Social programming + the collapse of religion and values.

reply to post by ketsuko

Just being raised in a tradition is no reason to assume that it has been internalized or even felt in a real way.

Just because someone goes and sits in a pew every Sunday is any guarantee that they are actually feeling the faith.

Do you have reason to think they didn't internalize it? Do you have reason to think they didn't feel it?

Or is that uncertainty only being applied to my point?

Personally I think when these polls are done the atheist says they were once religious because they were once religious. I imagine if they were always atheists in a religious upbringing they would be proud of that and the polls would reflect they were always atheists. Alas, we see in polls a majority of atheists claiming to once be religious [Christian more precisely].

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

That some mysterious entity within the US is using the media to program and manipulate people into accepting things that were shunned only 50 years ago. That is a fact.

It's a fact things changed. It's not a fact it was all due to manipulation.

As for what you outlined. I more or less disagreed with all of it. All those 'issues' you described I don't think are issues at all. For example, I don't think it's at all immoral for homosexuals to marry and have kids. We are clearly coming from a different moral viewpoint. I wouldn't say our society is without flaws, far from it, but it's making progress. There is that scary word again.

I for one could care less about the fading away of Christianity. For some reason it is believed that you can't live a moral life without the bible and that is simply not true. There are plenty of people around the globe who weren't raised Christian or any type of religion and grew up fine. Btw I thought the majority of America is still Christian?

Lucid Lunacy....It's a fact things changed. It's not a fact it was all due to manipulation.

As for what you outlined. I more or less disagreed with all of it. All those 'issues' you described I don't think are issues at all. For example, I don't think it's at all immoral for homosexuals to marry and have kids. We are clearly coming from a different moral viewpoint.

this simply illustrates my point about people having been manipulated into accepting things that were shunned 50 years ago. The reversal of morals have been marketed as ''progress'', yet nobody seems to know exactly WHO defined ''progress'' as having to mean homosexuals get to to marry.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

It's not that simple. It's not like one day a switch was flipped and people just changed their moral view overnight.

It's been a long arduous journey. Society deliberates on the issue. People talk. Exchange ideas.

Many of us see now that these citizens should be treated equally under law and are worthy of equal respect. Love thy neighbor. If they are two consenting adults and there isn't a victim involved there isn't a good reason [outside of religious belief] to deny them the freedom. Liberty and pursuit of happiness is an American ideal, and many realize now it was always antithetical to that ideal to strip the gay community of the same Rights afforded to others.

Now tell me why that doesn't make moral sense. Can you argue it without religious belief? Or does it simply amount to that?

@ Wandering Scribe....Why do you feel that Christian values and Christian morality is somehow better than the current progression?

So who's definition of ''progression'' are you referring to exactly? Who or what decided ''progression'' has to mean a reversal of older values? Who? We know there was a time when ''family'' and ''marriage'' did not include homosexuals. But that changed... And that change was through media manipulation where acceptance of alternate lifestyles are portrayed as ''progression'' and all sorts of colorful terms that get parotted in such discussions.

Who defines what "degenerative behavior" is, you?

You are living in a fantasy world if you make it sound that 50 years ago all was fine and dandy because people more tended to uphold "morale" and "good Christian views" (however subjectively YOU may define them).

Fact is that 50 years ago certain things had been a lot worse, such as gender & race in-equalities which were prevalent.

Obviously, time doesn't stand still. You cannot uphold outdated values "Women belong behind the oven"-type thinking since society always evolves.

And yes I am saying EVOLVES. How you personally interpret it is purely subjective.

"Who or what transformed [...]"

This happened automatically once people realized that what you try to sell here as "values" in reality more often than not was LIMITATIONS.
Because that's what it was in large parts, limitations imposed on certain groups, be it homosexuals, women, blacks etc.

At some point it was realized that limitations are actually a bad thing, go figure.

Maybe one day, who knows, you too will realize that oppression/suppression, say of women etc. and then to disguise this as some sort of "positive morale originating from religion" is in-fact NOT a positive thing.

You seem to have big problems with that, in particular with homosexuals etc. since you mention this word multiple times throughout the thread - it seems to really bother you. For others, you know, it's not an issue. NOT because "someone programmed it into them"....because it's IN FACT not an issue unless you make it one in your mind or you are BRAINWASHED by some priest/religion telling you it's SUPPOSED to be an issue.

Lucid Lunacy...It's not that simple. It's not like one day a switch was flipped and people just changed their moral view overnight.

It's been a long arduous journey.

I never claimed it happened like flipping a switch. The ''long journey'' was a long exposure to new ideas and definitions...through mass media, rallies etc... Combined with the erosion of Christianity which once worked to preserve traditional values. A frog being boiled slowly would begin to think the warm water is ''perfectly normal'' and ''acceptable''. _________________________________________ Joe Biden let the cat out of the bag when he openly admitted that the mass media helped influence peoples views to be more accepting of gay rights. Look it up. So, there is real evidence that the media is manipulating peoples views and by extension, societal norms. Your acceptance of gays isn't rooted in ''enlightenment'' or ''progress'' or whatever you'd like to call it, but rather media manipulation.

Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by sk0rpi0n

 

It's not that simple. It's not like one day a switch was flipped and people just changed their moral view overnight.

It's been a long arduous journey. Society deliberates on the issue. People talk. Exchange ideas.

Many of us see now that these citizens should be treated equally under law and are worthy of equal respect. Love thy neighbor. If they are two consenting adults and there isn't a victim involved there isn't a good reason [outside of religious belief] to deny them the freedom. Liberty and pursuit of happiness is an American ideal, and many realize now it was always antithetical to that ideal to strip the gay community of the same Rights afforded to others.

Now tell me why that doesn't make moral sense. Can you argue it without religious belief? Or does it simply amount to that?

edit on 12-2-2014 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)

Marriage, or the concept of a grouping of male/female in some fashion, has been around for far longer than what most today would recognize as religious belief. We tend to recognize it as marriage, but lions would call it a pride. It's the basic breeding unit of the human.

Now, over time, human society has decided that it is socially advantageous to recognize and enforce these arrangements with the strongest social rules. My personal feeling is that the sacred component was added in an attempt to make the bond even stronger, more unshakable, but it wasn't necessary. The reason this was done was not primarily to affirm an individual's romantic love, but to bond two (or more) together to provide a stable arrangement for the begetting and secure rearing of children because children do better with a parent of each gender and represent a significant outlay of time and resources to rear.

Any society that is serious about stability and continuity will endorse a form of male/female marriage. Realistically, while two homosexuals can love and can offer a measure of temporary stability, they cannot offer continuity as they still cannot beget children without third party intervention (adoption, surrogacy, etc.). So, would a government interested in promoting the long-term stability and continuity of its society and people be as invested in the pairing of homosexuals as it should be in the pairing of heterosexuals?

Aside from my own mentioning of how the sacred was likely introduced into marriages, this argument on marriage was not made from a religious perspective.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

Your acceptance of gays isn't rooted in ''enlightenment'' or ''progress'' or whatever you'd like to call it, but rather media manipulation.

My acceptance of gays is rooted in a functioning heart.

So if I understand you correctly. Any moral views that don't match yours are a result of manipulation? Yours however are not the result of manipulation. How are you so certain? How are you so certain yours wasn't the result of manipulation?

We are not the Borg from Star Trek. We can think for ourselves. We do think for ourselves. Are we influenced by others? Of course. This is how society works. We think and we share those thoughts. It's not complicated. The issue might be, but the process isn't.

FYI I do like the word progress. We can stick with that one.

@Lucid Lunacy....Many of us see now that these citizens should be treated equally under law and are worthy of equal respect. Love thy neighbor. If they are two consenting adults and there isn't a victim involved there isn't a good reason [outside of religious belief] to deny them the freedom. Liberty and pursuit of happiness is an American ideal, and many realize now it was always antithetical to that ideal to strip the gay community of the same Rights afforded to others.

Now tell me why that doesn't make moral sense. Can you argue it without religious belief?

my religious beliefs aside, where I live some people raised pretty much the same civil rights flavored argument,(with words like ''progress'' etc.) calling for gay marraige. One officials answer was on the lines of : ''gay marraige is not the need of the hour... we really have bigger problems on our hands''...(making a reference to poverty). So, I'd say it is immoral on the part of the ''changemakers'' to prioritize gay marriage over more pressing issues like poverty. Or is it that the poor don't need to ''pursue happiness''?

reply to post by ketsuko


I appreciate you gave a non-religious argument. I don't think it holds water however.

because children do better with a parent of each gender

Gay parenting is not new. Proof is in the pudding. Many countries in the World have been very accepting of gay marriage and gay adoption for a while. The ship has sailed. We have plenty of instances of people having been raised by gay parents [again globally] and turned out just as well as the rest. I personally know a guy [who is heterosexual] that was raised by two mothers and he's a rockstar of success in really every sense of it. Additionally no one looks at him and assumes he had gay parents, and people are often surprised by the fact.

Any society that is serious about stability and continuity will endorse a form of male/female marriage.

We are talking about endorsing both.

The majority of the population will continue being heterosexual regardless of how accepting [or not accepting] they are of LGBT. There is a simple reason for this. Gay population is thought to be around %3-10 of a given populace and that's not changing. Any given society will have a majority of male/female parings and that's not going to change.

Realistically, while two homosexuals can love and can offer a measure of temporary stability, they cannot offer continuity as they still cannot beget children without third party intervention (adoption, surrogacy, etc.)

That doesn't follow. You can't exclude those options to make your point. Makes no sense. Those options do exist and they [are used. Surrogate mothers, insemination. They can and do beget children.

Now why is procreation the benchmark of a successful marriage? Are people not permitted to have a loving relationship and choose not to have kids? What about the heterosexual couples who literally cannot due to medical issues? Are they failing as a couple because they cannot 'offer continuity'?

Either way. All this is trivial if your concern is population growth. Majority of the population is heterosexual That's not changing. Global population is projected to increase significantly within 100 years. If anything, too many babies is the concern.

So, would a government interested in promoting the long-term stability and continuity of its society and people be as invested in the pairing of homosexuals as it should be in the pairing of heterosexuals?

Well if the Government is concerned about the long-term stability of its society is shouldn't only concern itself with procreation. People are not just eating, crapping, sleeping beings. We have a range of needs because we have a complex psychology. I'd think our general happiness would be of critical importance to the Government if their concerned about continuity. And denying LGBT Rights is making a lot of people, heterosexuals included, not very happy.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

So, I'd say it is immoral on the part of the ''changemakers'' to prioritize gay marriage over more pressing issues like poverty. Or is it that the poor don't need to ''pursue happiness''?

Predicated on the notion LGBT supporters don't care about other social issues. That's unfounded and offensive. But you're free to believe it.

You know what I find so ironic.

Since you don't live in the US. Are you not primarily basing your argument from information you heard through the media in your country about the US?

@ Lucid Lunacy...

So if I understand you correctly. Any moral views that don't match yours are a result of manipulation? Yours however are not the result of manipulation. How are you so certain? How are you so certain yours wasn't the result of manipulation?

I was specifically referring to the issues presented in the OP...it is only those issues with regard to faith, marraige, family etc. that fall within scope of this discussion. Also, I've made it clear in a previous page that both religion and the mass media CAN influence people.

double post

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

Who or what decided ''progression'' has to mean a reversal of older values?

Progress, by definition, means a movement forward.

Homosexuals were, at one time, not able to marry the person they loved. Now, through progress, they can marry the person they love.

It has nothing to do with "reversing" an older value, and everything to do with granting the same rights to all citizens of the country. That is progress; a forward motion.

Regression (going backward) is seeing your fellow man as inferior to you because you don't approve of the person he/she loves.

For your information too, before European settlers arrived in America the Native Americans had their own beliefs concerning homosexuals, whom they called "two spirit" or berdache. They considered the existence of these people natural, and harmonious, encouraging them to be who they were.

So, let me ask you: Who or what decided ''progression'' has to mean a reversal of older values? What was so wrong with the Native American way, that you felt your Christian way was progressive?


~ Wandering Scribe

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


All forms of communication can influence people. Whether it's straight from someones lips, a movie, a book, or otherwise.

What you seem to be insinuating is that influence is bad. Society isn't perfect. It needs influence. How else will change happen. You're trying to suggest change shouldn't be happening. That's like saying society has already reached a totally ideal state. Surely you don't believe that was ever the case in history?..

Lucid Lunacy ......Predicated on the notion LGBT supporters don't care about other social issues. That's unfounded and offensive. But you're free to believe it.

Actually I wasn't talking about LGBT supporters, rather the powers in charge who have the media running in favor of gays and changing traditional values. According to you, are they right in prioritizing gays with homes and jobs over the poor and homeless?? Gays gotta be able marry first, before the homeless man gets a plate of food, right?

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


The MSM isn't the official spokesperson for the entire LGBT community. For crying out loud. What does their actions have to do with that community? That's like turning on Fox News and hearing some BS it's spewing and being like 'that damn heterosexual community'.

Yes some of what you hear from the MSM is going to be reflected in the beliefs of gay people. Some won't. That should be obvious. Beliefs vary. Priorities vary. You mentioned poor people as a propriety. That's great you value that. Not every gay or straight person does.

To answer your question directly. I think many things should be discussed via the media ideally. There are many issues that need prioritizing. LGBT Rights is one yes. How about sexual slavery. Particularly sexual slavery of children. That's A HUGE issue that rarely attracts the attention it deserves.

@Wandering Scribe....
Progress, by definition, means a movement forward.

Homosexuals were, at one time, not able to marry the person they loved. Now, through progress, they can marry the person they love.

It has nothing to do with "reversing" an older value, and everything to do with granting the same rights to all citizens of the country.

If your definition of progress allows something which was once shunned, IS a reversal of older values. You use civil rights flavored language and appeal to emotion because thats exactly the way the mass media and celebrities word the argument. I haven't got anything against the Lgbt communuty personally, but I am pointing out the unfair methods used by the media to shape and manipulate society.