Christ Centered Gamer

Was I the only person who predicted something like this?


http://patdollard.com/2013/07/it-begins ... mosexuals/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


And so it begins...

I'm pretty sure this isn't the kind of stuff we should be discussing here. I believe this belongs in a more "mature" forum, such as Spiritual Matters. I'm moving it there for now.

this is almost a year old, nothing new or surprising here

No, it doesn't begin. NAMBLA's been around far longer than the recent civil rights movement for gays and just because a small amount of people make some noise, it isn't indicative of a future movement. If you think this is an example of the gay rights movement being just a slippery slope to more sin, you don't understand the other side.

Counter example: Should we consider Westboro Baptist Church the next step for christianity?
Luckily, nobody does.

ArchAngel wrote: Luckily, nobody does.

I wish nobody did. (But your point is well taken.)

Deepfreeze32 wrote:I'm pretty sure this isn't the kind of stuff we should be discussing here. I believe this belongs in a more "mature" forum, such as Spiritual Matters. I'm moving it there for now.

Sorry about that, I will remember this for next time.

ccgr wrote:this is almost a year old, nothing new or surprising here

Actually, right after I posted this, I remembered that I should have checked the date of the article, but I never got around to it.

Something else I need to remember to do next time.

ArchAngel wrote:No, it doesn't begin. NAMBLA's been around far longer than the recent civil rights movement for gays and just because a small amount of people make some noise, it isn't indicative of a future movement. If you think this is an example of the gay rights movement being just a slippery slope to more sin, you don't understand the other side.

Counter example: Should we consider Westboro Baptist Church the next step for christianity?
Luckily, nobody does.

I believe that humanity is on the path from evil, to worse evil.

You think that the world is bad now? Just wait, it's going to get steadily worse.


People are all about excuses. Not unlike a child with his parent, "If [younger sibling] can do this, why can't I do this? Shouldn't I have the same rights as him?"

That is the question, isn't it?

I'd rather live now than any other time in history. Getting worse? No. On a sum total, it's been getting better, I'd reckon.

So tell me, you made a claim that humanity is going from better to worse, can you provide some evidence?

Why are people all about excuses? Excuses for what? Excuses for rights? Well, rights should be guaranteed.

ArchAngel wrote: So tell me, you made a claim that humanity is going from better to worse, can you provide some evidence?

He's probably referring to a moral perspective. With the increase in infidelity, sexual promiscuity, violence treated as normal or even as a joke, the legalization of abortion, the way this nation is treating its veterans, etc. I'm sure I could list many, many more examples that have come up in the news lately, and we could go into lengthy debate about how "moral" such actions really are (such as the legalization of gay marriage). And many will cite various reasons why this seems to be taking place - I'm sure that the decrease of church attendance will be brought up as a factor, and perhaps even the theory that taking prayer out of public schools would come into focus.

Personally, I think a big part of the problem lies in the whole idea that we are free to do anything we want. Yes, freedom is a good thing. But somewhere along the way, people have lost track of the idea of personal responsibility, too. We are free to do what we want... but we should be prepared to face the consequences of our actions at the same time. A lot of people seem to forget that - or even worse, seem to have the delusion that the consequences don't apply to them. Maybe it has something to do with the bail-out mentality (the government / parents / money will get me out of this if I screw up too badly). People need to have some sort of moral compass - something to indicate what is good and what is evil. Religion can serve as a good way to provide this (although that would lead to a debate about which religion has the right idea of good and evil...). An absence of some sort of moral guidepost, though - a society where everyone can do whatever they want and it all has the same moral equivalency - would be a complete breakdown in society, and likely very short-lived before some other form of moral guidance shows up (probably in the form of a tyrant).

Sstavix wrote:Yes, freedom is a good thing. But somewhere along the way, people have lost track of the idea of personal responsibility, too. We are free to do what we want... but we should be prepared to face the consequences of our actions at the same time.

I don't really have anything to say about the main subject of this thread, because from reading the comments under the article it seems like there may be several distortions and omissions, rendering the reliability of the article in question.

That said, I do want to throw in my agreement with Sstavix on this. We hear an awful lot of crowing about rights, but rarely about responsibility. If you think about it, each right we have enumerated in the Bill of Rights comes with a corresponding responsibility. We have the right to free speech, and a responsibility to use our freedom in a way that's well considered and constructive. We have a right to own firearms, but the responsibility to do so in a safe manner, etc.

It's how I personally define the difference between a right and an entitlement. An entitlement is when people exercise what they think is a right without any personal responsibility attached to it.

But society isn't amoral. If anything, it's just a set of morality that differs from the conservative. For example, gay rights activism stems from a moral outrage.

And rights are associated with responsibilities, but they aren't a requirement. If responsibility was a requirement, it'd no longer be right. It's not something you have to earn or justify. You just get it. I shudder to imagine a system that would judge whether or not somebody met their responsibilities for the corresponding rights, nor can I conceive of how they could be called rights anymore.

But here's the thing, the "things were better in the past" mentality is based on a huge cognitive biases, like the positivity effect, not to mention they were just less known then. I'm curious how you think infidelity, violence, domestic or not, etc, were better in the past.
Domestic violence has been steadily decreasing, as well as murder rates. There has been a lot of anti-domestic violence programs.
Vietnam vets got shafted and you'd be one unpopular dude if you insulted our armed forces now.
Infidelity statistics were actually very difficult to come by, but it's not like it wasn't a commonplace before. In fact, women really just had to suck it up and accept that their husbands had mistresses. At least now, they can divorce. Of course, that means now it's more apparent and suddenly it looks like there's a rise.
Even teen sexual promiscuity has been falling since the 50's.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ult ... he-present" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/27/health/27well.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/20 ... c-violence" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

ArchAngel wrote: And rights are associated with responsibilities, but they aren't a requirement. If responsibility was a requirement, it'd no longer be right. It's not something you have to earn or justify.

Agreed, and I would say that's one part of defining morality.

I can agree on that.

Sstavix wrote: as a joke,

I want this sign. That is all.

ArchAngel wrote:I can agree on that.

Agreed as well.

I think we're doing pretty well, all things considered. Are there things that suck? Of course, and there will always be problems somewhere, but overall we've seen amazing improvements in recent years.

I mean, let's use that sign as an example. I guarantee you 50 years ago that wouldn't have raised an eyebrow, and probably wouldn't have had the exposure it did. Today most people are not just against domestic violence, but willing to speak out against it. Clearly we are doing much better in that regard, and with women's rights in general (although I would argue that we still have a ways to go). It's not that those things didn't happen in the past, it's that they were more likely to fly under the radar.

I'm gonna put on my atheist hat for a second, and say that a lot of this stuff about the world getting worse is because things are getting slightly less fundamentalist Christian in the US. More liberal Christians and most non religious folks don't see gay marriage as a moral problem, for example, but a fundamentalist or evangelical would likely see that as a society wide moral failure. I don't want to argue about whether or not same sex marriage is immoral (though I'll state for the record that I am all for gay marriage), I'm just putting my opinion out there.

</2cents>

'm gonna put on my atheist hat for a second, and say that a lot of this stuff about the world getting worse is because things are getting slightly less fundamentalist Christian in the US. More liberal Christians and most non religious folks don't see gay marriage as a moral problem, for example, but a fundamentalist or evangelical would likely see that as a society wide moral failure. I don't want to argue about whether or not same sex marriage is immoral (though I'll state for the record that I am all for gay marriage), I'm just putting my opinion out there.

I'm not even an atheist and I agree with you. I don't believe in legislating religion, and the biggest, most vehement arguments against homosexuality are primarily religious. I don't think anyone should have to obey a law that only has any kind of validity if you believe the same way as a religious group.


THERE, I SAID IT, I VOTE FOR GAY MARRIAGE. I'm, ahem, out of the closet on that one