Bush: No Sex Anytime

[nbcrusader]

The Government does not advocate abstinence from driving.

It says if you are going to drive
- do it as safely as possible.


There are some that believe the internal combustion engine
is a sin against humanity and the God's green earth.

And they may choose to abstain from driving. God bless them and God Bless America.

The government bans (and even criminalizes) plenty of behaviors - not just doing it safely.

 

[deep]

The government bans (and even criminalizes) plenty of behaviors - not just doing it safely.

What do you mean?

Could you elaborate?

 

[blueyedpoet]

Deep, I need a cigarette too.
If I were to write something about eating out (In-N-Out for those who live in California), would that be too obvious and easy of a pun?

 

[nbcrusader]

The FDA controls just one branch of these controls over personal behavior.

Laws, rules and regulations come from all corners of government - federal, state and local.

Why can't you jump of the pier?

 

[deep]

Why can't you jump off the pier?

To advocate abstaining from jumping off a public pier is not unreasonable.

 

[nbcrusader]

You just made W's case.

 

[melon]

If people want to jump off the pier, I really could care less.

Melon

 

[A_Wanderer]

The FDA controls just one branch of these controls over personal behavior.

Laws, rules and regulations come from all corners of government - federal, state and local.

Why can't you jump of the pier?

Shouldn't be any reason not to, suicide should be a right.

 

[deep]

You just made W's case.

How so?




To advocate abstaining from driving
is as legitimate as advocating abstaining from sex.

Actually abstaining from sex, over a lifetime,
is more detrimental to an individual than abstaining from driving.

 

[nbcrusader]

Actually abstaining from sex, over a lifetime,
is more detrimental to an individual than abstaining from driving.

That is unrelated to the question. It is also the imposition of a value judgment on someone else.

 

[Irvine511]

You just made W's case.

and his case is that of nanny-state morality -- we know what's best for you, poor dear, therefore we're going to regulate your personal behavior and impose our morals upon you.

let's continue by requiring people who want to be parents to attain a parenting license. they should have to take parenting classes, undergo psychological evaluation, have their living situation observed by a trained government professional, and then submit their application to the relevant government agency. after all, there are enormous social costs to bad parenting -- we need to make sure that only those we deem acceptable to be parents, those who hold our shared moral values, actually become parents.

but god forbid we impose any sort of government regulations on big business!

 

[MsGiggles]

let's continue by requiring people who want to be parents to attain a parenting license. they should have to take parenting classes, undergo psychological evaluation, have their living situation observed by a trained government professional, and then submit their application to the relevant government agency. after all, there are enormous social costs to bad parenting -- we need to make sure that only those we deem acceptable to be parents, those who hold our shared moral values, actually become parents.

but god forbid we impose any sort of government regulations on big business!

I think that would be a fabulous idea....but if you fail parenting class then what? You have to pass driving classes and an exam before getting your driving license - why not develop some kind of education before getting a marriage license - then maybe the divorce rate wouldn't be at 50%

 

[BrownEyedBoy]

I think you guys are making too much of an issue out of this. Ideally, you should wait ´till marriage (that way you can prevent STD´s, unwanted pregnancies, etc.). If you don´t, then that´s your problem. I don´t see how the government is cornering anyone here.

 

[nbcrusader]

and his case is that of nanny-state morality -- we know what's best for you, poor dear, therefore we're going to regulate your personal behavior and impose our morals upon you.

let's continue by requiring people who want to be parents to attain a parenting license. they should have to take parenting classes, undergo psychological evaluation, have their living situation observed by a trained government professional, and then submit their application to the relevant government agency. after all, there are enormous social costs to bad parenting -- we need to make sure that only those we deem acceptable to be parents, those who hold our shared moral values, actually become parents.

but god forbid we impose any sort of government regulations on big business!

What about the current "nanny state" we live in? You could fill book shelf after book shelf with the laws, rules and regulations that shape, control, influence, direct, punish and prevent individual life choices.

And "big business" (when does it become "big" by the way?) has even more rules and regulations to follow.

Starting a business or opening a store is no easy task in today's regulatory framework.

 

[yolland]

I wasn't under the impression that abstinence-only curricula are all that widespread nationally....?

 

[nbcrusader]

I wasn't under the impression that abstinence-only curricula are all that widespread nationally....?

I'm not sure it is.

But I can recall many instances over the past 20 years (in casual conversation) when people have been horrified that it would be taught, even on a non-exclusive basis.

 

[Irvine511]

What about the current "nanny state" we live in? You could fill book shelf after book shelf with the laws, rules and regulations that shape, control, influence, direct, punish and prevent individual life choices.

And "big business" (when does it become "big" by the way?) has even more rules and regulations to follow.

Starting a business or opening a store is no easy task in today's regulatory framework.

yes, we can fill a book with such apparent discrepancies -- if you're going to argue that we should discourage any and all sexual activity before marriage because it harms us as a society, not only are you going to have to make that case, but you're also going to have to make that case in comparison to the million-and-one other things that we are free to do that harm us.

can you really prove to me that sexual activity before marriage is more harmful than fast food consumption?

why do we not have government-sponsored campaigns not just aimed at eating healthy foods, but actively discouraging the consumption of food by specific manufacturers?

and there, i think, is the difference. it is well and good to advocate *responsible* sexuality, just as it is well and good to advocate *responsible* eating habits. however, we all get into big trouble when we do more than advocate healthy behavior (or outlaw specific behavior that clearly and directly harms another indivdiual, such as sex with a minor) and start telling people when and where they are permitted to engage in such behaviors.

we don't outlaw motorcycles; but we do have helmet laws.

we don't outlaw non-procreative sex; but we do have safe sex campaigns.

seems perfectly sensible to me. and is it at all even remotely possible to regulate/outlaw sexual behavior? just how would you go about enforcing such laws?

i really don't think that you can equate behavior such as committing suicide or even doing drugs with sexual behavior. if two consenting adults have responsible sex, no one is harmed. if anything, a relationship is strengthened, sexual frustration is relieved, and someone has another reason to get up in the morning. with committing suicide, someone dies. with doing drugs, even steroids, measurable physical harm is done to the body (though some drugs are slippery, since much of their detrimental effect upon society is more becuase of their illegality than the actual physical harm they do).

 

[Irvine511]

I wasn't under the impression that abstinence-only curricula are all that widespread nationally....?

[q]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 sexually 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 sex. 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 sex 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.

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

[/q]

 

[nbcrusader]

This isn't a matter of outlawing sex before marriage - just discouraging such behavior.

Eating a cheeseburger and fries once is harmless - a repeated pattern has negative health affects.

A pattern of sexual activity outside of marriage has increased risk of STD and/or unwanted pregnancy.

Discouraging risky behavior has grown into a core function of government (check out all the warning labels). Extending that to sex does not seem unreasonable.

 

[Irvine511]

This isn't a matter of outlawing sex before marriage - just discouraging such behavior.

Eating a cheeseburger and fries once is harmless - a repeated pattern has negative health affects.

A pattern of sexual activity outside of marriage has increased risk of STD and/or unwanted pregnancy.

Discouraging risky behavior has grown into a core function of government (check out all the warning labels). Extending that to sex does not seem unreasonable.

well, i'm not in a position to get married, so i suppose i'm to remain celibate? what about those who are in committed adult relationships but choose not to get married?

the problem i'm having is not with educating people about the dangers inherent to sexual activity and then steps one can take (including abstinence) to reduce such risks; the problem i'm having is that you seem to be advocating the designation of a single acceptable place to ever have sexual intercourse: marriage.

protected sexual activity outside of marriage does not result in increased risk of an STD and/or unwanted pregnancy.

a friend of mine just got married. now, they are having an unwanted pregnancy.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

so if i go on a no sex drought, i can just blame bush now. sweeet.

 

[blueyedpoet]

so if i go on a no sex drought, i can just blame bush now. sweeet.

I need to let my friend know that. Such a great excuse.

 

[blueyedpoet]

damn, I didnt realize I had my 1000 post several posts ago...yay me.

 

[BVS]

a friend of mine just got married. now, they are having an unwanted pregnancy.

But that's the moral way to do it!

Government doesn't care once you're married.

 

[deep]

A pattern of sexual activity outside of marriage has increased risk of STD and/or unwanted pregnancy.

This is absurd.

There is no basis in fact for this judgement.

 

[nbcrusader]

This is absurd.

There is no basis in fact for this judgement.

You're right. STD's are just made up.

 

[BVS]

You're right. STD's are just made up.

No but pretending that marriage is the super condom that will protect you from everything is ridiculous.

What's the difference between a safe monogomous relationship outside of marriage and one inside of marriage?

 

[deep]

Promiscuity (unprotected sex) can increase potential for STDs.

Monogamy lowers risk. (With or without marriage.)

Sex in and outside of marriage, can lead to unwanted pregnancies.



Sex in and outside of marriage, can lead to wanted pregnancies.

 

[Irvine511]

You're right. STD's are just made up.

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.

 

[blueyedpoet]

WHATEVA
I mention that I've reached the 1000 post mark and all you guys can do is talk about matters like STDs, teenage pregnancy, fascism, Bushism (but I repeat myself), as if those issues matter.