Your Political Affiliation

[BogartSlap]

look closely and you'll see

i did not see a poll option for "I'm a dom and (mostly) convinced that most politicians would sell me down the river in a heartbeat. I distrust nearly all politicians roughly regardless of political affiliation."

You have to read between the lines.

 

[Zinfandel]

Well, the panel of physicians that compiled a report for the Canadian government addressing that issue disagree with you - specifically stating that a probable consequence of legalizing homosexual marriage would be a significant increase in public health risks.

Since I'm not familiar with this report, could you please explain to me what reasoning this panel used to conclude that legalizing homosexual marriage would significantly increase public health risks? Because it doesn't make any intuitive sense to me, for the following reasons:

1) It would seem to make sense that individuals who have committed to one another in marriage would tend to be more monogamous than unmarried individuals.

2) Many currently unmarried homosexual couples already live, for all intents and purposes, as married couples.

So how does the availability of marriage somehow increase public health risks??

 

[Zinfandel]

You know, for at least 35 years now, people have been insisting, "We need more sex education!". And for that same time period, we have indeed spent ever-increasing billions of dollars providing more sex education. Also over that same time period, STD rates and out-of-wedlock births have soared to levels that dwarf the incidence of those things BEFORE we spent all that money. Just a crazy thought, but gee, is it possible that "spend more money on sex education" isn't the solution?
Nahhh...silly me...forget I mentioned it. Don't know what I was thinking.

Teenage pregnancy has actually declined significantly over the past 15 or so years. From the 2006 report by the Guttmacher Institute on US teenage pregnancy:

"Between 1988 and 2000, teenage pregnancy rates declined in every state and in the District of Columbia."

And, in fact, the pregnancy rate among women aged 15-19 has been significantly lower over the past 10 years than it was in the early 1970's (or roughly 35 years ago).

So maybe sex education IS doing some good.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/2006/09/12/USTPstats.pdf

 

[BogartSlap]

rolling along

"

Teenage pregnancy has actually declined significantly over the past 15 or so years."

True enough. But a significant part of that decline is attributed to:
1 - increase in the number of teenage girls practicing abstinence (let's see everybody here who vigorously supports abstinence-focused sex ed...hm, looks like...nobody?)
2 - decrease in male sperm counts (this gets into a whole different arena of how we're poisoning ourselves environmentally)
3 - improved hormonal technology in primary birth control methods
Nonetheless, point taken.

"So maybe sex education IS doing some good."

I'll grant that it's doing "some" good, but, let me put it this way: If I had an illness for which I'd been taking a medication for 35 years - doubling the dosage over and over again along the way, hoping for better results - and it wasn't working any better than increased sex education seems to be working to address sex-related problems in our society, I'd probably start to have serious doubts about the effectiveness of the medication for treating my illness.

 

[BogartSlap]

contd

The problem with sex-ed, as it currently exists in our school system, is that - pretty much like everything else in our school system - it's taught in a moral vacuum, and heavily laden with political correctness. For example, despite the fact that even pioneering gay rights activists have long since 'fessed up to the fact that the chant of "10 per cent of the population is homosexual" was pure propaganda bullshit, texts like "One in Every Ten Teenagers" still proliferate in sex-ed curriculums. And, again, the information is delivered in a moral vacuum in which, if any "guidance" at all is given, it's something like, "You should wait to have sex until you meet someone that you genuinely love, and are in committed relationship with". Christ, that wouldn't have stopped me from having sex with my second-grade girlfriend!

 

[BogartSlap]

why start off by lying?

...which sort of (admittedly, only sort of) circles back round to my general skepticism on the homosexual rights agenda to begin with. (Then again, I'm skeptical about most everything, so...)
The 10% Myth - while I will give polite applause to gay rights activists for having finally, publicly 'fessed up to the fact that the myth that 10% of the population is homosexual was, from the very beginning, nothing but deliberately calculated false propaganda designed to make people more accepting of the gay community, such a move still disturbs me. I have to question, if a group genuinely believes that they have a legitimate agenda to advance, why they'd feel compelled to lie about it right from the get-go in order to sell it to the rest of the public. Generally speaking, when someone not merely "bends the facts a bit", but fabricates pure, 100% bullshit out of thin air, in an attempt to make their case for something, it's a pretty good sign that even THEY don't really believe they have a legitimate case to make.

 

[midwestyankee]

<snip>

Generally speaking, when someone not merely "bends the facts a bit", but fabricates pure, 100% bullshit out of thin air, in an attempt to make their case for something, it's a pretty good sign that even THEY don't really believe they have a legitimate case to make.

You mean like all those times that Dick Cheney claimed that Saddam Hussein was behind the September 11 attacks and that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction despite a complete failure by our troops and the U. N. inspectors to find any?

 

[BogartSlap]

Flunking Debate 101

You mean like all those times that Dick Cheney claimed that Saddam Hussein was behind the September 11 attacks and that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction despite a complete failure by our troops and the U. N. inspectors to find any?

So, let me see if I follow your tactic here - Attempt to minimize or obfuscate the wrongdoing of party "A" by pointing to wrongdoing of party "B". Hm...isn't that about on the level of a 4-year-old? "Billy, it was wrong for you to lie." (Billy points finger and yells) "She did it, too!".

 

[midwestyankee]

So, let me see if I follow your tactic here - Attempt to minimize or obfuscate the wrongdoing of party "A" by pointing to wrongdoing of party "B". Hm...isn't that about on the level of a 4-year-old? "Billy, it was wrong for you to lie." (Billy points finger and yells) "She did it, too!".

Not at all. I just happened to notice a similarity between the pattern of behavior that you decried in the actions of those of whom you disapprove and the actions of people whom you apparently follow. I thought that it might move this thread in a different but equally political direction.

 

[BogartSlap]

When did I start following Dick Cheney around?

Not at all. I just happened to notice a similarity between the pattern of behavior that you decried in the actions of those of whom you disapprove and the actions of people whom you apparently follow. I thought that it might move this thread in a different but equally political direction.

See subject line above.

 

[Netzach]

I find it really ironic that health issues are being brought up by people arguing against gay marriage.

I moved to Manhattan as a young adult in 1984. Back then, AIDS was the "gay disease" and hardly anybody outside of NY was even paying attention.

Local NYC TV news would show interviews with the neighbors of heroin addicts shaking their heads and talking about God's punishment for the wicked. But down in the Village, the reporters found activists handing out pamphlets and condoms and organizing clinics as fast as they possibly could.

I remember thinking how surreal it felt to see so many people getting sick and even dying, when the Federal government just sat on its hands. Especially since around the same time a couple dozen women died of toxic shock syndrome and all of a sudden every GYN in the nation was handing out pamphlets on the subject. There were public health announcements all over the place on TV, radio, buses and trains.

But AIDS was for gays and drug users and the public at large just didn't care.

It wasn't until Rock Hudson announced that he had AIDs that people finally started to pay attention, but even that mostly had to do with the fact that he had been filmed kissing Linda Evans the prior year on Dynasty. Everybody suddenly developed a salacious interest in how the disease was transmitted. It wasn't until hetero-stud Magic Johnson was diagnosed that most people really sat up and took notice.

I don't know very many ultra-religious people, but I do unfortunately know a lot of people who are "yucked-out" about the idea of gay sex. These people say they are worried that if the government legalizes gay marriage then that will "send a message" to children that it is OK to be gay.

They are worried about the spread of the "gay disease" but this time they don't mean AIDS. They mean being gay itself.

Yeah, I was about 10 or 11 and GRID was showing up on the news. I remember looking to my stepdad with concern and he told me "you'll never catch that, don't worry about it." By the time I was sexually active, latex was simply a de-rigeur part of gettin' it on. It didn't occur to me to make it a giant moral issue, more like going out in the rain with your boots on or wearing sunblock.

 

[Netzach]

It never occurs to me to say that the men whose characteristics and sexual practices I find appealing should be the only ones allowed to get married.

Whoa. This sounds pretty good actually.

 

[Netzach]

You know, for at least 35 years now, people have been insisting, "We need more sex education!". And for that same time period, we have indeed spent ever-increasing billions of dollars providing more sex education. Also over that same time period, STD rates and out-of-wedlock births have soared to levels that dwarf the incidence of those things BEFORE we spent all that money. Just a crazy thought, but gee, is it possible that "spend more money on sex education" isn't the solution?
Nahhh...silly me...forget I mentioned it. Don't know what I was thinking.

No. Let's spend more money on "abstinence based" programs. Seems that an overwhelming # of kids taking "the pledge" are engaged in unprotected anal and oral. Oh they're hetero and xtian, too. It's all about the loopholes.

 

[Netzach]

The problem with sex-ed, as it currently exists in our school system, is that - pretty much like everything else in our school system - it's taught in a moral vacuum, and heavily laden with political correctness. For example, despite the fact that even pioneering gay rights activists have long since 'fessed up to the fact that the chant of "10 per cent of the population is homosexual" was pure propaganda bullshit, texts like "One in Every Ten Teenagers" still proliferate in sex-ed curriculums. And, again, the information is delivered in a moral vacuum in which, if any "guidance" at all is given, it's something like, "You should wait to have sex until you meet someone that you genuinely love, and are in committed relationship with". Christ, that wouldn't have stopped me from having sex with my second-grade girlfriend!

Pretty much held me back till I was 19. Also having to worry a lot more about my Latin final than whether I was getting laid. It's be great to leave morality out of it altogether and throw enough info at people and the critical thinking skills they need to draw conclusions.

 

[Netzach]

So, let me see if I follow your tactic here - Attempt to minimize or obfuscate the wrongdoing of party "A" by pointing to wrongdoing of party "B". Hm...isn't that about on the level of a 4-year-old? "Billy, it was wrong for you to lie." (Billy points finger and yells) "She did it, too!".

How about it doesn't matter if you are .5 percent of the population.

You still live here.

Since our definitions of equality and level playing field differ so radically as to be meaningless this will be lost on you.

But Hitler was the result of what the majority thought was best.

 

[Netzach]

Still is, pretty much - you subtract gays, IV drug users, and people who've had sex with gays or IV drug users, and you've eliminated somewhere between 90 and 99 per cent of all AIDS cases.

And then the people who had sex with them.

And then the people who had sex with them.

And then the people who had sex with them.

Oh, that's quite a few people now isn't it?

I'm not an epidemiologist, but you don't have to be Einstein.

 

[BogartSlap]

Just a question - are you insane?

But Hitler was the result of what the majority thought was best.

So, you favor minority rule over majority rule??? (those ARE the only two alternatives, you know)
Please tell me I'm wrong about this.

 

[BogartSlap]

That's it!

Pretty much held me back till I was 19. Also having to worry a lot more about my Latin final than whether I was getting laid. It's be great to leave morality out of it altogether and throw enough info at people and the critical thinking skills they need to draw conclusions.

Well, you may have hit upon the solution. I've suspected for some time that the study of Latin is an immeasurable aid in helping people restrain themselves from promiscuity, especially during their teens. Unfortunately, this groundbreaking theory has been left largely unexplored since the initial promising studies reported by Romulus and Remus in the Journal of Linguistic Medicine.
So, that's it then - cut the sex-ed curriculum in half, and replace it with required courses in Latin.

 

[Netzach]

So, you favor minority rule over majority rule??? (those ARE the only two alternatives, you know)
Please tell me I'm wrong about this.

No they're really not. Interesting spin, but no, I am not in favor of minority rule either.

Democratic rule with fixed laws that protect unpopular people's human rights from idiotic neighbors would be a good layman's description, and pretty much how democratic societies function without turning into mobs. A majority checked by ethics. Not some pseudo moral religious BS in the guise of ethics. Not just "whatever most of you think is right" but "what's right according to a few basic shared agreements like a sense of equality, whoever you are."

 

[Netzach]

Well, you may have hit upon the solution. I've suspected for some time that the study of Latin is an immeasurable aid in helping people restrain themselves from promiscuity, especially during their teens. Unfortunately, this groundbreaking theory has been left largely unexplored since the initial promising studies reported by Romulus and Remus in the Journal of Linguistic Medicine.
So, that's it then - cut the sex-ed curriculum in half, and replace it with required courses in Latin.

I don't know. I do think that curriculum should be more important than "don't fuck" or "fuck with rubbers." Obviously this is less important when people have a cosmetic issue to freak out over. Big newsflash - teens fuck. They've been doing it for centuries, and believe me "abstinence education" has had its day in the sun and didn't stop the problem.

 

[BogartSlap]

here's the news

"

...Big newsflash - teens fuck."

Actually, that's not a newsflash - I've been a teenager.

"..."abstinence education" has had its day in the sun and didn't stop the problem."

While abstinence-focused sex ed does not "stop" the problem, it certainly seems to help alleviate the problem. Nearly all comparative studies show that teens taking abstinence-based sex ed courses are roughly 50% less likely to begin having sex through age 18, and (for girls obviously) 50% less likely to become pregnant - as compared to "information only/value neutral" sex ed programs, which show virtually no discernible effect at all on teen sexual activity.

 

[BogartSlap]

beats me

Frankly, I have to admit that I'm mystified as to precisely HOW abstinence-based sex ed programs achieve such effectiveness. When I was a teenager, my likely response to someone suggesting, "just abstain", would have been a puzzled expression that roughly translated as, "You're kidding, right?".
But apparently they say SOMEthing in those classes that has a significant effect on the behavior of significant numbers of teens.

 

[help_me_Rhonda]

"I'm not a dom, sub, or switch, but I like voting in polls."

 

[Oubliette123]

I am a sub and an activist.

Now you got me analysing it

 

[Stella_Omega]

"

...Big newsflash - teens fuck."

Actually, that's not a newsflash - I've been a teenager.

"..."abstinence education" has had its day in the sun and didn't stop the problem."

While abstinence-focused sex ed does not "stop" the problem, it certainly seems to help alleviate the problem. Nearly all comparative studies show that teens taking abstinence-based sex ed courses are roughly 50% less likely to begin having sex through age 18, and (for girls obviously) 50% less likely to become pregnant - as compared to "information only/value neutral" sex ed programs, which show virtually no discernible effect at all on teen sexual activity.

Teen sex is a problem? I disagree with that. It's no more a problem than teen driving is, or teen dancing, or teens falling in love. Who the fuck are you to decide what birthday makes them old enough to fuck?

Abstinence Only teens who do engage in sex are far more likely to do so without protection. The pregnancy rate soars, as does HIV and other STDs.

Informational programs keep kids safer from STDs, and from unwanted pregnancy.