It's an interesting and (in my view) amusing proposition. Recently on PBS I came across a program about religious news, and they were talking about opposing religious viewpoints on the budget cuts.

So here it is:



Opinions?

Jesus wouldn't care. He had no interest in government BS.

First things that spring to mind as being gotten rid of are tax cuts for the rich and the war on drugs.

I see this thread going wonderful places and not having any problems whatsoever.

The foreskin?

I think I pretty much agree with the document there.

Ahtman wrote:I see this thread going wonderful places and not having any problems whatsoever.

BrookM wrote:The foreskin?

Ahtman can see the futurez!

Amaya wrote:Jesus wouldn't care. He had no interest in government BS.

This.

Frazzled wrote:

Amaya wrote:Jesus wouldn't care. He had no interest in government BS.

This.

Indeed. If he didn't care about politics and/or worldly matters like that the first time, why would he start?

Jesus wouldn't cut, He slings his rocks pure. Dope-fiends everywhere rejoice.

Aid to Israel probably. He didn't seem to have a good relationship with them the first time around.

Jesus cared for the poor and the young, but then there's the whole "give a man a fish" thing later on.

We can't really say what Jesus really would cut because to most people Jesus was omnibenevolent. He also preached giving up worldly goods in favor of spiritual goods so he would probably want the rich, middle class, and poor to give up unnecessary items and not just the rich.

So Jesus would really be in favor of an equally poor people who received care. Everyone would be fed, treated, and taught but they would all be poor. Kind of like communism but with Jesus instead of Karl Marx.

BrookM wrote:The foreskin?

I was going to make an inappropriate joke about his hands or the skin around
the brow of his head, but...

malfred wrote:

BrookM wrote:The foreskin?

I was going to make an inappropriate joke about his hands or the skin around
the brow of his head, but...

Jesus would cut wood, he was a carpenter.

malfred wrote:

BrookM wrote:The foreskin?

I was going to make an inappropriate joke about his hands or the skin around
the brow of his head, but...

Aww shucks, I feel bad now.

To second already stated opinions, I think the fundamental flaw in the article is the assumption that Jesus would do his work through the government. Jesus was not a government man. He didn’t use government to further his ministry, and he didn’t use his ministry to influence government. That said, if you believe in Jesus you should use the morals he taught in everything you do, but I think this article takes that a place it doesn’t belong.

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:To second already stated opinions, I think the fundamental flaw in the article is the assumption that Jesus would do his work through the government. Jesus was not a government man. He didn’t use government to further his ministry, and he didn’t use his ministry to influence government. That said, if you believe in Jesus you should use the morals he taught in everything you do, but I think this article takes that a place it doesn’t belong.

I think that they're counting on religious folks to influence their government according to the teachings of the bible. But overall I think everyone can get behind the fact that Jesus was a grassroots fellow and not into the whole government thing.

Platuan4th wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Amaya wrote:Jesus wouldn't care. He had no interest in government BS.

This.

Indeed. If he didn't care about politics and/or worldly matters like that the first time, why would he start?

That's debatable. He wouldn't necessarily care for politics, but for worldly matters he did purportedly care about the suffering of others.

halonachos wrote:

malfred wrote:

BrookM wrote:The foreskin?

I was going to make an inappropriate joke about his hands or the skin around
the brow of his head, but...

Jesus would cut wood, he was a carpenter.

Actually the word interpreted as carpenter can mean any kind of construction. He could have been a mason.

Melissia wrote:It's an interesting and (in my view) amusing proposition. Recently on PBS I came across a program about religious news, and they were talking about opposing religious viewpoints on the budget cuts.

How is this amusing? I certainly agree that it's interesting, but intrusive social programs are not really compatible with the idea of a limited government.

Since these programs were instituted based on a Christian worldview, does their continued existence (in your opinion) violate the establishment clause? I don't think I should have to pay for (by way of example only) Hijab factories to encourage women to dress decently. Does it matter if it's a non-secular establishment enacted for a secular purpose?

Melissia wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Amaya wrote:Jesus wouldn't care. He had no interest in government BS.

This.

Indeed. If he didn't care about politics and/or worldly matters like that the first time, why would he start?

That's debatable. He wouldn't necessarily care for politics, but for worldly matters he did purportedly care about the suffering of others.

Which he took more as a spiritual matter than worldly, as he believed that you can't eliminate suffering or poverty from the world.

halonachos wrote:

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:To second already stated opinions, I think the fundamental flaw in the article is the assumption that Jesus would do his work through the government. Jesus was not a government man. He didn’t use government to further his ministry, and he didn’t use his ministry to influence government. That said, if you believe in Jesus you should use the morals he taught in everything you do, but I think this article takes that a place it doesn’t belong.

I think that they're counting on religious folks to influence their government according to the teachings of the bible. But overall I think everyone can get behind the fact that Jesus was a grassroots fellow and not into the whole government thing.

Yeah but they are asking them to influence it in a way that I don’t think is very Christian. I have some pretty strong opinions this but I don’t think the church should rely on the government to do the church’s work. That’s more or less the vibe I get off this thing. I would consider myself one of the people they are trying to target and it turns me off. But I may be in the minority.

I always thought that trying to use the government to do your church's work was the wrong way to go.

If you were out trying to influence people on a personal level, like Jesus did and said that we're supposed to, the Government would eventually be changed by virtue of the people in it and voting for it have a Christian world view. As stated above, using the government to force feed people a religion isn't going to be warmly received.

That said, I think some people are a little extreme saying that they don't like poor people being taken care of if it's being done with a religious motivation.

If Christians want to lobby government to do foreign aid and social progammes they think are in keeping with their values, that is their democratic right.

The mixing of Christian principles and government is not a new thing anyway.

President Bush was keen on foreign aid associated with his religious ideas; that is, funds for sexual abstinence programmes rather than condom distribution.

I think he would be too busy making millions endorsing products.

Kilkrazy wrote:President Bush was keen on foreign aid associated with his religious ideas; that is, funds for sexual abstinence programmes rather than condom distribution.

I'm for doing both.

But come on, you have to admit that abstinence is the ultimate way to avoid getting HIV/AIDS. When you remove any kind of value judgment on sex and whatnot it is the most logical conclusion.

Its all George Bush's fault!!!!

Monster Rain wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:President Bush was keen on foreign aid associated with his religious ideas; that is, funds for sexual abstinence programmes rather than condom distribution.

I'm for doing both.

But come on, you have to admit that abstinence is the ultimate way to avoid getting HIV/AIDS. When you remove any kind of value judgment on sex and whatnot it is the most logical conclusion.

Except for how it [abstinence sex education] doesn't work.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Its all George Bush's fault!!!!

That's just silly. It's all George W. Bush's fault!

Monster Rain wrote:But come on, you have to admit that abstinence is the ultimate way to avoid getting HIV/AIDS. When you remove any kind of value judgment on sex and whatnot it is the most logical conclusion.

Even without value judgments you are still least likely to get abstinence as a reality. Sexual urges are a part of our human nature. It is what drives us to procreate, a fairly primal and powerful instinct. You will never get most people not to have sex. Hell, saying abstinence is better than mature, informed sexuality is a value judgment. You can't even live up to your own criteria.

Ahtman wrote:Hell, saying abstinence is better than mature, informed sexuality is a value judgment. You can't even live up to your own criteria.

Even with mature, informed sexuality you still have a higher chance of contracting a sexually transmitted disease than you do by practicing abstinence.

It might be a minute chance but it's still there. It's a fact, man. Maybe I should have said "moral" value judgment or something similar in the Pedantry Zone. Also, I wasn't talking about what was most likely to happen, I was talking about what is actually the most effective.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:President Bush was keen on foreign aid associated with his religious ideas; that is, funds for sexual abstinence programmes rather than condom distribution.

I'm for doing both.

But come on, you have to admit that abstinence is the ultimate way to avoid getting HIV/AIDS. When you remove any kind of value judgment on sex and whatnot it is the most logical conclusion.

Except for how it [abstinence sex education] doesn't work.

That's debatable.

Either way, I wasn't talking about what would work I was talking about what is actually more effective.

you have to admit that abstinence is the ultimate way to avoid getting HIV/AIDS

Death is the ultimate way; although you won't live to not get it.

But abstinence is as much of reality as unicorns; it is a non-starter. You can tell teens till your blue in the face not to do and they will every time.

Avatar 720 wrote:

you have to admit that abstinence is the ultimate way to avoid getting HIV/AIDS

Death is the ultimate way; although you won't live to not get it.

What if someone buggers your corpse?

It could happen.

Ahtman wrote:But abstinence is as much of reality as unicorns; it is a non-starter. You can tell teens till your blue in the face not to do and they will every time.

So we shouldn't try to support ideals because no one will live up to them?

Ahtman wrote:But abstinence is as much of reality as unicorns; it is a non-starter. You can tell teens till your blue in the face not to do and they will every time.

I think some might.

Every time is a bit of a stretch.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Amaya wrote:

Ahtman wrote:But abstinence is as much of reality as unicorns; it is a non-starter. You can tell teens till your blue in the face not to do and they will every time.

So we shouldn't try to support ideals because no one will live up to them?

I think it's more of a kneejerk reaction to someone saying that maybe having sex with random strangers isn't a good idea. It seems to have been programmed into a large amount of people.

Ahtman wrote:But abstinence is as much of reality as unicorns; it is a non-starter. You can tell teens till your blue in the face not to do and they will every time.

That’s just silly. About half of American teens are abstinent anyway, in the middle of a VERY sexual culture. If you educated people about the benefits of abstinence and you didn’t ostracize those who practiced it that number could be much higher.

I always say just because YOU were not abstinent don’t assume others would not, and haven’t made that choice.

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:To second already stated opinions, I think the fundamental flaw in the article is the assumption that Jesus would do his work through the government. Jesus was not a government man. He didn’t use government to further his ministry, and he didn’t use his ministry to influence government. That said, if you believe in Jesus you should use the morals he taught in everything you do, but I think this article takes that a place it doesn’t belong.

In his time, the Priests were a ruling class, and the law was a religious thing. The two were very much intertwined. By trashing the economic structure of the temple steps, that was as much a statement about the state of government and economics as it was about religious corruption, because the two were connected.

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:

Ahtman wrote:But abstinence is as much of reality as unicorns; it is a non-starter. You can tell teens till your blue in the face not to do and they will every time.

That’s just silly. About half of American teens are abstinent anyway, in the middle of a VERY sexual culture. If you educated people about the benefits of abstinence and you didn’t ostracize those who practiced it that number could be much higher.

I always say just because YOU were not abstinent don’t assume others would not, and haven’t made that choice.

That's why I'm for both.

Teach abstinence, but also add the whole "If you absolutely can't restrain yourself from that truck stop hooker at least wrap your rascal."

I don't see what the big problem would be.

If you will read the words I wrote, it didn't say every single teen ever would have sex, just that teens as a general group will. Abstinence only doesn't work, it never has and never will. It has the virtue of ignoring reality and teaching humans that something that is normal and natural is dirty and could kill them. The more informed people are on what it means to be sexually responsible the less likely they are to engage in risky behavior. Making it seem like some terrifying event is disingenuous when considering that most for humans sex will be a part of their life in some capacity that.

It is also true that if you never leave your house you can avoid all sorts of problems but that doesn't mean most people want to live that way or that it is generally healthy to do so.

The options on human sexuality are the false choice fallacy of abstinence or risky behavior.

yeenoghu wrote:

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:To second already stated opinions, I think the fundamental flaw in the article is the assumption that Jesus would do his work through the government. Jesus was not a government man. He didn’t use government to further his ministry, and he didn’t use his ministry to influence government. That said, if you believe in Jesus you should use the morals he taught in everything you do, but I think this article takes that a place it doesn’t belong.

In his time, the Priests were a ruling class, and the law was a religious thing. The two were very much intertwined. By trashing the economic structure of the temple steps, that was as much a statement about the state of government and economics as it was about religious corruption, because the two were connected.

Sorta, kinda, not really. All real government administration has been taken over by the Romans. And most political activity in the region centered around the Jews relationship with the Romans. If Jesus had really wanted to be a political figure, like some people wanted him to be, he would have directed his teachings at the Roman rulers, which he did not. Yes religion and government were intertwined with the Jews, but Jesus purposefully avoided the hot political issues of the day.

Ahtman wrote:If you will read the words I wrote, it didn't say every single teen ever would have sex, just that teens as a general group will. Abstinence only doesn't work, it never has and never will. It has the virtue of ignoring reality and teaching humans that something that is normal and natural is dirty and could kill them.

It could kill them, or give them incurable diseases that grow warts or itchy blisters on their gubbinz. What you're saying shouldn't be taught is actually true.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:The options on human sexuality are the false choice fallacy of abstinence or risky behavior.

It's not a false choice though.

Any kind of sex is riskier than abstinence. It's mitigated by using condoms and being selective about partners or being in an exclusive relationship or whatever but it's still riskier than abstinence.

Abstinence will make teens explode.

Or so I heard.

When I was a teenager.

After I had to clean the sheets.

Ahtman wrote:If you will read the words I wrote, it didn't say every single teen ever would have sex, just that teens as a general group will. Abstinence only doesn't work, it never has and never will. It has the virtue of ignoring reality and teaching humans that something that is normal and natural is dirty and could kill them. The more informed people are on what it means to be sexually responsible the less likely they are to engage in risky behavior. Making it seem like some terrifying event is disingenuous when considering that most for humans sex will be a part of their life in some capacity that.

It is also true that if you never leave your house you can avoid all sorts of problems but that doesn't mean most people want to live that way or that it is generally healthy to do so.

The options on human sexuality are the false choice fallacy of abstinence or risky behavior.

It's not about making it dirty, it’s about setting in it's proper context. The safest, healthiest, best way to practice sex is to wait until your married and have one lifelong sexual partner. It's best for you, it's best for your partner, it's best for the children you will inevitably have.

I know not everyone will choose that model, it’s their life. But we are doing our kids a serious disservice by not explaining to them what the optimal model is.

Again, you can also get sick from all sorts of things even if you never have sex. Are you also advocating never leaving the house? Telling people that if their only options are a lifetime of syphilis or never having sex is patently absurd.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:The safest, healthiest, best way to practice sex is to wait until your married and have one lifelong sexual partner.

Been watching the 700 Club have we?

Wow this thread fell into the toilet, but not in the manner I was expecting.

Ahtman wrote:Again, you can also get sick from all sorts of things even if you never have sex. Are you also advocating never leaving the house? Telling people that if their only options are a lifetime of syphilis or never having sex is patently absurd.

I feel badly that I'm reading such a blatant strawman from you, Ahtman. You're better than that.

What is your point, exactly? That you're going to die anyway so do what you want? Sounds like the cavalier attitude of someone explaining why they smoke.

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:The safest, healthiest, best way to practice sex is to wait until your married and have one lifelong sexual partner. It's best for you, it's best for your partner, it's best for the children you will inevitably have.

What if it turns out that because neither myself nor my wife have ever had sex that we're both crap at it, we don't enjoy it, and get divorced?

I mean if the metric by which you're judging what is best is "what has the lowest risk" then sure, I guess. Except life is risky. You could die crossing the road. You could die in your house. You could die doing absolutely anything.

Your metric sucks.

Frazzled wrote:Wow this thread fell into the toilet, but not in the manner I was expecting.

Well, we like to keep the mods on their toes and amused at the same time.

Monster Rain wrote:

Ahtman wrote:Again, you can also get sick from all sorts of things even if you never have sex. Are you also advocating never leaving the house? Telling people that if their only options are a lifetime of syphilis or never having sex is patently absurd.

I feel badly that I'm reading such a blatant strawman from you, Ahtman. You're better than that.

What is your point, exactly? That you're going to die anyway so do what you want? Sounds like the cavalier attitude of someone explaining why they smoke.

That you don't know the difference between a strawman and reductio ad absurdem by now also makes me sad. That you don't understand the point makes it doubly sad. The point was not a call for nihilism in any sense, if anything it would be the opposite.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:I mean if the metric by which you're judging what is best is "what has the lowest risk" then sure, I guess. Except life is risky. You could die crossing the road. You could die in your house. You could die doing absolutely anything.

I thought "what has the lowest risk" was the point of the conversation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:That you don't know the difference between a strawman and reductio ad absurdem by now also makes me sad. That you don't understand the point makes it doubly sad. The point was not a call for nihilism in any sense, if anything it would be the opposite.

It sure looked like an easily dismissed caricature of my original point, but oh well. Either way, it was a fallacy. I suppose it could have been both.

It also seemed that since you were making the point that you could die at any moment doing any number of things it somehow made fact that abstinence is more effective than any type of safe sex invalid.

Edited for clarity.

Monster Rain wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:I mean if the metric by which you're judging what is best is "what has the lowest risk" then sure, I guess. Except life is risky. You could die crossing the road. You could die in your house. You could die doing absolutely anything.

I thought "what has the lowest risk" was the point of the conversation.

I'm not saying that if practiced correctly abstinence isn't the safest form of birth control/sti control/whatever.

What it does have is a very high failure rate. I forget the name of the statistic, but I'd be suprised if you hadn't heard of it, where states that taught abstinence only had a higher teen pregnancy rate than states which taught actual sex education.

But this is beside the point, everything in life has a certain level of risk. You might never find someone willing to marry your ass is one of the risks with the approach that Artlksnfnsdfnsd is advocating.

Ahtman wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Wow this thread fell into the toilet, but not in the manner I was expecting.

Well, we like to keep the mods on their toes and amused at the same time.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:What it does have is a very high failure rate. I forget the name of the statistic, but I'd be suprised if you hadn't heard of it, where states that taught abstinence only had a higher teen pregnancy rate than states which taught actual sex education.

Yeah, that's the thing. I'm not really talking about what is the most likely to catch on. I was just saying that abstinence is more effective than anything else if you can pull it off.

Like I said, I think a combination of both approaches is the best way to go. I can't get mad at someone who thinks that they can come up with a way to effectively teach abstinence though, since I don't want more people getting HIV if we can avoid it.

Ahtman wrote:Again, you can also get sick from all sorts of things even if you never have sex. Are you also advocating never leaving the house? Telling people that if their only options are a lifetime of syphilis or never having sex is patently absurd.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:The safest, healthiest, best way to practice sex is to wait until your married and have one lifelong sexual partner.

Been watching the 700 Club have we?

I said I was one of the people this article would be targeting . But you are taking a simple, logical argument to ridiculous proportions to try and make it look silly, this is exactly why people get pressured into sex when they may have otherwise remained abstinent. You make the logical option seems ridiculous or un cool and people don’t listen to the logic.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
What if it turns out that because neither myself nor my wife have ever had sex that we're both crap at it, we don't enjoy it, and get divorced?

I mean if the metric by which you're judging what is best is "what has the lowest risk" then sure, I guess. Except life is risky. You could die crossing the road. You could die in your house. You could die doing absolutely anything.

Your metric sucks.

The argument that “what if you both suck” is simply a bad argument. First, as a married man I get a lot more practice and chances to improve than any single person. Second, who doesn’t figure out how to be decent at very quickly? It’s not rocket science. Third, if you get divorced because you can’t figure out how to satisfy one another you shouldn’t have been married in the first place.

And it is best for all of the following reasons:
1. You have zero, zero chance of contracting STDs or passing them to someone you care about.
2. You are emotionally invested in your marriage and partner in a way someone with multiples partners just can’t be.
3. Marriage is associated with something good and special, and not just the day to day grind of life.
4. There is zero, zero chance of bringing a child into an uncommitted relationship. Now not every marriage will last, and not every married couple is ready for a child, but two people who at least want to be together for a life time is much better than two casual partners who aren’t sure they want to stay together.

The last one is the biggest reason in my mind. When you sleep with someone you play not just with your life but with the life of the child you could create. Being abstinent until marriage is the best decision you can make for them.

On a serious note I think the 700 club is awesome. I always tune in when im in the States.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
Except for how it [abstinence sex education] doesn't work.

Abstinence sex educations works to a lesser degree than comprehensive sex education. Both will delay the age of the first time of intercourse, but abstinence education falls short in preventing the spread of STD's along with teen pregnancy simply because of the fact that children aren't taught about condom usage in abstinence only courses.

I'm all for comprehensive sex education personally, but abstinence only education does have some merit even though its less than comprehensive education.

For sex education we also have to take into account the psyche of the teens being taught sex ed. Most of them are egocentric and think that STDs and Pregnancy won't happen to them. In fact some will even go far as to say that they don't have to wear condoms because they can tell if a person has an STD or not.

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:And it is best for all of the following reasons:
1. You have zero, zero chance of contracting STDs or passing them to someone you care about.

a) Unless one of you cheats.
b) Unless one of you contracts an STD without having sex. (Giving CPR to someone positive, for instance.)

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:2. You are emotionally invested in your marriage and partner in a way someone with multiples partners just can’t be.

Why does this require marriage?

Further, why can't I be emotionally invested in multiple people? I have more than one friend, after all.

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:3. Marriage is associated with something good and special, and not just the day to day grind of life.

Perhaps for those of us who didn't grow up in broken homes.

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:4. There is zero, zero chance of bringing a child into an uncommitted relationship. Now not every marriage will last, and not every married couple is ready for a child, but two people who at least want to be together for a life time is much better than two casual partners who aren’t sure they want to stay together.

The last one is the biggest reason in my mind. When you sleep with someone you play not just with your life but with the life of the child you could create. Being abstinent until marriage is the best decision you can make for them.

If you have to be married to want to be with someone for the rest of your life, gays clearly cannot want this in any state in which they can't marry, correct? (This isn't me assuming that you're anti-gay marriage, incidentally, I'm just using it as an extension of your logic.)

Why is marriage a requisite for a stable relationship?

Marriage requirments are a typically american idea, we were founded by protestants and puritans. If anyone says otherwise they don't know their history too well. The New England colonies were puritans who fled England due to religious prosecution, the southern colonies were economic colonies established by some English businesses. (also important to know whenthe english talk about establishing america as a colony because about half of the original 13 states were founded by people fleeing England).

Its also why we have a majority of people who support abstinence only programs.

Even though abstinence guarantees that one will not get pregnant or contract an STD, the issue with it is getting people to go along with it.



The chance of contracting HIV/AIDS from doing something legal( not sharing needles when shooting up for example) is a lot lower than contracting it from blood transfusions, while giving medical aid to someone with HIV/AIDS, etc.

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:But you are taking a simple, logical argument to ridiculous proportions to try and make it look silly

I don't have to try and make it look silly. It's silliness is prima facie as well as incredibly biased. There was also nothing simple or logical to it.

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote: You make the logical option seems ridiculous or un cool and people don’t listen to the logic.

Outside of having a restricted view of human nature and motivations, you also misuse the term logic, like you learned it from Spock in Star Trek.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:Why does this require marriage?

Further, why can't I be emotionally invested in multiple people? I have more than one friend, after all.
...
If you have to be married to want to be with someone for the rest of your life, gays clearly cannot want this in any state in which they can't marry, correct? (This isn't me assuming that you're anti-gay marriage, incidentally, I'm just using it as an extension of your logic.)

Why is marriage a requisite for a stable relationship?

Obviously you're not married.

biccat wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:Why does this require marriage?

Further, why can't I be emotionally invested in multiple people? I have more than one friend, after all.
...
If you have to be married to want to be with someone for the rest of your life, gays clearly cannot want this in any state in which they can't marry, correct? (This isn't me assuming that you're anti-gay marriage, incidentally, I'm just using it as an extension of your logic.)

Why is marriage a requisite for a stable relationship?

Obviously you're not married.

Correct. I also don't want to be. Not because I have no-one to marry, incidentally. Also not because I'm a commitment phobe. I simply disagree with the legal obligations that it commits me to in the event that I get divorced.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

biccat wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:Why does this require marriage?

Further, why can't I be emotionally invested in multiple people? I have more than one friend, after all.
...
If you have to be married to want to be with someone for the rest of your life, gays clearly cannot want this in any state in which they can't marry, correct? (This isn't me assuming that you're anti-gay marriage, incidentally, I'm just using it as an extension of your logic.)

Why is marriage a requisite for a stable relationship?

Obviously you're not married.

Correct. I also don't want to be. Not because I have no-one to marry, incidentally. Also not because I'm a commitment phobe. I simply disagree with the legal obligations that it commits me to in the event that I get divorced.

Can't get a date huh?

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

biccat wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:Why does this require marriage?

Further, why can't I be emotionally invested in multiple people? I have more than one friend, after all.
...
If you have to be married to want to be with someone for the rest of your life, gays clearly cannot want this in any state in which they can't marry, correct? (This isn't me assuming that you're anti-gay marriage, incidentally, I'm just using it as an extension of your logic.)

Why is marriage a requisite for a stable relationship?

Obviously you're not married.

Correct. I also don't want to be. Not because I have no-one to marry, incidentally. Also not because I'm a commitment phobe. I simply disagree with the legal obligations that it commits me to in the event that I get divorced.

Just sayin' that there's a different attitude that comes when you make a lifelong commitment like that to another person.

Maybe it's different if you're not religious, but it definately changes your perspective.

halonachos wrote:Marriage requirments are a typically american idea, we were founded by protestants and puritans.

That is sort of a half truth. Jamestown Colony was Protestant in the sense that there really wasn't an option not to be but it was a corporate colony found on corporate interests, not religious ones. You sort of go into that later but put way more emphasis on the religious aspects of the early colonies when the motivations were far more varied than that. This dichotomy is more of an explanation for why our porn industry is so thriving while we get outraged at the same time becuase of a nipple flashes on screen for half a second. Your emphasis on religion is to simplistic,becuase even at that time there were a myriad of religious views and experimental societies. I'm not really sure, do Diests count as protestant or would they fall into a different category? Considering the large number of them and that they questioned the divinity of Jesus it seems like that movement would have fallen outside of that realm. Ancient Roman and Greek ideas also played a part as well. To put such an emphasis on religion shows they don't know their history that well. It's a complex amalgam of motivating factors not easily boiled down, unless ones intent is to perpetuate half myths for propaganda purposes. Like teaching kids that pilgrims wanted religious freedom but not explaining that they didn't want it for others, just themselves and strung up Quakers for not following their brand of Christianity.

I'm also not sure that a majority of people in America support abstinence only programs. If it were that cut and dry there wouldn't be much debate about them. If you have some non Focus on the Family numbers from reputable sources to back that up I would be happy to see them.

Ahtman wrote:I'm also not sure that a majority of people in America support abstinence only programs. If it were that cut and dry there wouldn't be much debate about them. If you have some non Focus on the Family numbers from reputable sources to back that up I would be happy to see them.

Was that directed at me?

I don’t have anything with me. I don’t think there has been an official abstinence only program in the US, at least not on any scale. It went from just the sort of cultural norm straight into the current style of sex education programs.

I know that not every kid is going to wait until marriage. And I’m fine with older kids being taught some basic contraception techniques (married people use them too). What I don’t like is the prevailing attitude that kids are going to be sexual starting at 15, and if we don’t accept it and show them how to use condoms they’ll all wind up pregnant and destitute. If there was nothing else be an attitude change where abstinence was a goal kids were encouraged to strive for I would be ecstatic, and I think you would have a lot more well adjusted and happy teenagers. As of right now you are laughed at just for suggesting kids should try it.

biccat wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

biccat wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:Why does this require marriage?

Further, why can't I be emotionally invested in multiple people? I have more than one friend, after all.
...
If you have to be married to want to be with someone for the rest of your life, gays clearly cannot want this in any state in which they can't marry, correct? (This isn't me assuming that you're anti-gay marriage, incidentally, I'm just using it as an extension of your logic.)

Why is marriage a requisite for a stable relationship?

Obviously you're not married.

Correct. I also don't want to be. Not because I have no-one to marry, incidentally. Also not because I'm a commitment phobe. I simply disagree with the legal obligations that it commits me to in the event that I get divorced.

Just sayin' that there's a different attitude that comes when you make a lifelong commitment like that to another person.

Maybe it's different if you're not religious, but it definately changes your perspective.

I think his point was... "why can't I make that commitment to more than one person?" I'm pretty sure based on how you posted you won't be able to get into WARBOSS TZOO's head... so let me break it down for you.

He (WARBOSS TZOO) feels that the current marriage restrictions shouldn't exist. This obviously isn't the topic of the thread, but I agree with him.

As for a non-religious person... I'm getting Married in August. i am also an atheist. I'm not so sure I understand just how exaclty you think religion adds to your personal relationship/contract/obligations to your partner, but I'm sure you'll try to tell us.

Back on topic. I agree with what Frazzled agreed with on the front page.

In addition to that. Assuming Jesus was real, the character he has been portrayed as would say "get rid of the tax cuts for the rich"






Automatically Appended Next Post:

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:

Ahtman wrote:I'm also not sure that a majority of people in America support abstinence only programs. If it were that cut and dry there wouldn't be much debate about them. If you have some non Focus on the Family numbers from reputable sources to back that up I would be happy to see them.

Was that directed at me?

I don’t have anything with me. I don’t think there has been an official abstinence only program in the US, at least not on any scale. It went from just the sort of cultural norm straight into the current style of sex education programs.

I know that not every kid is going to wait until marriage. And I’m fine with older kids being taught some basic contraception techniques (married people use them too). What I don’t like is the prevailing attitude that kids are going to be sexual starting at 15, and if we don’t accept it and show them how to use condoms they’ll all wind up pregnant and destitute. If there was nothing else be an attitude change where abstinence was a goal kids were encouraged to strive for I would be ecstatic, and I think you would have a lot more well adjusted and happy teenagers. As of right now you are laughed at just for suggesting kids should try it.

I started at 15, most the people I know did also. I think you'd be surprised at how young they start these days. 15 is too late. 11-12 is a prime time to start teaching... before the horomones kick in and they are semilogical.

AND to be honest... IMHO the simple social pressure against it and the lack of freely available contraceptive... will cause more kids to be scared to buy them... and thus do their thing with out the contraceptive.

Out of honest curiosity, how do the people who are in favour of abstinence-only education feel about kissing? It's the primary way of infecting oneself with Herpes HSV-1. Are there people in favour of just kissing after marrying or is that a risk that is deemed acceptable to take even before marriage?

frgsinwntr wrote:I started at 15, most the people I know did also. I think you'd be surprised at how young they start these days. 15 is too late. 11-12 is a prime time to start teaching... before the horomones kick in and they are semilogical

I know a lot of kids start that age. I went to high school too. But that’s not ok, and sex education at 11 is, no offense, crazy.

60 years ago our grandparent’s generation didn’t start until their mid twenties. Our parents generation probably their early twenties. We shouldn’t just accept this deterioration, it hasn’t always been like this and we should really fix it. A change in the way we present sexuality to our children would go a long way.

Witzkatz wrote:Out of honest curiosity, how do the people who are in favour of abstinence-only education feel about kissing? It's the primary way of infecting oneself with Herpes HSV-1. Are there people in favour of just kissing after marrying or is that a risk that is deemed acceptable to take even before marriage?

It's also led to the spreading of herpies and such through oral stimulation. As well as to the spreading of ORAL cancer (caused by HPV) since kids see oral stimulation as safer since they can't/are too scared to get condoms.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:I started at 15, most the people I know did also. I think you'd be surprised at how young they start these days. 15 is too late. 11-12 is a prime time to start teaching... before the horomones kick in and they are semilogical

I know a lot of kids start that age. I went to high school too. But that’s not ok, and sex education at 11 is, no offense, crazy.

60 years ago our grandparent’s generation didn’t start until their mid twenties. Our parents generation probably their early twenties. We shouldn’t just accept this deterioration, it hasn’t always been like this and we should really fix it. A change in the way we present sexuality to our children would go a long way.

60 years ago your grandparents had 4 kids by the time they were 21.

I don't understand why you are scared of teaching Biology or consider teaching Biology to kids that are 11 crazy

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:I don’t have anything with me. I don’t think there has been an official abstinence only program in the US, at least not on any scale. It went from just the sort of cultural norm straight into the current style of sex education programs.

Really?

Wiki wrote:Abstinence-only sex education became more prominent in the U.S. over the last decade, largely as a result of over $1 billion in federal government funding initiatives. Through direct funding and matching grant incentives, the U.S. government steered more than a billion dollars to abstinence-only education programs between 1996 and 2006.

This was pretty controversial. I'm not being snide, I honestly don't understand how you weren't aware of it.

frgsinwntr wrote:I think his point was... "why can't I make that commitment to more than one person?" I'm pretty sure based on how you posted you won't be able to get into WARBOSS TZOO's head... so let me break it down for you.

He (WARBOSS TZOO) feels that the current marriage restrictions shouldn't exist. This obviously isn't the topic of the thread, but I agree with him.

Exactly.

Well, that's one of my points, anyway.

First, marriage isn't a lifelong commitment anymore. What's the statistic, 50% of marriages end in divorce?

Second, Marriage, in and of itself, adds nothing to the relationship (leaving aside certain inheritance and tax laws and legal benefits). A couple who is getting married for love would be equally in love and together if marriage as we know it simply didn't exist.

Third, married parents aren't the ideal parents from the perspective of a child. A stable relationship where the partners love each other and the children is the ideal situation. Marriage doesn't, from my perspective, add to the likelyhood of that coming about.

on topic:

so we're making the assumption that Jesus is real and the Jesus we're talking about is the Biblical one not Hey-sus from accounting right?

Cana? Bethsaida? those places ring a bell?

He wont need to cut anything if he can feed the mutlitudes and turn water into wine.

frgsinwntr wrote:I think his point was... "why can't I make that commitment to more than one person?" I'm pretty sure based on how you posted you won't be able to get into WARBOSS TZOO's head... so let me break it down for you.

And my point was "you'll understand if/when you get married." Because most people do see things differently after they get married.

frgsinwntr wrote:He (WARBOSS TZOO) feels that the current marriage restrictions shouldn't exist. This obviously isn't the topic of the thread, but I agree with him.

Could you please be more specific about what marriage restrictions shouldn't exist? I'm going to assume that you believe that I should be able to marry my 2-year old daughter, a cabbage, my sister's dog, and my other neighbor's wife.

I disagree.

frgsinwntr wrote:As for a non-religious person... I'm getting Married in August. i am also an atheist. I'm not so sure I understand just how exaclty you think religion adds to your personal relationship/contract/obligations to your partner, but I'm sure you'll try to tell us.

Nope, I just said that it might be different for non-religious people. You probably don't understand what marriage is like for religious people. Frankly, it doesn't matter because individuals are different.

frgsinwntr wrote:In addition to that. Assuming Jesus was real, the character he has been portrayed as would say "get rid of the tax cuts for the rich"

"If Jesus was alive, he'd totally agree with me."

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:well adjusted and happy teenagers

You must not know very many teenagers. Or maybe it's been too long for you.

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:I started at 15, most the people I know did also. I think you'd be surprised at how young they start these days. 15 is too late. 11-12 is a prime time to start teaching... before the horomones kick in and they are semilogical

I know a lot of kids start that age. I went to high school too. But that’s not ok, and sex education at 11 is, no offense, crazy.

Why? If kids understand these things from an early age, they're less likely to feth up. It's why if you have guns you should start teaching them gun safety as early as possible.

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:60 years ago our grandparent’s generation didn’t start until their mid twenties. Our parents generation probably their early twenties. We shouldn’t just accept this deterioration, it hasn’t always been like this and we should really fix it. A change in the way we present sexuality to our children would go a long way.

1000 years ago, if you were married and breeding at 13, you were a late developer.

We've come a long way, baby.

If a boy is old enough to get excited by girls, he is old enough for sex ed. What grandparents did is irrelevant (they also slept in separate beds if TV of their era is to be believed). Teaching them younger is not a sign of deterioration, it is a sign of not walking around with Ward-and-June-Cleaver blinders. While we're at it, I wish we could go back to whites only drinking fountains too, since everything was so much nicer and more pure in our grandparents day.

biccat wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:I think his point was... "why can't I make that commitment to more than one person?" I'm pretty sure based on how you posted you won't be able to get into WARBOSS TZOO's head... so let me break it down for you.

And my point was "you'll understand if/when you get married." Because most people do see things differently after they get married.

For instance, my father saw that my mother was a total bitch after he was married to her. Certainly different to how he saw her beforehand.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

biccat wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:I think his point was... "why can't I make that commitment to more than one person?" I'm pretty sure based on how you posted you won't be able to get into WARBOSS TZOO's head... so let me break it down for you.

And my point was "you'll understand if/when you get married." Because most people do see things differently after they get married.

For instance, my father saw that my mother was a total bitch after he was married to her. Certainly different to how he saw her beforehand.

Well then I suppose that completely blows a hole in this argument:

WARLORD TZOO wrote:Second, Marriage, in and of itself, adds nothing to the relationship (leaving aside certain inheritance and tax laws and legal benefits). A couple who is getting married for love would be equally in love and together if marriage as we know it simply didn't exist.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:I don’t have anything with me. I don’t think there has been an official abstinence only program in the US, at least not on any scale. It went from just the sort of cultural norm straight into the current style of sex education programs.

Really?

Wiki wrote:Abstinence-only sex education became more prominent in the U.S. over the last decade, largely as a result of over $1 billion in federal government funding initiatives. Through direct funding and matching grant incentives, the U.S. government steered more than a billion dollars to abstinence-only education programs between 1996 and 2006.

This was pretty controversial. I'm not being snide, I honestly don't understand how you weren't aware of it.

One billion dollars over ten years is not exactly a lot of money. It funded some programs, mostly in the south, of which I heard they had mixed success. But that is not really anything of scale compared to the amount of money that was spent nation wide during that time and since on traditional sex education programs.

And I just don’t think we are ever going to see eye to eye on this. I don’t know how to explain the merits of waiting until you are married to someone who questions the merits of marriage. There are some underlying assumptions about life, relationships, and how humans should live that we just don’t agree on.

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:60 years ago our grandparent’s generation didn’t start until their mid twenties.

That is a just out and out false. You've been sold a bad bill of goods my friend.

biccat wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

biccat wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:I think his point was... "why can't I make that commitment to more than one person?" I'm pretty sure based on how you posted you won't be able to get into WARBOSS TZOO's head... so let me break it down for you.

And my point was "you'll understand if/when you get married." Because most people do see things differently after they get married.

For instance, my father saw that my mother was a total bitch after he was married to her. Certainly different to how he saw her beforehand.

Well then I suppose that completely blows a hole in this argument:

WARLORD TZOO wrote:Second, Marriage, in and of itself, adds nothing to the relationship (leaving aside certain inheritance and tax laws and legal benefits). A couple who is getting married for love would be equally in love and together if marriage as we know it simply didn't exist.

Nope. The crucial factor was time spent together, not whether or not they were married. They would have separated either way.

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:And I just don’t think we are ever going to see eye to eye on this. I don’t know how to explain the merits of waiting until you are married to someone who questions the merits of marriage. There are some underlying assumptions about life, relationships, and how humans should live that we just don’t agree on.

Perhaps you could begin by explaining why married relationships are superior to unmarried relationships?

Out of honest curiosity, how do the people who are in favour of abstinence-only education feel about kissing? It's the primary way of infecting oneself with Herpes HSV-1. Are there people in favour of just kissing after marrying or is that a risk that is deemed acceptable to take even before marriage?

frgsinwntr was so nice to point out further implications of kissing, but could I get an opinion from the advocates of abstinence-until-marriage concerning how they feel about kissing and kissing before marriage? It genuinely interests me.

Can we stop using the genreic term religious and start just be honest and say Christian? I know there are folks on here of other faiths but I don't get the impression any of them are on here at the moment and Christians don't speak for all other faiths. So instead of making it seem all religions (or even sects within the same religion) all have the same viewpoint jut be honest and state your own preference instead of masking it as a benign generic term..

I'm not questioning the merits of marriage but I am questioning the merits that a viewpoint founded on religious idealism and not research is accurate. People can live full lives and have safe sex without getting married. One isn't an absolute indicator of the other and I say this as someone who is happily married and has been so for some time.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:Perhaps you could begin by explaining why married relationships are superior to unmarried relationships?

There is a level of commitment and permanence that you can’t achieve in a non married relationship. I know you will say (and have said) the only differences are legalities. I disagree, but even so the legalities influence the way you interact and the way handle conflict. Every dispute with a non married couple comes with the question of “Are we going to continue after this?” In a married relationship, at least one where people seriously mean to stay together for life, that tension is not around. It is a level of intimacy you cannot achieve otherwise.

Then if you take the traditional route and reserve your physical intimacy for marriage, living together until marriage, and raising children until marriage, you have an extremely rewarding and meaning relationship. I don’t think those things can be achieved by two people who just live together and say they are committed for life. If you are committed for life then why not get married? It’s an excuse for people who want the easy out if things get too tough.

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:Perhaps you could begin by explaining why married relationships are superior to unmarried relationships?

There is a level of commitment and permanence that you can’t achieve in a non married relationship. I know you will say (and have said) the only differences are legalities. I disagree, but even so the legalities influence the way you interact and the way handle conflict. Every dispute with a non married couple comes with the question of “Are we going to continue after this?” In a married relationship, at least one where people seriously mean to stay together for life, that tension is not around. It is a level of intimacy you cannot achieve otherwise.

Why can't you mean to stay together for life without being married? Perhaps the female of the pair resents the implications and history of marriage? (In case you weren't aware, historically marriage was the sale of a daughter to a man by a father. Hence the father of the bride "giving her away").

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:Then if you take the traditional route and reserve your physical intimacy for marriage, living together until marriage, and raising children until marriage, you have an extremely rewarding and meaning relationship. I don’t think those things can be achieved by two people who just live together and say they are committed for life. If you are committed for life then why not get married? It’s an excuse for people who want the easy out if things get too tough.

Same as above.

Ahtman wrote:Can we stop using the genreic term religious and start just be honest and say Christian?

No.

Also, why do you assume I'm Christian?

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:Why can't you mean to stay together for life without being married? Perhaps the female of the pair resents the implications and history of marriage? (In case you weren't aware, historically marriage was the sale of a daughter to a man by a father. Hence the father of the bride "giving her away").

Meaning to stay to together for life is not the same thing as being married. Being married makes it difficult for you to leave. It brings consequences for leaving, and for cheating, and for any number of other bad behaviors. Being willing to put yourself in that situation matters. It says something about who you are and what your intentions with this person really are. I can say “I’ll be with you forever,” all day long. It’s easy, it costs me nothing, and I never need to do any serious introspection to know if I really mean it because in reality there are no consequences to it.

I’m fine if someone doesn’t want to get married. But a non married relationship is not the same as a married relationship.

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:Perhaps you could begin by explaining why married relationships are superior to unmarried relationships?

There is a level of commitment and permanence that you can’t achieve in a non married relationship. I know you will say (and have said) the only differences are legalities. I disagree, but even so the legalities influence the way you interact and the way handle conflict. Every dispute with a non married couple comes with the question of “Are we going to continue after this?” In a married relationship, at least one where people seriously mean to stay together for life, that tension is not around. It is a level of intimacy you cannot achieve otherwise.

Then if you take the traditional route and reserve your physical intimacy for marriage, living together until marriage, and raising children until marriage, you have an extremely rewarding and meaning relationship. I don’t think those things can be achieved by two people who just live together and say they are committed for life. If you are committed for life then why not get married? It’s an excuse for people who want the easy out if things get too tough.

I was just thinking someone else has spare keys and can open the car when you've locked your keys in the car with the headlights on?

biccat wrote:

Ahtman wrote:Can we stop using the genreic term religious and start just be honest and say Christian?

No.

Also, why do you assume I'm Christian?

Why do you assume I'm specifically and/or only talking to you. And you can, you just choose not to. Are you really so insecure in your beliefs you can't even name them? You would rather pretend your religion is "Religion"? That is kind of sad.

Frazzled wrote:I was just thinking someone else has spare keys and can open the car when you've locked your keys in the car with the headlights on?

My wife has a knack for knowing where the keys are. I am the luckiest man alive.

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:

Frazzled wrote:I was just thinking someone else has spare keys and can open the car when you've locked your keys in the car with the headlights on?

My wife has a knack for knowing where the keys are. I am the luckiest man alive.

My wife almost backed into two cars yesterday. She didn't by a hair. I'M the luckiest man alive.

Ahtman wrote:Why do you assume I'm specifically and/or only talking to you.

Because I'm the only one who has used it in this thread in a manner that the religion in question was not immediately apparent.

Seriously, push CTRL and F together, type "religion" and you'll see. It's like magic.

Ahtman wrote:And you can, you just choose not to.

Because I think religious people, regardless of their faith, have more in common with eachother than they do with Atheists. And part of that is viewing the world differently.

Ahtman wrote:Are you really so insecure in your beliefs you can't even name them? You would rather pretend your religion is "Religion"? That is kind of sad.

Yes, that's it exactly. You've sure got me pegged. It has nothing to do with the fact that religion and non-religion are different, it's that I'm a self-hating (whatever).

It's your bigotry that is at issue here. You seem to think that only Christians have a world-view that you disagree with, and that all Christians are mindless ideologues: "a viewpoint founded on religious idealism and not research."

Stop the hate.

@Ahtman,

Unfortunately I have no statistics besides the ones provided in my psychology text. These show that abstinence only programs are inferior, but still supported by the government. The reason why most schools go along with it is because of the fact that the Federal government gives funding to those schools that offer only Abstinence only programs.

I'm going to have to base my argument partly on the fact that only 17 of the 50 united states are willing to forgo funding in order to teach comprehensive sex classes.

Comparing our teen pregnancy rates to other developed nations shows that even though we tend to be the more religious of them all we have a higher rate of teen pregnancy as well compared to countrues that teach comprehensive sex education.

As far as the colonies go we started with a large religious population, puritans and protestants mainly. We then established a buffer colony, now known as Georgia because of the threat from the Catholic spanish colonies in Florida.

Statistics have shown that atheism is higher in most European countries compared to the United States so the logical path would have to say that its because we have more followers of religion. The most popular religion being Christianity and its derivatives(Baptist, Catholic, Protestant, etc). Traditional religion teaches that premarital sex is bad and that abstinence before sex is a part of getting into heaven. I'm going to have to use this as a basis for my opinion on why the majority of people support abstinence only programs. I'll have to look in my book at the statistics about the time the child received sex education in school though. In some cases girls weren't taught about sex until the 10th grade, really interesting stuff there.

Some other controversial studies were about the offering of condoms in public high schools. One study compared New York and Chicago, schools in one city offered condoms while the other didn't. The other study compared high schools in Boston, some provided condoms and others didn't. These studies showed that condom availability reduced the amount of sexual partners and partially delayed the first time of intercourse.

Also, pre-marital sex is frowned upon in most religions, not just Christianity.

Monster Rain wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:President Bush was keen on foreign aid associated with his religious ideas; that is, funds for sexual abstinence programmes rather than condom distribution.

I'm for doing both.

But come on, you have to admit that abstinence is the ultimate way to avoid getting HIV/AIDS. When you remove any kind of value judgment on sex and whatnot it is the most logical conclusion.

Are you suggesting that married couples should in order to avoid AIDS not have sex?

What would Jesus Cut? Everything except DoD. Like Ronald Reagon it's doesn't matter of what Jesus actually said, believed, or did. What does matter is what Republican leadership say that Jesus and Reagan said, believed, and did. Don't ever let filthy liberals cloud the issues with facts on this issue.

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:Why can't you mean to stay together for life without being married? Perhaps the female of the pair resents the implications and history of marriage? (In case you weren't aware, historically marriage was the sale of a daughter to a man by a father. Hence the father of the bride "giving her away").

Meaning to stay to together for life is not the same thing as being married. Being married makes it difficult for you to leave. It brings consequences for leaving, and for cheating, and for any number of other bad behaviors. Being willing to put yourself in that situation matters. It says something about who you are and what your intentions with this person really are. I can say “I’ll be with you forever,” all day long. It’s easy, it costs me nothing, and I never need to do any serious introspection to know if I really mean it because in reality there are no consequences to it.

I’m fine if someone doesn’t want to get married. But a non married relationship is not the same as a married relationship.

Equally, if there are consequences to leaving, and you don't leave because of those consequences, you're staying together because you don't want to face them, not because the relationship is a good one. If there are no consequences to leaving, and you nevertheless stay together, is that not a stronger relationship than one where you're shackled together?

halonachos wrote:@Ahtman,

Unfortunately I have no statistics besides the ones provided in my psychology text. These show that abstinence only programs are inferior, but still supported by the government. The reason why most schools go along with it is because of the fact that the Federal government gives funding to those schools that offer only Abstinence only programs.

That is a completely different argument than saying that the majority of people agree with teaching it.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:Why can't you mean to stay together for life without being married? Perhaps the female of the pair resents the implications and history of marriage? (In case you weren't aware, historically marriage was the sale of a daughter to a man by a father. Hence the father of the bride "giving her away").

Meaning to stay to together for life is not the same thing as being married. Being married makes it difficult for you to leave. It brings consequences for leaving, and for cheating, and for any number of other bad behaviors. Being willing to put yourself in that situation matters. It says something about who you are and what your intentions with this person really are. I can say “I’ll be with you forever,” all day long. It’s easy, it costs me nothing, and I never need to do any serious introspection to know if I really mean it because in reality there are no consequences to it.

I’m fine if someone doesn’t want to get married. But a non married relationship is not the same as a married relationship.

Equally, if there are consequences to leaving, and you don't leave because of those consequences, you're staying together because you don't want to face them, not because the relationship is a good one. If there are no consequences to leaving, and you nevertheless stay together, is that not a stronger relationship than one where you're shackled together?

Marriage in America allows one person to share the benefits with another person. These benefits include health insurance coverage, tax breaks, etc. In some states and counties of America there is a thing called 'common-law' marriage where a couple is defined as being married after living with each other for some amount of time. Marriage as a sacrament is another thing because church marriages don't count for diddly around here. You have to be married in the court in order to receive a certificate of marriage( which I personally think is bogus) or have some other legal body recognize your marriage. There's also a thing called a prenuptial agreement that some people get just in case things don't work out.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:Equally, if there are consequences to leaving, and you don't leave because of those consequences, you're staying together because you don't want to face them, not because the relationship is a good one. If there are no consequences to leaving, and you nevertheless stay together, is that not a stronger relationship than one where you're shackled together?

No it's not because you are comparing apples to oranges. You are comparing the successful non married couple to the unsuccessful married couple.

successful married couple > than successful non married couple because the married couple accepted the potential consequence of their marraige, and the non married couple lives consequence less.

non successful married couple is still > non successful un married couple in my opinion because at least they attempted something deeper and more meaningful and didn't take the easy route.

Ahtman wrote:

halonachos wrote:@Ahtman,

Unfortunately I have no statistics besides the ones provided in my psychology text. These show that abstinence only programs are inferior, but still supported by the government. The reason why most schools go along with it is because of the fact that the Federal government gives funding to those schools that offer only Abstinence only programs.

That is a completely different argument than saying that the majority of people agree with teaching it.

It is, but I have no other statistics to go off of other than the fact that the federal government which is supposed to represent the majority of the people support abstinence only programs. There's a mixed crowd of course, people who think it should be taught by the parents, people who don't want to teach it to their children, etc. For the most part its supported, my state's battling in between comprehensive and abstinence programs. Our governor cut funding for abstinence programs but out state legislature is trying to block it. Maybe that could be a source of bias in my opinion.

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:Equally, if there are consequences to leaving, and you don't leave because of those consequences, you're staying together because you don't want to face them, not because the relationship is a good one. If there are no consequences to leaving, and you nevertheless stay together, is that not a stronger relationship than one where you're shackled together?

No it's not because you are comparing apples to oranges. You are comparing the successful non married couple to the unsuccessful married couple.

successful married couple > than successful non married couple because the married couple accepted the potential consequence of their marraige, and the non married couple lives consequence less.

It doesn't make them... I don't know, smarter, maybe, to plan ahead for the potential pitfalls that can occur in any relationship? You can hope for the best while still planning for the worst. You'd be a pretty terrible CEO or any kind of decision maker if you didn't, really.

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:non successful married couple is still > non successful un married couple in my opinion because at least they attempted something deeper and more meaningful and didn't take the easy route.

Now this, this I take offence to. Why on earth is one relationship deeper and more meaningful than another because the first relationship includes a certificate?

halonachos wrote:Marriage in America allows one person to share the benefits with another person. These benefits include health insurance coverage, tax breaks, etc. In some states and counties of America there is a thing called 'common-law' marriage where a couple is defined as being married after living with each other for some amount of time. Marriage as a sacrament is another thing because church marriages don't count for diddly around here. You have to be married in the court in order to receive a certificate of marriage( which I personally think is bogus) or have some other legal body recognize your marriage. There's also a thing called a prenuptial agreement that some people get just in case things don't work out.

I'm aware that there are legal benefits to marriage. I assume that Aetgtnodnsg (I'm sorry man, I'll never be able to spell it) feels that married relationships with a prenup are inferior to married relationships without one?

biccat wrote:

Ahtman wrote:Why do you assume I'm specifically and/or only talking to you.

Because I'm the only one who has used it in this thread in a manner that the religion in question was not immediately apparent.

Seriously, push CTRL and F together, type "religion" and you'll see. It's like magic.

You realize the titel of the thread has Jesus in it right? This whole thread is going to have a religious context to it.

biccat wrote:

Ahtman wrote:And you can, you just choose not to.

Because I think religious people, regardless of their faith, have more in common with eachother than they do with Atheists.

Well that isn't a very well informed opinion in any way shape or form but that is your choice.

biccat wrote:And part of that is viewing the world differently.

That is so generic as to be almost nonsensical. Not even all Christians have the same world view. An Al Qaeda suicide bomber is religious, do you think you hold the same views as him becuase you both have a religious outlook? It also tells me you don't know much about athiesm either if you believe they are homogeneous. You are creating a phantasmal landscape of religious solidarity that exists only in your head. I can think of a great number of religions you would probably have serious disagreements with, some probably forms of your own.

Ahtman wrote:Are you really so insecure in your beliefs you can't even name them? You would rather pretend your religion is "Religion"? That is kind of sad.

biccat wrote:Yes, that's it exactly. You've sure got me pegged. It has nothing to do with the fact that religion and non-religion are different, it's that I'm a self-hating (whatever).

This isn't a trick or a gotcha. I see no reason why you can't just state what you are instead of trying to cloak yourself in the blanket of false homogeneity. There is a difference between being uncomfortable and being self-hating. The more roadblocks you trow up and the more denial you toss does sort of paint a picture of someone insecure with them self. You are walking like a duck and talking like a duck, get upset when someone asks you if you are a duck. The religious and non-religious are as different as you act. If you knew more than five people who only share your belief system you would realize that. Don't worry though, the odds are I know someone who shares your faith who is both a pretty smart and kind person so I won't hold it against them just becuase you are a bad example.

[qoute=biccat]It's your bigotry that is at issue here.

I wouldn't worry about spelling his name tzoo, he can't even spell unsuccessful.

'non-successful' is not a word.

It does sound like he is saying "Marriage or GTFO" in my opinion. If one feels obligated to marry due to the presence of a child then the marriage really wasn't conceived in 'love', it was done out of perceived necessity.

I personally want to get married and have kids, but just because I want to doesn't mean everybody does.

@ Ahtman,

Atheists are stupid, hurr-durr. That was sarcasm so read it sarcastically.

halonachos wrote:which is supposed to represent the majority of the people

This is where the argument goes off the rails.

Forgoing even that, Bush's fundamentalist views didn't even represent the majority of Christians in America, let alone a majority of all Americans.

I asked not becuase I know you are wrong, but becuase I don't recall ever seeing any meaningful study that showed that many Americans believed it was better than a comprehensive program. If there was data on it I would have liked to see it.

Ahtman wrote:Well that isn't a very well informed opinion in any way shape or form but that is your choice.

If I call you stupid in a nice way, does that get around the MODs?

Ahtman wrote:That's a pretty tough accusation there friend-o. Do you call all people who disagree with you a bigot?

Nope, I call bigots bigots. I'm sorry if you're offended, but acting like a bigot makes me want to call you a bigot.

Ahtman wrote:I mean, you don't seem to know what a bigot is so I'm not really all that offended, but still, you might want to be careful with words you don't fully understand.

Well, I'm not calling you a Norman, if that's what you think.

So on the OP.... What would Jesus Cut..... No Clue, given I have little understanding of how the man's mind actually worked. Much like those people whose names are listed at the end of that document.
I did notice that a few "christian groups" seem to be missing in representation, but that is another subject.

As for the programs listed, first, I would like tactile evidence that the money being assigned to first two is actually being used for the purposes described, particularly those assigned for international dispensation.

On the third, given the current states of unemployment and poverty, I would consider the program either too small or less than the advertised in its effectiveness.

On the fourth, drop-out rates in low income areas tend to be much higher, especially in the upper grades. Mainly this tends to be due to students leaving school to help with family finances.

In conclusion, until these programs can be proven to be both effective and financially responsible, "I" would consider them all to be on the chopping block. I would also take a hard look at every expenditure listed in an upcoming budget......

But then, as I am not an elected official, I have the luxury of not having to make such decision....

As would Jesus......

Ahtman wrote:

halonachos wrote:which is supposed to represent the majority of the people

This is where the argument goes off the rails.

Forgoing even that, Bush's fundamentalist views didn't even represent the majority of Christians in America, let alone a majority of all Americans.

I asked not becuase I know you are wrong, but becuase I don't recall ever seeing any meaningful study that showed that many Americans believed it was better than a comprehensive program. If there was data on it I would have liked to see it.

To tell the truth I don't think a study has ever been conducted concerning the support of these two programs, only their efficiency.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:President Bush was keen on foreign aid associated with his religious ideas; that is, funds for sexual abstinence programmes rather than condom distribution.

I'm for doing both.

But come on, you have to admit that abstinence is the ultimate way to avoid getting HIV/AIDS. When you remove any kind of value judgment on sex and whatnot it is the most logical conclusion.

Are you suggesting that married couples should in order to avoid AIDS not have sex?

They shouldn't have sex with people that they aren't married to if neither of them has AIDs and they want to verify that they won't contract it via sexual transmission. And if one of them is infected already, yes, they're running a risk by having sex regardless of how safe they're being.

i will sum this thread up in one simple PIC...



but that is how threads like this allways are. 2 sides that will never get along on an issue in shock and awe when they dont get along.

halonachos wrote: In some states and counties of America there is a thing called 'common-law' marriage where a couple is defined as being married after living with each other for some amount of time.

Actually, to have a common-law marriage, the couple has to have presented themselves as married for that time. It's a very distinct legal difference.

Otherwise, you'd find yourself married to anyone you've lived with for the requisite amount of time.

Platuan4th wrote:

halonachos wrote: In some states and counties of America there is a thing called 'common-law' marriage where a couple is defined as being married after living with each other for some amount of time.

Actually, to have a common-law marriage, the couple has to have presented themselves as married for that time. It's a very distinct legal difference.

Otherwise, you'd find yourself married to anyone you've lived with for the requisite amount of time.

Thanks for the clarification.

halonachos wrote:

malfred wrote:

BrookM wrote:The foreskin?

I was going to make an inappropriate joke about his hands or the skin around
the brow of his head, but...

Jesus would cut wood, he was a carpenter.

Now the real question is, how MUCH wood would he cut, if he could indeed cut wood?

biccat wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:I think his point was... "why can't I make that commitment to more than one person?" I'm pretty sure based on how you posted you won't be able to get into WARBOSS TZOO's head... so let me break it down for you.

And my point was "you'll understand if/when you get married." Because most people do see things differently after they get married.

are you married?

frgsinwntr wrote:He (WARBOSS TZOO) feels that the current marriage restrictions shouldn't exist. This obviously isn't the topic of the thread, but I agree with him.

Could you please be more specific about what marriage restrictions shouldn't exist? I'm going to assume that you believe that I should be able to marry my 2-year old daughter, a cabbage, my sister's dog, and my other neighbor's wife.

I disagree.

No, I'm pretty scared that you'd make the jump to pedophilia. Odd that it was the first thing to come to your mind. I simply meant that restrictions shouldn't exist for adults. But there I go... assuming you could argue logically. I don't think anyone brought up marriage to the odd assortment you've listed...

frgsinwntr wrote:As for a non-religious person... I'm getting Married in August. i am also an atheist. I'm not so sure I understand just how exaclty you think religion adds to your personal relationship/contract/obligations to your partner, but I'm sure you'll try to tell us.

Nope, I just said that it might be different for non-religious people. You probably don't understand what marriage is like for religious people. Frankly, it doesn't matter because individuals are different.

please, by all means explain to me HOW it's different... or are you just a bit delusional in thinking that you have some special knowledge that you can't really put into words (as in you really have no clue what your talking about so you decided to talk out of your anus)

frgsinwntr wrote:In addition to that. Assuming Jesus was real, the character he has been portrayed as would say "get rid of the tax cuts for the rich"

"If Jesus was alive, he'd totally agree with me."

? is this attempt to mock me? Or are you agreeing? I'm a bit lost here. If you're mocking me, by all means show me where jesus would say tax the poor and give the rich breaks please. Otherwise you're not making much sense there either.

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:well adjusted and happy teenagers

You must not know very many teenagers. Or maybe it's been too long for you.

Kilkrazy wrote:But come on, you have to admit that abstinence is the ultimate way to avoid getting HIV/AIDS. When you remove any kind of value judgment on sex and whatnot it is the most logical conclusion.

Only if you assume that people who attempt abstinence are likely to succeed. You know how they claim condoms are 97% effective? That's over a year, and most importantly it includes the risk of user error - that the condom is the wrong size or put on incorrectly.

Thing is, we need to make the same assumption about user error for abstinence, and the plain reality is that user error is about 50% for 17 years olds who pledge abstinence.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:60 years ago our grandparent’s generation didn’t start until their mid twenties. Our parents generation probably their early twenties. We shouldn’t just accept this deterioration, it hasn’t always been like this and we should really fix it. A change in the way we present sexuality to our children would go a long way.

That's not accurate. While the rate of teen sex and pre-marital sex began increasing from the 1970s, it leveled out in the 1990s and has actually decreased a little. 20 years ago teens were having more sex than they are now.

www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.29.020907.090830
"For example, the proportion of women ages 15–19 reporting premarital sex rose from 30% in 1971 to 43% in 1976 and 50% in 1979 (62). Although data for young men are not available from the 1970s, data from the 1980s suggest that rates of sexual activity also increased for young men (30). This historical trend stopped or reversed around 1990 for young men and young women (1, 9). From 1991 to 2001, sexual experience NSFG: National Survey of Family Growth (i.e., ever having had sexual intercourse) among young women in high school decreased from 50.9% to 45.9% (5); from 2001 to 2007, rates of sexual experience have not changed."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

halonachos wrote:Comparing our teen pregnancy rates to other developed nations shows that even though we tend to be the more religious of them all we have a higher rate of teen pregnancy as well compared to countrues that teach comprehensive sex education.

There's also the fact that after seeing declining teen pregnancy rates from 1990 to 2005, from 2006 onwards they suddenly started climbing again. Almost as if those comprehensive sex education classes were actually working...

sebster wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:But come on, you have to admit that abstinence is the ultimate way to avoid getting HIV/AIDS. When you remove any kind of value judgment on sex and whatnot it is the most logical conclusion.

Only if you assume that people who attempt abstinence are likely to succeed. You know how they claim condoms are 97% effective? That's over a year, and most importantly it includes the risk of user error - that the condom is the wrong size or put on incorrectly.

Thing is, we need to make the same assumption about user error for abstinence, and the plain reality is that user error is about 50% for 17 years olds who pledge abstinence.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:60 years ago our grandparent’s generation didn’t start until their mid twenties. Our parents generation probably their early twenties. We shouldn’t just accept this deterioration, it hasn’t always been like this and we should really fix it. A change in the way we present sexuality to our children would go a long way.

That's not accurate. While the rate of teen sex and pre-marital sex began increasing from the 1970s, it leveled out in the 1990s and has actually decreased a little. 20 years ago teens were having more sex than they are now.

www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.29.020907.090830
"For example, the proportion of women ages 15–19 reporting premarital sex rose from 30% in 1971 to 43% in 1976 and 50% in 1979 (62). Although data for young men are not available from the 1970s, data from the 1980s suggest that rates of sexual activity also increased for young men (30). This historical trend stopped or reversed around 1990 for young men and young women (1, 9). From 1991 to 2001, sexual experience NSFG: National Survey of Family Growth (i.e., ever having had sexual intercourse) among young women in high school decreased from 50.9% to 45.9% (5); from 2001 to 2007, rates of sexual experience have not changed."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

halonachos wrote:Comparing our teen pregnancy rates to other developed nations shows that even though we tend to be the more religious of them all we have a higher rate of teen pregnancy as well compared to countrues that teach comprehensive sex education.

There's also the fact that after seeing declining teen pregnancy rates from 1990 to 2005, from 2006 onwards they suddenly started climbing again. Almost as if those comprehensive sex education classes were actually working...

Hey now! lets not get caught up in facts! think of the children!
LOL

We don't have a lot of comprehensive sex classes offered to kids. I was raised during the abstinence-only era of my school system. They just started teaching comprehensive in 2008, but our state legislature is trying to get back to abstinence only.

We also have varying degrees of who has sex. Hispanic males between 17 and 19 tend to have more sex than african americans between that same time period who have sex more than caucasian males during the same time period.

IIRC African american females from 17-19 have the most sex followed by hispanics and then caucasians.

Overall though its the 17-19 year olds going around getting some. And like I said, some teens don't receive sex education until the 10th grade after they've most likely had sex. I think it was around five or seven percent.

As far as the rate of teen pregnancy increasing, we don't know why yet. What we do know though is that males and females are becoming more permissive about having sex in these modern times.

On a side note for all of those people who lost their virginity at about 15 years old; over 50% of females aged 15 regretted or did not want to have sex at that time. For males the numbers were below 30%. Females tend to regret their first time more than males until both reach about 19 years of age in which both are in the 40% range.

After reading this thread, his wrists.

Platuan4th wrote:After reading this thread, his wrists.

That raises a good point, if Jesus knew for a fact that he would be betrayed and die if he continued a certain way of life does that mean he technically comitted suicide?

halonachos wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:After reading this thread, his wrists.

That raises a good point, if Jesus knew for a fact that he would be betrayed and die if he continued a certain way of life does that mean he technically comitted suicide?

Ah, the long troll.

Seriously though, folks, could God not think of a better way to get rid of original sin than to send himself to Earth to be killed and then resurrected three days later?

Like, IDK, just removing the original sin?

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

Like, IDK, just removing the original sin?

Doing so would prove beyond a doubt that god was wrong, and therefore fallible. Can't have that in a book about an all-knowing, all-powerful, infallible deity, can we?

halonachos wrote:We don't have a lot of comprehensive sex classes offered to kids. I was raised during the abstinence-only era of my school system. They just started teaching comprehensive in 2008, but our state legislature is trying to get back to abstinence only.

There can be little argument that comprehensive education declined in the latter part of the last decade, and at the same time we've seen a reversal in the previously declining rates of teen sex.

I do agree that it's unlikely the increase in abstinence programs is necessarily the only cause driving the change.

As far as the rate of teen pregnancy increasing, we don't know why yet. What we do know though is that males and females are becoming more permissive about having sex in these modern times.

They're not becoming more permissive. As I pointed out above the rates of teen sex have decreased slightly since 1990.

Jesus would cut Satan.

Actually, comparing the teens of today to the teens of yesterday we see teens with more permissive attitudes towards sex. Does this mean they're having sex, no, just that they don't think of it as negatively as before.

The wording of your first point is a little confusing for me. Are you saying that comprehensive sex education has been decreasing and teen pregnancy rates are increasing?

Jesus does not cut he shoots

halonachos wrote:Actually, comparing the teens of today to the teens of yesterday we see teens with more permissive attitudes towards sex. Does this mean they're having sex, no, just that they don't think of it as negatively as before.

Given the number of teens signing up for abstinence pledges and the like is increasing, I'm not sure that's true either.

The wording of your first point is a little confusing for me. Are you saying that comprehensive sex education has been decreasing and teen pregnancy rates are increasing?

That's it, yep.

Platuan4th wrote:After reading this thread, his wrists.

Indeed.

"You know I died for your sins right?"
-Jesus, deciding to just take up accounting the second time around.

A Moderator wrote:This thread has been reported for name-calling.

Keep it cool, please.

Rule no.1 counts in the OT Forum as well!

sebster wrote:

halonachos wrote:Actually, comparing the teens of today to the teens of yesterday we see teens with more permissive attitudes towards sex. Does this mean they're having sex, no, just that they don't think of it as negatively as before.

Given the number of teens signing up for abstinence pledges and the like is increasing, I'm not sure that's true either.

The wording of your first point is a little confusing for me. Are you saying that comprehensive sex education has been decreasing and teen pregnancy rates are increasing?

That's it, yep.

Abstinence pledges will never go away, but they ultimately fail because we overestimate the teen psyche.

halonachos wrote:Abstinence pledges will never go away, but they ultimately fail because we overestimate the teen psyche.

I think people who think abstinence pledges will make a difference misunderstand the teen psyche. When they make those pledges the kids are full of excitement over purity and clean living so they pledge, honestly believing they won't have sex until marriage because that's the truth of that moment right there. Some time later they're with their partner, and the excitement over pledging is gone, but they're horny. So they feth, because that's the truth of that moment right there.

It's just kids. They're driven by the impulse of the moment. The ability to think about two different drives and consider which one really matters in the long term is something that develops later in life.

But the point is that abstinence pledges, as pointless as they are, are a pretty good indicator of the nation's thinking about sex. When they're on the rise it means it's fair to say that attitudes towards sex are becoming more restrained.

Regardless of abstinance-only's (lack of) effectiveness as contraception, I really wish the repugs would stop cutting education funding locally. The teachers and professors here at the public schools and colleges are already overworked, and now they're going to be increasing class size by reducing the number of teachers, causing them to be even MORE so, and probably losing their most experienced teachers...

Melissia wrote:Regardless of abstinance-only's (lack of) effectiveness as contraception,

Actually, I'm pretty sure that abstinence is 100% effective as contraception barring rape and immaculate conception.

Monster Rain wrote:Actually, I'm pretty sure that abstinence is 100% effective as contraception barring rape and immaculate conception.

"Only if you assume that people who attempt abstinence are likely to succeed. You know how they claim condoms are 97% effective? That's over a year, and most importantly it includes the risk of user error - that the condom is the wrong size or put on incorrectly.

Thing is, we need to make the same assumption about user error for abstinence, and the plain reality is that user error is about 50% for 17 years olds who pledge abstinence."

I'm not talking about theoretical abstinence.

I'm saying that not having sex prevents pregnancy.

Monster Rain wrote:I'm not talking about theoretical abstinence.

I'm saying that not having sex prevents pregnancy.

And that's great for the invidual, if he or she wants to make that choice. But on matters of policy it has to be understood that a large portion of the people who are taught and attempt abstinence will fail.

The claim that abstinence is 100% effective is only true if we assume everyone who attempts abstinence will succeed, and many will fail.

Right, but if one attempts abstinence and succeeds they will have none of these problems to worry about.

There's no reason not to teach it as part of a sex ed curriculum.

Monster Rain wrote:Right, but if one attempts abstinence and succeeds they will have none of these problems to worry about.

There's no reason not to teach it as part of a sex ed curriculum.

And if a person attempts to use a condom and does so correctly the success rate goes from 97% to 99.something%

And yeah, of course abstinence should be taught. It is taught. One of the biggest decisions when it comes to sex is the decision to have it, and kids should understand that it's perfectly alright to say no if they don't want it. Sex ed teaches that.

The point is that many schools teach abstinence only, that is they teach abstinence and nothing else. Or even worse, they keep telling kids nonsense about how likely different forms of birth control will fail, but don't explain this is because they're used incorrectly, and they don't actually explain how to use them correctly.

Abstinence only sex education is not as effective at achieving any of its goals as a broad based curriculum which includes relationships, contraception, STDs and abstinence.

yeenoghu wrote:Aid to Israel probably. He didn't seem to have a good relationship with them the first time around.

Roman propaganda. Pilot's favorite past time was killing Rabbis.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say Jesus would cut defense spending.

Requia wrote:

yeenoghu wrote:Aid to Israel probably. He didn't seem to have a good relationship with them the first time around.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say Jesus would cut defense spending.

Easy enough to do when you can just call down the host of heaven. But yeah totally agree.

He'd probably also cut "Family Planning" if you know what I mean.

Actually, I'm pretty sure that abstinence is 100% effective as contraception barring rape and immaculate conception

.

Erm immaculate conception had nothing to do with being concieved without a father...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_Conception

Only if you assume that people who attempt abstinence are likely to succeed. You know how they claim condoms are 97% effective? That's over a year, and most importantly it includes the risk of user error - that the condom is the wrong size or put on incorrectly.

Actually the WHO had it at about 85% effective in practice - including things like slipping breaking, wrong size and general user error. This was about 3 years ago.

But yes not having sex is the only guaranteed way. Telling kids to have 'safer sex' merely means that more kids will have sex and correspondingly our teen pregnancy and STI rates explode. Additionally if you're in a loving monogamous relationship you dont need to worry about STIs or getting pregnant in the same way.

Phototoxin wrote:Telling kids to have 'safer sex' merely means that more kids will have sex and correspondingly our teen pregnancy and STI rates explode.

Or not, because they're practicing safe sex.

You know, one or the other.

Phototoxin wrote:Additionally if you're in a loving monogamous relationship you dont need to worry about STIs or getting pregnant in the same way.

You can contract all sorts of diseases (including "STI's") via non-sexual contact so it is important even for monogamous couples (or groups, if that is your thing) to practice safe sex and go for regular screening.

And obviously you still need to "worry" about unwanted pregnancy.

I also disagree that teaching "safe sex" leads to more/earlier sex/teen pregnancies/STI's/etc.

Edits: Keep adding stuff to my post damn it!

Phototoxin wrote:Telling kids to have 'safer sex'

Sex education doesn't tell kids to have safe sex, it tells them what safe sex is. Even in comprehensive sex ed they stress abstinence as the best way to avoid issues. There is difference between teaching something and telling someone to do something. I never understood the idea that if we inform young humans about human sexuality that that is what is going to drive them to want to have sex. You could inform them about fungus, spores, and molds and young humans are going want to have sex. Pretending it isn't going to happen is bad policy. And that is what we are talking about here. Abstinence works on an individual basis but policy can't be written on hopes and dreams. We know that sex will happen so it is best to be informed about it. This is also not taking into account that sex is going to happen eventually to most that abstain too so it isn't a bad idea that they not be ignorant either, either as a non-married adult or a married adult. Safe sex isn't just a teenage issue.

Being less informed has never been as useful as being more informed. The more informed people are the better choices they make. We don't live in a dream world where telling a bunch of 16 year olds (or 26, 36, 46, or 56 for that matter) to never have sex is a realistic expectation.

Let's put it this way, one of the figures quoted above is that condoms are 85% effective.

How many abstinence only people think its possible to get 85% of teens to avoid sex until they finish high school?

Hell, how many think its possible to get 50% of teens to do it?

Telling kids to have 'safer sex' merely means that more kids will have sex and correspondingly our teen pregnancy and STI rates explode.

Maybe?

Go tell that to the missionaries that teach abstinence in Africa, that seams to be going over really well!

Only teaching abstinence is going to make teen pregnancy go up even more. Teach abstinence but also prepare them for the realities of society.

No offense to anybody out there, but coming from a position of someone who has done quite a bit of um..behavior, really if you get pregnant/get someone pregnant on accident in today's society, you are just plain stupid, irresponsible or unlucky. There are so many forms of contraception, you don't have to limit yourself to just one you know, it's pretty inexcusable. Wrap it, slather it, take a pill and use the rhythm method if you have to.

I take a dim view of people that use abortion as a form of birth control, it's dangerous and scaring both mentally and physically to one patient and terminal to another. Unfortunately this is the situation only teaching abstinence forces people into.

Yeah sure contraception is never 100%, but you can cut it down to almost nil.

Lets be real.

Wrap it, slather it, take a pill and use the rhythm method if you have to.

For the rules monkeys out there, its worth noting that these effects stack.

Requia wrote:

Wrap it, slather it, take a pill and use the rhythm method if you have to.

For the rules monkeys out there, its worth noting that these effects stack.

Yeah it's like getting cover, armor, and ++ saves, if you blow all of them you were just meant to die

Monster Rain wrote:blah blah blah

I'm not interested in the sex ed conversation, but the budget one.

Melissia wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:blah blah blah

I'm not interested in the sex ed conversation, but the budget one.

Interesting.

Your comments on the subject suggested otherwise.

This thread is about as much fun to read as the leaflets my local local MP jams through my letter box.

sebster wrote:The point is that many schools teach abstinence only, that is they teach abstinence and nothing else. Or even worse, they keep telling kids nonsense about how likely different forms of birth control will fail, but don't explain this is because they're used incorrectly, and they don't actually explain how to use them correctly.

Do they teach that they will fail or that they aren't 100% effective?

There's a pretty fine line between the two.

Kilkrazy wrote:Abstinence only sex education is not as effective at achieving any of its goals as a broad based curriculum which includes relationships, contraception, STDs and abstinence.

I couldn't agree more.

Jesus would cut the crap.

Amaya wrote:Jesus ... could have been a mason.

I thought they only started in the second millenium - after the destruction of the Templars. Plus, the bible makes no mention of rolled-up trouser legs or dodgy handshakes.

Did we just implicate Jesus in the JFK assassination?

biccat wrote:

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:well adjusted and happy teenagers

You must not know very many teenagers. Or maybe it's been too long for you.

I'm having trouble working out who here is the one that's managed to make an astoundingly sweeping statement that insults quite a large portion of the population.

Is it ArtfcllyFlvrd for making the comment that teenagers aren't well adjusted and happy unless they abstain from sex?

Or is it biccat for implying that teenagers cannot be well adjusted and happy, regardless?

Because I'm insulted, make no mistake, but I'm unsure as to whom my ire should be directed.

"Depressing teenagers is like shooting fish in a barrel."
-Bart Simpson

Goliath wrote:
Because I'm insulted, make no mistake, but I'm unsure as to whom my ire should be directed.

You're a teenager so the answer should be obvious: Anyone older than you, cause you know better than they do.

Goliath wrote:

biccat wrote:

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:well adjusted and happy teenagers

You must not know very many teenagers. Or maybe it's been too long for you.

I'm having trouble working out who here is the one that's managed to make an astoundingly sweeping statement that insults quite a large portion of the population.

Is it ArtfcllyFlvrd for making the comment that teenagers aren't well adjusted and happy unless they abstain from sex?

Or is it biccat for implying that teenagers cannot be well adjusted and happy, regardless?

Because I'm insulted, make no mistake, but I'm unsure as to whom my ire should be directed.

I'm sure that as a happy and well-adjusted teenager you'll engage in some mindless violence and unfulfilling sexual escapades.

biccat wrote:

Goliath wrote:

biccat wrote:

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:well adjusted and happy teenagers

You must not know very many teenagers. Or maybe it's been too long for you.

I'm having trouble working out who here is the one that's managed to make an astoundingly sweeping statement that insults quite a large portion of the population.

Is it ArtfcllyFlvrd for making the comment that teenagers aren't well adjusted and happy unless they abstain from sex?

Or is it biccat for implying that teenagers cannot be well adjusted and happy, regardless?

Because I'm insulted, make no mistake, but I'm unsure as to whom my ire should be directed.

I'm sure that as a happy and well-adjusted teenager you'll engage in some mindless violence and unfulfilling sexual escapades.

I think that I've decided where my ire is going. Of course seeing as you are obviously a happy and well adjusted adult who is far superior to me in terms of age you would already know where it's going wouldn't you?

although the need to make petty insults over the internet obviously demonstrates your greater maturity to me...

Oh wait!

Monster Rain wrote:Did we just implicate Jesus in the JFK assassination?

where do you think i got that picture

Goliath wrote:

biccat wrote:

Goliath wrote:

biccat wrote:

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:well adjusted and happy teenagers

You must not know very many teenagers. Or maybe it's been too long for you.

I'm having trouble working out who here is the one that's managed to make an astoundingly sweeping statement that insults quite a large portion of the population.

Is it ArtfcllyFlvrd for making the comment that teenagers aren't well adjusted and happy unless they abstain from sex?

Or is it biccat for implying that teenagers cannot be well adjusted and happy, regardless?

Because I'm insulted, make no mistake, but I'm unsure as to whom my ire should be directed.

I'm sure that as a happy and well-adjusted teenager you'll engage in some mindless violence and unfulfilling sexual escapades.

I think that I've decided where my ire is going. Of course seeing as you are obviously a happy and well adjusted adult who is far superior to me in terms of age you would already know where it's going wouldn't you?

although the need to make petty insults over the internet obviously demonstrates your greater maturity to me...

Oh wait!

Frazzled wrote:"Depressing people is like shooting fish in a barrel."
-Bart Simpson

Not the precise quote, but let's be honest here, it isn't really that hard to get at any given person.

Phototoxin wrote:Actually the WHO had it at about 85% effective in practice - including things like slipping breaking, wrong size and general user error. This was about 3 years ago.

Ah, fair enough. It must be 85% effective overall and something like 97% effective when used properly. I knew the point was that most condom ineffectiveness is due to user error, and not the condom, and therefore teaching people to use condoms properly makes a huge difference. I just my figures a little mixed up.

Thanks for the correction.

But yes not having sex is the only guaranteed way.

But as I've explained several times now it's only effective when people actually stay celibate. And every serious study on the subject has shown that it hardly happens.

Telling kids to have 'safer sex' merely means that more kids will have sex and correspondingly our teen pregnancy and STI rates explode. Additionally if you're in a loving monogamous relationship you dont need to worry about STIs or getting pregnant in the same way.

No, it doesn't. You're completely wrong and I'm guessing have never looked at a single study on rates of pregnancy and STIs under different forms of sex ed. In fact, I'm guessing you've just made up your opinion and assumed that the facts must back you up.

They don't. The US observed a long term decline in the rates of pregnancy and STIs among teens from 1990 to 2006, the years in which the most number of kids across the country had comprehensive sex ed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:Do they teach that they will fail or that they aren't 100% effective?

There's a pretty fine line between the two.

The documents I've seen from some US sex ed classes is that they do nothing but focus on the failures of each method. The result is that kids are unlikely to use protection (having been convinced it will likely fail) and if they do use it they are likely to use it incorrectly.

I couldn't agree more.

Then you support comprehensive sex ed. Because that's exactly what it teaches.

Let's face it, we're driven biologically to have sex.

Most people can't resist these kinds of base biological urges very well.

Melissia wrote:Most people can't resist these kinds of base biological urges very well.

Really? Is there something you'd like to share?

............ No thanks. ta.

Melissia wrote:Let's face it, we're driven biologically to have sex.

Most people can't resist these kinds of base biological urges very well.

Should they?

I mean, if a couple consents, has a good time and does it sensibly with an understanding of the risks... why shouldn't they?

sebster wrote:

Melissia wrote:Let's face it, we're driven biologically to have sex.

Most people can't resist these kinds of base biological urges very well.

Should they?

I mean, if a couple consents, has a good time and does it sensibly with an understanding of the risks... why shouldn't they?

And just how often does that happen when one or both of the members of the couple are either drunk, high, or teenagers and thus drunk and high off of hormones?

sebster wrote:

Phototoxin wrote:Actually the WHO had it at about 85% effective in practice - including things like slipping breaking, wrong size and general user error. This was about 3 years ago.

Ah, fair enough. It must be 85% effective overall and something like 97% effective when used properly. I knew the point was that most condom ineffectiveness is due to user error, and not the condom, and therefore teaching people to use condoms properly makes a huge difference. I just my figures a little mixed up.

Thanks for the correction.

I believe that 97% is the effectiveness against STIs (or maybe just HIV), and 85% is for pregnancy. (There's some degree of immune system protection against STIs that stacks with using a condom, conversely biology is trying to make a baby).

Melissia wrote:And just how often does that happen when one or both of the members of the couple are either drunk, high, or teenagers and thus drunk and high off of hormones?

I have no idea what the proportion is. For starters I have a big problem with the subjectivity that tries to draw a line between 'had some drinks' and 'too drunk to give consent'.

The point is to get kids at a point where they can make the choice for themselves. Just crying out "hormones!" doesn't make any sense. Instead you look to inform them as best you can.

And yes, some kids are ready and will not be negatively harmed by having teen sex. Once you're looking at ages 18 and 19, most kids fit this description.

Requia wrote:I believe that 97% is the effectiveness against STIs (or maybe just HIV), and 85% is for pregnancy. (There's some degree of immune system protection against STIs that stacks with using a condom, conversely biology is trying to make a baby).

Well, you prompted me to look it up for myself. Cheers, because it turns out phototoxin had it a bit wrong.

The 85% figure from the WHO isn't the effectiveness rate at all, but the reduction in risk. That is, according to WHO, the rate of infection over the course of a year goes from 6.9 to 0.9, a reduction of about 85%. So effective condom use increases the chance of avoiding STIs to 99.1%

For pregnancy, with all condom use the rate of failure is 10 to 18%. If you look at correct use only, the rate of failure is 2%. You can then stack that with the pill.

What would Jesus cut?

The mustard?