Bush: No Sex Anytime - Page 5 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-25-2006, 08:12 PM   #61
ONE
love, blood, life
 
namkcuR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Kettering, Ohio
Posts: 10,288
Local Time: 09:21 PM
The danger is this: What if it goes further than the government simply 'suggesting' abstinance or 'looking out' for its people? What if the government decides that what's best for the people is that pre-marital sex should be outlawed? What if that's the kind of thing it leads to? And what if that sets a kind of precident that would lead to the government deciding it should regulate VIA LAW how many children people can have and who are fit to be parents? They have that in China AND IT'S CALLED COMMUNISM. I realize I'm stretching things but this is genuinely the concern that I have with this subject.

As for the subject itself: If you are in a commited, monogomous relationship with somebody, you are in a commited, monogomous relationship with somebody, whether or not there is a marriage license somewhere with your two signatures on it. That's the end of the discussion. Unmarried people love fully, married people love fully. Unmarried people cheat, married people cheat. Marriage doesn't change who people are, people change who people are, and the idea that two signatures on a marriage license makes everything safer and more wholsome is ridiculous.
__________________

__________________
namkcuR is offline  
Old 04-25-2006, 08:22 PM   #62
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 06:21 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
so let's preach safe sex and promote monogamy. i've never once had unprotected sex; i've never had an STD (nor gotten anyone pregnant). no one argues with this.

it's the "no sex before marriage" that gets people queasy because it implies a very specific moral code and a stringent standard of behavior that is both unrealistic and just a little bit fascist.

that's really the only place we disagree.
Thank you for cutting to the core issue without the hyperbole. No one suggest that marriage is the "perfect" solution.

It does seem that sensitivities are raised when government action involves sexual issues, as opposed to general health issues. On one hand, we do not want to see any further (beyond the suggestion of abstinence) intrusion by the government.

On the other, when the hand of government extends even further (such as in the realm of smoking), the tendency to agree with such additional limitations (since growing numbers enjoy smoke free environments), we tend to shrug off the claims of improper (fascist leaning) government action.
__________________

__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 04-25-2006, 08:26 PM   #63
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 09:21 PM
The next time someone's sperm and vaginal fluids splash all over a group of people at a restaurant, I'll agree that the two issues are comparable.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 04-25-2006, 08:29 PM   #64
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 09:21 PM
http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/ande...t-married.html

Quote:
Move or get married

Imagine you've bought your dream house. And you've moved in. Now, imagine being told you can't live there because you -- and your children -- are not considered a family. That's the situation facing Olivia Shelltrack, Fondrey Loving and their three kids in Black Jack, Missouri.

They moved from Minneapolis to the St. Louis suburb a couple of months ago. I visited them recently at their five-bedroom home. They told me Black Jack requires all homes to have an occupancy permit, but that they were denied one. They said they were told that because there are more than three people in their house, and not all are related by blood or marriage, they don't meet Black Jack's definition of a family.

As Black Jack's mayor, Norman McCourt, put it recently at a city council meeting: "It's overcrowding because it's not a single family. It's a single-family residence and they're not a single family."

Olivia and Fondrey aren't married and had two of their three children out of wedlock. The third child is Olivia's from a previous relationship. They appealed to the city's Board of Adjustment for an exemption, figuring it wouldn't be hard for anyone to see they're a real family. But they were denied. Olivia and Fondrey told me they came away from that meeting feeling like they were given a clear message: Get married or move.

"Just because we don't meet your definition of a family doesn't make us any less of a family. ... We've been together for 13 years. ... We're raising three kids together," Olivia said.

So the couple called the ACLU. That's when they discovered at least three other families have had this kind of trouble in Black Jack before. The ACLU showed CNN a letter it says it received from Mayor McCourt in 1999 explaining why another family was being denied an occupancy permit at the time.

"While it would be naive to say that we don't recognize that children are born out of wedlock frequently these days, we certainly don't believe that is the type of environment within which children should be brought into this world," the mayor wrote.

The city has issued a statement saying at least 89 municipalities in the St. Louis area have similar occupancy permit requirements. The ordinances are designed to eliminate boarding houses and illegal renting of rooms, but the city now admits its 20-year-old ordinance may not be in step with the times.

And after a public hearing scheduled for Thursday, Black Jack may soften the wording of its ordinance. If the ordinance isn't changed, the ACLU says it will sue the city, arguing it is violating federal fair housing rules and the constitutional right to privacy. In the meantime, all Shelltrack and Loving can do is hope the city won't force them to move.
Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 04-25-2006, 08:40 PM   #65
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,667
Local Time: 08:21 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


On one hand, we do not want to see any further (beyond the suggestion of abstinence) intrusion by the government.
The biggest problem with this "intrusion" as opposed to others is that this movement is actually a blockage of education. It's like allowing a person to drive once they hit the proper age, without ever going thru driver's ed...
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 04-25-2006, 08:58 PM   #66
Refugee
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: LA, California, USA
Posts: 1,349
Local Time: 02:21 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


The biggest problem with this "intrusion" as opposed to others is that this movement is actually a blockage of education. It's like allowing a person to drive once they hit the proper age, without ever going thru driver's ed...
Teacher: Don't drive until you're you're in a committed relationship with a dependable car. You'll get in an accident and die!
Student: What about seat-belts?
Teacher: Where did you hear about those?!? Those don't protect people all the time.
__________________
blueyedpoet is offline  
Old 04-26-2006, 10:27 AM   #67
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,475
Local Time: 09:21 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
On the other, when the hand of government extends even further (such as in the realm of smoking), the tendency to agree with such additional limitations (since growing numbers enjoy smoke free environments), we tend to shrug off the claims of improper (fascist leaning) government action.


i think Melon is right -- it's very difficult to compare smoking to sex, and when you do, it does come off as Puritanical. there are myriad benefits to a healthy, active sex life, whether one is married or not, but i've yet to see the benefits to smoking. further, sexual activity is conducted (most of the time) behind closed doors in the privacy of one's own home. no one suggests banning smoking at home, just in restaurants. and sexual activity isn't permitted in public spaces either. it's the difference between being empowered to destroy your own body if you want, but not to encroach on the rights of others (the right of others to have a smoke-free meal).
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-26-2006, 10:30 AM   #68
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,475
Local Time: 09:21 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


The biggest problem with this "intrusion" as opposed to others is that this movement is actually a blockage of education. It's like allowing a person to drive once they hit the proper age, without ever going thru driver's ed...


that's another good point. the resistance to abstinence-only programs (and even abstinence-first programs) is that they distort science and use fear to make their point while at the same time denying knowledge, and the result is that people have sex anyway but don't know how to protect themselves, or because they've been given crappy facts like "condoms fail 80% of the time!" they view the condom as worthless anyway.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-26-2006, 11:03 AM   #69
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 56,385
Local Time: 09:21 PM
i can see the headlines now...

Bush Says No To Bush
__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is online now  
Old 04-26-2006, 11:34 AM   #70
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 02:21 AM
That makes me furious about that couple in St. Louis. The government is, quite literally, in their bedroom snooping into their internal affairs. My own sister, who is divorced, lives with her boyfriend. They have chosen not to marry. Susan got burned with her marriage and I think she thinks that that piece of paper is superfluous. She and her boyfriend are happy with their relationship the way it is. I do not always agree with the ACLU, but I agree with them on this.

*edited because I'm distracted with Turkey packing and I made a really stupid mistake*
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 04-26-2006, 02:17 PM   #71
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 06:21 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511

that's another good point. the resistance to abstinence-only programs (and even abstinence-first programs) is that they distort science and use fear to make their point while at the same time denying knowledge, and the result is that people have sex anyway but don't know how to protect themselves, or because they've been given crappy facts like "condoms fail 80% of the time!" they view the condom as worthless anyway.
Great examples and arguments to make sure abstinence programs are accurate
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 04-26-2006, 02:30 PM   #72
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,475
Local Time: 09:21 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


Great examples and arguments to make sure abstinence programs are accurate


but they aren't, and they are that way intentionally because depend upon such inaccuracies in order to discredit safe sex. i think virtually all public school sex ed programs are pretty much abstinence first, but where they fall under criticism from right wing social conservatives is when they teach contraception and safer sex because this is seen as "promoting" sex before marriage. this is the issue. nothing is wrong with abstinence. it's "Abstinence Only" that gets people like me crazy for a variety of reasons.

and while STDs are quite unpleasant, they generally aren't at all life-threatening, excluding AIDS. most STDs are treated in a doctor's office and might require some perscription medication, but it's completely incomparable to things like lung cancer. while AIDS is a different story, the vast majority of people do not have HIV, even amongst the highest risk groups out there (IV drug users, urban gay men, black women) and their numbers pale in comparison to the people who die from cancer due to smoking or eating fatty foods.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-26-2006, 02:34 PM   #73
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,475
Local Time: 09:21 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Headache in a Suitcase
i can see the headlines now...

Bush Says No To Bush


or, Bush Says No To Dick

(which has never happened before, but we can all hope ...)

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-26-2006, 04:22 PM   #74
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,979
Local Time: 09:21 PM
Best argument for condoms and/or abstinence that I've ever seen

__________________

__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:21 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com