Keep It In Your Pants Until You're Married

I bet he wasn't a virgin when he got married. How many of the religious right preach this abstinence stuff to others and didn't do it themself.

Now we can't give the shot to young women to prevent, I believe cervical cancer, because it might make them more promiscous. Has history has shown that medical research for women has always lagged behind that for men?

What a bunch of blind fake religious crap.

 

It really is pathetic.

 

Boy, I agree but I wonder if it is all religious motivated? When I grew up the Catholic church among other religions preached sex was for procreation, given that idea unless your intention is a child, all sex should be prohibited. That changed of course and now sex is considered a wonderful gift. The irony in Bush's and the religious right's position is if they were really concerned with life, they would help feed, provide healthcare, adopt, and even provide education on preventive measures. Abstinence is just another slogan for the naive, another excuse for doing nothing really meaningful.

 

I disagree.

The best way not to get AIDS through sexual contact is to simply not have sex.

That doesn't mean, of course, that you don't teach about safe-sex and other preventative measures to prevent AIDS when people are sexually active. You definitely should.

However, the idea is to prevent AIDS.

By saying that abstinence should not be an option at all because of morality, you are essentially imposing your own morality on what is acceptable human behavior - don't preach to others - by denying an option that is the single best way to prevent the spread of the disease.

And this is about halting the spread of the disease, not imposing a morality on others.

 

Yea but don't you then grow hair on your hand or go insane. Millions of years of evolution argue against easy answers.

http://www.askmen.com/love/love_tip_300/374_love_tip.html

 

Sex wouldn't feel as great as it does if it were only intended to pro-create.

I refuse to believe that a man and woman's insatiable desire to feel the physical gratification of sex was only originally intended to benefit pro-creation. It's one of the most powerful driving forces in the world.

Even before there were such suggestive things as TV, advertisements, porn, all the "sex sells" things, what have you, there were people working JUST AS HARD to achieve the joys of physical sexual gratification, so THAT argument doesn't hold much weight either.

And when 1 out of 2 marriages ends up in divorce these days anyway, what's the point of waiting until marriage?

 

That's not correct.... because Bush's programs are "abstinence only" and those programs don't work. (please don't make me find the links again).

People have sex... they need to learn SAFE SEX. Bush's abstinence only programs are dangerous.

And the reason for it, from day one when he withdrew funding from any organization that taught about reproductive choice, has been and continues to be to pander to the religious right.

 

Don't worry, the religious right may very well never again be as influential a player in US politics as it has been in the past.

 

Thank heaven.

 

The religious right completely skewered the ideology of conservatism, and the Bush administration, particularly Rove, put the final nail in the coffin by using the religious right to their own advantage.

Conservatism, whether you agree with the ideology or not, hasn't NEARLY the meaning it had before this administration.

And as long as people think that being a conservative means you must adhere to the status-quo, it will CONTINUE to be a minority ideology. Because the status-quo these days...well...SUCKS.