean, you went to the extent of refusing to read it in a course that assigned it, and had your wife do the assignment for you, right? How is that not shunning it? Unless you read it previously or something and were just bored.

Alright, I surrender.

I must admit that as a senior in high school I was taking English 2 for the third time, English 3 for the second time, and English 4, and bailed on them all by taking an equivalency test so I could quit, so I can't claim to have paid that much attention to what was in what class...and I met all my English and composition requirements in college by challenging the courses.

illram said:

I mean, you went to the extent of refusing to read it in a course that assigned it, and had your wife do the assignment for you, right? How is that not shunning it? Unless you read it previously or something and were just bored.

Click to expand...

I never claimed I refused to read the Bible. Now did I?

But I do think there is likely an ulterior motive to intensively studying one segment of ancient religious scriptures while not doing the same for others. If I had known beforehand that I would be assigned to write such a preposterous paper which required intensely studying two specific books of the Bible, I doubt I would have signed up for the course. And I think it is one of the best courses I took in college. This was the only assignment which I refused to do.

BTW my wife got a lower grade than I usually received. I kidded her about it for years being a history teacher.

Formaldehyde said:

But I do think there is likely an ulterior motive to intensively studying one segment of ancient religious scriptures while not doing the same for others.

Click to expand...

Agreed. In high school I think a lot of times its just Christian educators looking for excuses to either insert their holy book into the curriculum, because they either want to bolster the academic bona-fides of their holy book, or because they simply want an excuse to discuss their religion.

In a college lit course I think a lot of times college profs just like being controversial and feeling inclusive... and that is at least part of their motive.

Formaldehyde said:

If I had known beforehand that I would be assigned to write such a preposterous paper which required intensely studying two specific books of the Bible, I doubt I would have signed up for the course.

Click to expand...

Funny... I was just getting ready to ask why in the world you even took the course if you feel so strongly about it... you didn't fully know what the course you signed up for was about. Understandable.

Sommerswerd said:

In a college lit course I think a lot of times college profs just like being controversial and feeling inclusive... and that is at least part of their motive. Funny... I was just getting ready to ask why in the world you even took the course if you feel so strongly about it... you didn't fully know what the course you signed up for was about. Understandable.

Click to expand...

One first has to sign for the bill course in order to find out what is it in

Sommerswerd said:

In a college lit course I think a lot of times college profs just like being controversial and feeling inclusive... and that is at least part of their motive. Funny... I was just getting ready to ask why in the world you even took the course if you feel so strongly about it... you didn't fully know what the course you signed up for was about. Understandable.

Click to expand...

It was a year-long course on Western Civ. We had perhaps 20 books assigned to read over the year. Parts of the Bible were included as well. One of the professors made it quite clear initially that the course was not a Christian propaganda campaign. That we would objectively study the role of Christianity in our civilization as well as its roots in mythology. One of the assigned books was on the topic of the latter. That if anybody objected to this approach that this course was probably not for them. The list of books was handed out during the first few days so we could begin to collect them.

If the essay had been about comparing and contrasting the OT to the NT I would have had no problem with it. There are dozens of other similar topics. But I think this topic definitely went way too far.

Moved this here because it just seemed more on topic

Kyriakos said:

Another question is why would anyone insist on using a business that for whatever reason is not happy to have him as a customer? I mean it is not like the business in question is a monopoly, so they can choose another one. (let alone that routinely a business of quite small size may just choose to not serve you, due to 'reasons', and it would be petty to sue).

Perhaps this is more obvious in the case of the boy scouts being forced to include homosexual team leaders, which really is not a good idea given some parents and kids may feel they are not now comfortable to use that service, and in this case it is a sort of monopoly service. (not that i personally ever was in such an organisation, and do not see the appeal either).

Religions tend to not be logical, so if your constitution protects them then you should allow for some discrimination there, else you effectively are not protecting the religion/the religious in the first place. Again i am not of the view that religions do actual good inherently, but i am surely of the view that a number of people are dependent on them, and it is sort of dickish to erase that just cause other groups of people may feel offended as well. By eroding the religious code you already offend the religious people, so it is not a win-win situation but at best a win-lose one.

Click to expand...

Sommerswerd said:

That is precisely one of the arguments used by the people who were defending racial segregation (in restaurants for example) in the US during the Civil Rights era.

It seems to make sense to you that they might be uncomfortable. So why, in your opinion, might they be uncomfortable with a gay scout leader?

Click to expand...

Kyriakos said:

Well, why would a small boy be uncomfortable with a homosexual doctor?

In theory it is the same. In theory the other person is just there as a doctor.

Yet a small child is not something to play theories on the back of. They tend to be in a very intense situation emotionally, and it is better to not take chances if not needed. The argument is not that homosexual people are more rape-prone than non-homosexuals, but this does not matter if the event can be as psychologically oriented as experiences and views of small children are.

Click to expand...

Sommerswerd said:

So I ask why would someone be uncomfortable with a gay scout leader and your answer is "the same reason they would be uncomfortable with a gay doctor" Yes but what is that reason? You havent answered the question. You said "take chances" take chances with what? If your argument is not that "homosexual people are more rape-prone than non-homosexuals" then what is your argument? Why even mention that if its not your argument?

Or is this a case of you just saying "The argument is not that homosexual people are..." as a disclaimer/innoculation against anyone asking you for some statistical support? Sort of along the lines of "Well I can't say that the little boys are gonna be raped, because I have no evidence whatsoever to support that, but regardless of the lack of evidence we all secretly know the risk is greater because gays are obviously pedophiles." Is that it? Not it? What is the reason?

Click to expand...

Kyriakos said:

Hm? If one gets raped that is sort of the most horrible end result. I am sure no one claims that rape will be the end result in a majority or in any large number of such cases..

However i noted that small children are not viewing things in an adult manner, and sexual things often indeed are experienced with very intense emotions from early puberty children, such as those in the summer camps or doctor appointments mentioned. A child is not really going to bother with statistics if he/she has heard that some adult there is homosexual. Yeah, that may be massively unfair to the homosexual person, but at worst it will be an issue of hurting his/her emotions. In the case of a child it can be a lot more serious than that given the state in life the child is.

Not sure why you deny that children have to be far more protected than any adult? Eg when i realise a person in some place i am in is homosexual i could not care less, but i am 36 and not in a position of weakness anyway, let alone not being in a critical stage of my development like an early-puberty kid is. The dynamic is not the same with a 13year old boy and a camp leader, or a doctor, surely? Figures of some authority are always dangerous even without playing with theories about them.

Click to expand...

Sommerswerd said:

Hm, well apparently no one is claiming anything, including you You still have not given a reason to be worried about gay doctors, scout leaders vor otherwise. You keep telling me what "no one" would say and what "no one is claiming" when I specifically and directly asked what you... personally... Kyriakos, thought was a reason parents would be worried about gays. Stop telling me what "no one thinks" and what you're "not arguing" and tell me what you think, and what you are claiming.
Viewing what in the same manner? "Sexual things?" What "sexual things" happen in a doctor's visit with a gay doctor that are different with a straight one? Please quote where I said this...

And again, protected from what? Sure, but what is the reason you think that gay persons of authority are more dangerous? If gays and straight authority figures are equally dangerous then what reason could you have to reject a gay one?

Click to expand...

Kyriakos said:

Hm, yeah, statistically it may well be so that 'gay and straight doctors are equally dangerous' to harass someone sexually, or cause something relative to that. However in a straight person the sexual tendency to an ephebe or kid of his own sex is sort of non-existent? for some people who just are homosexual and not at all prone to harm others.

Click to expand...

So then do you think that it is dangerous for boys to have straight female doctors because of the tendancy of the female doctors to be attracted to them? What about girls having straight male doctors? Or are you only worried about gay male doctors having male patients?

A person sexually assaults a child because they are pedophile, not because the child is of the sex that they are attracted to. Many pedophiles abuse boys and girls alike.

It seems like what is going on, is that you have made the unfortunately common mistake of equating "gay" with "pedophile." There are a few reasons people do this. The main reason is that people think homosexuality is sexually perverted. Therefore gays are perverts. And since pedophiles are clearly perverts, people assume that since gays are perverts they must also be pedophiles. Another reason is because of the Catholic priest scandals. Since the priests are pedophiles and their victims are usually boys, people jump to thinking that they are gay pedophiles and so all gays must be pedophiles. Is this is what is going on for you?

Kyriakos said:

Moreover it is not exactly a new idea that small children often tend to blame their own self for any trauma they may face, including just emotional/without clear physical aspect. So in cases of authority figures like doctors to kids, or even team leaders in such settings, it is not a bad idea to be as cautious as possible, and that indeed can end up unfairly causing job prospect loss for some people who just are homosexual and not at all prone to harm others.

Click to expand...

Again, what trauma? The trauma of having a doctor who, unbeknowst to you is gay? How could a child possibly be traumatized by that? How would the doctor's sexuality even come up? The only way they could be traumatized is if the doctor assaults them.

Shame on you, Kyriakos. Shame on you. Other words fail me.

Ok, i repent. :\

Anyway, the reading of what i wrote was false. Also any other soundbyte signaling a 'let me just get out of the thread' will do..

(meh, FWIW my point is that IF a person/stranger of authority near the child (in the examples given a camp team leader, or a doctor) is known to be homosexual, that is creating a problem given that small children/ephebes are not likely to examine stuff from a distance, but instead are more emotion-driven, so it can lead to bad situations even if the adult there is just a nice person and not at all out to harm anyone).

:\

Forum is back up! 1st comment on the "New Forum"

Anyway, I just noticed that part of the conversation between Kyriakos and me was missing so I added those to the post.

Glad CFC is back up

Kyriakos you are offending me, and proving yet again ... 'Philolsophy'.

bhavv said:

Kyriakos you are offending me, and proving yet again ... 'Philolsophy'.

Click to expand...

Phi-LOL-sophy for life

φ-lol-sophy, actually.

Kyriakos said:

Phi-LOL-sophy for life

φ-lol-sophy, actually.

Click to expand...

Sounds like a lolspeak term.