Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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?