Christian Group has bank account removed due to "unacceptable views"

I've raised the points you have reraised a while back. It is bad sport to disappear from an argument, only to reappear with the same position later as if it were unchallenged. 1) The point in question is changing the qualification. Thus what qualifications have been in the past is moot.2) In principle and in reality gays have AT THIS POINT IN TIME the ability to "have" children in just the same way as infertile hetero couples. You can call it "aping" as much as you want but the infertile couple has the same status in principle and reality as a gay couple. Historically they didn't because of our lack of knowledge and technology regarding childbirth... that has changed, opening up the comparison and raising the question. 3) Why is this so? How have you reached this conclusion?4) Even if so, that does not undermine the argument for gay marriage. In fact it argues for gay marriage in that it will bring more relationships into order, and it certainly cannot force heteros out of order. Thus more order is founded in society. I honestly have not heard of one civilization that fell due to changing marriage laws or customs. Have you? What are they? You know what else is a rare occurence both historically and crossculturally? Societies crumbling when they change their marriage laws and customs. That's a joke of a nonargument that's always trotted out. Indeed it certainly was when miscegenation prohibitions were being lifted. "IF" we live to experience it??? I thought you were describing the Bush administration.Let's see, trashing marriage (by making it a set definition incapable of change beyond fundie Xian)... check. Growing poverty... check. Burdened single parents and grandparents... check. Alienated younger generation... perhaps two checks. Growing sexually transmitted diseases (due to abstinence only education and reversal of contraceptive aid to impoverished nations)... check.Gosh, maybe Bush has a "gay agenda" after all. It's certainly looked queer to me.This message has been edited by holmes, 07-04-2005 07:04 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Did you raise them in answer to me or in some other context? I've certainly had to answer the same old same olds more than once. Certainly the same position keeps coming up against me as if I'd never said a word. That's life on a message board seems to me. Moot? A universal custom is MOOT? That is WHY I emphasize that we're talking about a principle of heterosexuality. In that case so does a "couple" under the age of oh eight or nine. So does a hetero couple over the age of sixty. In the first case, as with gays, they are not qualified for marriage, and in the second case, cultures nevertheless recognize their heterosexuality apart from their childbearing capacity and until recently required them to marry.Things have changed and quite recently too, which is your point, and this clouds the issues involved, but historically marriage was a protection for women and children. Even in the most gay-oriented societies the idea of marriage was never considered except in the silly way demonstrated by Nero as far as I know, or in some utterly anomalous fringe groups. It's ludicrous. There is no purpose for it. With two men there is no need to protect either one of them, and with two women neither is being protected in principle, or their children in any case. The protection idea is irrelevant in today's circumstances anyway, but it demonstrates the purpose of marriage and gays don't qualify. They don't need marriage to protect their nonexistent childbearing capacity or their ability to adopt or have children some other way. The principle remains: NATURALLY men and women have children together, at least in principle, and two of the same sex simply do not. Legalizing/sanctifying the NATURAL heterosexual union is the purpose of marriage. See above. Being able to imitate it doesn't qualify it for marriage which has the purpose of legitimizing the NATURAL function. I have no answer for this. It's something I think should be obvious upon serious reflection. The order I'm talking about is the legitimization of the *natural* order. No, what we have been doing with our general widespread trashing of marriage over the last half century is absolutely unique in history I believe. That's because it doesn't happen. The changes of the last few decades are unique. As I already pointed out, that idea was an extremely limited situation, and again, the principle that underlies marriage throughout all time and all cultures is heterosexuality. Over half the nation voted for Bush. Remarkable how the "people" of the nation are described as if we didn't even exist. The "younger generation" only includes leftists, right? Others don't exist. Christians don't exist, we just don't count. Why don't you line us up and shoot us, then you can have the America YOU want without the bother of people who disagree with you. Ted Kennedy says "the people" will expect "them" to counter Bush's judicial nominees, as if We The People who voted for him and want a fair and honest justice chosen for a change didn't even exist. Oh right, abstinence-only education causes STDs. Right. Mind like a steel trap there.This message has been edited by Faith, 07-04-2005 08:03 AM

quote:

---

Moot? A universal custom is MOOT?

---

So you have no argument with Polygamy?

quote:

---

It's something I think should be obvious upon serious reflection.

---

After serious reflection, it's not obvious, you need to outline the elements that are obvious.

quote:

---

Oh right, abstinence-only education causes STDs.

---

That could well be the case.

The argument against polygamy is a separate argument. The point with respect to gays is heterosexuality and historically that haas included some polygamy. Western civilization under the influence of the Bible has rejected polygamy, rightly. When God gave Eve to Adam he established the principle of monogamy.What I've said about the growing chaos as a result of the sexual freedom of the last few decades which includes many varieties of the demeaning of marriage already ought to show the basic ordering function of marriage.Sorry, promiscuous sex causes STDs, not abstinence or abstinence education. Blame the cure. Smart.This message has been edited by Faith, 07-04-2005 08:12 AM

quote:

---

Sorry, promiscuous sex causes STDs, not abstinence or abstinence education.

---

Sorry Abstinece education have little or no effect in reducing STD infection rates....

quote:

---

Many abstinence programs include "Virginity Pledges," whereby teens sign cards promising to remain virgins until they are married. While data suggests that under limited circumstances, teens who sign a pledge may delay sexual intercourse, 88 percent still have sex before marriage. Recent research also shows that pledgers' rate of STDs does not differ from the rate of nonpledgers because pledgers are less likely to use condoms at first intercourse or to be tested for STDs.

---

H. Brckner and P. Bearman, "After the promise: the STD consequences of adolescent virginity pledges," Journal of Adolescent Health, 36 (2005) 271-278.

quote:

---

A recent review of program evaluations in 11 states (AZ, CA FL, IA, MD, MN, MO, NE, OR, PA, WA) indicates that after participating in abstinence-only programs, teens are less willing to use contraception, including condoms. And in only one state, did any program demonstrate any success in delaying the initiation of sex.

---

D. Hauser, Five Years of Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Education: Assessing the Impact, Advocates for Youth, September 2004.

quote:

---

More than 80 percent of the abstinence-only curricula reviewed contain false, misleading, or distorted information about reproductive health. The curricula reviewed misrepresent the effectiveness of contraceptives in preventing STDs and unintended pregnancy. They also contain false information about the risks of abortion, blur religion and science, promote gender stereotypes, and contain basic scientific errors.

---

"The Content of Federally Funded Abstinence-Only Education Programs," Prepared for Rep. Henry A. Waxman, United States House of Representatives, Committee on Government Reform - Minority Staff, Special Investigations Division, December 2004.More interestingly research shows that abstinence beyond one day leds to a decrease in sperm quality.Eliahu Levitas, Eitan Lunenfeld, Noemi Weiss, Michael Friger, Iris Har-Vardi, Arie Koifman and Gad Potashnik, Relationship between the duration of sexual abstinence and semen quality: analysis of 9,489 semen samples, Fertility and Sterility, Volume 83, Issue 6, June 2005, Pages 1680-1686.This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 04-Jul-2005 08:23 AM

What's needed is a return to the respect for marriage and for abstinence that previous generations had. That should be the focus of abstinence education. Perhaps it's too late. In any case condoms aren't going to solve the problem. Say bye-bye to civilization in the West then.

Can't wait to see what kind of world "science" produces. Going going gone.

and that answers the published research that abstinence doesn't work in preventing STDs how?

quote:

---

What's needed is a return to the respect for marriage and for abstinence that previous generations had.

---

This sort of respect?

quote:

---

Divorce rates in the 1920s made the highest percentage leap (aside from the postwar surge in 1946) in American history.

​

As for teen pregnancies, 1957 - the height of the "traditional family values" era - was the peak year, when 97 of every 1,000 girls aged 15-19 gave birth (compared to 52 of every 1,000 in 1983).

---

The Social Origins of Private Life: A History of American Families 1600-1900 (Verso, 29 W. 35th Street, New York, NY 10001)Or do you mean a previous generation to those? Can you provide a specific timeperiod and generation you wish to discuss?(you can go further back but watch out..those long grasses contain beartraps)oh..all the fish in the barrel seem to be dead...Besides your fantasy view of the past do you actually have anything of merit or value to present to us?This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 04-Jul-2005 08:40 AMThis message has been edited by Charles Knight, 04-Jul-2005 08:43 AMThis message has been edited by Charles Knight, 04-Jul-2005 08:43 AM

I see, only your statistics have merit though God knows how valid any of that is.

reply deleted - wrong loginThis message has been edited by Entomologista, 07-04-2005 09:06 AM

Why? Why do heteros need marriage? Why do we have it at all? C'mon, that's clearly bullshit. Marriage as we have it now protects more than the natural children of a heterosexual relationship; it protects any children they choose to adopt from someone else's sex, and it protects couples that have no children, like me.Moreover, in what sense is homosexual sex not natural? If it was unnatural, it wouldn't be possible; moreover we wouldn't see it so often in the animal kingdom. There's over a thousand Federal legal rights and privleges extended only to married couples. That's a thousand rights you can't get any way else, and that's just at the Federal level. Now, we could either amend one thousand federal laws, or we could make just one new one. Your religion doesn't get to dictate the civil rights status of other individuals. Nonsense. Why on Earth do you think that gay people give a fuck how you define marriage? Unless you're the government they have no interest whatsoever in what you think. You get to define marriage however you want, just as I did - to some, marriage is defined as a relationship where the man is steward of a family who submits to him. My wife and I define marriage as an equal partnership. Many people wouldn't consider my parents married because my mom married outside of the Mormon faith.Everybody gets to define marriage for themselves, Faith. Something you'll learn when you're older, I suspect. You don't get to decide the definition for everybody else. But the government has to apply the marriage laws fairly, and there's no legitimate reason to deny them to gay couples and much harm in doing so. These are real couples with children, and only a sociopath who places religious bigotry over the welfare of children would deny these couples the legal protections they need to raise families.Why do you hate families so much, Faith?

The level of your debate* in this area seems to very poor. Your posts consist of increasingly shrill posts that don't actually contain anything that could resemble material worthy of debate.I would therefore recommend that instead of a series of, frankly worthless, off the cuff remarks - you either withdrawn from the debate or go away and find something worth our consideration.* which is about the level that used to draw the attention of AdminM to me....This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 04-Jul-2005 09:30 AM

If only that were true. You can say all the words you like, Faith. No matter where you go spouting this filth we'll be there to oppose you.It's obvious that you and those like you are a threat to our society. Almost every post you write drips with hunger for the destruction of America; you thirst for it. "God's judgement" you call it, and you won't be satisified until every American is either dead or thrall to your destructive cult.What on Earth happened to you to make you hate so much?

I'm new to these on line discussion things, but this is how i see things. Marriage is these days about a consensual relationship being aknowleded by the State. People can choose to have no religious input in their marriage service. Surely then you ARE saying that gays are inferior as they are not permitted/entitled to have legal proof of their relationship.This is the true reason that children are not allowed to marry in this country. They are deemed not to be ready to make such a significant decision. In other countries and in the past children were married off, and it certainly was not for thier protection!Of course when it comes to a marriage sanctified by a church, then it should be down to each church to decide if the practice fits the views that it holds.As regards your stance on abstinence education. Yes this i agree is a good thing, but not if it is the sole education given. People should be given the information they need to make an informed decision. This cannot be done if only one option is presented.And as far as contraception goes: Yes it most certainly should be made available to as many people as can possibly access it. Did you know that in developing countries the current most widely used form of contraception is anal sex. This is the most risky in terms of STD infection, and could be largely eliminated if those people had access to and were educated that it is ok to use condoms. This is one of the most untalked about causes of the huge epidemic of HIV/AIDs.May i also add, that regarding your comment on the problems of single parents, many single parents i know/ know of had teenage pregnancies, largely preventable by contraception. The rest are from divorces which provees that marriages between heterosexuals are imperfect by far. Gay marriage would have little impact on the amount of single parent families.

Is there anyone here who supports abstinence who would be willing to present a well-reasoned case (ie more than just "it was the good old day woz it") for it's merits?*I think it could be an interesting area to discuss and if nobody is able or willing to do so I will be willing to put forward case for it's inclusion and benefits in regards to sex education and the prevention of STDS.*I am thinking of a spin-off OP