Proposition 8 same sex marriage ban poll

[quote name='von551']you have it backwards. the law has no right to tell the church what it can and can't do. that's what's happening here. seperation of church and state, right? God's will always prevails. You will see your day when you can get married though. It's prophesied, the world is on a collision course towards God. It will fight for it's "right" to disobey His law and it will be the end of the world as we know it. This Prop 8 is just a bump in the road of what's to come. [/quote]

Hasn't the world already changed? I mean, this is what Nietzsche was saying 100 years ago. Death is probably hyperbole but the Christian God of the middle ages is weaker then any time other then before the Holy Roman Empire, the Christian right's new diety is Buddy Jesus with his troop of pro-life, anti-homosexual wrathful OT god warriors.
 
Who aren't Christians or Muslims. In fact, last I checked, the Japanese were largely polytheistic.

Further, it's shown that in both sides of war, usually each side thinks they are divinely led. The American Civil War is a good example.

Make up your mind if you're railing against them or religious people in general.
Click to expand...

My mind has always been made up. My annoyance is with organized religion in general, but my anger all goes towards organized religion that claim that they have some kind of answer that if you dont follow your not only wrong/flawed but going to suffer a horrible fate.

You're veering waaaaaaaay off course by including all the crazy people who represent 0.0000000001% of any group.
Click to expand...

If this was all I named then you would have a point. But when you put them together with all the things I named like Crusades/Irish then you have far more then 1%. Forget about the fact that like 60% of America takes the bible from a literal or close to literal stand point which means most of the rest of the world is going to hell...... Again your arguing with parts of my argument vs looking at the argument as a whole.

Second, the 'net at large is completely inhospitable to Christians, as this board does a good job upholding. So to act like there's some conspiracy out there where they are running around on the 'net trying to ruin it is laughable. They aren't, they aren't welcome around here.[/quote}

Strell not only are you picking parts of my argument apart vs looking at my argument as a whole with this you are now putting words in my mouth.......I dont claim any conspiracy theory. I just pointed out that we have had numerous jack asses like von come in here and proove my point by saying we are going to hell for not believing in what he does.

You really need to reread my posts and the others in this topic because your pretty off base with what you seem to think is being discussed/happening.
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']My mind has always been made up. My annoyance is with organized religion in general, but my anger all goes towards organized religion that claim that they have some kind of answer that if you dont follow your not only wrong/flawed but going to suffer a horrible fate.[/quote]

Then you're admitting you're not making up your damn mind, and are just popping in whatever fringe articles you can muster in order to make a point about something you can't even quantify into a single, solitary entity.

If this was all I named then you would have a point. But when you put them together with all the things I named like Crusades/Irish then you have far more then 1%.
Click to expand...

Except I didn't say that - I said all these small isolated incidences aren't nearly the quantity you make them out to be.

Further, all the wars and whatnot I already said count, but that still doesn't make up a majority of billions of people over time.

Strell not only are you picking parts of my argument apart vs looking at my argument as a whole with this you are now putting words in my mouth
Click to expand...

Bullshit. An argument is made up of postulates and premises. And if I can take apart those elements, I take down the structure as a whole. Weakest link situation.

.......I dont claim any conspiracy theory. I just pointed out that we have had numerous jack asses like von come in here and proove my point by saying we are going to hell for not believing in what he does.
Click to expand...

And you're acting like a totally classless back at him and others. You do understand that means you're doing the EXACT SAME THING YOU ARE ANNOYED ABOUT, right?

You really need to reread my posts and the others in this topic because your pretty off base with what you seem to think is being discussed/happening.
Click to expand...

Now you're just throwing a pity party. Boo hoo.
 
The government actually does have the right to tell the Church what to say; or what not to say, more specifically. Churches are exempted from taxation provided they stay out of partisan politics. I guess this isn't wholly relevant considering the direction this whole conversation/argument has steered, but I just thought I would bring it up. I respect religion, I just don't think it's fair or proper of a preacher to be getting involved in politics like they sometimes seem to do.
 
Great Article:

Creators Syndicate – Before Election Day, national media handwringers forged a wildly popular narrative: The right was, in the words of New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, gripped by "insane rage." Outbreaks of incivility (some real, but mostly imagined) were proof positive of the extremist takeover of the Republican Party. The cluck-cluckers and tut-tutters shook with fear.
But when the GOP took a beating on Nov. 4, no mass protests ensued; no nationwide boycotts erupted. Conservatives took their lumps and began the peaceful post-defeat process of self-flagellation, self-analysis and self-autopsy.
In fact, in the wake of campaign 2008 there's only one angry mob gripped by "insane rage": left-wing same-sex marriage activists incensed at their defeat in California. Voters there approved Proposition 8, a traditional marriage initiative, by 52 percent to 48 percent.
Instead of introspection and self-criticism, however, the sore losers who opposed Prop. 8 responded with threats, fists and blacklists.
That's right. Activists have published on the Internet an "Anti-Gay Blacklist" of Prop. 8 donors. If the tables were turned and Prop. 8 proponents created such an enemies list, everyone in Hollywood would be screaming "McCarthyism" faster than you could count to eight.
A Los Angeles restaurant whose manager made a small donation to the Prop. 8 campaign has been besieged nightly by hordes of protesters who have disrupted business, intimidated patrons and brought employees to tears. Out of fear for their jobs and their lives, workers at El Coyote Mexican Cafe pooled together $500 to pay off the bullies.
Scott Eckern, the beleaguered artistic director of California Musical Theatre in Sacramento, was forced to resign over his $1,000 donation to the Prop. 8 campaign. Rich Raddon, director of the Los Angeles Film Festival, is next on the chopping block after the anti-Prop. 8 mob discovered that he had also contributed to the "Yes on 8" campaign. Calls have been pouring in for his firing.
Over the last two weeks, anti-Prop. 8 organizers have targeted Mormon, Catholic and evangelical churches. Sentiments like this one, found on the anti-Prop.8 website "JoeMyGod," are common across the left-wing blogosphere: "Burn their f—-ing churches to the ground, and then tax the charred timbers."
Thousands of gay-rights demonstrators stood in front of the Mormon temple in Los Angeles shouting "Mormon scum." The Mormon headquarters in Salt Lake City received threatening letters containing an unidentified powder. Religion-bashing protesters filled with hate decried the "hate" at Rick Warren's Saddleback Church in Orange County, Calif. Vandals defaced the Calvary Chapel in Chino Hills, Calif., because church members had collected Prop. 8 petitions. One worshiper's car was keyed with the slogans "Gay sex is love" and "SEX." Another car's antenna and windshield wipers were broken.
In Carlsbad, Calif., a man was charged with punching his elderly neighbors over their pro-Prop. 8 signs. In Palm Springs, Calif., a videographer filmed unhinged anti-Prop. 8 marchers who yanked a large cross from the hands of 69-year-old Phyllis Burgess and stomped on it.
In San Francisco, Christians evangelizing in the Castro District needed police protection after the same-sex marriage mob got physical and hounded them off the streets. Enthusiastically shooting themselves in the foot, anti-Prop. 8 boycotters are now going after the left-wing Sundance Film Festival because it does business in Mormon-friendly Utah.
Also targeted: Cinemark Theaters across the country. The company's CEO, Alan Stock, donated just under $10,000 to the traditional marriage measure. Never mind that Cinemark theaters are hosting the new biopic about gay icon Harvey Milk. They must pay for the sins of the company head who dared to exercise his political free speech.
Corporate honchos, church leaders and small donors alike are in the same-sex marriage mob's crosshairs, all unfairly demonized as hate-filled bigots by bona fide hate-filled bigots who have abandoned decency in pursuit of "equal rights." One wonders where Barack Obama — himself an opponent of Proposition 8 — is as this insane rage rages on. Soul-Fixer, Nation-Healer, where art thou?
Michelle Malkin is author of "Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild." Her e-mail address is [email protected].
COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
 
Allow me to try and tie this "religion sucks" and "gay people marrying" stuff going on here.

The politics of the Mormons and a large majority of people's reason that the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin...should be a cold hard slap in the face to any rational person that says religion is not a bad thing.

Here we have hordes of people voting to take away a legal (not religious right) away from millions of people whom they have never meant and whose lifestyle most have not taken the time to understand. And why because their church leader (a fallible human being) told his followers (a room full of fallible human beings) that this book written by a human being says that what other people do (choice or not) is a sin and contribute to the down fall of our world (which I thought according to the Bible and other religious text--Left Behind is a good thing).

Does anyone not see how absurd that is?

One person who was taught (probably at a very young age) that this book written by 5 or 6 human beings over a course of about a 100 years about 1800 to 1900 years ago has a few vague sentences in it's 2000+ pages about how dudes shouldn't lay with other dudes. Never mind that is code for....sex and marriage is a merely a sacrament (which cannot be denied to anyone according to the Bible), so by that logic man on man action should be against the law and marriage shouldn't. Eh, but what do I know I have only read the Bible and numerous other books and text about it...they believe in it, so they win I guess.

But anyway the idea that an irrational and illogical belief (def. of Faith) can decide on a state level what other's cannot do and still be taken seriously is so mind boggling to me. I know that religion is not caused by or the only source of ignorance, but thats no reason to not hold someone's irrational--supernatural beliefs accountable in the real natural world. And leave them to scramble for another reason to justify their xenophobic and bigoted ideas about how the world should be.

Religion would be fine if our actions didn't affect other's but they do, and this a prime example of that happening. Two people that love each, and in many cases been together for decades, in healthy relationships can not even have a chance to have what we [as hetros have], because your book says that they can't? That is disgusting that people don't see the toxicity of that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
gareman, I think you're missing the train here.

I know many religious people, and many mormons. None of them are interested in taking rights away from gay couples, or preventing rights. They are only interested in maintaining the definition of a word that everyone, for some reason, insists we still include in the halls of law. It's silly, but that's the truth, this is all about defining words at it's core.

This notion that religious people, and especially mormons, want to oppress people, take rights away, and nurture bigotry, is an invention of the rabidly anti-religious left. Try not to fall for it. Sure there are many bigoted religious people out there, but try and not group all religious people together.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']gareman, I think you're missing the train here.

I know many religious people, and many mormons. None of them are interested in taking rights away from gay couples, or preventing rights. They are only interested in maintaining the definition of a word that everyone, for some reason, insists we still include in the halls of law. It's silly, but that's the truth, this is all about defining words at it's core.

This notion that religious people, and especially mormons, want to oppress people, take rights away, and nurture bigotry, is an invention of the rabidly anti-religious left. Try not to fall for it. Sure there are many bigoted religious people out there, but try and not group all religious people together.[/quote]

Whether or not they are doing it intentionally doesn't matter, because thats what they are doing.
 
[quote name='gareman']Whether or not they are doing it intentionally doesn't matter, because thats what they are doing.[/QUOTE]

Exactly. Thank you!
 
What a surprise that Von the crazy religious nut job quotes a malkin review. She is disgusting and has been shown to be a hypocrite and pretty damn stupid.

Let me ask you this? If this again shows the lack of class on liberals parts and how conservatives are well breed and upstanding classy people in a loss......then why did John McCain have people boo him and Obama both and chant for Palin at his defeat speech? And why when you look back and the Gore and Kerry defeats do you not find the same thing? Ya thought so, and that was after we liberals had already seen Bush in the white house and knew how he was happy to start unneeded wars, squander money and piss on our rights. What had Obama ever done to raise such hatred?

Now if Gays are "running wild in the streets"(more like 90% are civilly protesting)maybe you should stop and think about what has been done to them. Essentially the constitution has been set aside and they have been stripped of their rights, told they are second class citizens and the ads run against them were just disgusting and untrue. Ask yourself what you would be doing as a crazy religious person if we stood up and said thats it we are sick of you religious wackos so bam, thats it ban on Religion. How would you react if we took your right to worship the great talking head in the sky your magical book told you to? If we tried banning religion we would see an angry uprising in this nation that would make the gay protests look like hippies playing hacky sack for peace.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']What a surprise that Von the crazy religious nut job quotes a malkin review. She is disgusting and has been shown to be a hypocrite and pretty damn stupid.

Let me ask you this? If this again shows the lack of class on liberals parts and how conservatives are well breed and upstanding classy people in a loss......then why did John McCain have people boo him and Obama both and chant for Palin at his defeat speech? And why when you look back and the Gore and Kerry defeats do you not find the same thing? Ya thought so, and that was after we liberals had already seen Bush in the white house and knew how he was happy to start unneeded wars, squander money and piss on our rights. What had Obama ever done to raise such hatred?

Now if Gays are "running wild in the streets"(more like 90% are civilly protesting)maybe you should stop and think about what has been done to them. Essentially the constitution has been set aside and they have been stripped of their rights, told they are second class citizens and the ads run against them were just disgusting and untrue. Ask yourself what you would be doing as a crazy religious person if we stood up and said thats it we are sick of you religious wackos so bam, thats it ban on Religion. How would you react if we took your right to worship the great talking head in the sky your magical book told you to? If we tried banning religion we would see an angry uprising in this nation that would make the gay protests look like hippies playing hacky sack for peace.[/QUOTE]


:shock:
:drool:

...That.. That.. oh..that would be..amazing....
 
[quote name='lilboo']:shock:
:drool:

...That.. That.. oh..that would be..amazing....[/quote]

QFT.

Can I be in charge of burning all religious texts in the streets? I would like a position of power when we turn into a communist state/totalitarian society. :)

Honestly, I never figure out why religious people always felt that they owned religion, seeing it is determined by the state... and I never understood why it could be outlawed seeing most of the anti-gay marriage people wish it outlawed based on religious reasons, and then the separation of church and state kicks in...
 
Sadly, what MSI says is pretty much exactly what most religious people feel is happening already, which is why they are getting more and more militant.

Hate to sound like O'rielly, but this is what is meant by the term "culture war". It's also why conservative talk radio does so incredibly well; most of it is getting the religious whipped into a frenzy about the coming secular sledgehammer and people like yourselves that are so rabidly openly anti-religous and proud of it.

Just an observation. I see it sad on both sides when people are so obtuse they refuse to meet in the middle, try to understand each other, or get a long. You three don't ever get to complain about the divisiveness of the country currently, because you're proud to be part of it.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Sadly, what MSI says is pretty much exactly what most religious people feel is happening already, which is why they are getting more and more militant.

Hate to sound like O'rielly, but this is what is meant by the term "culture war". It's also why conservative talk radio does so incredibly well; most of it is getting the religious whipped into a frenzy about the coming secular sledgehammer and people like yourselves that are so rabidly openly anti-religous and proud of it.

Just an observation. I see it sad on both sides when people are so obtuse they refuse to meet in the middle, try to understand each other, or get a long. You three don't ever get to complain about the divisiveness of the country currently, because you're proud to be part of it.[/QUOTE]

Ermmmmmmm thrust once again your looking at the wrong people for extremes. You say that we all are the same but the truth is people like us don't seriously think religion should be banned(at least I don't)where you cant say the same for religious people who are against so many of non religious peoples rights. See I whole heartedly believe that organized religion is a cancer, but I dont think its a cancer I have any right to remove. They have every right to their own beliefs and if they choose to meet me in the middle I would be glad to meet them there.

My future mother in law is a great example of that. She is very religious, hell she even works for the church. However, she accepts that me and her daughter do not go to church, she isn't against gay marriage, she has never told us or anyone else we are going to hell, even if she is pro life she does not make it out to be the number 1 issue in the world and act like anyone that doesn't is a baby murderer. Nothing wrong with being religious......wearing it on your sleeve and trying to legislate the rights of others is when we have problems. You can sit all you want pretending your in the middle, but the truth is most of us that arnt religious ARE in the middle. Yes we joke about banning religion or say we hate organized religion(again organized is the key word)but we don't mean it and the only reason for saying stuff like this is because how far to the right and unreasonable most religious people in America are. We have tried talking civiliy and rarely I still meet a Christian I can talk to and have a serious philosophical/political disagreement with. And in general I can have this kind of discussion with someone like a buddisht which shows the problem isnt how anti religious we are but how most Christians have become loud mouthed know it all mini Sean Hannitys(also known as an asshole).

So how about getting down off your pedestal and stop pretending like your above the rest of us. Most issues you fall far to the right on(as you did with the stupid global warming thing)and then you use the three or four issues(generally marriage related)where you land in the middle to preach to the rest of us about finding the middle ground you think you walk.

To sum up - Until religious people can show we actually have passed legislation or amendments that take away their rights they are not allowed to claim or whine about it potentially happening since they have several times tried to force their ways on us(Christmas, religion in schools and now gay marriage). No whining about us meeting them in the middle because its simply not true.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']
This notion that religious people, and especially mormons, want to oppress people, take rights away, and nurture bigotry, is an invention of the rabidly anti-religious left. Try not to fall for it. Sure there are many bigoted religious people out there, but try and not group all religious people together.[/quote]

I agree that lumping all religious people, or all Mormons together is wrong.

However, the assertion that this is just about the word "marriage" is equally wrong.

In Arkansas, no single person can now adopt. In Florida, the state cannot recognize gay marriage or anything offering the benefits of marriage.

That means no domestic partnerships, civil unions, anything. Same as in Michigan. Please tell me how this is not about taking rights away.

The idea that this just about defining words couldn't be more wrong.
 
[quote name='blandstalker']I agree that lumping all religious people, or all Mormons together is wrong.

However, the assertion that this is just about the word "marriage" is equally wrong.

In Arkansas, no single person can now adopt. In Florida, the state cannot recognize gay marriage or anything offering the benefits of marriage.

That means no domestic partnerships, civil unions, anything. Same as in Michigan. Please tell me how this is not about taking rights away.

The idea that this just about defining words couldn't be more wrong.[/QUOTE]

It is rather comical that thrust and many others have tried to present this as the left taking away the rights of the religious or at least the left doing things that could make the religious think so when there has not been one single step taken to legally do so. Where as again as I stated on the other side we have seen many many many times the opposite, the far religious right taking away the rights of everyone that doesnt agree exactly with them. No one on the left is so stupid as to think this is every religious person(hell most of the political left are still Christians, if they wernt they wouldn't get elected)but it has to be a majority otherwise stupid things like prop 8 wouldnt pass. As I said in my previous post, till props like these stop passing thrusts theories on the subject are as big of a joke as his sources debunking global warming.
 
wow, i'm surprised to see so many of you are willing to become ignorant for a cause. you realize Obama is against same-sex marriage, right? Why aren't gays picketing his house, beating him up, boycotting anyone who supported his campaign, keying his car with expletives, calling him a hateful bigot? Weird, right? He's a lip-service politician that will say whatever people want to hear. "I support the gay community, but I vote Yes on 8". Hypocrite? I guess not.

so who's telling the facts? according to msi magnus the Yes on 8 ads were "disgusting and untrue." Really? How about the ad Jack O'connell, Superintendent of Public Education, blatantly lied to us about whether or not marriage is required to be taught in school. read this, and then tell me who's telling the truth. you should be furious as a citizen that top community leaders would lie to your face and not give you the facts just to get your vote. Whether you believe in Prop 8 or not, I think it's disgusting that anyone should use their power to lie to the public to lead the public astray. Now who's telling the truth?:

"(Jack) O'Connell's cleverly worded denials try to trick voters into thinking schools do not teach about marriage," said Chip White, press secretary for Yes on 8. "But for the 96% of public schools that teach sex education, state law requires them to teach about marriage."


The California Department of Education's own website says that 96 % of public schools provide instruction under the Comprehensive Sexual Health and HIV/AIDS Prevention Act (Educ. Code Sec. 51930, et seq.) and every school that provides instruction under that Act must provide instruction and materials that teach about marriage. Additionally, the Department of Education's own checklist for instruction under the Act confirms that instruction about marriage is required for the school district to be in compliance with state law.


"There is no foundation for O'Connell's untruthful statements that nothing in California law requires teaching about marriage," said Andrew Pugno, general counsel for Yes on 8. "The voters deserve to hear the truth. While O'Connell may personally favor gay marriage, as a public official it is his obligation to tell the truth about California's education laws."


The Yes on 8 campaign sent a letter to O'Connell yesterday demanding that he retract his misstatements. The letter, which can be seen here: http://protectmarriage.com/news/press-releases, identifies Education Code sections that demonstrate public schools do teach about marriage, at a rate of 96%.
"Perhaps if O'Connell spent less time making false statements in TV ads," said White, "he'd have more time to read his own website."
 
von551, they lie because they want all children to be gay. They just love the gays so much they want everybody to be gay.
 
[quote name='von551']He's a lip-service politician that will say whatever people want to hear. "I support the gay community, but I vote Yes on 8". Hypocrite? I guess not. [/quote]

:rofl:

Except that he openly opposed Proposition 8. Wump-wump. Everyone knows that he is for civil unions, and not using the constitution to take away people's rights, even when he doesn't agree.
 
[quote name='Hex']:rofl:

Except that he openly opposed Proposition 8. Wump-wump. Everyone knows that he is for civil unions, and not using the constitution to take away people's rights, even when he doesn't agree.[/QUOTE]

Using facts on someone that only understands stupidity. You might be a bigger time waster on the boards then me ;)
 
[quote name='von551']
so who's telling the facts? according to msi magnus the Yes on 8 ads were "disgusting and untrue." Really? How about the ad Jack O'connell, Superintendent of Public Education, blatantly lied to us about whether or not marriage is required to be taught in school. read this, and then tell me who's telling the truth.[/quote]

Will you please stop posting this bullshit?

Schools are required to teach about marriage. Parents in California can request their children be removed from any discussion they object to, including sex education and discussions about marriage.

The Yes on 8 campaign frequently repeated the lie that marriage is required to be taught to all California students. If parents object, you don't have to have your kid taught. It's that simple.

Furthermore, what they are required to teach about marriage is not defined.

According to the Yes on 8 people, the fact that gay marriage exists implies that gay people can get married and that is somehow "teaching gay marriage to kids."

Next, you'll be complaining that schools teach that gay people exist. Oh, the horror!

You should be furious as a citizen that top community leaders would lie to your face and not give you the facts just to get your vote. Whether you believe in Prop 8 or not, I think it's disgusting that anyone should use their power to lie to the public to lead the public astray. Now who's telling the truth?
Click to expand...

You should be furious that your leaders, religious and otherwise, have to resort to misleading, obfuscation, and outright lies in order to get your way.

I don't see anywhere in your stream of bullshit that parents who want to put their heads in the sand and deny that gay marriage exists (after they dragged their kids to Yes on 8 demonstrations) can simply opt out.

Kind of takes the wind out of your bluster, doesn't it? And it's a lie of omission.

And then you go accusing the other side of lying.

What lies would Jesus tell?
 
[quote name='blandstalker']Will you please stop posting this bullshit?

Schools are required to teach about marriage. Parents in California can request their children be removed from any discussion they object to, including sex education and discussions about marriage.

The Yes on 8 campaign frequently repeated the lie that marriage is required to be taught to all California students. If parents object, you don't have to have your kid taught. It's that simple.

Furthermore, what they are required to teach about marriage is not defined.

According to the Yes on 8 people, the fact that gay marriage exists implies that gay people can get married and that is somehow "teaching gay marriage to kids."

Next, you'll be complaining that schools teach that gay people exist. Oh, the horror!
[/quote]

Well, if schools do teach about marriage and omit gay marriage (once gay marriage is legalized), then people like you will be protesting that they are discriminating against gays and will want to force schools to teach gender neutral marriage just confusing the fuck out of most kids.

This is just another reason to avoid public schools and go to private ones, like I did... it's too bad that without vouchers they are not affordable for all people.
 
[quote name='BigT']just confusing the fuck out of most kids.[/quote]

You don't give kids enough credit. It's not a hard concept to understand. Using the retarded excuse that kids won't get it is like saying we shouldn't teach long division because some might have a hard time grasping it. :roll:
 
Is it really confusing at all? Now it's a man and a woman can get married, but not a man and a man or a woman and a woman. If you taught kids that two adults get married if they love one another, that would actually be simpler.

It would only be confusing if the schools taught one thing and the parents another. But that's really no different than a kid of a racist being taught that all people are equal, is it?
 
[quote name='Hex']You don't give kids enough credit. It's not a hard concept to understand. Using the retarded excuse that kids won't get it is like saying we shouldn't teach long division because some might have a hard time grasping it. :roll:[/quote]

By your answer, you imply that you would want the concept gay marriage taught in schools... :applause:

I'll stick with Christian private schools, thank you...
 
Coming from one of those schools that BigT is talking about, I can honestly say: "No, they actually make everything more confusing."

Next?
 
[quote name='BigT']By your answer, you imply that you would want the concept gay marriage taught in schools... :applause:

I'll stick with Christian private schools, thank you...[/QUOTE]

So your kid can end up like Sara Palins. Good job.
 
No, so they can end up like me... ;)

But private schools are getting up there in price: ~$4K/yr for K-8 and ~10K/yr for high school... there should be a tax credit for that!
 
[quote name='BigT']No, so they can end up like me... ;)

But private schools are getting up there in price: ~$4K/yr for K-8 and ~10K/yr for high school... there should be a tax credit for that![/QUOTE]

Ok so are you at least going to teach them sex ed and safe sex? It seems like as a Doctor you would know that an abstinence only approach which is what Christian schools teach is far inferior to the public school method.
 
[quote name='The Crotch']Now the banner ad wants me to meet gay couples. What the fuck? Is it telling me to have a threesome or something?[/QUOTE]

PM Sent
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']Ok so are you at least going to teach them sex ed and safe sex? It seems like as a Doctor you would know that an abstinence only approach which is what Christian schools teach is far inferior to the public school method.[/quote]

I've seen more STDs than a shot of ceftriaxone or a pill of azithromycin can fix... not to mention HIV/AIDS cases with horrible consequences (hey, it turns out our immune system is actually important!)... the prototypical patient is a homosexual male with h/o IV meth use coming in with poor HAART compliance and a nasty infection (take your pick: endocarditis, disseminated fungal infection, sepsis, etc...)

I believe the official teaching should be the ideal of abstinence... at least as a counterbalance to the messages set forth by pop culture... unfortunately, our society has degenerated into hedonism, homosexuality, and instant gratification... (few people have any sort of discipline because it is rarely rewarded)... it's OK to indulge in such vices, but one has to be ready to suffer the consequences... and I've seen a lot of them...
 
[quote name='BigT']II believe the official teaching should be the ideal of abstinence... at least as a counterbalance to the messages set forth by pop culture... unfortunately, our society has degenerated into hedonism, homosexuality, and instant gratification... (few people have any sort of discipline because it is rarely rewarded)... it's OK to indulge in such vices, but one has to be ready to suffer the consequences... and I've seen a lot of them...[/QUOTE]

It could also be argued that you're seeing these things *because* of abstinence-only education. Jesus kills.
 
[quote name='BigT']By your answer, you imply that you would want the concept gay marriage taught in schools... :applause:

I'll stick with Christian private schools, thank you...[/quote]

If you're gonna teach kids about hetero marriage, fucking -a right. You can't just stick you head in the sand and pretend we don't exist. :lol:

Sure, stick with private schools that teach illogical, non-pragmatic methods to sex education, and that a big man in the sky rules over everything. Good luck with that. :rofl: The rest of the world will move on around you.
 
[quote name='BigT']I've seen more STDs than a shot of ceftriaxone or a pill of azithromycin can fix... not to mention HIV/AIDS cases with horrible consequences (hey, it turns out our immune system is actually important!)... the prototypical patient is a homosexual male with h/o IV meth use coming in with poor HAART compliance and a nasty infection (take your pick: endocarditis, disseminated fungal infection, sepsis, etc...)

I believe the official teaching should be the ideal of abstinence... at least as a counterbalance to the messages set forth by pop culture... unfortunately, our society has degenerated into hedonism, homosexuality, and instant gratification... (few people have any sort of discipline because it is rarely rewarded)... it's OK to indulge in such vices, but one has to be ready to suffer the consequences... and I've seen a lot of them...[/QUOTE]

Ok in other words you believe that kids should be taught what public schools teach. That sex can cause all sorts of nasty stuff and thus you probably shouldn't do it till your in a seriously committed relationship....but if you must then at least use protection.

Also you can indulge in these vices if you do it in a smart way. For instance have a threesome but screen the people you sleep with. I am a freak and will openly admit it....but I am a smart freak!
 
Yeah, from what I remember, abstinence was taught when I was in public school, but we were also taught how to use condoms. I honestly don't think abstinence only education works anyway.
 
[quote name='docvinh']Yeah, from what I remember, abstinence was taught when I was in public school, but we were also taught how to use condoms. I honestly don't think abstinence only education works anyway.[/quote]

Anyone who thinks abstinence-only education works is, and yes I will go there, fucking stupid. They're burying their heads in the sand and ignoring human nature. Yes, even in those precious catholic schools, those hallowed halls of divinity.. the kids are still having sex.
 
[quote name='Hex']Anyone who thinks abstinence-only education works is, and yes I will go there, fucking stupid. They're burying their heads in the sand and ignoring human nature. Yes, even in those precious catholic schools, those hallowed halls of divinity.. the kids are still having sex.[/quote]

"worship thy rod and thy staff"
 
My ex and my current partner will agree, both being brought up strict Roman Catholic, that Catholicism is the S&M of Xianity...

Ironically, my ex love his MCC church, and my partner who is only 4 years younger than my ex, hates organized religion
 
[quote name='BigT']I've seen more STDs than a shot of ceftriaxone or a pill of azithromycin can fix... not to mention HIV/AIDS cases with horrible consequences (hey, it turns out our immune system is actually important!)... the prototypical patient is a homosexual male with h/o IV meth use coming in with poor HAART compliance and a nasty infection (take your pick: endocarditis, disseminated fungal infection, sepsis, etc...)

I believe the official teaching should be the ideal of abstinence... at least as a counterbalance to the messages set forth by pop culture... unfortunately, our society has degenerated into hedonism, homosexuality, and instant gratification... (few people have any sort of discipline because it is rarely rewarded)... it's OK to indulge in such vices, but one has to be ready to suffer the consequences... and I've seen a lot of them...[/QUOTE]

You sound so bitter and jaded.

Really, I just feel sorry for you.

What you condescendingly claim our "society has degenerated into" is really just a pessimistic view of our primal instincts. We're wired to survive, and we're wired to enjoy it.

Though that's a rather abstract point, your support of abstinence is pretty baseless. Countless studies have denounced abstinence-only sex ed and they've shown safer sex ed has a far greater effect. The very, very few studies supporting abstinence-only are rather biased groups that take data out of context to further their agenda. It's really no wonder teen pregnancy rates are highest in abstinence-only school districts after you look at the figures, yet people (especially people of faith) continue to look the other way and claim it's working. It's pretty ridiculous.

But yeah, your big problem is just that you sound painfully negative. Cheer the fuck up.
 
[quote name='HumanSnatcher']My ex and my current partner will agree, both being brought up strict Roman Catholic, that Catholicism is the S&M of Xianity...

Ironically, my ex love his MCC church, and my partner who is only 4 years younger than my ex, hates organized religion[/QUOTE]

Hell is bunk imo. I mean the concept of Hell more then anything smacks of trying to keep obedience of your citizens. Put a law in place and they break it...BAM! you're going to Hell.
 
[quote name='Sarang01']Hell is bunk imo. I mean the concept of Hell more then anything smacks of trying to keep obedience of your citizens. Put a law in place and they break it...BAM! you're going to Hell.[/quote]

I agree. I forget who said it but "hell is other people"
 
Funny thing is, if I believed in heaven, it would consist of lots of sex and techno.

Doesn't match up with Ned Flander's/Nintendouche/Von's idea of heaven though. Oh well, the concept is a fallacy to me anyway. :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top