Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Christian Group has bank account removed due to "unacceptable views"
CK
Member (Idle past 4128 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 256 of 291 (221880)
07-05-2005 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 252 by Faith
07-05-2005 9:47 AM


Teen Pregnancy - 1950 to now
So it doesn't get lost:
quote:
The rate of teen childbearing in the United States has fallen steeply since the late 1950s, from an all time high of 96 births per 1,000 women aged 15—19 in 1957 to an all time low of 49 in 2000. Birthrates fell steadily throughout the 1960s and 1970s; they were fairly steady in the early 1980s and then rose sharply between 1988 and 1991 before declining throughout the 1990s. In recent years, this downward trend has occurred among teens of all ages and races.
Boonstra, H. Teen Pregnancy: Trends And Lessons Learned U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under grant FPR00072.
I don't get it - sexual liberation means those things should be raging out of control! I'm so confused......

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by Faith, posted 07-05-2005 9:47 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by Faith, posted 07-06-2005 6:09 AM CK has replied
 Message 278 by Faith, posted 07-06-2005 7:05 AM CK has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 257 of 291 (221881)
07-05-2005 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 234 by Faith
07-05-2005 3:43 AM


Yes, you do repeat the same stuff over and over.
Anything that trivializes or weakens marriage destabilizes a society.
Yes, you've said that. The question though was "How does a gay marriage weaken society"? Before that the question was "How does a gay marriage affect a heterosexual marriage"?
In both cases you didn't answer the question, you just resorted to your claim that gay marriage trivializes or demeans marriage. Then you wander off into one of your "It's obvious" rants.
So I'll try again.
Do you think it is right to deny a homosexual person health care?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Faith, posted 07-05-2005 3:43 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by CK, posted 07-05-2005 10:59 AM jar has replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4128 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 258 of 291 (221882)
07-05-2005 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 257 by jar
07-05-2005 10:57 AM


Totally off topic (for Jar)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by jar, posted 07-05-2005 10:57 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by jar, posted 07-05-2005 11:03 AM CK has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 259 of 291 (221883)
07-05-2005 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 258 by CK
07-05-2005 10:59 AM


Re: Totally off topic (for Jar)
Yeah. They've done a pretty good job of reproducing the drawings from some of the original versions. I hold out little hope though for the rest.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by CK, posted 07-05-2005 10:59 AM CK has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 260 of 291 (221884)
07-05-2005 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 252 by Faith
07-05-2005 9:47 AM


Re: Sexuality - pre 1960s
quote:
Look, I have NOT "analyzed the last century." I am confining my remarks to ONE particular trend, a highly identifiable trend, of explicit ideology-driven Sexual Liberationism which has had a destructive effect on the status of marriage.
Thus, you are providing an analysis of the last century.
a very biased, cherry-picked, incomplete one, but it is an analysis, nonetheless.
quote:
I have not claimed that things were hunky-dory at any previous time. I haven't even MENTIONED *how things used to be* for that matter. You brought that up.
But this was your implication, wasn't it? That sometime in the past things were "ideal"?
When was that?
quote:
My topic has been specific trends SINCE THE 60s. These are identifiable. They are the result of the specific LIBERATIONISMS that were aggressive, belligerent and vociferous starting in the 60s, all the "RIGHTS" movements -- Sexual "Freedom" in a variety of expressions including militant feminism, gay rights, and abortion.
Abortion was legal in the US up until around 1900, although illegal abortions were frequent, just so you know.
So it's been legal in the colonies much longer than it has been illegal.
quote:
Divorce statistics started growing.
...as women started gaining self worth instead of attaching their worth to the man they married.
quote:
People started living together without marriage openly to an extent that had never previously existed. "Blended" families have become just about the norm by now. They were an oddity in the 50s.
As many women were not content to be "happy housewives" on Valium anymore, traditional marriage and the limitations that entailed didn't work for them anymore. Now we have many more women in the workplace, running businesses, and contributing their considerable intellect to the culture.
quote:
Promiscuity has escalated, and teenage promiscuity particularly.
I think this has more to do with people waiting longer to get married, the advent of the Pill so women could control their own fertility, and also women have thrown off the oppressive notion that to have sex before marriage makes her a worthless whore.
quote:
There has always been pre and extramarital sex, and unwanted pregnancies and homosexuals living together, and the whole works, but IT WAS NEVER SANCTIONED BY SOCIETY UNTIL RECENTLY.
Marital rape was, until recently totally sanctioned by society, and specifically sanctioned by the Christian religion.
Do you suggest that marital rape was OK because it was sanctioned for so long?
quote:
Now it is all openly flaunted and made the subject of RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS ACTIVISM. THIS IS BRAND NEW ON PLANET EARTH. IT HAS NEVER BEFORE EXISTED AND IT IS WIDESPREAD, AFFECTS EVERYBODY.
I had sex before I was married.
How did that affect you?
quote:
One thing I think may have also increased a great deal in this period is child molestations and rapes and sexually inspired murders but I don't know the statistics. Do you?
Gee, until the sexual revolution in the 1960's brought with it a new opennes and frankness about sexuality, people pretended it didn't happen at all. We don't know how bad it was because it was too taboo a subject to even talk about.
Oh, and rape was a woman's fault, too.
quote:
You gave statistics that purport to show no big change from 1957 but that makes no sense. Something is wrong with that picture and I don't know how to track it down. In 1957 unmarried mothers were ostracized. There were a few in every high school, but they were whispered about. They often got married and hid their pregnancies somehow, or went away somewhere to have the baby and give it up.
Yet a couple of decades later women were starting to openly SEEK to have babies without benefit of husbands and that's a trend that has been growing since. This is an ENORMOUS SEA CHANGE in the basic moral worldview of our culture.
Less shame and a better standing of women without needing to be associated with a man to make anything she does legitimate is bad in what way?
quote:
P.S. Demonizing patriarchy is part of what has given the current state of affairs its big boost.
What is so great about patriarchy?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by Faith, posted 07-05-2005 9:47 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by Faith, posted 07-05-2005 6:27 PM nator has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 261 of 291 (221891)
07-05-2005 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by Faith
07-05-2005 8:43 AM


Your lack of understanding history, specifically sexual history is hampering any discussion with you. You make assertions, we ask for proof, you disappear. You reappear with assertions, we ask for proof, you disappear or claim you don't need to know since there is an obvious trend since the 60's.
Go back in history to put the 60s in the proper perspective.
As it stands the recent rash of sex by clergy (including with children) is not new. What is new is the upsurge in hysteria regarding sex with children and thus a rooting out of any and all possible perpetrators, including cases that are 30+ years old. There obviously won't be as many of those as there will be more recent ones.
Don't get me wrong, I realize how ridiculous and unhealthy it is for a person whose dedicated profession it is to tell people they are going to hell for sex, to then turn around and convince young children, placed in their care by trusting parents, to have sex. My point is only that it has been going on for some time, and simply overlooked as not that important until the USA went bonkers as if children having sex was equal to being tortured and killed. Then it seemed like something new was happening.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by Faith, posted 07-05-2005 8:43 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by Faith, posted 07-05-2005 6:23 PM Silent H has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 262 of 291 (221972)
07-05-2005 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by Silent H
07-05-2005 12:17 PM


I make a conjecture that can't be proved and you carry on as if I'd violated a basic tenet of science. Then you go on and make your own assertions without one iota of proof. That this is all hysteria and not reality. Well prove it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by Silent H, posted 07-05-2005 12:17 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by CK, posted 07-05-2005 6:36 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 269 by Silent H, posted 07-06-2005 5:09 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 263 of 291 (221974)
07-05-2005 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by nator
07-05-2005 11:05 AM


Re: Sexuality - pre 1960s
But this was your implication, wasn't it? That sometime in the past things were "ideal"?
No I did not.
Look, you are ideologically disposed in exactly the direction I'm complaining about and I give up. There's no arguing this after a point. You like the new order, I think it is leading us to destruction. This is not to say everything prior was "ideal" by a long shot, but it sure is to say that the "solution" of the last half century is a disaster.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by nator, posted 07-05-2005 11:05 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by nator, posted 07-05-2005 7:18 PM Faith has replied
 Message 266 by Taqless, posted 07-05-2005 8:22 PM Faith has replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4128 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 264 of 291 (221977)
07-05-2005 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by Faith
07-05-2005 6:23 PM


Bored now.
quote:
That this is all hysteria and not reality
see don't get this do you? Holmes can't prove a negative (debating clearly isn't your thing) and it's you who wants to make specific claims about society - so how about you back them up?
I think we are getting a little bored with the poor quality of your posts on this matter.
How about you piss in the pot or get off it?
Give us someone actually worth debating or just leave the thread.
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 05-Jul-2005 06:38 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by Faith, posted 07-05-2005 6:23 PM Faith has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 265 of 291 (221987)
07-05-2005 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by Faith
07-05-2005 6:27 PM


Re: Sexuality - pre 1960s
What I really want to know is what you think was so great about patriarchy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Faith, posted 07-05-2005 6:27 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by Faith, posted 07-06-2005 5:20 AM nator has replied

  
Taqless
Member (Idle past 5914 days)
Posts: 285
From: AZ
Joined: 12-18-2003


Message 266 of 291 (222004)
07-05-2005 8:22 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by Faith
07-05-2005 6:27 PM


Re: Sexuality - pre 1960s
No I did not.
However, it is your assumption that there was a better time. It comes part and parcel with your claim that "we" have been in social decline....we cannot have declined from a lower point, right?
As you point out marriage was not always about love and romance. It was about social connections and property, to include money and power as well as survival (financially and through help from relatives). Under these basic guidelines gay marriage does not threaten heterosexual marriage.
The claim to reproduction as a necessity does not really exist any longer wouldn't you agree?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Faith, posted 07-05-2005 6:27 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by Faith, posted 07-06-2005 5:31 AM Taqless has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 267 of 291 (222008)
07-05-2005 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by Faith
07-05-2005 8:34 AM


Re: for what reason?
faith, deep in spin cycle, msg 247 writes:
...I support businesses rejecting the business of anyone for any reason; nevertheless I may think their choice unjust...
Sorry, if it is a right for business to make this kind of decision then it is de facto a just decision. Period. It cannot be unjust.
... I very consciously made both statements ...
and still failed to see the logical contradiction, even when the flag was raised on it.
It isn't rocket science.
No, it's just basic logic.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by Faith, posted 07-05-2005 8:34 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by Faith, posted 07-06-2005 12:16 AM RAZD has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 268 of 291 (222040)
07-06-2005 12:16 AM
Reply to: Message 267 by RAZD
07-05-2005 9:12 PM


There is no contradiction.
I'm afraid that's more like logic-chopping or nitpicking than logic.
All kinds of petty injustices occur all day long between people. If we prosecuted them all, we'd all be in prison. I am in favor of people's right to commit what in my opinion may be injustices, because in their opinion they are not injustices and I don't want to make an issue of it. The bigger injustice would be to force the business to serve those they'd rather not. People must have the right to be wrong, as I've said many times here. So let the businesses do as they please, unjust or not. I care more about FREEDOM for people to have whatever opinion they have. You can't have perfection in this life and whenever anybody tries they end up creating totalitarian tyrannies. Save prosecution for serious harm to others, but people have a right to do as they please with their own businesses and their own property short of criminal activity. THAT's my position. I hope that's clear but if not, have a good day anyway.
This message has been edited by Faith, 07-06-2005 05:12 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by RAZD, posted 07-05-2005 9:12 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by RAZD, posted 07-10-2005 7:38 PM Faith has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 269 of 291 (222066)
07-06-2005 5:09 AM
Reply to: Message 262 by Faith
07-05-2005 6:23 PM


I make a conjecture that can't be proved and you carry on as if I'd violated a basic tenet of science.
You made an argument. And yes it is against the rules of good debate.
Then you go on and make your own assertions without one iota of proof. That this is all hysteria and not reality. Well prove it.
Knight has already explained this, but I will repeat it to see if it sticks: I cannot prove a negative. You are the one making a positive claim.
I am questioning your claim, and so you must back it up.
I'm going to repeat something I said earlier about you. I admire your clarity of writing. It is very good. The problem is you have not added the next critical element, which is logic. Great writing skills with no analytical skills or knowledge of how arguments are properly constructed is pure fluffery, fiction, hardly even raising to the level of sophistry. You really should check into some logic courses. I am not being sarcastic at all. Do this and add some solidity to the quality of your prose.
I might then add that you need to move away from the Bible or news media you currently get your messages from and read history, go to actual documents if you want to avoid "liberal spin". Evidence is the next important element after logic.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by Faith, posted 07-05-2005 6:23 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 270 of 291 (222069)
07-06-2005 5:20 AM
Reply to: Message 265 by nator
07-05-2005 7:18 PM


Re: Sexuality - pre 1960s
What I really want to know is what you think was so great about patriarchy.
I think it's the God-ordained form of society. Nevertheless, people being fallen, men have abused it. But people, being fallen, will abuse any system. The problems of life are from fallenness, while a particular system may be good in itself -- or bad. The one we have now is bad. It's basically chaos, and it can only lead to more chaos. It gives license to fallenness without restraint. I don't think any society can survive that for long.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by nator, posted 07-05-2005 7:18 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by nator, posted 07-06-2005 10:29 AM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024