Yeah, I'll abstain when Foley, Gannon, and the Bush twins do!

And Republicans use government power in the service of anti-utopian social engineering.

This is the first news item I've read where I've entertained the thought that we liberals planted this story to increase turnout among young voters.

Most 20-somethings would certainly come out and vote for sex.....

Good God, every frigging republican should just get laid. They might not be so damn crazy if they did.

I need Amy Sullivan to explain how I should react to this. Don't want to offend the Christians!

The Bush administration is now in the business of encouraging adults to stop having sex? Seriously?

Hey, Kevin, you should read the story more carefully. It says Bush is teaching NON-MARRIED ADULTS not to have sex. Ever heard of Christianity? In fact every Judeo-Christian religion plus Islam teaches sex outside of marriage is immoral. Why do you have such a problem with the moral values of people of faith and value voters?

If a pharmaceutical company came out with a pill that prevented pregnancy and all STDs, it'd probably be very expensive and they'd probably win some sort of scientific prize. However, the Bush administration is making people aware of a free option that does both of those things, and also enhances spiritual health.

In marriage, it's near 100% probable that two faithful partners will never get STDs from each other. Why do you oppose trying to stamp out disease and unwanted pregnancy?

Like Triskele above, I hardly think this qualifies as "utopian." "Dystopian" is, I think, the preferred word. "Hell" is another that leaps to mind.

Well if those "people of faith" practiced what they preach, they might have a leg to stand on; but they don't, so they don't.

Al

It used to be the Republicans who were opposed to the government sticking their long noses into places they didn't belong. Now the Republican window peepers want to lead the charge for "Christian" morality.

Work hard at two jobs, save your money, buy big screen tvs, make your bosses and their party rich. Damn, Republicans are beginning to sound like a bunch of communist Chinese.

Watch out for the morality preachers. While they keep your eye on them their accomplices are roaming the crowd picking pockets.

What I can't figure out is libertarians voting Republican.

Al,

Practice all the moral values you want. Just don't use my tax dollars telling adults what they should or shouldn't do regarding personal choices of consenting adults. In addition, its bad policy to waste money sending a message the intended recipients will laugh off instead of giving them resources that will actually help reduce unwanted pregnacies between unmarried couples - educate people regarding, and make available, contraception.

"It says Bush is teaching NON-MARRIED ADULTS not to have sex. Ever heard of Christianity? In fact every Judeo-Christian religion plus Islam teaches sex outside of marriage is immoral. Why do you have such a problem with the moral values of people of faith and value voters?"
Oh faith and values. What does that have to do with how God made us? That is to have sex. Don't you think if sex were unnatural it wouldn't feel so good? Go forth and multiply - OK, will do - pass the BC pills!

The Chinese government gets into everyone's face on matters of faith and family.

This effort by the administration to control the sex lives of adults proves beyond a doubt that the GOP has become a dictatorial nanny state not unlike the Chinese.

When will Bush be producing his little red book for all his followers to hold up high?

AH, the same probabilites exist in a monogamous relationship absent marriage. Why is marriage the necessary ingredient? Could it be that disease and unwanted pregnancy are not really the targets of the policy?

Interestingly, the faithful partners + marriage = no disease argument is an argument in favor of gay marriage. But of course, the Bush Administration would never want that, oh no. So, again, could it be that disease and unwanted pregnancy are not the targets of the policy?

Bush to America: If you're not married, go f--- yourself.

as much as I love my wittle Ally-kins, I wish this had been in place 31 years ago!

It's no coincidence that marriage and religion were invented during the same stage of human development.

They are both methods of social control that are sold as social benefits to people who need them as social crutches.

Religion and marriage survive only through symbiosis, supporting and justifying each other through increasingly ridiculous rationales.

That's one of the hidden reasons behind the apparently irrational opposition to gay marriage: it would undermine not marriage itself or even religion itself, but the symbiotic relationship between the two, without which both would disappear.

Ah, blessed are the single atheists, for we have all the guilt-free sex we want.

The Bush administration is now in the business of encouraging adults to stop having sex? Seriously? And they accuse liberals of using government power in the service of utopian social engineering?

Come on Kevin. Anybody with half a brain knows that - whatever else this Bush encouragement might be - utopian it is not.

more about placental blood stem cells:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6101420.stm

This is all Clinton's fault.

as much as I love my wittle Ally-kins, I wish this had been in place 31 years ago!

Bitch, who the fuck let you out of the kitchen.

Alan - in todays NYTimes, Tierney's column is about Libertarians running away from the Publican party as far and as fast as they can.

In marriage, it's near 100% probable that two faithful partners will never get STDs from each other. Why do you oppose trying to stamp out disease and unwanted pregnancy?

In seclusion, it's near 100% probable that hermits will never get any diseases from other people. Why don't you oppose trying to stamp out public places and social intercourse?

On your 30th birthday, you're allowed to read the soft core porn from hard liners like Lynne Cheney, Bill O'Reilly and Scooter Libby.

For the details, see:
"Jim Webb and the Pornographers of the Right."

Talk about revenge of the nerds!

Ah, the Anti-Sex League, now with both Junior and Senior divisions!

If Married You Can Stay the Course

And yet again the TheoPublicans send our lustful youth off without sufficient body armor. If you’re married, well then, you can “stay the course.’ But advocating an early withdrawal is liturgical “cut and run”, an abhorrence. Retreat in the face of orgasm is unpatriotic and may well cause blindness like so many other dirty bodily temptations.

Statistics indicate that you can marry most of the people half of the time but you can’t marry half of the people all of the time.

You just refused adequate funding for medical research for our wounded troops. Is this what you needed the extra $10 million for? Stay the crap out of our bedrooms, you nut bags.

From the Guttmacher Institute, a little sensible discussion about why the U.S. rate of abortion is so high:

“…. the U.S. abortion rate remains among the highest of all industrialized nations—more than twice as high, for example, as the Netherlands (nine per 1,000 women of reproductive age). There, unlike here, government and social institutions support comprehensive sex education and health care services aimed at helping people, including young people, avoid unintended pregnancy and disease; contraceptive use is widely encouraged and contraceptives are easily available; and national health insurance helps ensure that people have access to timely and affordable care. In short, the abortion rate in the Netherlands—and in other western and northern European countries—is low because unintended pregnancy rates are extremely low due to widespread and effective contraceptive use.”

So, the medieval views about contraception held by American conservatives, and their idiotic and completely unrealistic emphasis on abstinence are actually causing more women to have abortions than would otherwise have them!

By spreading misinformation about the reliability of condoms, and instead advocating abstinence, is akin to saying that seat belts are not 100% effective and therefore you shouldn’t drive. Let’s vote these cretins out of office on November 7th and send them back to the swamp they crawled out of!!!

If they'd just convince Republican guppies not to have sex, I'd be ok with that.

T.R. Elliott: This effort by the administration to control the sex lives of adults proves beyond a doubt that the GOP has become a dictatorial nanny state not unlike the Chinese.

Makes sense. The Chinese gov't already owns us. Let's drop the charade of independence and live by the wise policies of Chairman Bush.

I'm glad to see that they are only targeting adults up to 29. I suppose they think that after 30 sex isn't fun anymore.

hey hawk,

not get laid much in college? boy oh boy are you so right: only sex w/i wedlock prevents STDs.

see, this is what happens w/ abstinence only programs. hawk, there's this new magical invention called the "condom," which the kids often refer to as "rubbers." condom use allows those who others find attractive (unlike, say, you) to pretty much have all the sex they want w/o getting the clap.

amazing! god bless america!

Sounds like the dreaded Dem "nanny state"

How is not having sex utopian?

From the article:
"The National Center for Health Statistics says well over 90% of adults ages 20-29 have had sexual intercourse."

And that was just yesterday.

For once, Kathryn Jean Lopez of National Review has been an early adapter.

I'm 35, never married, I've known a man in the biblical sense on more than one occasion. Never got an STD or an unwanted pregnancy. I credit this track record to my sense of personal responsibility, knowledge of reproduction and STD's, and resulting dedication to using forms of birth control. Sex is fun and all, but not getting pregnant is more important.

The government should be educating the populace, advocating informed restraint and personal responsibility. However that would mean destroying the consume-and-repent ethos which our consumerist society depends on.

Think before you jump in the sack? Pause before you stuff your face full of cheetos? Hesitate before hocking the house for an SUV? The Christian capitalists would not stand for it. They'd rather force pregnant teenagers to have their children and get married than see their God-given cash flow drop by one iota.

Al: It says Bush is teaching NON-MARRIED ADULTS not to have sex.

That's an interesting way of putting it. I might have said imploring, requesting, suggesting, but not teaching. What is there to teach? This is your dick. Don't put it in the little hole.

Chuck, you never got laid in high school or college did you?

Did you have to 'wait' until your wedding night? What a shame.

IMHO children being raised in one-parent families is an enormous social problem. Many social pathologies are associated with single parenting. It makes sense for the government to discourage single parenthood. Simlarly, it makes sense to discourage the spread of STDs.

For some reason, condoms and sex seem to be a hot button issue for libs. They encourage the use of condoms when people are having sex. That's fine. But, they seem to get upset when abstention is encouraged, even though it also prevents disease and pregnancy.

Can someone explain why the libs have such a prejudice against abstention?

-Doctor, it hurts when I do that.
-Don't do that.

For some reason, condoms and sex seem to be a hot button issue for libs. They encourage the use of condoms when people are having sex. That's fine. But, they seem to get upset when abstention is encouraged, even though it also prevents disease and pregnancy.

Can someone explain why the libs have such a prejudice against abstention?

The prejudice is against abstinence-only you fucking ponce. Pay attention.

Can someone explain why the libs have such a prejudice against abstention?

Liberals do not have such a prejudice.

The correct question is
"Where can I find why abstinence programs do not work?"

It is telling that the age limit is stopped at 29. There are very many older people who choose to live together and not marry for a variety of reasons, many financial. The platitude challenged blue haired ladies that make up a substantial part of the Republican/evangelical political base are being deliberately omitted from the policy. If old folks benefits were to be curtailed for cohabitation, it would mean the end of the Republican Party and Pat Robertson's TV money machine.

Chuck,

God doesn't like the disingenuous.

Torture good, sex bad.
War good, sex bad.
Lies and corruption good, sex bad.
Praise Jesus!

IMHO children being raised in one-parent families is an enormous social problem. Many social pathologies are associated with single parenting. It makes sense for the government to discourage single parenthood.

Yes, better the women abort the babies instead....

The wrong people die in wars.

What was disingenuous, Ack Ack?

That's a discussion for you and God.

Chuck, plenty of people have to wait, because they were socially inept losers who missed out on the best part of their youth. I guess we'll lump you into that category, abstinent not by choice.

No wonder you're so bitter.

If 90% of adults ages 20-29 did not wear seatbelts, would that be O.K. too?

It's not easy to have sex while wearing seatbelts, but sure, why not?

I call this the Laura Schlessinger syndrome. Have your fun all you want in your youth and then once you are over the hill tell eveyone else to not do what you did.

It is just too easy to tell someone else what to do when you don't have to follow the same rules.

From where I sit these so-called Christians are either old duds who had their fun and now want to forbid everyone else from doing the same thing or the younger branch (the College Republicans) who are too ugly or abrasive to get 'lucky' so they also try to deny others what they cannot get.

Everytime I've had sex in a car, I always made sure I was unbuckled, in more than one sense.

Let me tell you, I think the generation that preceded mine had it best, because they were driving all those giant 1960s and 70s cars with plenty of room.

My generation was the 80s, with all the smaller Japanese cars.

Every try getting it on in a Honda Accord? It ain't easy, let me tell you.

"ex-liberal" wrote: Can someone explain why the libs have such a prejudice against abstention?

Can someone explain why "ex-liberal" has such a prejudice in favor of bogus straw man arguments?

Oh, wait -- I know: "ex-liberal is completely dishonest.

And the rest of the commenters here know too, "ex-liberal." Why do you bother?

When I pull that curtain on November 7th, in my private voting booth - I know what I'm going to be touching the touch-screen with.

Hint:
The next person better wipe it off with a disinfectant wipe.

Only abstinence is 100% effective against the acquisition of many STDs ...
Posted by: Chuck on October 31, 2006 at 2:06 PM | PERMALINK

You're making the very stupid, and unfortunately very common mistake of assuming that Abstinence in the absence of other programs (like condoms) is effective. Studies show that it's not, that Abstinence-only programs have higher rates of teen pregnancy and STD transmission.

In a perfect world, where humans were machines who obeyed orders 100% of the time, abstinence-only would have a chance in hell at working. Unfortunately, human nature being what it is, abstinence-only is a shamefully immoral and indecent failure of an attempt to try to protect our children.

For a good case study in good conservative christian attitudes towards sex, follow the Sara Evans divorce case.

Great googly moogly, have we come full circle? Is Charlie/Cheney/DougM/"Don P"/Thomas1 now posting as "Chuck"?

IMHO children being raised in one-parent families is an enormous social problem. Many social pathologies are associated with single parenting. It makes sense for the government to discourage single parenthood.

What a load of crap. Most social pathologies that I encountered in a 25 year career were associated with inept parenting regardless of the number of parents involved.

I’m wondering, how many of tens of thousands of years did humans have sex before the social institution of marriage was created?

We seemed to have survived.

That's one of the hidden reasons behind the apparently irrational opposition to gay marriage: it would undermine not marriage itself or even religion itself, but the symbiotic relationship between the two, without which both would disappear

An interesting theory. When was marriage institutionalized?

"They encourage the use of condoms when people are having sex. That's fine. "

Not according to the bush administration in particular or the republican party in general.

"So, the medieval views about contraception held by American conservatives, and their idiotic and completely unrealistic emphasis on abstinence are actually causing more women to have abortions than would otherwise have them!"

Yep, and higher unwed motherhood, higher std rates, etc:
http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/PUBLICATIONS/factsheet/fsest.htm

The US is AWFUL on every conceivably negative youth sex statistic compared with european countries (including arguably non-negative ones like teens having sex at all). This is not because they are implementing the far right religious anti-sex agenda of the republican party, its because they are implementing a lefty education and free healthcare program which actually works instead of programs designed purely to make religious idiots vote for tax cuts for the rich.

Even within the US this holds true. Teen pregenancy and STD rates are much higher in bible belt areas than in more enlightened ones. There was a documentary in the last couple years about the county with the highest teen std rate in the nation. Lubbock Texas I think? Yep:
http://www.dailytexanonline.com/media/storage/paper410/news/2004/12/02/TopStories/Pregnancys.Link.To.Sex.Ed-819070.shtml?norewrite200610311408&sourcedomain=www.dailytexanonline.com
"According to local lore, this dusty town eight hours from Austin boasts more churches per capita than any other in the nation. But it also boasts some of the highest teen pregnancy rates in the state, with 36.4 percent in 2002, compared to the statewide rate of 28.5 percent, according to the Texas Department of Health's Vital Statistics from 2002. Lubbock County also has one of the highest STD numbers in the state, with 1,725 STD cases in 2003. Texas has the fifth-highest rate in the nation for teen pregnancy for girls aged 15 to 17."
The bible belt is also the std belt:
http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats00/slides/stdinadolya/sld004.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats00/slides/stdinadolya/sld006.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/slides/epidemiology/index.htm

The republican party supports teen sex, abortion, unwed mothers, std infection, divorce. They support them in the ways that matter: with government policy that is known to increase all of those things.

condoms:seatbelts::abstinence-only:not-driving

Not driving is 100% effective at protecting you from dying in an automobile accident.

So let's ban cars and be done with it.

Teaching people about wearing seatbelts only encourages them to drive.

It's liberal Democrats with teaching credentials who are using bananas and condoms to teach thirteen-year olds to "avoid" having sex.

mhr, what's wrong with that....

Oh...

Did Mr. banana give your wife unrealistic expextations?

Maybe they should have used a baby carrot.

Yeah. They don't want us wasting our energy for the 2 minute hate on sex.

Keith G, I am nearly in tears, bravo!

Only abstinence is 100% effective against the acquisition of many STDs because of the presence of pathogens outside the protected skin or condom failure

What about the STDs you get from toilet seats?

Is Charlie/Cheney/DougM/"Don P"/Thomas1 now posting as "Chuck"?

I don't think so,
Thomas1 is a Democrat, remember?
I don't think the others are.

Plus, one of them, Thomas1 I believe, is from Arizona.
Whereas, one of theose other guys [Doug P?] is from the southeast.

You've got it all wrong.

Anyone see that comic strip about a month ago of a bunch of liberal bumper stickers and a caption accusing liberals of being miserable people? I need a link.

Charlie/Thomas: Condom use is not completely protective against the acquisition of many STDs because of the presence of pathogens outside the protected skin or condom failure.

Cut and pasted straight from wikipedia without attribution, as usual.

Because all of the idiot fake identities and utter reliance on wikipedia, I think a good shorthand for you would be the "wikidiot."

Used to be the "shame" was when you did not.

Who gives a fuck? Used to be a shame when a woman got an education, too, or a girl married outside her village. Thankfully we're not Neanderthals any more.

Chuck,

Fair enough - I will admit that there are some people who actually do the abstinence until marriage thing. Actually, the one that I personally know of is also named 'Chuck,' and he informed me that he and his wife agreed to wait until marriage and he married a virgin. The thing is I also know his wife wasn't technically a 'virgin' but fibbed to him in order to not cause problems.

So I think there is a lot more lieing than abstaining that goes on.

I agree that all Republicans should abstain from sex.

Keith G. - sure there are lots of other causes of social pathologies, but single parenthood is one. From http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed101305c.cfm

"And poverty isn’t the only problem created by the absence of fathers. Children raised in single-parent homes are much more likely to have emotional and behavioral problems; to fail in school; to abuse drugs; and to become involved in crime.

"Marital collapse is also the primary cause of welfare dependence in the nation. Last year, government spent over $200 billion on means-tested aid for low-income families with children. Some three-quarters of this sum went to single-parent families."

Stefan: Yes, better the women abort the babies instead....

Glad to see Stefan and I agree on some issues.

Determined to Strike wrote: The correct question is "Where can I find why abstinence programs do not work?"

I don't know how effective abstinence programs are. I assume they must encourage some number of people to abstain. For that matter, I don't know how effective the programs that encourage condom use are.

DtS, libs support an enormous number of government programs, some of which are surely ineffective. Libs even support some counter-productive programs, like bilingual education. I don't think the liberal opposition to abstinence programs is really based on lack of effectiveness, although they use alleged ineffectiveness as an argument against these programs.

I remain puzzled why libs, who support an incredible range of government programs, actively oppose the abstinence programs.

Does this mean that the Bush administration is trying to "Stay the Intercourse?"

Ba-Doom-Boom

Hostile: Best I've been able to find among anthropologists for both is "very early in human development," which I take to mean long before written history, or even the oral traditions that were written down millienia later.

The key evidence to me is that all the earliest recorded religions incorporate some form of marriage. They may be the proverbial chicken and egg, but even the oldest oral histories do not mention the "invention" of either marriage or religion (in general, as opposed to specific marriages/rise of belief systems.)

exl,

I support the teaching of abstinence as part of a sex education class.

The problem is that the abstinence proponents want abstinense to be the only form of birth control mentioned.

Also there is some evidence that people who try abstinence are more likely to use anal intercourse instead of condoms when they "fall off the wagon."

"Also there is some evidence that people who try abstinence are more likely to use anal intercourse instead of condoms when they "fall off the wagon."

Now you've got Al and American Hawk's attention.

I remain puzzled why libs, who support an incredible range of government programs, actively oppose the abstinence programs.

Because they are stupidly ineffective, that's why. You even admitted yourself you don't know if they work or not. Duh, they don't, especially when they do not propose teaching anything about sex ed, other than, kids don't do it.

Well I dunno about you, but if you told me not to do something in highschool, my first thought it, well it must be fun if they are trying so hard to make me not do it.

What kind of loser were you in high school and college, tbrosz, I mean, exliberaL?

I remain puzzled why libs...actively oppose the abstinence programs

Because they [Abstinence ONLY programs] don't work

http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/pp.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=201360#1

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26623-2004Dec1.html

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/02/24/abstinence/index.html

Larry Flynt Well I dunno about you, but if you told me not to do something in highschool, my first thought it, well it must be fun if they are trying so hard to make me not do it.

Larry - suppose you were in high school and somebody told you not to have sex without a condom? Would that make you want to do it? ;)

My point it, why are libs so averse to even trying abstinence programs? What harm do they believe it can do to try that approach?

Exlib, your second cite (fom Heritage, no less) did not support your central assertion:

Marital collapse....

Indeed it implies that weak marriages are a problem. Maybe too many people are getting married, playing in a game that they are not ready for.

My point it, why are libs so averse to even trying abstinence programs? What harm do they believe it can do to try that approach?

Your point, such as it is, is based on an invalid assertion. I have never,never seen or heard a credible liberal voice denounce abstinence training. Period.

In fact I have heard many liberals advocate that abstinence be a major part of reproductive choice education as long as long as “barrier methods” of birth control are also taught.

But you know that. You are just, as usual, blowing smoke.

Hey, Jonah Goldberg, what was that again about liberals shoving anti-majoritarian agendas down America's throat?

Considering that that whole "no-sex-until-you-marry" ain't one of my religious beliefs, why are you abstinence jerks trying to shove something at me that has no relevance to my lifestyle? I'd much rather have a range of possibilities taught, all the way from pills to implants to condoms. You can throw abstinence in there if you want, but what's this emphasis on making it the "only one way" of dealing with one's sex life?

Sounds to me like you're pissed at my having a different belief system from you. Well, too bad! You're not anyone I take authority from and I bloody well resent your attempts to force your belief system down my throat.

Larry;
BTW - I voted for you for California Guv.

You took a bullet for FREEDOM man.

Which is more than I can say for steroid-swilling ass-grabbing Enronegger.

OBF,
steroid-swilling

Nice alliteration but I think most serious roid users inject, so maybe you meant steroid shooting.

Here's how the children of many fundie-types actually interpret "not being abstinent": "Unmarried Penis penetrating an Unmarried Vagina."

Other than that, every other type of sex act is fair game to these kids. Blame Clinton all you want, but engaging in blowjobs, anal sex, cunnilingus are viewed as "staying pure and virginal."

What a joke.

"Ever heard of Christianity? In fact every Judeo-Christian religion plus Islam teaches sex outside of marriage is immoral."

My response - FUCK Christianity. If you think your ridiculous Bronze-Age morals matter to anyone outside your circle-of-idiots, you're worse off than I thought.
And, above all, THIS is why your party should lose. How can you pretend to govern in the modern world when you live in the distant past?

"If you think your ridiculous Bronze-Age morals matter to anyone outside your circle-of-idiots, you're worse off than I thought."

Well, if you really look at "bronze age morals" Ben T, you would find that fertility cults (ie, sex and lots of it) was the norm, and judeo theological morality was in the extreme minority (as in practiced by only one ethnic group, and even then they weren't to keen to follow it either).
So, I believe you would be wrong in your epochal denunciation.

I am hoping my husband will take notice of this program and leave me the hell alone.

"What about the STDs you get from toilet seats?"

Urban myth.

Considering all the issues that face our nation from the outside, plus the overturning of the Constitution by the Bush Administration, this latest gambit is less of a realisitic employment of a of decision, and more of a bone being thrown to a particular segment of the Republican base.

For all the things the Evangelicals have stood for, and the Republicans have made sweet,vaporous promises to enact this is a cynical ploy to retain the relationship. A last ditch effort, a bunch of flowers picked from the girl friends flower garden, and a box of stale, left over candies from the frat party the other night. It all smacks of desparation, a reaching out for anything to mobilize the evangelical base...anything will do.
And if the evangelicals actually do support this tepid rappaproachment, then they and the Republicans deserve to share the same fate.

I'm hoping for a political auto-da-fe the likes that has never been seen before. I want a national bar-be-que, a roasting of epic proportions this year.

Come on Democrats, I want my Fitzmas present!

While they're at it, Repubs should look into reintroducing whalebone corsets for the ladies. Yes, mumm. Oh, baby.

I wish I had a dollar for every married, so-called Christian man who hit on me. Wouldn't need Social security. From the time I developed boobs in my teens, the married men from my church were constantly after me. Somewhere in my late 20s I got used to it. And, I recently found out that I am still not too old to be hit on by married, so-called Christian men. Young men still tell young women they will respect them in the morning. And, most young women still fall for it.

I have no problem with programs which encourage people to be abstinent until they marry. In marriage I would include gay couples also, BTW. But I have a BIG problem with programs which teach nothing but abstinence, and which, moreover, LIE.

Also, STDs can be gotten through vertical transmission, i.e., passed by the mother when the baby is exiting the birth canal. Some diseases included under the STD umbrella, such as the various types of hepatitis, can also be spread through contact with other bodily fluids. Herpes zoster is spread through kissing, for example.

As someone upthread has posted, abstinence pledges can result in people fudging the truth. You can be absolutely abstinent yourself but you really cannot be sure about your partner.

Finally, to those of you who consider sex to be barely ok only in the marital context, for religious reasons: you are essentially committing blasphemy. You presumably believe that God created human beings. Sex is an incredibly powerful drive, and has to be, as successful reproduction requires a high cost on the part of the parents. If God created humans, God created them with this powerful sex drive, as well as a powerful need to eat, drink, breathe, etc., and the necessity of shelter. All of these things are good if God created them, including sex. You commit blasphemy by treating sex as something inherently dirty.

Those of you who push abstinence to the exclusion of everything else place WAY too much importance on sex. Sex is on of several powerful drives. It can be beautiful between committed adults, whether or not they have had a ceremony to recognize that commitment. Sex can be evil and ugly when one of the parties does not consent, as in rape and pedophilia.

Back off and let adults lead their lives, and be sure that everyone has the best information to make the most informed decision about their sex lives.

It's about preventing gay people having sex. No sex before marriage, and no marriage for gays. I totally see their strategy now.

I'm offended by equating "abstinent" with "good" and "sexually active" with "bad".

sheerahkahn wrote; ...this latest gambit is less of a realisitic employment of a of decision, and more of a bone being thrown to a particular segment of the Republican base.

For all the things the Evangelicals have stood for, and the Republicans have made sweet,vaporous promises to enact this is a cynical ploy to retain the relationship.

This may explain why libs tend to oppose abstinence programs. Libs hate the Evangelicals. If the Evangelicals are for it, libs will be against it.

jefff: Teen pregenancy and STD rates are much higher in bible belt areas than in more enlightened ones.

The reason for this seems to be that when kids who have been taught abstinence only succomb to human urges, which is not quite inevitable but pretty near, they don't know enough to avoid STDS and pregnancy. When kids who have been taught a wider range of sexual education succomb to the same urges, they know about condoms and birth control.

ExLiberal: My point it, why are libs so averse to even trying abstinence programs? What harm do they believe it can do to try that approach?

No harm, as long as it's not abstinence only. Abstinence education belongs in a well-rounded sex-ed program. Abstinence is best for as long as it can be maintained, for social as well as STD and pregancy reasons. However human nature prevents it from working forever, so it's best to have other arrows in one's quiver. I teach my 16-year-old son that abstinence is best until he's really ready for sex (which I think is not yet), and then not to trust the girl to be in sole charge of birth control.

I don't know how effective abstinence programs are. I assume they must encourage some number of people to abstain. For that matter, I don't know how effective the programs that encourage condom use are.

Yes, if only we had some sort of academic peer-reviewed studies that measured these things...oh wait, we do! And those studies show that programs that encourage condom use in connection with other protective behaviors are far more effective than abstinence-only programs, which actually result in far higher levels of teen pregnancy.

What’s truly amazing to me is how we all are a product of human genetic evolution. Over one million of human evolution has caused the trigger for human sexual desire to be pulled during the early to middle teen years. Legally, we have codified a five year extension to that, and now the right is suggesting an extra ten years added to the wait.

I seriously doubt that less than 100 years of somewhat spotty exhortation is going to over come 1,000,000 years of instinctual imperative.

ckelly: "I agree that all Republicans should abstain from sex."

It's nice to see that both Al and American Hawk are doing their part -- probably involuntarily, but still ...

My point it, why are libs so averse to even trying abstinence programs? What harm do they believe it can do to try that approach?

The harm is that when the kids who have been exposed to "abstinence-only" sex education finally do break down and have sex (as they will), then they will do so without benefit of condoms, and so will be much more likely to get pregnant and contract a venereal disease than those who have had comprehensive sex education.

This may explain why libs tend to oppose abstinence programs. Libs hate the Evangelicals. If the Evangelicals are for it, libs will be against it.,

Here ya go again, repeating this falsehood. At least this time you tried to mellow it by adding “tend”, but it is still just as invalid a premise as before.

The liberals that I have encountered simply do not oppose abstinence for youngsters.

ex-liberal: "My point it, why are libs so averse to even trying abstinence programs? What harm do they believe it can do to try that approach?"

It's also impossible to have sex when you've got your head shoved up your own ass.

Chuck, you can go your whole life without sex, and I 'm quite certain the entire female race wouldn't mind one bit.

Chuck is fucking hopeless

He's been trying to post and watch the soaps at the same time.

Focus man, focus

http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/pp.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=201360#1

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26623-2004Dec1.html

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/02/24/abstinence/index.html

Oh. My. God. This Republican GOTV ad is so far over the top, it achieves orbit.

(Sigh. I miss tbrosz.)

Chuck;
Abstinence is not the goal.
Ending teen pregnancy and STD's is the goal.

Stefan - And those studies show that programs that encourage condom use in connection with other protective behaviors are far more effective than abstinence-only programs, which actually result in far higher levels of teen pregnancy.

Since both approaches have some degree of effectiveness, what's wrong with using both approaches simultaneously?

Donald from Hawaii wrtoe: It's also impossible to have sex when you've got your head shoved up your own ass.

Is this a straight line for an anal intercourse joke?

Well, that´s as may be, but there´ll be no law passed and no funding cut that can or should keep Al from going off somewhere and fucking himself.

A boy's best friend is his mother.

Oh mother, blood! Blood!

Since polygamy is OK in the Old Testament, why don't Evangelicals support it? Slavery is OK too. Stoning to death. All kinds of cool things.

chuck; How do we target the bad, promiscuous kids while leaving the good, abstinent kids alone?

send them to iraq?

chuck: I know it may be shocking to some here, but other people actually manage to stay celebate their entire lives.

another example of the 1-percent doctrine...

Chuck, you can be as celibate as you want. Just don't try pressuring me into following YOUR lifestyle.

I see nothing wrong with sex while single. Neither do a lot of other men and women of my age. Live with it and shut up.

Stefan And those studies show that programs that encourage condom use in connection with other protective behaviors are far more effective than abstinence-only programs, which actually result in far higher levels of teen pregnancy.

ex-liberal: Since both approaches have some degree of effectiveness, what's wrong with using both approaches simultaneously?

Well sure, if you can explain exactly can you use an abstinence-only program simultaneously with other comprehensive sex education? The whole point of abstinence-only is to ignore other proven methods of birth control and not to teach about them -- once you teach kids about condoms, dental dams, etc. then it's no longer abstinence-only, is it?

According to a 2001 study published in the American Journal of Sociology, students who had signed public "virginity pledges," a key component of many abstinence-only programs, had sex an average of a year and a half later than their peers.

Let's finish that paragraph from the Salon article:

Yet when they did have sex, they were a third less likely to use contraceptives.

And, as the article also notes:

As the Union of Concerned Scientists report points out, there's no evidence at all that the policies pushed by the institute reduced pregnancy rates in Texas. "Unfortunately, despite spending more than $10 million on abstinence-only programs in Texas alone, this strategy has not been shown to be effective at curbing teen pregnancies or halting the spread of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases," it says. "During President Bush's tenure as governor of Texas from 1995 to 2000, for instance, with abstinence-only programs in place, the state ranked last in the nation in the decline of teen birth rates among 15- to 17-year-old females. Overall, the teen pregnancy rate in Texas was exceeded by only four other states."

The evidence on abstinence-only programs from elsewhere hasn't been much more promising. Last year, the Minnesota Department of Health evaluated the state's five-year, $5 million abstinence-only program and found that it hadn't reduced sexual activity among teenagers at all. Instead, over a year, the rates of sexual activity among students taking the abstinence course doubled, from 5.8 percent to 12.4 percent, which corresponded to the rate of sexual activity among teens statewide. The evaluators found a "lack of fit between the program and kids who face complex problems in their lives and are most at risk for sexual activity."

Since both approaches have some degree of effectiveness, what's wrong with using both approaches simultaneously?

You can't use "abstinence-only" approaches in combination with other approaches (once so combined, they stop being "abstinence-only"); real world approaches that include condom usage along with other protective behaviors already promote abstinence to varying degrees, but are (by definition) not "abstinence-only" programs.

Further, I find it hard to find evidence that abstinence-only education has a degree of effectiveness. When the CDC studied a wide range of sex education, including abstinence only, programs it identified five program approaches that demonstrably worked, none of them were abstinency only (however, under the Bush Administration, the CDC stopped publishing the information on its website and replaced the scientific information with bland generalities about abstinence.)

Abstinence-only education, is not demonstrated to be effective for any population, while comprehensive sex education is well-established as effective through empirical research. Abstinence-only education has been a successful effort to impose the ideological views of a narrow minority (surveys show over 90% of Americans support comprehensive sex education in the schools) with disproportionate political power on the public through the power of the federal government with no empirical support for the approaches effectiveness.

And now, this effort to promote religious values that has shown no secular fruits at all is to be extended at public expenses to a wider target population. Well, nothing like the Bush administration seeking to extend and expand policies that the facts show to be nothng more than ideologically-motivated failures: at least this instance will, probably, kill fewer people before responsible leadership is restored than the same approach has in policy toward the Middle East.

Since Stefan won't cite his studies, here's one I found:

According to a 2001 study published in the American Journal of Sociology, students who had signed public "virginity pledges," a key component of many abstinence-only programs, had sex an average of a year and a half later than their peers.

Hey, you didn't cite yours, either. You quoted (without citation) someone else's description of a study that neither you nor they cited. In fact, the findings of the study your unnamed source is apparently referring to are far more mixed, noting that the formal pledges only work when most people in the community aren't taking them (i.e., where they function as a distinctive feature of group identity), and don't work where they are part of a general social norm (Bearman, Peter S. and Bruckner, Hannah, "Promising the future : Virginity pledges and first intercourse", American Journal of Sociology (2001), vol. 106, no. 4, pp. 859-912.):

Since 1993, in response to a movement sponsored by the Southern Baptist Church, over 2.5 million adolescents have taken public virginity pledges, in which they promise to abstain from sex until marriage. This paper explores the effect of those pledges on the transition to first intercourse. Adolescents who pledge are much less likely to have intercourse than adolescents who do not pledge. The delay effect is substantial. On the other hand, the pledge does not work for adolescents at all ages. Second, pledging delays intercourse only in contexts where there are some, but not too many, pledgers. The pledge works because it is embedded in an identity movement. Consequently, the pledge identity is meaningful only in contexts where it is at least partially nonnormative. Consequences of pledging are explored for those who break their promise. Promise breakers are less likely than others to use contraception at first intercourse

I was asking about "effectiveness" as to getting teens to stay abstinent longer, not teen pregnancies or halting the spread of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases.

And, as you will note, the study you vaguely waved your hand at (to say "cited" would be a gross exaggeration) doesn't support that abstinence pledges are generally effective even at that: they can be useful provided they are used in a select age band, and target only a distinct subgroup in that age band such that the pledge is an "us v. them" distinction; if it becomes a majority standard in the social group, the pledge doesn't work.

The whole approach is, therefore, from the very study you seek to use to defend it, fatally flawed as an approach to general sex education.

Are you a teenager? If not, I am not worried about anything you have sex with.

Unfortunately, though, President Bush apparently is, which is the whole reason we are having this thread.

性爱图片 十八电影网 美腿图片 强奸图片 祼体写真 美女写真 性感美女图片 做爱小电影 美少女自拍 日本av电影 明星裸照 黄色电影下载 免费色情电影 两性健康 性教育片 激情电影 黄色图片 成人性爱电影 性电影下载 成人电影下载 性爱视频 偷拍图片 泳装美女 性感内衣 性爱贴图 性生活图片 作爱图片 性交视频 做爱电影 性福联盟 人体摄影 裸女图片 乱伦图片 强暴电影 轮奸视频 迷奸图片 免费小电影 免费电影在线 免费影片 最新大片 免费电影下载 免费在线电影 看免费电影 免费电影网站 情色电影 激情视频下载 明星露点图片 激情写真 阴部图片 乳房图片 全裸美女 淫荡小说 淫乱小说 美女脱衣视频 裸体女人 女性手淫图片 波霸美女 美女淫水 阴户阴毛图片 美女图库 美女口交图片 韩国电影 性知识 最新电影 宽带电影 经典电影 恐怖电影 人体艺术 美女图片 美女走光 性教育电影 同志电影 舒淇写真 写真集 性虐待电影 淫书 人体写真 A片下载 毛片 偷窥图片 裸体视频聊天室 成人网站 成人论坛 性爱论坛 变态日本女生 淫女 女大学生 美女下阴图 女性生殖器 操逼操比操屄 激情论坛 三级片 性爱电影 联通铃声下载 联通炫铃 联通彩铃下载 联通手机铃声 中国联通炫铃 联通彩铃 中国联通铃声 联通免费铃声 联通用户铃声 联通cdma铃声 联通和弦铃声 联通mp3铃声 联通特效铃声 联通炫铃下载 联通炫铃网站 联通炫铃业务 联通cdma炫铃 联通手机图片 联通手机炫铃 中国联通彩铃 联通手机彩铃下载 联通彩铃业务 联通彩铃网站 联通免费彩铃 联通cdma彩铃 成人贴图 情趣内衣 性生活电影 作爱自拍 艳情图片 性交电影 做爱视频 性福电影 人体艺术 明星合成裸照 裸女贴图 黄色小说 成人小说 乱伦故事 性爱文学 偷拍走光 漂亮美眉 泳装写真 乳罩内裤 美女漏点 两性写真视频 美女阴部 少女乳房 自拍裸照 强奸视频 裸体美女 美女自拍 黄色电影下载 色情图片下载 激情图片 激情小电影 性感写真 淫荡妹妹 做爱小电影 裸露美少女 av美女 色情电影 同志图库 成人视频

Wait just a minute. I thought you said "Abstinence-only education is not demonstrated to be effective for ANY population" (emphasis added).

I did. There is no population where applying abstinence-only education is shown to be generally effective.

Once we find out how to make if effective for more and more teenagers, then we can work on young adults.

Formal virginity pledges are (1) not abstinence-only education in the first place (there is no reason you couldn't use them in an comprehensive or "abstinence-plus" setting, and they aren't a means of "education" at all), and (2) the mechanism by which they "work" is known and inherently incompatible with wide use. Its not a matter of "they work for some people but not others, but we can learn to tweak them to change that". They "work" by leveraging an "us v. them" identity which cannot work where they are used generally.

(More recent research has suggest that personal, informal abstinence pledged—promises to self rather than others—which likewise can be encouraged (but, of course, not required) in either an abstinence-only or comprehensive sex education environment, do seem to delay sex for people who haven't yet begun, and don't have the limitations of formal or public pledges in terms of working through group identity, and therefore failing when they are common norms. Which is, of course, interesting, but not an endorsement, even if the results hold generally, of abstinence-only education having any advantage over comprehensive sex education in any arena.

Charlie/Thomas/psycho: I would want to see the studies for the effectiveness of less formal pledges too, especially those tied to an acceptance of, belief in, and commitment to Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior.

I don't think you would, because a recent study shows that almost three quarters of Christian kids who make the pledges end up having sex and then denying that they ever made a virginity pledge in the first place. You know, the kinda thing you do here all the time:

Recanting sexual experience: Almost one-third of non-virgins in the first survey who later took a virginity pledge recanted their experience with sexual intercourse in the second survey. Adolescents who took virginity pledges or who later became born-again Christians were more likely to repudiate their earlier reports of having been sexually active. Of teens who reported a sexual experience at the first survey, those who later took a virginity pledge were four times as likely to retract reports of sexual experience as those who still had not taken a pledge at the second survey.

Recanting virginity pledges: The analysis also found that 52 percent of adolescent virginity pledgers in the 1995 survey disavowed the virginity pledge at the next survey a year later. Additionally, 73 percent of virginity pledgers from the first survey who subsequently reported sexual intercourse denied in the second survey that they had ever pledged. Adolescents who end their affiliation with born-again Christianity or who had sexual intercourse were the groups most likely to deny their virginity pledges.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/press/releases/press05022006.html

Chris has explained to you that abstinence only education is not effective at preventing sex before marriage. Further, studies have shown that it often backfires and when the sex-starved kids do eventually give in to their natural urges, they're less likely to use protection thereby increasing their risk of pregnancy and disease.

But of course, Christianists rarely allow reality to get in the way of their ideology, and press on with the abstinence ed apparently because it buffers their tender sensibilities about the human body.

who had sex an average of a year and a half later than their peers

By definition that is not "preventing" sex that is delaying it, often with disastrous personal consequences for the virginity pledgers that could have been avoided with comprehensive sex education.

but, then again, I'm not a member of the reality-based crowd.

True, you seem to have very little grounding in reality. On the contrary, you are fantasy prone with histrionic behavior suggestive of Borderline Personality Disorder.

"But of course, Christianists rarely allow reality to get in the way of their ideology, and press on with the abstinence ed apparently because it buffers their tender sensibilities about the human body."

Well, being that I'm a Christian I think I am well qualified to say you are full of yourself.

Reality, that philosphical grail of fact being as it is, is that most "Christianists" are not followers of Jesus, but rather moralists who've latched their little wagons onto the train called Christianity.
So who are real Christians?
Real Christians are feeble, weak, and proned to screw things up and are constantly seeking to make things right with both G-d and man.

Moralists have no patience for such as those who are Real Christians and so have hijacked the title to prove what Christians should be like.
What is fascinating to me is that Moralists have taken over this debate and the Real Christians are getting blamed for a Moralist position.

So..to correct the record, I wish to cite the Christian perspective on sex outside of marriage given to us by Jesus.

"John 8:3-7

The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery; and making her stand before all of them, they said to him, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery. Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" They said this to test him, so that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her."
"Jesus looked up and said, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"
"The woman answered, "No one."
Jesus said, "Neither do I condemn you. Go and leave your life of sin."

If you don't like Jesus's position, take it up with him.

Any reports of the groups that were tied to an acceptance of, belief in, and commitment to George Bush as their personal Lord and Savior?

Reality, that philosphical grail of fact being as it is, is that most "Christianists" are not followers of Jesus, but rather moralists who've latched their little wagons onto the train called Christianity.

I agree, which is precisely why I used the term "Christianist" to distinguish the sanctimonious pharisees of today from Christians.

If you don't like Jesus's position, take it up with him.

I don't have a problem with Jesus' position at all. I do have a problem with Christianists hypocritically trying to leverage it with tax dollars in order to arrogate political power to themselves and to attempt to create perceived social outcomes that a) don't have any place in a society that permits freedom of religion, and b) simply don't work.

If you don't like Jesus's position, take it up with him.

What position was that? Missionary?

Jesus said, "Neither do I condemn you. Go and leave your life of sin."

George said, "It's hard, hard work to change and not stay the course, but take these aspirins to place between your knees."

That was the Al post in which he ejaculated, ``Why do you have such a problem with the moral values of people of faith and value voter?´´

On principle, people who swallow phrases like ``value voters´´ already have an overly intimate relationship with their own rectums.

"judeo theological morality was in the extreme minority ... So, I believe you would be wrong in your epochal denunciation. "

Uh, no. What I said was that these morals are from the Bronze age, and that is right. That they were a minority then isn't the point.

"but other people actually manage to stay celebate their entire lives."

I hate to be too much the ass here, but if you're an adult who "chooses" to be celibate, you are mentally unhealthy. Part of being human is the sex/reproductive urge, violating or suppressing that just about guarantees mental health issues.

Yes, Chuck, I´m in Brazil. Or Brasil. Why?

"So who are real Christians?"

I hate this argument, mostly because it's crap. If you want to argue with other christians about who is really christian, feel free.
But, if you want to say anyone who does something with which you don't agree isn't "really" a christian, you've leapt right over logic and reason into fantasy.
If someone says they follow Christ, they're a christian, no matter how little they might have in common with you.
You don't get to sweep crimes (and, I think dangerously undereducating children about real-world sex IS a crime) away with this BS.

"So, every Tibetan monk and Catholic priest out there is "mentally unhealthy"?! Wow."

Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying. If you so hate your humanity that you're willing to give your life to some nonsense cause like religion, you ARE unhealthy. Is that clear?

You don't get to sweep crimes (and, I think dangerously undereducating children about real-world sex IS a crime) away with this BS.
Posted by: Ben T

that isn't all they're undereducated about. the 12yo with the mullet was being homeschooled by a pig-ignorant mother, who spent that particular lesson plan spouting creationist bullshit and decrying the science supporting global warming.

it probably falls short of a crime, but actively making your child that stupid has to fall somewhere in the spectrum of abuse.

Stop having sex?

The problem is that Republicans never really started. While the rest of us in collge were getting laid, they were busy handing out flyers for the College Republicans.

It's the same for every stage of life. While they were busy doing something, we were busy doing it.

No wonder they are so pissed off all the time.

"In marriage, it's near 100% probable that two faithful partners will never get STDs from each other. Why do you oppose trying to stamp out disease and unwanted pregnancy?"

- Posted by American Hawk

What I believe you mean to say is that faithful partners are very unlikely candidates for STDs. Marriage, if you haven't noticed, does not ensure being faithful. You can be unmarried and in a faithful relationship. Marriage is a mere discursive construction, and a convenient tool of power for those who are in a position to arbitrate its definition.

castration is also quite effective at preventing stds and unwanted pregnancy ... I expect AH to jump on that bandwagon any day now.

Sunday Comment from a newspaper "Church" section by a Baptist minister some years ago : Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners, not promote religion.
I always thought that was a chap I wouldn't mind chatting with.

This thread is a bit of a laugh. I grew up as a member of the generation first to have birth control easily available, with effective antibiotics and no AIDS. It seems impossible that things have regressed to the point that the old bloodless appeals to self denial have been resucitated from a well deserved burial.

Ben T. forgot to mention that all religious orders that impose a vow of celebacy also have a severe problem with pederasty, sexual battery, and rape among the protion of the religious order required to be celebate.

So, yes, the evidence points to required vows of celebacy aggravating violent mental illness.
Sexual violence is the flipside of the veneration of chastity.

Come folks, would you please stop treating "Chuck" as if he is anything other than yet another Thomas/Charlie disingenuous sock puppet troll.

Abstinence makes the hard grow fonder :)
_

No, it makes the fond grow harder.

“And they accuse liberals of using government power in the service of utopian social engineering?”

It’s not utopian. It’s a simple standard, and a very old and successful one at that. It includes moral norms like anti-adultery, polygamy, orgies, pornography & promiscuousness. It has a myriad of social benefits and is something every government & society has enforced inside and outside the law.

Ben,
A wolf who calls himself a sheep is no more a sheep than a moralists who calls himself a Christian is a Christian.

Chuck,
You would do well to review your thinking. You reek of moralism and very little of anything resembling Jesus.

"A wolf who calls himself a sheep is no more a sheep than a moralists who calls himself a Christian is a Christian"

As if Christians aren't "moralists"? Have you ever actually read the Bible? (Before you ask, I have, more than once) I often wonder if christian "moderates" have, since it very clearly condones barbarism, and moderation is simply nowhere to be found. Even Christ himself said he wasn't here to change old testament law (remember the jot and tittle comment in Matthew 5:18?) which was nothing more than codified cruelty. That the people doing the barbarities aren't those you want to call "christian" is irrelevant, they ARE following christian tradition, more closely than modern moderates and apologists very often.
Adhering to this makes you unfit for governing the modern world, and I think this thread's main point is yet another piece of evidence in that direction.

Ben T

"Adhering to this makes you unfit for governing the modern world, and I think this thread's main point is yet another piece of evidence in that direction."

How ominious is that, I guess your the gatekeeper.

The law has ALWAYS deemed itself qualified to regulate public "health, safety & morals".

If you feel a certain sector of the population should be denounced incapable of contributing its vision then you should take it up with We The People.

"Adhering to this makes you unfit for governing the modern world, and I think this thread's main point is yet another piece of evidence in that direction."

Ben,
Read the bible all you want, you'll never get anything of use out of it, so why bother your conscious with it?
Oh wait, I'm sure you'll have some noble purpose like "knowing about what the people I oppose are getting their ideas from," but let me clue you in on something that everyone knows....Well everyone but the ones involved...Those moralists know about G-d as much as you do, so there you go. Cause you see, Ben, they read the bible just like you do...not for what it says, but for what they want it to say.

As for me reading the bible, or me being qualified to lead this nation...you're a big boy, you figure it out.

"Read the bible all you want, you'll never get anything of use out of it, so why bother your conscious with it?"

Wow, and the right calls the left arrogant. Look, just because I know more about the basis of your religion than you do, don't go getting pissy. It's obvious you don't have a leg on which to stand, but you have to make it look like you're taking the high road. You're not. You're just making it all up, like every other religious person in history. Don't presume to preach to people who know better.

"Those moralists know about G-d as much as you do, so there you go."

Probably, since there is no god, never has been. Pretending otherwise doesn't make it so. I don't waste time worrying about your religion, I just don't want it infecting my government.

"they read the bible just like you do...not for what it says, but for what they want it to say."

Gee, it's kinda awesome that you can read my mind and know what's what, since you have no idea of who I am, or anything. You must be so proud of yourself.

"you're a big boy, you figure it out. "

Believe me, I've long figured it out. But thanks.

"The law has ALWAYS deemed itself qualified to regulate public "health, safety & morals"."

So? Just because it has happened neither makes it right nor means it ought to happen again.

As to saying a certain segment of the population is unfit to govern, are you telling me children should? Criminals? The severely mentally ill? Societies can and do choose who gets to govern, and I think some who do, shouldn't. Don't tell me christians don't think atheists shouldn't vote or hold office, I know better.

"Wow, and the right calls the left arrogant. Look, just because I know more about the basis of your religion than you do, don't go getting pissy."

rofl!
Just a thought while you're off and running with your tirade...do you have an underdeveloped sense of irony?

"Gee, it's kinda awesome that you can read my mind and know what's what, since you have no idea of who I am, or anything."

okay, so I finished reading your opus, and to answer your question, yeah, you pretty much sound like the moralists. The other side of the coin mind you, but still the same judgemental character, and self-righteous attitude. You and Dobson are cut from the same cloth.
Whether you're honest with yourself about it or not, is irrelevant. I will not change your mind, nor would I attempt such an endeavor.
You are who you are.

"You must be so proud of yourself."

Proud?
For what?
That I've heard the same thing from a dozen different people of differing beliefs and backgrounds and vocations?
Please.

"Don't tell me christians don't think atheists shouldn't vote or hold office, I know better."

Citation, please.

I'm curious, too, as to who would say this.

So?

Ben T. & Company

Good retort

"Just because it has happened neither makes it right nor means it ought to happen again."

It didn’t "happen", its a feature of human society & law. We don’t run around having to justify why we don’t allow cannibalism with the adherents of nihilism. We simply, matter of fact – make it illegal.

I don’t know were your coming from exactly, but try not dismissing a societies customs, traditions, norms & history as "Just because it has happened neither makes it right nor means it ought to happen again."

You sound rather silly.

"Citation, please. "

At least a quarter of the people I know who find out I'm an atheist, Katherine Harris, The State of Texas (you can't be on a jury if you're an atheist) and on, and on. Please don't act as though this is impossible to beleive.

"It didn’t "happen", its a feature of human society & law. "

In order for it to be a "feature", it has to have happened. That should be obvious.

"We simply, matter of fact – make it illegal."

But, we don't always do it in the name of "morals", and there really isn't any reason the law should reflect that kind of thinking either. You can easily decide that cannibalism has outcomes which we don't value and outlaw it (and other things) for that reason.

"You sound rather silly. "

And you sound like an overblown ass. Just so you know.

"Just a thought while you're off and running with your tirade...do you have an underdeveloped sense of irony?"

Nope. It's not arrogance to point out that someone who seems intent on telling you how things are is underinformed on the subject. You seem to be one of those christians who rejects the bible as a source of your religion, and I find that laughable. It's all you've got to go on, other than outright making it up for yourself. Then again, accepting the bible means accepting others made up nonsense.

"yeah, you pretty much sound like the moralists."

Of course I do. I mean, if I didn't you couldn't go on feeling superior in your state of bliss. I've seen all these sad tactics, over and over. I stand by my point, all this religious thinking makes people incapable of governing. Caring more for some mythical afterlife ought to outright disqualify you for being in charge in this one.

"That I've heard the same thing from a dozen different people of differing beliefs and backgrounds and vocations?"

No, that your self-imposed limitations make you seem to think you truly are able to see through other people. You're just sure you've got it all nailed, no matter how little you know about the person.

Let's see now. The Bushies claim that abstinence from sex is 100% effective in preventing pregnancy. Do they realize that this would mean that Mary was no virgin? What will the Catholics and other fundmentalist nutjobs think of that?