thanks

Jean

That said, I do think the spectrum allows for some level of the differentiation you refer to. I think the dividing line between polyamory and monogamy on the Y axis separates two different kinds of practices. For example, I’ve come to think of “monogamish” as something other than poly. So, in that sense, I agree with you that non-monogamy doesn’t imply polyamory, and I don’t think you need to read the spectrum that way.

But, that recognition is actually progress. I was raised in a community that taught me that you could not be an ethical homosexual, for example. That community is currently teaching that you cannot practice non-monogamy ethically. I disagree, obviously, with both positions, but recognize that such thinking is common in our culture.

That’s interesting, and i hadn’t really considered that. I tend to find that it looks more like a sort of “sexual attraction to traits” thing and could be arranged in such a way that each trait had its own measure of how attracted a person is to it. I know at least a few nominally straight women who are attracted to the idea of other women or the physical presence of breasts but not at all to vaginas. I also know at least two women who are severely turned on by hip bones regardless of gender. Personally I like a bunch of traits, but nice hips and good huggability/cuddling are high on those, while stuff like acne has absolutely no effect.

Just stuff to think about.

I think all of these efforts to label and categorize should be understood as approximations of ideas, and not definitive of something concrete. They are tools that aid our communication. I understand that I’ve simplified the spectrum here. That is done on purpose. All language, all communication is a simplification of concepts that allow us to convey meaning.

While I understand your distinction, I’d propose getting at the idea in a slightly different way. Rather than trying to fit asexuality into the homosexual/heterosexual spectrum, I’d create a different line with asexuality on one end and hyper-sexuality on the other. “Frequency” of sexual expression with partners is certainly a characteristic that matters to people when choosing mates.

The labeling of the graph is not a function of my math; it’s a function of communication. I think it’s clear what the percentages mean in context, but I agree it could be made more clear.

A common practice when discussing wealth distribution is to divide the population into quintiles, or groupings of 20%. The first two graphs represent the quintiles of wealth distribution across the population. So, for example, in the first graph, the bottom 20% (population) would ideally control 5% of the Nation’s wealth. The next 20% of the population 25% of the wealth and so on. Let me know if that’s not clear.

The final graph is not being directly compared to the first two, it is representing a related but different idea altogether. One of the common myths of unequal economic value across the population is the idea that ours is meritocratic economy where what you earn (by which you’re able to accumulate wealth) is based on your output or productivity. “Work hard and you’ll be rich!” goes the thinking. So, the final graph was meant to tease out this idea a bit, showing that even though the working class are working harder they’re taking home less pay. Accumulated wealth is not exactly the same as income, but I don’t think I’m unfairly conflating disparate ideas here.

I don’t agree with you that consumption is a better standard of measure here. Wealth is accumulated beyond expenses. The wealthy are wealthy because their income is so much higher that beyond meeting their basic needs (the core of consumption) they are able to invest and save more. You seem to be suggesting that the poor and working classes would control as much wealth as the wealthy if they only consumed less and saved more. If so, that’s a fundamentally flawed understanding of economics.

As for the baseline of the final graph…I’m using 30 years of data, which I think is adequate to show a trend. It’s not as if I’ve unfairly singled out some 5 year period. Are you suggesting that the trend I’m showing is not accurate? Google the concept and I think you’ll find that these trend lines are commonly accepted.

Finally, while it may be true that employers non-wage compensation has been increasing, the fundamental point stands. Wealth disparity (again, I don’t think the two concepts are unrelated) is dramatically increasing. Why? What’s your explanation?

That is the fundamental question. Our economic measures are out of line with the values that we’ve agreed upon within our community. Why? If you have a better explanation for this, please let me know your thoughts.

I’m speaking from a more abstract level.

While the principled resignation is one way of making a statement about a group that practices bigotry, I’m not convinced it is always the best way. Many orgaizations, both religious and secular, have changed their policies dramatically in the last few decades, and I believe that much of that change took place due to the internal influence of those who remained to work for gradual change from the inside. In some cases, there were serious denominational divisions over these issues. Without the efforts of these principled people, there would be far fewer choices today.

Finding a suitable spiritual community can be challenging… it is not reasonable to expect that we will find one that agrees with all of our views. I don’t think it is reasonable to expect people to eschew spiritual community entirely, simply because they cannot find one then are in 100% agreement with.

Remember there were considerable questions raised during JFK’s presidency… suggesting that if he were elected, the pope would control his political decisions. That turned out to be a groundless fear.

Ultimately, the sexism or racism or homophobia of religion is a symptom of the problem, and not the problem itself (which is not to diminish the real problem of each of these).

The actual problem is the political philosophy that underpins the religion; if it is authoritarian in nature, it will produce authoritarian communal rule, such as sexism, racism, homophobia, etc. If it does not grant individual rights to its members, if it confers authority in a non democratic way, if it does not recognize pluralism and equality, then the fundamental organizing principle of the religion is corrupt.

Charles, would you work for a company that prohibited black people from working there? Let’s put you in an equivalent role of your Baptist minister friend. Let’s say you’re on the board or the CEO or a VP. Something with authority.

If I asked you about the issue, and secretly you confided in me that you thought the policy was off, but did nothing to speak out against such, then I’d count you a racist. Your secret misgivings would pale in comparison to your public stance, to the role you play in perpetuating racism.

We’re all responsible for where we invest our time and energy, relative to the freedom we have to make a different choice. I would argue that if you freely join or remain associated with an authoritarian communal governing system that is racist, sexist or homophobic, then those positions accrue to you.

In a pluralistic democracy wherein people are granted rights and means to petition for change, then a person can escape the taint of societal sins insofar as they align themselves with efforts to overturn such.

Mitt Romney is trying to serve two masters. He claims to love America (a pluralistic secular democracy committed to equality of the people) and wants to be President. And yet, he’s taken a blood oath to support and defend an authoritarian communal governing system called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. The political theory of the two organizations are fundamentally at odds, and his support of both is inconsistent.

He should answer to it.

Here is my example. Some of my best friends are Filipino “Baptists”, which is quite different than American Baptists, many of whom now ordain women. One of my very best friends is a Filipino Baptist Pator, and he is also president of a Christian College there. I have frequently challenged the assumptions of his religious traditions about the proper role of women in the church, and also about issues regarding homosexuality.

He quotes 2nd Timothy back to me, with some scriptures that strongly suggest women should not be in leadership positions in the church.

But when I ask him, man to man, if he wouldn’t like it if his eldest daughter, Hannah, could be a Pastor some day, he admits it is a very pleasant idea.

Now we could get into discussions about what Christianity is, and who Paul (the author of the bulk of the New Testament, clearly a sexist and homophobic man) was, and whether his writings and opinions should be taken as authoritative… but certainly many of his writings convey spiritual values that are almost universally accepted by people who seek divine light…

But that doesn’t really get us anywhere. Traditional Christianity, like many of the traditional cultural ideals that weigh us down, suggesst certain gender roles.

But that doesn’t mean that any Christians, or Mormons, or Muslims, or Hindus, or any other religious people whose sexism is tied to their religious roots, are really sexist at heart. It takes all of us time to break free of the bonds of tradition.