Washington Funds False *** Lessons (article)

[NicNZ]

Washington funds false *** lessons
Gary Younge in New York
Friday December 3, 2004
The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1365262,00.html

The Bush administration is funding ****** health projects that teach children that HIV can be contracted through sweat and tears, touching genitals can result in pregnancy, and that a 43-day-old foetus is a thinking person.

A congressional analysis of more than a dozen federally funded "abstinence-only programmes" unveiled a litany of "false, misleading and distorted information" in teaching materials after reviewing curriculums designed to prevent teenage pregnancy and ******ly transmitted disease.

There are more than 100 abstinence programmes, involving several million children aged nine to 18, and running in 25 states since 1999. They are funded by the federal government to the tune of $170m (£88.5m), twice the amount when George Bush came to power.

The money goes to religious, civic and medical organisations as grants. To qualify they may only talk about types of contraception in terms of their failure rates, not about how to use them, or the possible benefits.

The survey was conducted by the staff of congressman Henry Waxman of California, a longstanding Democratic critic of the Republican administration's approach to *** education. His team concentrated on the 13 programmes that are most widely used, and found only two of them were accurate.

"It is absolutely vital that the health education provided to America's youth be scientifically and medically accurate," Mr Waxman said. "The abstinence-only programmes reviewed in this report fail to meet this standard."

Other "facts" include that abortion can lead to sterility and suicide, half the gay male teenagers in the US have tested positive for HIV, and condoms fail to prevent transmission of HIV in 31% of incidences of hetero****** intercourse. US government figures contradict all of these assertions.

AC Green's Game Plan - a programme named after a basketball player who said he would not have *** before marriage - teaches: "The popular claim that condoms help prevent the spread of STDs, is not supported by the data."

Mr Waxman told the Washington Post: "I don't think we ought to lie to our children about science. Something is seriously wrong when federal tax dollars are being used to mislead kids about basic health facts."

But government officials said Mr Waxman's report rehashed old anti-abstinence prejudices for political purposes. Alma Golden, the deputy assistant health and human services secretary for population affairs, said it took statements out of context to present programmes in the worst possible light.

"These issues have been raised before and discredited," Ms Golden said. "One thing is very clear for our children: abstaining from *** is the most effective means of preventing the ****** transmission of HIV, STDs, and preventing pregnancy."

Mr Waxman also criticised some programmes for reinforcing sexist stereotypes to children. One - Why Know - says: "Women gauge their happiness and judge their success by their relationships. Men's happiness and success hinge on their accomplishments."

Another programme, Wait Training, says: "Just as a woman needs to feel a man's devotion to her, a man has a primary need to feel a woman's admiration. To admire a man is to regard him with wonder, delight, and approval. A man feels admired when his unique characteristics and talents happily amaze her."

[plodey]

Not surprising seeing that evolutionary biology was attempted to be banned from being taught in some states.

[American Patriot]

Kids are dumbasses so if lying to them will promote their welfare I'm all for it.

[supercontra]

Not only Iran is evolving backwards.

[ikurinturbiini]

*** is filthy and evil, and against God's will.

[username]

Thats very saddening to hear *shakes head*

[quorthon]

Kids are dumbasses so if lying to them will promote their welfare I'm all for it.
Yes, after all it's for the children!

[martinexsquaddie]

land of the free
just lied to constantlyjavascript:emoticon(':(')
Sad

[Ratman]

Kids are dumbasses so if lying to them will promote their welfare I'm all for it.

I love it: someone holding themselves out as a Patriot condoning this bull****. Why not something more reasonable from the feds, like "***, like war, can be dangerous - use protection". :hug:

[quorthon]

Or ban semi-automatic firearms with certain cosmetic featues :)

It's for the children!

[sups]

LOL! rofl rofl

[Haiw]

:roll: :|
Are they just trying to give sane anti-Bush people ammo or what?!?

[ßå$tĮТHÏ¿ð]

rofl

[Sir Zach of R.]

Or ban semi-automatic firearms with certain cosmetic featues :)

It's for the children!

Ok, I don't see how that has anything to do with anything.... :roll:

[ElHombre]

*** is filthy and evil, and against God's will.

and without it mankind will disappear in short order. no thanks. :lol:

[Knutsen]

Kids are dumbasses so if lying to them will promote their welfare I'm all for it.

:bash:

This is worse than teaching creationist theories in schools.

[ßå$tĮТHÏ¿ð]

Yep, I cant wait till that generation grows up and its doctors refuse to treat you as they might touch you and get herpes or aids :roll:

[TALOS]

Kids are dumbasses so if lying to them will promote their welfare I'm all for it.

:bash:

This is worse than teaching creationist theories in schools.
yeah, but if they shouldnt teach creationist account they shouldnt teach evolution theories, after all it is just a theory

[moughoun]

Kids are dumbasses so if lying to them will promote their welfare I'm all for it.

:bash:

This is worse than teaching creationist theories in schools.
yeah, but if they shouldnt teach creationist account they shouldnt teach evolution theories, after all it is just a theory
yes, but evolution can be studied, creationism is blind faith, I'll be honest, I do acctually think there is a "God" but that maybe "his" plan was a little more subtle then bang seven day's everything happen's

[walford]

Don't worry. Our Betters are out there to tell the children the Truth:


Medical Profession Misleads Children (http://utopia-unmasked.us/***-school.html)

Instead of counseling against random ***, condoms are routinely touted as sufficiently effective life shields for ******ly active minors. In an answer to why a young person’s health teacher told the class that HIV can be be transmitted during condom use, Stanford University Medical Center’s Robert Frascino, M.D (http://www.thebody.com/Forums/AIDS/SafeSex/Current/Q150485.html). responded thus: “I can't imagine why she would tell you something like that, unless it's a misguided attempt to scare you away from having ***. [How terribly ‘misguided’ is it to discourage *** for minors?] Or she's a complete idiot? Maybe both?”

This is odd language for a physician to be using when addressing a medical question, especially with a minor child involved. Dr. Frascino went on to assure the youth that condom failure rates are [only] in the 0.1 to 0.2 percent per ‘episode’ range. What about the CDC’s 2 percent failure rate (http://www.thebody.com/cdc/factcond.html) cited in the same website? Which is correct?

Even at the lowest rate cited, a high school with a 1,000-member student body [with about one-third (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5138a2.htm) reportedly being ******ly active] and each couple having one ‘episode’ per week would statistically result in nine condom failures in a year. At the 2 percent failure rate, the figure jumps to 180. Are either failure rates acceptable? Are minors encouraged to consider whether exercising their freedom of ‘****** expression’ is worth even a 0.1 percent failure rate while flirting with a fatal incurable disease?

There are then two possible interpretations of the good doctor’s advice:

1. A trained health professional is so blinded by his devotion to a certain social agenda that he is unable to see that a ‘small chance’ does not equal ‘no chance.’
2. A trained health professional is so blinded by his devotion to a certain social agenda that he is willing to mislead a minor child into thinking that there is a circumstance wherein it is possible to have ‘safe sex’ with someone who is HIV-positive when the doctor himself knows full well that it is not.

Thus, we see that some in the medical profession have also chosen, either through conscious decision or neglect, to manipulate information available to the general public in order to hasten the realization of their vision of a Better Society – even at the risk of their patients’ life.

[fisheyestudio]

Hey howdy hey!

As a born-again Christian, I find it dispicable to teach lies about *** and ******ity to students. Trying to scare kids into not having *** is "religion" at its best. By that I mean that religion is consumed with the outward appearence and not the real heart of things. It is equally wrong to teach children that there are no consequences to becoming ******ly active or that just using a condom will protect you. Both variances from the truth lead to harm.

So what is the truth. Well that may be hard for many people to decide on since they do not beleive there is such a thing. I do know this. Everything that the scripture says regarding *** and ******ity it right on. Waiting until marriage to become ******ly and emotionally involved on such a deep level has more benifits than any other scenario. Not having *** with multiple partners is a wise choice from and emotional and health point of view. Not having *** with animals or children or members of the same ***. Well these are all obvious if you still have the mental capacity to determine right from wrong.(The scriptures actually teach that this ability can be lost...)

So even if you are opposed to the idea of teaching these things because "god" said you should do them. If you really care about the children you should teach them these things because they lead to the best life and outcome for them.

I had been taught by some christian teachers that the most important thing I could do to show my love for Jesus was to not have *** before marriage. They didnt bother to teach me that there were legitimate reasons to wait or that Jesus really had my best interest in mind.

When I was really thinking of having *** for the first time I went to a Christian teacher who was very liberal. I asked her about what she thought and she just said that if I wanted to it was my choice and I should just use a condom. I really wish she had brought me back to some truth and pointed out all the negative consequnces my "choice" could and would lead too.

It is wrong and self-serving for either side to not share the full truth with students.

Jesus blessings!
chris

[cut]

In the end, it's society that dictates a young persons views on it.. The problem with using religion is that teenagers like to rebel against it and worry about it later.

[hank]

The Bush administration is funding ****** health projects that teach children that HIV can be contracted through sweat and tears, touching genitals can result in pregnancy, and that a 43-day-old foetus is a thinking person.

I question this source. The sun has an agenda and I see no documentation about this.

On a side note. My wife taught 3rd grade for three years, the 7th grade for 2 before that. All those kids had some eduaction about health and/or *** and none of this was discussed.

This is a mischaracterization of "abstinence" education and not surprising given the source.

Question everything.

hank

[Herrmannek]

The Bush administration is funding ****** health projects that teach children that HIV can be contracted through sweat and tears, touching genitals can result in pregnancy, and that a 43-day-old foetus is a thinking person.


First who can prove otherwise let throw the stone...

[hank]

The Bush administration is funding ****** health projects that teach children that HIV can be contracted through sweat and tears, touching genitals can result in pregnancy, and that a 43-day-old foetus is a thinking person.

I question this source. The sun has an agenda and I see no documentation about this.

On a side note. My wife taught 3rd grade for three years, the 7th grade for 2 before that. All those kids had some eduaction about health and/or *** and none of this was discussed.

This is a mischaracterization of "abstinence" education and not surprising given the source.

Question everything.

hank

[djon]

The Bush administration is funding ****** health projects that teach children that HIV can be contracted through sweat and tears, touching genitals can result in pregnancy, and that a 43-day-old foetus is a thinking person.

I question this source. The sun has an agenda and I see no documentation about this.

On a side note. My wife taught 3rd grade for three years, the 7th grade for 2 before that. All those kids had some eduaction about health and/or *** and none of this was discussed.

This is a mischaracterization of "abstinence" education and not surprising given the source.

Question everything.

hank
How about the Washington Post? Good enough p-) .... this was the outcome of a congressional hearing, so they couldn't have made it up.. ;)

..................................................................


washingtonpost.com
Some Abstinence Programs Mislead Teens, Report Says

By Ceci Connolly
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, December 2, 2004; Page A01


Many American youngsters participating in federally funded abstinence-only programs have been taught over the past three years that abortion can lead to sterility and suicide, that half the gay male teenagers in the United States have tested positive for the AIDS virus, and that touching a person's genitals "can result in pregnancy," a congressional staff analysis has found.

Those and other assertions are examples of the "false, misleading, or distorted information" in the programs' teaching materials, said the analysis, released yesterday, which reviewed the curricula of more than a dozen projects aimed at preventing teenage pregnancy and ******ly transmitted disease.

In providing nearly $170 million next year to fund groups that teach abstinence only, the Bush administration, with backing from the Republican Congress, is investing heavily in a just-say-no strategy for teenagers and ***. But youngsters taking the courses frequently receive medically inaccurate or misleading information, often in direct contradiction to the findings of government scientists, said the report, by Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), a critic of the administration who has long argued for comprehensive *** education.

Several million children ages 9 to 18 have participated in the more than 100 federal abstinence programs since the efforts began in 1999. Waxman's staff reviewed the 13 most commonly used curricula -- those used by at least five programs apiece.

The report concluded that two of the curricula were accurate but the 11 others, used by 69 organizations in 25 states, contain unproved claims, subjective conclusions or outright falsehoods regarding reproductive health, gender traits and when life begins. In some cases, Waxman said in an interview, the factual issues were limited to occasional misinterpretations of publicly available data; in others, the materials pervasively presented subjective opinions as scientific fact.

Among the misconceptions cited by Waxman's investigators:

• A 43-day-old fetus is a "thinking person."

• HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, can be spread via sweat and tears.

• Condoms fail to prevent HIV transmission as often as 31 percent of the time in hetero****** intercourse.

One curriculum, called "Me, My World, My Future," teaches that women who have an abortion "are more ****e to suicide" and that as many as 10 percent of them become sterile. This contradicts the 2001 edition of a standard obstetrics textbook that says fertility is not affected by elective abortion, the Waxman report said.

"I have no objection talking about abstinence as a surefire way to prevent unwanted pregnancy and ******ly transmitted diseases," Waxman said. "I don't think we ought to lie to our children about science. Something is seriously wrong when federal tax dollars are being used to mislead kids about basic health facts."

When used properly and consistently, condoms fail to prevent pregnancy and ******ly transmitted diseases (STDs) less than 3 percent of the time, federal researchers say, and it is not known how many gay teenagers are HIV-positive. The assertion regarding gay teenagers may be a misinterpretation of data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that found that 59 percent of HIV-infected males ages 13 to 19 contracted the virus through homo****** relations.

Joe. S. McIlhaney Jr., who runs the Medical Institute for ****** Health, which developed much of the material that was surveyed, said he is "saddened" that Waxman chose to "blast" well-intentioned abstinence educators when there is much the two sides could agree on.

McIlhaney acknowledged that his group, which publishes "****** Health Today" instruction manuals, made a mistake in describing the relationship between a rare type of infection caused by chlamydia bacteria and heart failure. Chlamydia also causes a common type of ******ly transmitted infection, but that is not linked to heart disease. But McIlhaney said Waxman misinterpreted a slide that warns young people about the possibility of pregnancy without intercourse. McIlhaney said the slide accurately describes a real, though small, risk of pregnancy in mutual masturbation.

Congress first allocated money for abstinence-only programs in 1999, setting aside $80 million in grants, which go to a variety of religious, civic and medical organizations. To be eligible, groups must limit discussion of contraception to failure rates.

President Bush has enthusiastically backed the movement, proposing to spend $270 million on abstinence projects in 2005. Congress reduced that to about $168 million, bringing total abstinence funding to nearly $900 million over five years. It does not appear that the abstinence-only curricula are being taught in the Washington area.

Waxman and other liberal ***-education proponents argue that adolescents who take abstinence-only programs are ill-equipped to protect themselves if they become ******ly active. According to the latest CDC data, 61 percent of graduating high school seniors have had ***.

Supporters of the abstinence approach, also called abstinence until marriage, counter that teaching young people about "safer ***" is an invitation to have ***.

Alma Golden, deputy assistant secretary for population affairs in the Department of Health and Human Services, said in a statement that Waxman's report is a political document that does a "disservice to our children." Speaking as a pediatrician, Golden said, she knows "abstaining from *** is the most effective means of preventing the ****** transmission of HIV, STDs and preventing pregnancy."

Nonpartisan researchers have been unable to document measurable benefits of the abstinence-only model. Columbia University researchers found that although teenagers who take "virginity pledges" may wait longer to initiate ****** activity, 88 percent eventually have premarital ***.

Bill Smith, vice president of public policy at the ******ity Information and Education Council of the United States, a comprehensive *** education group that also receives federal funding, said the Waxman report underscored the need for closer monitoring of what he called the "shame-based, fear-based, medically inaccurate messages" being disseminated with tax money. He said the danger of abstinence education lies in the omission of useful medical information.

Some course materials cited in Waxman's report present as scientific fact notions about a man's need for "admiration" and "****** fulfillment" compared with a woman's need for "financial support." One book in the "Choosing Best" series tells the story of a knight who married a village maiden instead of the princess because the princess offered so many tips on slaying the local dragon. "Moral of the story," notes the popular text: "Occasional suggestions and assistance may be alright, but too much of it will lessen a man's confidence or even turn him away from his princess."



© 2004 The Washington Post Company
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26623-2004Dec1.html

[Nawlins]

IMHO, both sides have it very wrong... but I don't have time to get into it right now.

[hank]

As I said, there were a lot of misrepresentations in the Sun article. Read the whole article you posted. Did you? Many of the claims in that first sentence I quoted are refuted by the testimony. Spin is a killer, especially when it distorts what someone said.

As least this article has more information.

hank

[ArmedPacifist]

:roll: :|
Are they just trying to give sane anti-Bush people ammo or what?!?

Anti-Bush people don't have to try anymore......

[Knutsen]

yeah, but if they shouldnt teach creationist account they shouldnt teach evolution theories, after all it is just a theory

I'll give you an easy example about evolution. Evolution exists, maybe we cannot explain it entirely but we can explain it.
Ask a 80 year old man who has worked in the country about his hands. You´'ll see a great difference between his hands and our hands. Our hands have adapted to our necesities, that's EVOLUTION.

[TALOS]

yeah, but if they shouldnt teach creationist account they shouldnt teach evolution theories, after all it is just a theory

I'll give you an easy example about evolution. Evolution exists, maybe we cannot explain it entirely but we can explain it.
Ask a 80 year old man who has worked in the country about his hands. You´'ll see a great difference between his hands and our hands. Our hands have adapted to our necesities, that's EVOLUTION.
Cmon, not even close to what evolution says, his hands toughen up, they dont become different appendages. :roll: Evolution is a theory and even darwin said if the missing links couldnt be found it would be devastating to his theory.
answer me this, why do we not see monkeys becoming human or vice versa? if we are in a constant state of evolution certainly there would be some evidence.
This conversation will get us know where, evolution and creation have been debated for years and no matter what it will continue. you have your beliefs I have mine, my opinion is simply that beliefs should not be taught in school they should be taught at home and the schools should concentrate on facts and readin, writin and arithmetic.

[Hot Lips]

Kids are dumbasses so if lying to them will promote their welfare I'm all for it.

Then they grow to be under-educated adults that don't trust anything they are told.

[Seiyuuki]

Adaptation and Evolution...not entirely the same thing.

[Knutsen]

Adaptation and Evolution...not entirely the same thing.adaptation leads to evolution

I agree with you TALOS, beliefs should not be taught at school but whereas creationism is entirely religious belief , evolution can explain biological facts.

[fred_engles]

Don't worry. Our Betters are out there to tell the children the Truth:


Medical Profession Misleads Children (http://utopia-unmasked.us/***-school.html)

Instead of counseling against random ***, condoms are routinely touted as sufficiently effective life shields for ******ly active minors. In an answer to why a young person’s health teacher told the class that HIV can be be transmitted during condom use, Stanford University Medical Center’s Robert Frascino, M.D (http://www.thebody.com/Forums/AIDS/SafeSex/Current/Q150485.html). responded thus: “I can't imagine why she would tell you something like that, unless it's a misguided attempt to scare you away from having ***. [How terribly ‘misguided’ is it to discourage *** for minors?] Or she's a complete idiot? Maybe both?”

This is odd language for a physician to be using when addressing a medical question, especially with a minor child involved. Dr. Frascino went on to assure the youth that condom failure rates are [only] in the 0.1 to 0.2 percent per ‘episode’ range. What about the CDC’s 2 percent failure rate (http://www.thebody.com/cdc/factcond.html) cited in the same website? Which is correct?

Even at the lowest rate cited, a high school with a 1,000-member student body [with about one-third (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5138a2.htm) reportedly being ******ly active] and each couple having one ‘episode’ per week would statistically result in nine condom failures in a year. At the 2 percent failure rate, the figure jumps to 180. Are either failure rates acceptable? Are minors encouraged to consider whether exercising their freedom of ‘****** expression’ is worth even a 0.1 percent failure rate while flirting with a fatal incurable disease?

There are then two possible interpretations of the good doctor’s advice:

1. A trained health professional is so blinded by his devotion to a certain social agenda that he is unable to see that a ‘small chance’ does not equal ‘no chance.’
2. A trained health professional is so blinded by his devotion to a certain social agenda that he is willing to mislead a minor child into thinking that there is a circumstance wherein it is possible to have ‘safe ***’ with someone who is HIV-positive when the doctor himself knows full well that it is not.

Thus, we see that some in the medical profession have also chosen, either through conscious decision or neglect, to manipulate information available to the general public in order to hasten the realization of their vision of a Better Society – even at the risk of their patients’ life.This study (http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/331/6/341?ijkey=95a7e690738baafe3b93d2844c707bf31cf0aaa3&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha) found that, out of 124 mixed HIV+/HIV- minus couples, who had *** with condoms a combined ~15,000 times during the survey, there was not a single case of HIV transmission.

[TALOS]

Adaptation and Evolution...not entirely the same thing.adaptation leads to evolution

I agree with you TALOS, beliefs should not be taught at school but whereas creationism is entirely religious belief , evolution can explain biological facts.
And I would say that evolution theory doesnt explain anything, it is merely a guess by darwin that even he couldnt substantiate with facts, adaption can be hypothesized to lead to evolution but certainly lacks any real fact to draw on.

[radon]

Don't worry. Our Betters are out there to tell the children the Truth:


Medical Profession Misleads Children (http://utopia-unmasked.us/***-school.html)

Instead of counseling against random ***, condoms are routinely touted as sufficiently effective life shields for ******ly active minors. In an answer to why a young person’s health teacher told the class that HIV can be be transmitted during condom use, Stanford University Medical Center’s Robert Frascino, M.D (http://www.thebody.com/Forums/AIDS/SafeSex/Current/Q150485.html). responded thus: “I can't imagine why she would tell you something like that, unless it's a misguided attempt to scare you away from having ***. [How terribly ‘misguided’ is it to discourage *** for minors?] Or she's a complete idiot? Maybe both?”

This is odd language for a physician to be using when addressing a medical question, especially with a minor child involved. Dr. Frascino went on to assure the youth that condom failure rates are [only] in the 0.1 to 0.2 percent per ‘episode’ range. What about the CDC’s 2 percent failure rate (http://www.thebody.com/cdc/factcond.html) cited in the same website? Which is correct?

Even at the lowest rate cited, a high school with a 1,000-member student body [with about one-third (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5138a2.htm) reportedly being ******ly active] and each couple having one ‘episode’ per week would statistically result in nine condom failures in a year. At the 2 percent failure rate, the figure jumps to 180. Are either failure rates acceptable? Are minors encouraged to consider whether exercising their freedom of ‘****** expression’ is worth even a 0.1 percent failure rate while flirting with a fatal incurable disease?

There are then two possible interpretations of the good doctor’s advice:

1. A trained health professional is so blinded by his devotion to a certain social agenda that he is unable to see that a ‘small chance’ does not equal ‘no chance.’
2. A trained health professional is so blinded by his devotion to a certain social agenda that he is willing to mislead a minor child into thinking that there is a circumstance wherein it is possible to have ‘safe sex’ with someone who is HIV-positive when the doctor himself knows full well that it is not.

Thus, we see that some in the medical profession have also chosen, either through conscious decision or neglect, to manipulate information available to the general public in order to hasten the realization of their vision of a Better Society – even at the risk of their patients’ life.This study (http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/331/6/341?ijkey=95a7e690738baafe3b93d2844c707bf31cf0aaa3&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha) found that, out of 124 mixed HIV+/HIV- minus couples, who had *** with condoms a combined ~15,000 times during the survey, there was not a single case of HIV transmission.

When talking about Hiv it is good to remember that hiv is not too good at transferring itself trough normal intercourse. This can be misunderstood with ugly consequences . Anyway with condoms this risk is decreased alot.

Of course Condoms can break. Condoms can be stored wrong so they are not the quality they once were. There can be just an user error . Bad luck always exists.

[walford]

A condom is not meant to be a life shield. It is not possible to have 100% 'safe' *** with someone who is HIV+.

It's one thing to take your own risks, but to teach children anything other than the fact that they are risking their lives if they have intimate contact with someone who is possibly carrying a fatal incurable disease is beyond irresponsible.

If a cure is found for HIV and the behavior that enabled it to go from what would otherwise have been a localized problem to a worldwide epidemic -- i.e. intimate contact w/multiple partners -- continues, a new disease will emerge. That is because organisms will naturally capitalize upon opporunities created by others.

[GrimmyRX]

Not having *** with animals or children or members of the same ***. Well these are all obvious if you still have the mental capacity to determine right from wrong.(The scriptures actually teach that this ability can be lost...)

Hi religious right, hows it going? *waves* ^_^

Of course, it's your right to say that having *** with members of the same gender is in the same catagory as pedophilia and beastiality, and that it's wrong, and that you think that those that don't agree with this catagorization are mentally unfit to determin right from wrong.

On the same vain, it is my right to say, that those that refuse to accept that christianity is wrong on that point and that homo******ity is no where close to pedophilia or beastiality and that any christian that believes what you believe is far off base. Mainly because I see way more Christians Gaybashing than I see Homo******s Straightbashing. And when I say Bashing, I mean violent actions that result in mucho physical harm.

So I shall.

Those that refuse to accept that Christianity is wrong on the homo****** non-issue and that refuse to accept that Homo******ity is no were close to pedophilia or beastiality and that any christian that believes what you do are far off base. As well, to rebuff your arguements on the mental wellbeing and ability of those that are unwilling to accept your catagorisation and definitions of Homo******ity, I see far more christians Gaybashing than I do homo******s Straight bash, and by bash I mean violent actions that result in mucho physical harm.

[walford]

Indeed homo******s are not beating up flamboyantly hetero people up on the street. Via their activist groups, they are having far more impact by using the school systems to promulgate their political/social agenda as not-to-be-questioned orthodoxy -- upon minor children:

Teachers Union Ties to '****** Orientation' Advocacy Groups (http://utopia-unmasked.us/***-school.html)
There is a cadre of elitists who will stop at nothing to impose their vision for society upon children. They will brook no competing point of view, nor will they allow parents to opt-out. How is this done, and why?

In a June 2002 (http://www.nea.org/nr/nr020627.html) release, former National Education Association president Bob Chase offered NEA’s official opposition to tuition school vouchers. He characterized them as “divisive and counterproductive proposals to divert energy, attention, and resources to private school.” NEA argues (http://www.nea.org/issues/vouchers/index.html) that vouchers “encourage economic, racial, ethnic, and religious stratification in our society. America’s success has been built on our ability to unify our diverse populations.”

‘Stratification’ is the key word here, the opposite being homogeneity - or, ironically diversity. The homogeneity that NEA desires is one of values, perspective and/or outlook. A diversity of viewpoints is what is opposed here. Giving parents the ability to choose schools for their children that actually promote their truly diverse values would undermine NEA’s agenda.

What agenda would that be? While serving as NEA President, Bob Chase was then and still is a board member of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network. “GLSEN (http://www.glsen.org/templates/about/index.html?section=25) seeks to develop school climates where difference is valued for the positive contribution it makes in creating a more vibrant and diverse community. We welcome as members any and all individuals, regardless of ****** orientation, gender identity/expression or occupation, who are committed to seeing this philosophy realized in K-12 schools.”

The ties between homo****** activist groups and NEA are not incidental, nor have they been severed with Chase’s departure. The ****** orientation advocacy community is intimately connected to nation’s largest teachers union. Little known, but significant in its influence is the NEA Gay Lesbian Bi****** and Transgender Caucus. In its September 2002 newsletter (http://www.nea-glc.org/september2002.htm), NEA-GLBTC lamented Chase’s departure at NEA, noting that he was a “very strong asset for this Caucus and for GLBT issues in NEA.” GLBTC’s mission (http://www.nea-glc.org/bylaws.htm) is to “protect the rights and interests” of GLBT faculty, to promote recognition of the “special needs and rights” of GLBT students and to promote “understanding and acceptance” of GLBT “people in all arenas of society.”

****** Orientation to be Protected Group in Schools

One method to promote ‘understanding and acceptance’ is to inject ‘****** orientation’ as a protected group category in schools. GLSEN was pleased to announce that Maryland’s (http://www.glsen.org/templates/news/record.html?section=12&record=1616) school board has joined eight other states in including ‘****** orientation’ as an equal category to race, *** and religion requiring protection from discrimination and/or harassment. Carroll County school board President Susan G. Holt explained that current state regulations concerning harassment already prohibit all students being victimized for whatever reason. That is not good enough for the activists, however.

High school student Allen Wolff (http://www.baldwinsvilledailynews.com/homearticle.asp?id=32904&section=home&network=baldwinsville) is pressuring his Baldwin New York school board to add ****** orientation to the list of those categories deemed off-limits to harassment. Doing so, he explained, would facilitate staff training under ‘existing guidelines’ at the state and federal level. That would enable teachers and administrators to better handle situations such as he encountered when he brought a same-*** partner to the prom. He was also forced to graduate later because harassment forced him to drop a required physical education class.

Some religious groups are listed among the protected, but Christians are not. Indeed, foster parents (http://www.glsen.org/templates/news/record.html?section=12&record=1256) and teachers in California are required to attend ‘gay sensitivity training’ regardless if it contravenes their religious beliefs. GLSEN argued that objecting teachers are not welcome in public schools and thus “should pursue their careers elsewhere (http://www.glsen.org/templates/news/record.html?section=12&record=1256),” such as in private schools. As was already noted, the NEA is vehemently opposed to school tuition vouchers being used for such private schools. Thus low-income families are to continue being trapped in schools imparting values that they may not share.

HIV/AIDS Risk Slanted Toward Gay Agenda for Children

Another means to create GLSEN’s ‘vibrant and diverse community’ is in school workshops. Phyllis Vos Wezeman’s 1995 book, “Creating Compassion: Activities for Understanding HIV/AIDS” offers a highly recommended (http://www2.gol.com/users/aidsed/rainbow/teaching/att.html) class exercise [appropriate age is not specified]:
Students in turn pull a card from the pile (box, etc.) read it silently and decide if it is a fact or myth. After everyone has read his/her card, they can walk to opposite sides of the room, or sit in chairs lined up in rows opposite each other, one side for "Facts", the other for "Myths". Each student reads his/her card and tells the group why s/he came to that conclusion.
The cards should be prepared before class. Some possibilities for the cards are:

FACT CARDS
· There are many famous gay people in Western history
· In some countries gay people are put in prison or put to death for being gay
· Gay and lesbian people contribute as much to society as non-gay people
· Gay and lesbian people can be good parents
· Gay people face a great deal of discrimination
· Non-gay people have no fear of acceptance because of their ****** orientation
· A gay person in most countries cannot see his/her partner in the hospital in cases of emergency
· The majority of people with HIV worldwide are hetero******
· A gay person in most countries cannot inherit property from his/her partner even if they have been together for many years

MYTH CARDS
· There are no gay women (lesbians) in [your country]
· There are no famous gay people in [your country’s] history
· All gay men like to wear women's clothes
· Gay people have the same legal rights as non-gay people
· Gay people think about *** more than non-gay people
· It's easy to see if someone is gay or lesbian
· Gay people don't have regular jobs
· Most people with HIV are gay
· A non-gay person cannot talk freely about their husband/wife or boyfriend/girlfriend
· Gay people's behavior is the reason why AIDS is a problem

How is this type of education going to help a student develop the necessary skills to become a productive member of society? As we have seen, if such a workshop is approved for your local school, NEA doesn’t want children to escape it by their parents using a voucher. There is no provision offered for parents who would reserve for themselves to choose what age is appropriate to discuss any type of ******ity and how the issue should be framed.

Children are to be disabused of the notion that ‘Gay people’s behavior’ has caused the HIV/AIDS epidemic, but no substantiation is offered. There is no discussion of the dangers of promiscuity [a behavior] - homo****** or hetero******. Male homo******s are proportionally the greatest affected group in America [comprising 42 percent (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats/hasr1302/table5.htm) of all cases in the U.S. in 2001 according to the U.S. Center for Disease Control], because they are the most likely to engage in intimate contact with multiple partners. Then follows intravenous drug users [16 percent] and hetero******s [9 percent].BTW I am not a Christian.

[TALOS]

Not having *** with animals or children or members of the same ***. Well these are all obvious if you still have the mental capacity to determine right from wrong.(The scriptures actually teach that this ability can be lost...)

Hi religious right, hows it going? *waves* ^_^

Of course, it's your right to say that having *** with members of the same gender is in the same catagory as pedophilia and beastiality, and that it's wrong, and that you think that those that don't agree with this catagorization are mentally unfit to determin right from wrong.

On the same vain, it is my right to say, that those that refuse to accept that christianity is wrong on that point and that homo******ity is no where close to pedophilia or beastiality and that any christian that believes what you believe is far off base. Mainly because I see way more Christians Gaybashing than I see Homo******s Straightbashing. And when I say Bashing, I mean violent actions that result in mucho physical harm.

So I shall.

Those that refuse to accept that Christianity is wrong on the homo****** non-issue and that refuse to accept that Homo******ity is no were close to pedophilia or beastiality and that any christian that believes what you do are far off base. As well, to rebuff your arguements on the mental wellbeing and ability of those that are unwilling to accept your catagorisation and definitions of Homo******ity, I see far more christians Gaybashing than I do homo******s Straight bash, and by bash I mean violent actions that result in mucho physical harm.
you can say it all you want its not goin to change what christians believe, because grimmy thinks christians are wrong doesnt mean they are, just means grimmy thinks they are ;)

[Hakkapeliitta]

Maybe the Bush administration should ally with the Vatican, they share the same ideals. And I'd love to see the Swiss Guard in action.

http://img103.exs.cx/img103/2857/y8wdivisaact02.jpg

[TALOS]

Maybe the Bush administration should ally with the Vatican, they share the same ideals. And I'd love to see the Swiss Guard in action.

http://img103.exs.cx/img103/2857/y8wdivisaact02.jpg
now this is just hearsay but I hear those guys are quite efficient... nasty little clowns (reference to clothing)

[fisheyestudio]

Hey howdy hey!

If you see someone mistreating a person because they are involved in the homo****** lifestyle, that person is being un-christian, in that they are violating the truth that is laid out in scripture. (christians being under the new-covenant and not the mosaic law)

That being said, I have no doubt that there are people who do that very thing in the name of "christianity". We should never judge any system just by its abuses.

I do not put pediphilia, beastiality, and homo******ity in the same category. The scriptures do. If you find a "christian" who believes that any of those things is not a sinful act, they are also in violation of the truths that are Christianity.

I have said this before but let me say it again. It is not what a person does that are the real problem. It is who they are. When you find yourself wanting to do something that goes against the truth of scripture, it lets you know that you have a problem. The good news is that who you are can be changed, and throught that, what you WANT to do will change as well.

I very much agree with what walford is saying. It is wrong to not teach children the whole truth regarding ******ity. (Even if the "best" thing for them to do or not do just happens to be the same things layed out in the Bible).

Jesus blessings!
chris

[walford]

It is not what a person does that are the real problem. It is who they are. From what I understand, Jewish teaching holds that you are what you do. That seems to make more sense. Certainly this does not mean that if you have done something wrong, that you are fated to repeat it.

My take on this is that you must own what you do as your responsibility and make amends for what you have done. Then resolve to become a better person. [Christians would recognize this as repentence.]

[ikurinturbiini]

This is a distinctively American non-problem, and I ejaculate on this thread.

[GrimmyRX]

Hey howdy hey!

If you see someone mistreating a person because they are involved in the homo****** lifestyle, that person is being un-christian, in that they are violating the truth that is laid out in scripture. (christians being under the new-covenant and not the mosaic law)

That being said, I have no doubt that there are people who do that very thing in the name of "christianity". We should never judge any system just by its abuses.

I do not put pediphilia, beastiality, and homo******ity in the same category. The scriptures do. If you find a "christian" who believes that any of those things is not a sinful act, they are also in violation of the truths that are Christianity.

I have said this before but let me say it again. It is not what a person does that are the real problem. It is who they are. When you find yourself wanting to do something that goes against the truth of scripture, it lets you know that you have a problem. The good news is that who you are can be changed, and throught that, what you WANT to do will change as well.

I very much agree with what walford is saying. It is wrong to not teach children the whole truth regarding ******ity. (Even if the "best" thing for them to do or not do just happens to be the same things layed out in the Bible).

Jesus blessings!
chris

*sigh* I suppose this is where we must split then eh? being as non-religious as I am, scriptures don't mean as much to me as they do to you. You and other christians see them as words handed down by God, me and other non-religious see them as words, ^_^.

Which is why it's so great to be living in a western country, we can disagree, lol. (ie: our position being "The bible is marely a book like many others, with it's good points, bad points, and stupid points you stupid christian intollerant assholes." your position being "scripture and the bible are god's truth, don't blaspheme")

Ah well, moving on, moving on, lol.


you can say it all you want its not goin to change what christians believe, because grimmy thinks christians are wrong doesnt mean they are

Indeedy deedy, ^_^ and by the same token, just because Christian believe what they believe does not mean that non-religious people are wrong, ;)


Indeed homo******s are not beating up flamboyantly hetero people up on the street. Via their activist groups, they are having far more impact by using the school systems to promulgate their political/social agenda as not-to-be-questioned orthodoxy -- upon minor children:

Yep, and isreali's are trying to take over the world with their jewish conspiricies. rofl

The groups you believe in will do their best to advocate one thing, others will do their best to advocate another. It's politics my friend, politics.


Children are to be disabused of the notion that ‘Gay people’s behavior’ has caused the HIV/AIDS epidemic, but no substantiation is offered. There is no discussion of the dangers of promiscuity [a behavior] - homo****** or hetero******. Male homo******s are proportionally the greatest affected group in America [comprising 42 percent of all cases in the U.S. in 2001 according to the U.S. Center for Disease Control], because they are the most likely to engage in intimate contact with multiple partners. Then follows intravenous drug users [16 percent] and hetero******s [9 percent]

The bolded lines are the actual statistics from the CDC. The italic'ed parts are conclusions made by the people who wrote the article.

Ie: The CDC makes no mention of the why (the so called conclusion of having multiple partners) but only the statistic itself.

There can be many explainations for such a statistic.

But, do you notice, it's only Men on Men? There are NO statistics for Female homo******s. Does that mean that Male homo******s were, by themselves, the cause for aids? Should then, only male homo******s be outlaw'ed whilst their female breathern are free to carpet munch? Are you saying that Males are more promiscuous that females? That we just like *** more? (millions of women would disagree.) Does this mean that male homo****** are more promiscuous than your average highschool? (Millions MORE would disagree)

Or maybe it just means that, as a group, males are more likely to be at higher risk mainly because of what their type of penitration involves, not because of their so called promiscuity.

But hey, who was Patient Zero anyways? Does anyone even KNOW?

[ikurinturbiini]

*** is filthy and evil, and against God's will.

and without it mankind will disappear in short order. no thanks. :lol:

You're mixing Carnal Knowledge between Partners Joined in Matrimony and ***. The latter is Evil, Sinful, and Vile. The former is acceptable, but only in the purpose of making new souls for Jesus. It is to be carried out in darkness, and both partners are to keep their hands to themselves. The act must not involve pleasure. You are to feel ashamed afterwards, and ask for forgiveness. Jesus may or may not forgive you, so I wouldn't risk it.

[Nawlins]

*** is filthy and evil, and against God's will.

and without it mankind will disappear in short order. no thanks. :lol:

You're mixing Carnal Knowledge between Partners Joined in Matrimony and ***. The latter is Evil, Sinful, and Vile. The former is acceptable, but only in the purpose of making new souls for Jesus. It is to be carried out in darkness, and both partners are to keep their hands to themselves. The act must not involve pleasure. You are to feel ashamed afterwards, and ask for forgiveness. Jesus may or may not forgive you, so I wouldn't risk it.

You are kidding, right?

[walford]

But, do you notice, it's only Men on Men? There are NO statistics for Female homo******s. Does that mean that Male homo******s were, by themselves, the cause for aids?
In the West, male homo******s are the most likely to engage in intimate contact with multiple partners. In Africa it is a little different because of culture. Women are not as apt to say no to their philandering partners, even if they know them to be HIV+.

Out of the other groups of ******ly active people -- male hetero, female hetero, female homo -- female homo******s are the least likely to be promiscuous, because they are the most monogamous. It is possible to spread the disease via their means of contact [a woman successfully transmitted HIV by means of a bite wound], but not as easily.

Should then, only male homo******s be outlaw'ed whilst their female breathern are free to carpet munch?
Who said anything about outlawing anyone? Why is it that when we simply point out the widespread negative consequences of someone's behavior, we are the would-be oppressors while they are the victims? Truly Orwellian.

If we want to put and end to the epidemic, those infected would need to be quarantined, but I have no idea how that would be practicable at this point [perhaps at an earlier stage it could have been done]. I am against all forms of compulsion, whether it is telling consenting adults what to do in their own bedrooms or using a classroom to indoctrinate minor children toward a certain socio-policical agenda.

Are you saying that Males are more promiscuous that females?
Yes, it's called differing ****** imperatives borne of biology.

That we just like *** more? (millions of women would disagree.)
"Women enjoy *** more and need it less." I don't remember who said that. Seems about right. I don't see the implied correlation you're giving between enjoying *** and wishing to indulge in it with multiple partners. I would argue the monogamous *** is more enjoyable, because there are feelings for the other person as a person rather than a means to procure fleeting pleasure.

In other words, *** with someone you truly love is far more fulfilling than it is with someone who momentarily makes you horny.

Does this mean that male homo****** are more promiscuous than your average highschool? (Millions MORE would disagree)
I had no idea that buildings could have ***. Do you have any pictures?


Or maybe it just means that, as a group, males are more likely to be at higher risk mainly because of what their type of penitration involves, not because of their so called promiscuity.
I've already addressed this issue. Women are not as apt to engage in such activities that were common when HIV began to spread rapidly [such as glory holes, bath houses, designated places in which to engage in anonymous ***, etc.]. I was naive enough to think that this is viscerally understood by everyone.

[Milkman]

No matter how much you teach kids that "*** is bad mmkay?" they will still get horny and ****. End of story.

[[SAB]Grey]

1. Lying to kids is no way to educate them, period.

2. Religious schools can talk about God and *** all they want, but in public schools it should be a mental/physical health issue only.

3. Abstinence is a good policy but you have to teach the ins and outs :P of *** to make sure if they do make the decision they make an informed one.

4. Evolution is not just a theory, it's a scientific theory.

[TALOS]

Grey]1. Lying to kids is no way to educate them, period.

2. Religious schools can talk about God and *** all they want, but in public schools it should be a mental/physical health issue only.

3. Abstinence is a good policy but you have to teach the ins and outs :P of *** to make sure if they do make the decision they make an informed one.

4. Evolution is not just a theory, it's a scientific theory.
makes no difference what kind of theory it is its still just a theory ;)

[wiking]

Puritan values in the 21 century, it's been a long time since the puritans populated colonys on the east coast, but still their views of *** and nudity hang around.

[ikurinturbiini]

*** is filthy and evil, and against God's will.

and without it mankind will disappear in short order. no thanks. :lol:

You're mixing Carnal Knowledge between Partners Joined in Matrimony and ***. The latter is Evil, Sinful, and Vile. The former is acceptable, but only in the purpose of making new souls for Jesus. It is to be carried out in darkness, and both partners are to keep their hands to themselves. The act must not involve pleasure. You are to feel ashamed afterwards, and ask for forgiveness. Jesus may or may not forgive you, so I wouldn't risk it.

You are kidding, right?

Nope. I just thought it's about time someone tells you kids about these things.

And the thing you do with your hands, stop it right now. It makes Baby Jesus cry, and you'll go blind. Sez so in the Scriptures. Or maybe not, but that's what I've been told in the church. And it'd suck to go to hell, wouldn't it? Hmmm? Better play it safe.

[martinexsquaddie]

The thing that bugs me about creationism is that all it can do is knock evoultion. while you can find christians who belive in evoultion you can't find atheist's or agnostics who are creationist's.
evolution is a SCIENTIFIC THEORY if you can come up with a better set of facts and observations and some one else can repeat your experiments then evolution theory will be proved wrong.
But if you start from well it says in the bible(':roll:').
I have a big problem with expecting teens to live up to some perfect christian morality when the society they live in is anything but. Unless America has radicly changed in the last ten years since I was there. there are still losts of marriges ending in divorces and men and women having *** outside of marrigejavascript:emoticon(':lol:')
Laughing. Hollywood doe'snt just make movies about happy familys and as far as I know theres at least 5 gay people in new yorkjavascript:emoticon('rofl')
ROFL.
The aim of *** education policy from a public health viewpoint is too cut VD infections inculding (hiv) and teenage pregancys.
This seems to work best in Eurowussie land of holland where they have very liberal *** education a lower rate of teenage pregancys and teenagers generally start having *** later. strange but true.
Maybe because liberals have less hang ups about *** than a christian conservative.
Face it you would'nt go to a hippy to learn about marksmanshipjavascript:emoticon('rofl')
ROFL. why got to a puritan for advice about *** javascript:emoticon(':roll:')
Rolling Eyes

[Ratman]

Grey]1. Lying to kids is no way to educate them, period.

2. Religious schools can talk about God and *** all they want, but in public schools it should be a mental/physical health issue only.

3. Abstinence is a good policy but you have to teach the ins and outs :P of *** to make sure if they do make the decision they make an informed one.

4. Evolution is not just a theory, it's a scientific theory.
makes no difference what kind of theory it is its still just a theory ;)

But there is A LOT of scientific evidence supporting that theory. There is NO empirical evidence supporting creationism. Grey's 4 points are very reasonable. Kids and adults have been and will be having *** until the end of time - again, supported by copious ;) evidence. Let's make that *** as healthy, physically and emotionally as possible. Cheers.

[EffJi]

Is it just me?
If they are going to start lying to people, they might want to keep it a secret!!!!!!! They shouldn't let an article be written about it.

BTW: shouldn't it be in the fanatical christians's intrest to see more christians be borned? I mean they wouldn't want to be in a disadvantage to the evil muslims right?

[GrimmyRX]

But, do you notice, it's only Men on Men? There are NO statistics for Female homo******s. Does that mean that Male homo******s were, by themselves, the cause for aids?
In the West, male homo******s are the most likely to engage in intimate contact with multiple partners. In Africa it is a little different because of culture. Women are not as apt to say no to their philandering partners, even if they know them to be HIV+.

Out of the other groups of ******ly active people -- male hetero, female hetero, female homo -- female homo******s are the least likely to be promiscuous, because they are the most monogamous.

Actually, in this day an age, female homo are actually just as inclind to be promiscuous as their male counterparts.



Are you saying that Males are more promiscuous that females?
Yes, it's called differing ****** imperatives borne of biology.

Its called "the socialization of children." Ie: There is no actual "need" to have *** based on biology, only the social need to popagate and succed. If we were to socialize BOTH our kids that having *** is normal and natural and pleasurable, both our kids (the male and the famale) would grow up fairly the same (instead of just one of our kids being prommy)



That we just like *** more? (millions of women would disagree.)
"Women enjoy *** more and need it less." I don't remember who said that. Seems about right. I don't see the implied correlation you're giving between enjoying *** and wishing to indulge in it with multiple partners. I would argue the monogamous *** is more enjoyable, because there are feelings for the other person as a person rather than a means to procure fleeting pleasure.

To accept this argument, you would have to accept your previous argument that there is a biological imparative hardwired into the male human mind. That argument has since been regected.

"seems about right"? Well, if it seems to be right, then it must be eh?


In other words, *** with someone you truly love is far more fulfilling than it is with someone who momentarily makes you horny.

Does this mean that male homo****** are more promiscuous than your average highschool? (Millions MORE would disagree)
I had no idea that buildings could have ***. Do you have any pictures?

*sigh* you know just as well as I do that I mean "Highschoolers" ie: highschool kids.



Or maybe it just means that, as a group, males are more likely to be at higher risk mainly because of what their type of penitration involves, not because of their so called promiscuity.
I've already addressed this issue. Women are not as apt to engage in such activities that were common when HIV began to spread rapidly [such as glory holes, bath houses, designated places in which to engage in anonymous ***, etc.]. I was naive enough to think that this is viscerally understood by everyone.

really? Proof?

[wiking]

BTW: shouldn't it be in the fanatical christians's intrest to see more christians be borned? I mean they wouldn't want to be in a disadvantage to the evil muslims right?

hehe good point mate.
Religious fanatics, and then especially christian religious fanatics, should all be lined up and shot. (But then we'd have to shoot a considerable percentage of the american population for a starter, and even though i see no problem p-) i'm pretty sure there are others who do.)

[Nawlins]

*** is filthy and evil, and against God's will.

and without it mankind will disappear in short order. no thanks. :lol:

You're mixing Carnal Knowledge between Partners Joined in Matrimony and ***. The latter is Evil, Sinful, and Vile. The former is acceptable, but only in the purpose of making new souls for Jesus. It is to be carried out in darkness, and both partners are to keep their hands to themselves. The act must not involve pleasure. You are to feel ashamed afterwards, and ask for forgiveness. Jesus may or may not forgive you, so I wouldn't risk it.

You are kidding, right?

Nope. I just thought it's about time someone tells you kids about these things.

And the thing you do with your hands, stop it right now. It makes Baby Jesus cry, and you'll go blind. Sez so in the Scriptures. Or maybe not, but that's what I've been told in the church. And it'd suck to go to hell, wouldn't it? Hmmm? Better play it safe.

I still don't believe you're serious (I find it hard to believe that anyone in the 21st century really thinks this way), but it gives me an opportunity to voice my opinion anyway.

First of all, I'm not a kid, I'm a married woman. I'm also Christian, and I absolutely do not hold this view of ***. I belief that pre- or extra-marital *** is wrong, but not because *** itself is wrong. Quite the opposite. *** between two people who have commited themselves to each other before God and man is a beautiful, sacred thing. It is wrong in another context because it does not reflect the sacredness of the act.

I firmly believe that if you teach children this view rather than just saying "don't do it," they'll be more likely to understand why they shouldn't do it and more likely to wait. And I believe that waiting for marriage is the healthiest choice for everyone, both physically and emotionally. I don't believe that everyone will do that, because the human will is weak against the force of ****** attraction. I also don't believe that you will go to hell if you don't wait. It is an ideal to strive for, but no one is perfect.

Feel free to disagree with me, but those are my personal beliefs.

[ikurinturbiini]

I was kidding. :oops:

Here's what I wrote earlier in this thread, when I was not yet kidding:


This is a distinctively American non-problem, and I ejaculate on this thread.

Sorry if that was ambiguous. ;)

[martinexsquaddie]

nawlins your plan may work if the teens are commited christians
but otherwise don't do it as god say's its naughtyjavascript:emoticon('rofl')
ROFL

[plodey]

:lol:

http://users.bigpond.net.au/plod/pregnancy.jpg

[Ratman]

Hey howdy hey!

If you see someone mistreating a person because they are involved in the homo****** lifestyle, that person is being un-christian, in that they are violating the truth that is laid out in scripture. (christians being under the new-covenant and not the mosaic law)

That being said, I have no doubt that there are people who do that very thing in the name of "christianity". We should never judge any system just by its abuses.

I do not put pediphilia, beastiality, and homo******ity in the same category. The scriptures do. If you find a "christian" who believes that any of those things is not a sinful act, they are also in violation of the truths that are Christianity.

I have said this before but let me say it again. It is not what a person does that are the real problem. It is who they are. When you find yourself wanting to do something that goes against the truth of scripture, it lets you know that you have a problem. The good news is that who you are can be changed, and throught that, what you WANT to do will change as well.

I very much agree with what walford is saying. It is wrong to not teach children the whole truth regarding ******ity. (Even if the "best" thing for them to do or not do just happens to be the same things layed out in the Bible).

Jesus blessings!
chris

What is the truth of scripture? How can it be truth, per se. It's faith you appear to be confusing with truth. I think it is best we run the USA on truth not faith, as did the founding fathers notwithstanding their religiousity.

[[SAB]Grey]

Time for an apt quote from T.J.
"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion.
Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more
approve of the homage to reason, than that of blindfolded fear..." (Letter to his nephew, Peter Carr)

[Haiw]

This seems to work best in Eurowussie land of holland where they have very liberal *** education a lower rate of teenage pregancys and teenagers generally start having *** later. strange but true.
We do? Cool... I never knew. :lol:

[cut]

This seems to work best in Eurowussie land of holland where they have very liberal *** education a lower rate of teenage pregancys and teenagers generally start having *** later. strange but true.
We do? Cool... I never knew. :lol:

That's the problem with liberal countries, we never seem to hear about what's going well in our country. Holland is always used as an example in the UK where teenage pregnancies are the worst in Europe (i.e. not as bad as the US)

[Haiw]

Yeah but to be honest I can't say I've experienced much of the liberal *** education! :lol:

[moughoun]

Yeah but to be honest I can't say I've experienced much of the liberal *** education! :lol:
your on here too much that's why...........find your self a hooker, man!! p-)

[king_nothing100]

Think misleading kids on someone who believes in gods opinions is crap becuase they frankly might not give two ****s abot "god", glad didn't have to be put through that **** in school here, freedom of thought. Pelted this american bloke who was in Northumberland street bitching about jesus or abstinance with half a McDonalds strawberry milkshake, cup landed about a foot infront of him and splatted its contents all down his front, ahh good times. woot

[Haiw]

Yeah but to be honest I can't say I've experienced much of the liberal *** education! :lol:
your on here too much that's why...........find your self a hooker, man!! p-)
Thanks to our liberal drug laws I'm too stoned to find a hooker. p-)

[Hullebullen]

If God didn't want me to have *** before marriage he shouldn't have armed me with a loose cannon and the will to use it...

[ikurinturbiini]

If God didn't want me to have *** before marriage he shouldn't have armed me with a loose .22 and the will to use it...

Corrected for honesty.

[TALOS]

If God didn't want me to have *** before marriage he shouldn't have armed me with a loose .22 and the will to use it...

Corrected for honesty.
he wasnt referring to you ;)

[ßå$tĮТHÏ¿ð]

Yeah but to be honest I can't say I've experienced much of the liberal *** education! :lol:
your on here too much that's why...........find your self a hooker, man!! p-)
Thanks to our liberal drug laws I'm too stoned to find a hooker. p-)

bout time ;) Now I can send the bound up sheep in the crawlspace to Evan as the shipping will be cheaper :)

[username]

yeah, but if they shouldnt teach creationist account they shouldnt teach evolution theories, after all it is just a theory

I'll give you an easy example about evolution. Evolution exists, maybe we cannot explain it entirely but we can explain it.
Ask a 80 year old man who has worked in the country about his hands. You´'ll see a great difference between his hands and our hands. Our hands have adapted to our necesities, that's EVOLUTION.
Cmon, not even close to what evolution says, his hands toughen up, they dont become different appendages. :roll: Evolution is a theory and even darwin said if the missing links couldnt be found it would be devastating to his theory.
answer me this, why do we not see monkeys becoming human or vice versa? if we are in a constant state of evolution certainly there would be some evidence.
This conversation will get us know where, evolution and creation have been debated for years and no matter what it will continue. you have your beliefs I have mine, my opinion is simply that beliefs should not be taught in school they should be taught at home and the schools should concentrate on facts and readin, writin and arithmetic.

Talos these are the reasons you do not see monkeys changing shape.

It takes millions of years for a species to evolve(on average people live till thiey are 70, your not going to see any changes in your lifetime)

It has been estabished that species evolve as a necessity(monkeys still vie in trees there is no need to grown an upright back yet)

Humans have only been documenting history for say the past 40, 000 years and only in detail in the last 500.

The bodies of animals decompose, what they dig up are fossils. It's rare for a monkey to fall in a tar pit. The odd
s are a million to one. To add to that it's a million to one that a person will find the fossil.

Im not arguing over creationism vs evolution im saying your question regardin monkeys is without base.

[username]

No matter how much you teach kids that "*** is bad mmkay?" they will still get horny and f***. End of story.

It's the insurance policy humans took out for species survival.

[Haiw]

Talos these are the reasons you do not see monkeys changing shape.

It takes millions of years for a species to evolve(on average people live till thiey are 70, your not going to see any changes in your lifetime)

It has been estabished that species evolve as a necessity(monkeys still vie in trees there is no need to grown an upright back yet)

Humans have only been documenting history for say the past 40, 000 years and only in detail in the last 500.

The bodies of animals decompose, what they dig up are fossils. It's rare for a monkey to fall in a tar pit. The odd
s are a million to one. To add to that it's a million to one that a person will find the fossil.

Im not arguing over creationism vs evolution im saying your question regardin monkeys is without base.
Apart from all that there have been plenty of 'cross-over' species found which clearly shows that humans evolved from apes. It's not like one day there was a chimp and the other day there was a homo sapiens.

[martinexsquaddie]

monkeys don't need to evolve into humans there doing pretty well as monkeys.
Survival of the fittest is always mistakenly read to imply the biggest fastest meanest criitter will survive.
when actually darwin was talking about a creature fit for its niche a snail may not be smart but theres loads of the little sods abou

[ikurinturbiini]

If God didn't want me to have *** before marriage he shouldn't have armed me with a loose .22 and the will to use it...

Corrected for honesty.
he wasnt referring to you ;)

I know that. If he had, we'd be talking airsoft... :oops:

[Hullebullen]

If God didn't want me to have *** before marriage he shouldn't have armed me with a loose .22 and the will to use it...

Corrected for honesty.
he wasnt referring to you ;)

I know that. If he had, we'd be talking airsoft... :oops:

rofl

Your new avatar rocks, BTW...

[Haiw]

monkeys don't need to evolve into humans there doing pretty well as monkeys.
Survival of the fittest is always mistakenly read to imply the biggest fastest meanest criitter will survive.
when actually darwin was talking about a creature fit for its niche a snail may not be smart but theres loads of the little sods abou
Indeed... most fitting, not most physically fit.

[TALOS]

monkeys don't need to evolve into humans there doing pretty well as monkeys.
Survival of the fittest is always mistakenly read to imply the biggest fastest meanest criitter will survive.
when actually darwin was talking about a creature fit for its niche a snail may not be smart but theres loads of the little sods abou
the point is this, if we are from monkeys, then we are the next evolutionary step up, even though it takes millions of years they all wouldnt evolve at the same time , it would be gradual and at different stages, ergo, darwin looked for fossil or live proof, eg missing link. Even he said it was essential to his THEORY.
Why did they evolve before if they dont need to now. Its illogical