If the child is cursing an inordinate amount, like, say, every other sentence,I would council them against it, but not because it is unbecoming, or doesn't fit with my personal ethics, because by cursing that much it would make it very hard to communicate effectively in some important situations. Try going on a job interview and saying the word "****" a few times and see if you get the job, for example.

I would guess that most other cultures that view homosexuality negatively are ones that have been heavily influenced by religion. Maybe you have an example that isnt.

I dont know what you mean by this.

ok, a bit fanciful, but Im sure you know what I mean.

Well, I think that your moral judgement flows out of a cultural-religious perspective. Its possible that mine does too, it will certainly have affected what I think about right and wrong, but I dont subscribe to the belief that all the cultural-religious morals are right.

I still think the harm principle is overplayed. I'm not talking about an inordinate amount. I'm talking about casual cursing period. If I heard a 7-year old curse in some situation where I was in authority over the child (such as helping out in a classroom or something like that), I would correct him, and I'm not thinking about his potential job interviews down the line.

Maybe you would be thinking of that job interview, but it sounds a lot like reverse engineering a justification.

Is there an example of a culture in which religion does not have influence?

See above.

Not really. Unless "the light" means scientific methodology, in which case most moral statements are not going to stand up to "the light."

That's fine. What about morality do you believe is "right"?

Aaron, say you apply to a job (maybe in a new university as a math professor) and they tell you that you can only work in this university if you stop practicing Christianity and become an atheist.

Is what they're doing immoral?

Nope. It might be illegal, depending on the specifics of the institution. And if it were legal, I just would just choose not to work there. (Edit: Actually, I doubt I would have even applied to such an institution in the first place.)

Not job interviews specifically, that was just an example of a situation where cursing would detract from the message you are trying to send and what you are trying to communicate. My point was what is the reason you want to stop the child from cursing? You seem to think it is because you think cursing is unbecoming, I think there is more to it then that.

You said

"I think they would be somehow better as a result of this."

Well, if you don't know how, can you really claim this? I think I can, because I think that in certain situations cursing detracts from the message and what you are trying to communicate. Another reason would be that it is considered contrary to societal norms. If the child curses in school, he gets reprimanded. In polite society, it is advantageous to not curse as doing so will turn you off to a good number of people and be harmful to your goals in certain situations.

Edit: in thinking about it, this is not really analogous either. Cursing is not a "nature" it is a conscious choice that someone makes to say certain words. How exactly can we council someone away from something they have no control over? You wouldn't council someone with tourettes to stop saying f***, would you?

Do you think it should be illegal and why?

So, given your attitude, if you were gay, you would simply not even attempt to join those churches which try to teach you to not have sex with another man, right? That you think would be the best behavior.

Would you drink their coffee?

in case it is possible to boycott a company of which you have actually never bought anything so far in your life i am in.

yes, right is probably not the right word . probably better is correct, useful, applicable
as in
I dont subscribe to the belief that all the cultural-religious morals are correct, useful, applicable.

You are not comparing like with like. I am not an institution, but a person, and I think there are different criteria for acceptance by persons and by institutions. So I am not really sure what it means for me to "accept" people into my life. If you mean, let them be friends, etc., then in fact I do generally avoid becoming friends with people that I think are immoral.

For instance, let's say I met someone who I thought was racist. This would certainly make it more difficult for me to become her friend. I would probably condemn her racism, and it is likely the case that I would do so in ways that would make it more difficult for us to become friends (though not impossible). If her racism motivated her to perform what I consider deeply immoral actions, then it is very likely that I would find it difficult to maintain that friendship at a deep level.

None of this is absolute, but that is kind of my point. Talk of acceptance is not just talk of allowing them to attend, but rather a matter of how welcoming you are of a person. I think that if you think that a person is regularly performing deeply immoral actions then you would probably tell them so in ways that wouldn't be very welcoming.

A life of virtue--moral, intellectual, and physical. A life with a wide range of experiences. A life that exemplifies what is best about being human.

I think an important part of being human has to do with our relationships with others. One of the most important kinds of relationships are romantic sexual relationships. It is an important feature of these relationships that they cannot be strictly controlled--we fall in love with people not of our choosing. Homosexuals fall in love with people of their own sex, and so in order for them to have a fulfilled romantic sexual relationship they will have to have a same-sex relationship--a relationship condemned by many Christians as immoral.

So it seems to me that according to the Christian, the homosexual only has two options, either remain celibate and thus refrain from exploring an important part of what it means to be human or enter into a romantic relationship without a physical attraction to the partner--which also means that you are unable to explore an important part of what it means to be human.

That's only the relational part. I also think that sex itself is important to our identity as humans, and that according to Christians homosexuals should not explore their own sexuality, which to me seems like a lesser life.

Well, yeah, I do think that what Hybels has done then is immoral, but that wasn't really the point I was making. I think it is immoral for Hybels because he is in a position of authority and trust and so has a greater responsibility than most to teach those under his care what is true. I think he has been negligent in seeking after the truth regarding the morality of homosexuality, and so in teaching false beliefs about the morality of homosexuality he is doing something immoral.

However, the point I was making was that I don't think that harming myself is necessarily immoral. So I can choose to remain celibate if I want to--even if this harms myself. My choice to do so is enough to justify it in moral terms. So if Hybels persuades a homosexual to remain celibate, and the homosexual agrees, then the homosexual has not himself done anything immoral (as his making the choice justifies the action). Thus, in that context Hybels hasn't persuaded him to do something immoral. However, he has persuaded the homosexual to do something that probably have a negative impact on his life.

On the other hand, Hybels can directly persuade people to act in immoral ways, such as advising parents of homosexual children to act in hostile or unloving ways.
Okay. I'm not really sure what relevant question hasn't been answered.

Do you have any scripture for this conclusion?

god designed and made everyone, according to you. god is perfect, according to you, so never makes mistakes, therefore god made people who are gay.

You're welcome to think that, but you would be wrong. You would be arbitrarily laying an extra layer of considerations that simply are not there.

I can claim this because I think cursing is an unbecoming habit.

See, this is all kind of arbitrary. It's like people who try to argue that well-being is measurable. You just make up some kind of arbitrary narrative and say "see, this works!" But it's not actually part of an *actual* narrative. It's like Satoshi Kanazawa's level of evolutionary psychology, where he just makes up a story to explain data, but without having any reason for anyone to accept the story.

If you've ever met someone who curses who is trying not to curse, you will find that it's actually quite difficult to change that behavior.

This is odd. It sounds like you're claiming that homosexuals do not have control over their sexual activity.

I believe that you would. It would be part of managing the symptoms of the disease. Of course, it's probably more intensive than just suggesting that they don't do it.

I want to pause here, because I think you would agree that there are multiple levels of acceptance. It's not an all-or-nothing proposition.

Let me turn this around. Suppose Bill Hybels happened to visit you in your office one day. Would you be able to be welcoming to him, despite your disagreement with his rhetroic? I suspect that the answer is "yes." Could you even communicate your disagreement with his rhetoric in a respectful manner? I suspect the answer is "yes" again.

Now suppose everyone in your building treated him the same way. Would that not be both a personal and institutional welcomeness in spite of your disagreements with his rhetoric?

This does not mean that you will necessarily "embrace" him completely. You may not offer him a position as a spokesman because of his views. Does that mean he's not welcome? It's like any other healthy group dynamic. You can be welcomed as an outsider, and the fact that certain things must happen before you become an insider does not negate the welcomeness.

I would say that it's entirely possible to fall in love with "the wrong person." That is, there are people that you might fall in love with that may not result in anything healthy at all. You may find yourself "unfulfilled" in that particular way, but that unfulfillment may be healthier than pursuing an unhealthy relationship.

I would also say that it's entirely possible for people to have full and complete lives as single persons, and even without sexual relationships. It is an important kind of relationship, but it is not a necessary relationship for fulfillment.

This is where we simply disagree. I disagree with your concept of "humanness." I agree in the importance of relationships, and that romantic relationships are a subset of relationships, but I don't think that you're somehow "sub-human" if you fail to be involved in a romantic relationship, or that it negates any part of your humanness.

Again, we disagree. I don't think that sex should be central to human identity. Yes, it's a part of it, but does the failure to have it make you sub-human? If you have "unexplored" sexuality, are you somehow less of a person?

Do you believe that he has done this? This is the second time that you seem to have implied that you think he has, but stopping just short of the accusation.

I think it got cleared up.

Is it? It seems that you agree with my job interview scenario, though you thought it was me reasoning after the fact. So could we agree that there are at least some instances where cursing would leave you at a detriment?

Cursing clearly is not permissible in school as you would be reprimanded for it,I would not consider this to be a positive thing for my child.


you're welcome to think that, but you would be wrong. You would be arbitrarily laying an extra layer of considerations that simply are not there.

Ok well, clearly I disagree. reasons stated above and in previous post,

If you've ever met someone who curses who is trying not to curse, you will find that it's actually quite difficult to change that behavior.

Maybe difficult, but it isn't in their very nature to do so.


This is odd. It sounds like you're claiming that homosexuals do not have control over their sexual activity.

I misspoke I was referring to trying to council people away from homosexuality


I believe that you would. It would be part of managing the symptoms of the disease. Of course, it's probably more intensive than just suggesting that they don't do it.

A doctor might, a laymen shouldn't imo

It depends on the legal system that is being used, and whether it is a public or private institution, and a lot of other details of that type. I do not believe there is a universal "right" or "wrong" answer to the question.

Yes. I already choose not to join synagogues and mosques because of differences of values and beliefs. Similarly, I'm not an NRA member, or a member of either major political party.

I probably shouldn't, but.... what point are you trying to make here?

Source please? The last report I could find on the CDC was done in 2006

Okay I'm confused like all hell. Can someone please write a cliff notes about what happened with Howard Schultz and some conference. I drink Starbucks daily, it's my drug of choice. Thanks.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwr...cid=mm6021a3_w

It seems to refer to a study done in 2008, even though this report is dated 2011.

He signed a contract to speak at an international leadership conference sponsored by a Christian organization. An online petition was started to boycott Starbucks if he spoke. After consultation with the organizers of the conference, they agreed to allow Schultz out of his speaking obligation with no penalty, and the video is a link to the organizer's presentation of the events at the conference.

Some of your coffee money most likely goes into supporting the message that gay sex and sex outside of wedlock is immoral and ultimately evil.

Clearly, a well-informed presentation of facts.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/natio...a-thing/41227/