"You keep saying 'morality' but really you're just talking about sex." Homosexuality, promiscuity, and obscenity are just sexual issues. [...] Sex barely scratches the surface of morality. If your moral code instructs you to bring honesty, integrity, and compassion into all your human relationships, it's not clear that you need any special rules about sex at all.
(Slightly longer excerpt, and a link back to the original, here (http://www.livejournal.com/users/dglenn/2004/12/03/).)
With that out of the way, I do not support schoolchildren ostracizing, taunting, abusing, or attacking each other because of their family structures.
Being mindful of, and wishing to protect people from, abusive relationships is another matter. Given the frequency with which the examples you chose are cited for their potential for involving abuse of power imbalance, I do think you're either setting up another straw man (if I say I oppose incest between parent and child you'll say that it's because I'm as prejudiced as a homophobe) or attempting to set a trap (if I say incestual relationships between fully-consenting adult kin with no power-imbalance factoring into their decisions are none of my business, you'll misinterpret it as supporting child abuse and paint me as a monster). I don't like that game. I don't like the third option either: that you're spouting Dittohead rhetoric in whatever order you remember it. Let's play a different game instead, one that's not so dirty. One where we argue and debate honestly instead of laying traps like that.
I oppose abusive and coercive relationships. I respect the right of consenting adults to enter into relationships that I personally find kind of squicky. And I acknowledge that each of the types of relationship you mentioned here can exist in both abusive and non-abusive forms. I don't have to accept coercive polygamy in order to respect those who are in happy, healthy group marriages (a category which includes some of my friends) or polyamourous relationships in general (a category which includes myself). I don't have to accept abusive incestual relationships in order to respect adult siblings who chose, as adults, to become romantically involved -- I don't even have to feel comfortable knowing about it to insist that they be treated respectfully, not have their tires slashed, not be called names on the street ... and not have their children taunted or bullied in school. Especially not that last bit, since whatever else, it's not the kids' fault.
And while this subthread is really no more than a petty distraction (let's face it, you're flailing here), the preceeding paragraph attempts to shift the focus a little closer to being on-topic.
"And while this subthread is really no more than a petty distraction (let's face it, you're flailing here), the preceeding paragraph attempts to shift the focus a little closer to being on-topic."
I don't I am flailing at all. Someone else brought up this past discussion and I just continued to respond. But if you think I am "flailing" thats fine. Hell others think "I don't know what I am talking about" ie stupid... but I pay it no nevermind.. after all when I told that person he was being a drone to the democratic party he went ape and cut me out. Surprise me that he show up here.
Personnally I think you are just being blind and not completely honest in your intents and goals. But all of this is personal judgements and not really a discussable thing.
Since you're talking about me here, I'll point out that there is a difference between ignorance (i.e. not knowing what you're talking about) and stupidity. When you make statements that are manifestly errors of fact, it's a fair response to say you don't know what you're talking about.
There wasn't any "going ape" in banning you from my journal: I'm quite clear that calling me names (i.e. "Democratic drone") is not acceptable behavior in that forum.
I think I said "dont be a democratic drone" but in either case the way you stood behind every action of the democratic party, in my oppionly blindly following them... the assessment would be accurate.
The arguement was over if the republicans were being whinny about a election in washington state. I simply stated but parties have been whinny and provide a large list of examples. You ingored them and the clamed the democrats by exploting every possable legal action were not being whinny.
I am not a republican drone since I recognized and stated both parties whin over elections and explot every possable legal (and in some cases illegal) means to win elections. You refused to accept that democrats were just as bad as the republican... so to consider you a blind follower ie drone of that party would not be that far off base.
I don't think Dglenn's journal is the place to re-hash this, so people can see for themselves whether your memory of the rest of your words are as accurate.
I agree, personnally I had no problem removeing you from my friends list. If you are that thin skinned then discussing anything challenging with you is again pointless. Because I will surely offend you in some other way.
Like I said before clearly we are unable to communicate. So you are welcome to go about your goals and interest and I will mine and your friends can pat you on your back and my friends will do the same. We will all be happy.
I find it interesting that your first impulse was to focus on sex
With that out of the way, I do not support schoolchildren ostracizing, taunting, abusing, or attacking each other because of their family structures.
Being mindful of, and wishing to protect people from, abusive relationships is another matter. Given the frequency with which the examples you chose are cited for their potential for involving abuse of power imbalance, I do think you're either setting up another straw man (if I say I oppose incest between parent and child you'll say that it's because I'm as prejudiced as a homophobe) or attempting to set a trap (if I say incestual relationships between fully-consenting adult kin with no power-imbalance factoring into their decisions are none of my business, you'll misinterpret it as supporting child abuse and paint me as a monster). I don't like that game. I don't like the third option either: that you're spouting Dittohead rhetoric in whatever order you remember it. Let's play a different game instead, one that's not so dirty. One where we argue and debate honestly instead of laying traps like that.
I oppose abusive and coercive relationships. I respect the right of consenting adults to enter into relationships that I personally find kind of squicky. And I acknowledge that each of the types of relationship you mentioned here can exist in both abusive and non-abusive forms. I don't have to accept coercive polygamy in order to respect those who are in happy, healthy group marriages (a category which includes some of my friends) or polyamourous relationships in general (a category which includes myself). I don't have to accept abusive incestual relationships in order to respect adult siblings who chose, as adults, to become romantically involved -- I don't even have to feel comfortable knowing about it to insist that they be treated respectfully, not have their tires slashed, not be called names on the street ... and not have their children taunted or bullied in school. Especially not that last bit, since whatever else, it's not the kids' fault.
And while this subthread is really no more than a petty distraction (let's face it, you're flailing here), the preceeding paragraph attempts to shift the focus a little closer to being on-topic.
Re: I find it interesting that your first impulse was to focus on sex
I don't I am flailing at all. Someone else brought up this past discussion and I just continued to respond. But if you think I am "flailing" thats fine. Hell others think "I don't know what I am talking about" ie stupid... but I pay it no nevermind.. after all when I told that person he was being a drone to the democratic party he went ape and cut me out. Surprise me that he show up here.
Personnally I think you are just being blind and not completely honest in your intents and goals. But all of this is personal judgements and not really a discussable thing.
Re: I find it interesting that your first impulse was to focus on sex
There wasn't any "going ape" in banning you from my journal: I'm quite clear that calling me names (i.e. "Democratic drone") is not acceptable behavior in that forum.
Re: I find it interesting that your first impulse was to focus on sex
The arguement was over if the republicans were being whinny about a election in washington state. I simply stated but parties have been whinny and provide a large list of examples. You ingored them and the clamed the democrats by exploting every possable legal action were not being whinny.
I am not a republican drone since I recognized and stated both parties whin over elections and explot every possable legal (and in some cases illegal) means to win elections. You refused to accept that democrats were just as bad as the republican... so to consider you a blind follower ie drone of that party would not be that far off base.
Re: I find it interesting that your first impulse was to focus on sex
You are mistaken. Again.
I don't think Dglenn's journal is the place to re-hash this, so people can see for themselves whether your memory of the rest of your words are as accurate.
Re: I find it interesting that your first impulse was to focus on sex
Like I said before clearly we are unable to communicate. So you are welcome to go about your goals and interest and I will mine and your friends can pat you on your back and my friends will do the same. We will all be happy.