Endearing anti-gay marriage interview

[Razgovory]

Presumably Meri also objects to teaching children not to play with downed power lines because saying it's "bad" is a moral judgement.

[Neil]

Psychology isn't really much of a science.

[Razgovory]

Psychology isn't really much of a science.

Nope.  There is a reason they called Head Shrinkers.

[merithyn]

No - you are just relating a fact about smoking - that it kills while denoting that having that quality is negative.
One can still have the opinion that the benefits gained from smoking outweigh those negative qualities.  After all there are many things that have negative impact on health and yet many still think are worth doing - like driving cars, eating chips, or downhill skiing.

What you and garbon presumably find objectionable is that the information is presenting in a context that makes the statement seem judgmental and definitive.  Ie the statement you are objecting to is the unstated negative implication: " . . . and because smoking has no positive redeeming value, therefore you should not do it."  The value judgment arises from the context of the presentation not the statement itself.

Bad and good are not facts. They are judgments. They are also opinions, as there is nothing universally good or universally bad. Death isn't bad to a suicidal person, or someone being tortured, or someone who's 110.

They are also unnecessary in the context that we're talking about, have the risk of being used in a way not in keeping with the preferred way, and could result in the contrary action than intended.

[Valmy]

Bad and good are not facts. They are judgments. They are also opinions, as there is nothing universally good or universally bad.

A semantic arguement on Languish?  Shocking.  Does the context mean anything here Meri?  If 'good' in this context means a healthy choice and 'bad' being an unhealthy choice then surely you could demonstate which is 'good' and 'bad' using factual arguements.  Or must be absolutely accept that absolutely and 100% of the time your definition of good and bad are the only possible contexts?

And really?  If I torture a toddler to death in front of her parents that is not entirely evil depending on circumstances eh?  What a bunch of moral relativistic garbage.

[merithyn]

A semantic arguement on Languish?  Shocking.  Does the context mean anything here Meri?  If 'good' in this context means a healthy choice and 'bad' being an unhealthy choice then surely you could demonstate which is 'good' and 'bad' using factual arguements.  Or must be absolutely accept that absolutely and 100% of the time your definition of good and bad are the only possible contexts?

And really?  If I torture a toddler to death in front of her parents that is not entirely evil depending on circumstances eh?  What a bunch of moral relativistic garbage.

Just curious. Did you read the context of this discussion? Specifically, why I'm arguing this?

My point was - and remains - that when teaching sex ed, it is not appropriate to affix moral terminology. Using terms like "good" and "bad" are not appropriate, imo.

[Eddie Teach]

Maybe you've got a time machine and the kid is Hitler! 

[Martinus]

Except that teaching that human sexual orientations are "equal" (unlike, say, pedophilia, which is a mutation of existing sexuality) is not a moral judgement but the understanding of modern psychology.

I have no problem adding "under the law" in there, because it's a statement of fact. Saying that one thing is equal to another, however, means that one has to assign value to both, which I just don't think a teacher should be doing. Not because I don't think that it's true (which you know that I do), but because I do not want a teacher who thinks otherwise to have the opportunity to assign value which finds homosexuality wanting. Don't open that door. Instead, just provide the information. Allow the kids to work out that they're equally valid lifestyles for themselves based on the fact that no one is assigning any kind of value to either of them. It just is, just as eating, breathing, and blinking just are.

As I said before, would you say that "homosexuality is not a choice" is a moral judgement, too? As this is a scientific fact but some religious idiots do not accept it.

I believe that's the case, but I have never seen anything that shows it to be "scientific fact". The last that I heard, any studies on that end have been ambiguous at best. I would absolutely love to see a study that shows definitively that this is the case. It would certainly shut up a few people that I know.

If those cannot be provided, however, then isn't it better to say, "Logically speaking, it is most commonly assumed that homosexuality is not a choice"? You obviously don't know kids if you think that stating something is scientific fact without a study - or three - that absolutely shows this to be true will fly for those who disagree. Imagine making a claim like that here without at least a single citation. Kids are no different, and most of them are worse than Raz when it comes to arguing for the sake of arguing if they hold a different viewpoint.

When you provide facts, you give them no opportunity to argue. It just is. It's not about whether it's right or wrong, morally acceptable or an abomination. It just is. This is life. Period.

That's how you change homosexuality from being seen as less-than. By simply treating it as a statement of fact, just like heterosexuality.

I have no problem with telling students in a sex ed class that many sexual activities are viewed negatively by e.g. certain religions and it is up to them to decide if they agree or not.

But it's not the same as withholding certain facts universally agreed by psychologists (and when I am talking about "facts", I mean things like accepted scientific theories - you know that even the "fact" that gravity exists and what it does is "just" a theory, which could theoretically be disproved one day, right?). And while origins of homosexuality are still debatable, it is more or less a consensus among psychologists that it is an innate and immutable trait and thus not a choice (that is why "curing homosexuality" is not a recognized medical treatment and is starting getting banned in the civilzed world).

You could just as well argue that children should not be taught the theory of evolution because some people might disagree with it.

[Razgovory]

It's cute when Marty pretends to understand science and then blame all his ills on religion.  Didn't you see a mental health professional recently Mart?

[merithyn]

I have no problem with telling students in a sex ed class that many sexual activities are viewed negatively by e.g. certain religions and it is up to them to decide if they agree or not.

I'm not sure that it's necessary to say this. I'm fairly certain that everyone already knows it.

That being said, I'm not opposed to it, either. It is a statement of how things are in the real world and offers no value judgment on it.

But it's not the same as withholding certain facts universally agreed by psychologists (and when I am talking about "facts", I mean things like accepted scientific theories - you know that even the "fact" that gravity exists and what it does is "just" a theory, which could theoretically be disproved one day, right?). And while origins of homosexuality are still debatable, it is more or less a consensus among psychologists that it is an innate and immutable trait and thus not a choice (that is why "curing homosexuality" is not a recognized medical treatment and is starting getting banned in the civilzed world).

You could just as well argue that children should not be taught the theory of evolution because some people might disagree with it.

My understanding is that there has never been any proof that homosexuality is something a person is born with. As I said, please correct me if I'm wrong. I would love to be. You're right that the common belief by most psychologists and psychiatrists is that this is true, but 50 years ago that same esteemed group of folks deemed it a mental illness. So, while I agree with their assessment today, I'm hesitant to use them as The Source for arguing the case.

[Brazen]

Just throwing this in as a complete aside, national queer treasure Stephen Fry revealed on a recent episode of QI that most people's hair grows in a clockwise whorl from the crown, but there is a strong correlation between homosexuality in men and a counter-clockwise rotation, a potential strong indicator of a genetic element to sexuality.

Check out Excess of Counterclockwise Scalp Hair-Whorl Rotation in Homosexual Men, by Dr Amar J S Klart.
http://www.ias.ac.in/jgenet/Vol83No3/251.pdf

Own up, who's got two mirrors out right now?

[Martinus]

I have no problem with telling students in a sex ed class that many sexual activities are viewed negatively by e.g. certain religions and it is up to them to decide if they agree or not.

I'm not sure that it's necessary to say this. I'm fairly certain that everyone already knows it.

That being said, I'm not opposed to it, either. It is a statement of how things are in the real world and offers no value judgment on it.

But it's not the same as withholding certain facts universally agreed by psychologists (and when I am talking about "facts", I mean things like accepted scientific theories - you know that even the "fact" that gravity exists and what it does is "just" a theory, which could theoretically be disproved one day, right?). And while origins of homosexuality are still debatable, it is more or less a consensus among psychologists that it is an innate and immutable trait and thus not a choice (that is why "curing homosexuality" is not a recognized medical treatment and is starting getting banned in the civilzed world).

You could just as well argue that children should not be taught the theory of evolution because some people might disagree with it.

My understanding is that there has never been any proof that homosexuality is something a person is born with. As I said, please correct me if I'm wrong. I would love to be. You're right that the common belief by most psychologists and psychiatrists is that this is true, but 50 years ago that same esteemed group of folks deemed it a mental illness. So, while I agree with their assessment today, I'm hesitant to use them as The Source for arguing the case.

Again, this is like saying that because astronomers used to think that the Sun orbits the Earth, we should not be teaching the heliocentric model in astronomy classes because they could just as well be wrong. 

For the record, for the sexual orientation to be immutable, it does not necessarily need to be in-born. There are, in general, three types of theories that postulate when sexual orientation develops - the genetic one (which essentially means that sexual orientation is determined when the embryo is created) which is probably least likely; the pre-natal one (which suggests that certain hormonal processes occuring in the mother's womb affect the fetus so that the child born out of it is homosexual) and the post-natal one (which suggests sexual orientation develops in response to certain circumstances within the first 1-5 years of life). There is also one which suggests it is a combination of the above.

Each of these postulates that once sexual orientation is acquired, it cannot be changed - so I am not sure how the argument whether someone is born homosexual or not has any bearing on the argument whether it is an immutable characteristic of a sexually active (pubescent) human being.

[Martinus]

Just throwing this in as a complete aside, national queer treasure Stephen Fry revealed on a recent episode of QI that most people's hair grows in a clockwise whorl from the crown, but there is a strong correlation between homosexuality in men and a counter-clockwise rotation, a potential strong indicator of a genetic element to sexuality.

Check out Excess of Counterclockwise Scalp Hair-Whorl Rotation in Homosexual Men, by Dr Amar J S Klart.
http://www.ias.ac.in/jgenet/Vol83No3/251.pdf

Own up, who's got two mirrors out right now?

It must have been hilarious to see this guy carry out his research, considering he was checking out the back of the head of random gay and straight men on the beach. 

[merithyn]

Again, this is like saying that because astronomers used to think that the Sun orbits the Earth, we should not be teaching the heliocentric model in astronomy classes because they could just as well be wrong. 

For the record, for the sexual orientation to be immutable, it does not necessarily need to be in-born. There are, in general, three types of theories that postulate when sexual orientation develops - the genetic one (which essentially means that sexual orientation is determined when the embryo is created) which is probably least likely; the pre-natal one (which suggests that certain hormonal processes occuring in the mother's womb affect the fetus so that the child born out of it is homosexual) and the post-natal one (which suggests sexual orientation develops in response to certain circumstances within the first 1-5 years of life). There is also one which suggests it is a combination of the above.

Each of these postulates that once sexual orientation is acquired, it cannot be changed - so I am not sure how the argument whether someone is born homosexual or not has any bearing on the argument whether it is an immutable characteristic of a sexually active (pubescent) human being.

Fair enough.

[CountDeMoney]

These threads are always a joy.