Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Flipside on November 21, 2004, 02:01:25 pm
-
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20041121/ap_on_re_us/protecting_marriage
"If those initiatives are part of a broader effort to reaffirm lifetime fidelity in marriage, they're worthwhile," he said. "If they're isolated — if we don't address cohabitation and casual divorce and deliberate childlessness — then I think they're futile and will be brushed aside."
Betcha he's against Abortion too ;)
-
"Deliberate childlessness"?
I may hate this person more than I hate PETA and Catholics.
-
I'm starting to think California should secede and form it's own country (pipe dream, sigh)- I'm afraid of being associated with people like this.
And can anyone tell me what the hell the institution of marriage is? A prison is an institution. A mental hospital is an institution. Even a school can be called an institution. The only reason peope started using the term "the institution of marriage" is it sounds more respectable in print than "die you filthy homosexual bastards!" so they use the first one instead.
-
Thing is, the 'fidelity' within marriage is a concern in the UK as well, but even here, this guy would be regarded for a Section 4 of the Mental Health act, like the Grand Prix Priest, not a position in the leadership! ;)
-
It's a hard concept for a lot of people that not every moral issue can be addressed with legislation.
-
This guy: "Hey, they elected Bush again, they must be willing to swallow anything!"
You never would have heard this a month ago....
-
Sounds like Blunkett in our own government, his usual tactic to deal with crime is simply to create more rules.
The poor fool can't figure out why the crime rate is still growing and yet keeps increasing the size of the umbrella that defines 'criminal' :lol:
-
More rules = more potential for crime.
Why does the government even need to define marriage? In the end, how does wether or not the union is between a man and a woman or a man and a man (Or woman and woman) really affect how the country should be run? :sigh: More and more, this country depresses me.
-
Outlawing 'deliberate childlessness'?
Now maybe people can see what folks like Kazan mean by reproductive rights being infringed.
Oh wait... let me guess freedom to have children does not include freedom to not have children. :rolleyes:
-
hmmm... do you all remember during the build up to th Iraq war, you all said "would you like it if one of us 'liberated' you" and I said, "if it got bad enough, yes" well, it might be a good time to start getting redy to call my bluff
-
I gotta laugh at that one. Basically they want rid of contraception.
If people need to support children, they ain't got much time for anything else...
-
This article is sad.
-
It's one of those ones where you just get angrier with each passing paragraph.....
One group, the Alliance for Marriage, has focused almost entirely in the past two years on advocating a federal amendment that would ban gay marriage. The alliance's president, Matt Daniels, said the proposed ban is an essential starting point for other initiatives to strengthen heterosexual marriage — such as promoting family-friendly workplace policies.
"No one in the alliance believes saving (saving? And at what point was Heterosexual marriage in danger? - Flip) the legal status of marriage as between man and woman will alone be sufficient to stem the tide of family disintegration," Daniels said. "But if we lose that legal status, we lose the policy tool we need to pursue our broader agenda."
So he's basically saying that Gay marriage is simply the the first sheep on the altar as far as he's concerned ;)
-
Originally posted by an0n
"Deliberate childlessness"?
I may hate this person more than I hate Catholics.
What's the matter, an0n? Scared of a religion that isn't afraid to support actual morality and decency? Poor you. I guess you think that abortion and divorce are good for society. I also guess that you hate me personally, and I would have to say that it wouldn't take too much for me to reciprocate the favor.
If you want to know, I agree with that entire article. The status of heterosexual marriage in this country needs to be re-evalulated; we need to reverse the prevalence of quickie divorces in this country. No matter what you believe, look at history: the status of marriage in past societies has helped to determine the longevity and success of those societies.
-
double post
-
... why did you quote yourself?...
[ooh... ignor]
-
Originally posted by Mongoose
What's the matter, an0n? Scared of a religion that isn't afraid to support actual morality and decency? Poor you. If you want to know, I agree with that entire article. The status of heterosexual marriage in this country needs to be re-evalulated; we need to reverse the prevalence of quickie divorces in this country. No matter what you believe, look at history: the status of marriage in past societies has helped to determine the longevity and success of those societies.
He's got a point...
-
And an increase in dynamics in your society that would be created by forcing people to have children in areas that are low employment etc would soon mean that everyone would have to get by with far less :)
Welfare bills would soar, child-homocides would escalate, the lack of escape means that Wife beating and domestic murder counts would hit the roof.
Finally, the increase in abandoned children would create ghettos similar to those in Cairo.
Yep, brilliant idea :)
-
Originally posted by Mongoose
What's the matter, an0n? Scared of a religion that isn't afraid to support actual morality and decency? Poor you. I guess you think that abortion and divorce are good for society. I also guess that you hate me personally, and I would have to say that it wouldn't take too much for me to reciprocate the favor.
If you want to know, I agree with that entire article. The status of heterosexual marriage in this country needs to be re-evalulated; we need to reverse the prevalence of quickie divorces in this country. No matter what you believe, look at history: the status of marriage in past societies has helped to determine the longevity and success of those societies.
Care to explain to me how Homosexuality and 'safe sex' are immoral and indecent, without mentioning God? Please? I'd really like to hear this.
Also, I don't know about you, but 'deliberate childlessness' seems more like an attack against 'safe' and homosexual sex, than against abortion. Although I do see how that can be interpretted as well.
-
Originally posted by Mongoose
If you want to know, I agree with that entire article. The status of heterosexual marriage in this country needs to be re-evalulated; we need to reverse the prevalence of quickie divorces in this country. No matter what you believe, look at history: the status of marriage in past societies has helped to determine the longevity and success of those societies.
Really? The Greeks seem to have gotten along great with all-but-institutionalized bisexualism. Personally I think it's a load of bunk, saying that marriage is the only defining factor that contributes to a society's stability and success. What's wrong with allowing two consenting adults with a deep commitment to each other form a proper union?
Well, thankfully here, they can. And we haven't started to implode, either.
-
I agree with Raa here, considering the phrase was coupled with 'co-habiting', which is not gender-specific.
The whole marriage thing is a crock of **** anyway, and turning America into a country with rules to match the Taliban isn't going to change that.
-
yeah, maybe you do have a point,. so you know what, I think we need to enact New Legislation!
man/woman couples that are found to have been engaged in courtship for longer than four months shall be forced into a marrage that they cannot disengage from, any married couple not produceing a specified quota of childeren a year will be seveerly fined or incarcerated, any married couple found to be teaching the childeren anything other than a government mandated education suplement of the lords holy love and patriotic retoric shall have there childeren removed from them and be steralised and have all contact between them forbiden, any individual unable or unwilling to submit to the reproducive requierments will be executed emidiately, all married couples will be requiered to mate on a nightly basis untill pregnecy occus at wich point all reproductive activities will cese (under pain of 'serious consequences') and only though a sheet with a hole cut in it and only under a government supervisor, non married couples that are found to have been engaged in unholy sexual intercorse shall have there reproductive organs removed/sewen shut!
yes let the great freedom of the holy people of the United God States God of God America God... God shine over the entier globe!
or you know MAYBE we could just let people live there ****ing lives the way they want to ****ing live them!
oh, oh, but then your ****ing rights to impose your ****ing facistic bull**** will be infrenged upon, how inconsiterate of me, please by all means kill me, I am just another of those evil pagan atheist comunist anti-american spawn of the darkest pits of hell, do it! DO IT!!!
-
Originally posted by Flipside
child-homocides would escalate, the lack of escape means that Wife beating and domestic murder counts would hit the roof.
it's the glory days of the Bible all over again :D
I'm so HAPPY
the kingdom of God shall surely spontaniusly spew forth at any second from my ass.
-
Do I detect a whiff of angst there? ;)
Better incarcerated than indoctrinated in my opinion too :)
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
hmmm... do you all remember during the build up to th Iraq war, you all said "would you like it if one of us 'liberated' you" and I said, "if it got bad enough, yes" well, it might be a good time to start getting redy to call my bluff
I wonder if Saddams Elite Guard are busy......?
-
The way I see it, quickie divorce and abortion let people run from the consequences of their poor decisions. All this guy wants to do is force them to make the hard decisions. It's too easy to ruin lives(abortion aside), it a marriage has produced children, any petty disagreements that the parents have with each other immeadately take a back seat to the needs of the children.
I don't see what problem you people have with advocating a moral lifestyle anyway, except that it gets in the way of your fun.
-
Because we're all immoral, womanizing, divorced fathers, right?
-
Advocate all you want, but don't legislate it. Issues such as marriage and sexuality are exceedingly complex, and I am not comfortable with someone deciding which interpretation of these things is the "moral" one and establishing it as a code of behavior.
-
we need burkas for the women ( 1 Timothy 2:9)
and they need to were vails (Corinthians 11:4)
people who were cloths of diferent materials need to be burned at the steak for heracy(Deuteronomy 22:11)
-
Originally posted by Liberator
The way I see it, quickie divorce and abortion let people run from the consequences of their poor decisions. All this guy wants to do is force them to make the hard decisions. It's too easy to ruin lives(abortion aside), it a marriage has produced children, any petty disagreements that the parents have with each other immeadately take a back seat to the needs of the children.
I don't see what problem you people have with advocating a moral lifestyle anyway, except that it gets in the way of your fun.
Maybe because we like the freedom to decide how we live our lives and what choices we make, rather than living by what's written in a 2000-odd years old book?
I think maybe you're casting a negative judgement on something which you have never encountered youself.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
I don't see what problem you people have with advocating a moral lifestyle anyway, except that it gets in the way of your fun.
Congrats Libby, that one makes it to the siggy ;)
You think that by forcing people to make the 'hard' decisions that they will abide by those decisions? And they are not the 'Hard' decisions, this guy only counts them as such because he want everyone to make his decision and they won't, so for him, it may be 'hard' to get them to do what he wants.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
I don't see what problem you people have with advocating a moral lifestyle anyway, except that it gets in the way of your fun.
Explain to me how using contraception within a legal marriage is immoral? Cause I really don't get how anyone can claim that it is.
-
Welcome to America, land of the free. So long as your freedoms are confined to conservative christian norms.
-
What always amazes me is that the people who seem most against turning the world into a huge lust-powered orgy of decadence and sex are those that seem most severely in need of it :(
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Explain to me how using contraception within a legal marriage is immoral? Cause I really don't get how anyone can claim that it is.
Because every sperm is sacred (http://bau2.uibk.ac.at/sg/python/Sounds/MeaningOfLife/every_sperm_is_sacred.au)
-
Meh.
'HLP - The Gamer's Political Debate board'
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Explain to me how using contraception within a legal marriage is immoral? Cause I really don't get how anyone can claim that it is.
When did I say that it was?
The problem I have is if it doesn't work, and a child is inconvenient to the parents, then it's off to the abortion clinic. Young People who are still in school or don't have a steady job or prospects for one, don't have any business participating in an activity that can lead to them having to care for a child. I don't care how much they love each other, unless one or both of them are capable of providing a living for any potential offspring, contraception or not, they don't have any business having sex.
The Husband and Wife can't get along? Oh, let's get a divorce instead of actually trying to figure out what wrong and fix it. To my mind there is no such thing as "irreconcilable differences" where a marriage is concerned. They saw something in their partner that told them "I want to spend the rest of my life with this person!" and now they let some petty little nothing of an argument grow into a raging beast and since neither one is willing to work it out, they call it quits. Oh, that's real mature....:rolleyes:
I understand that there are situations where the marriage needs to end, but just because you can't get along because you're too damn picky about behaviors THAT YOU SHOULD HAVE KNOWN ABOUT BEFORE YOU MARRIED THEM you decide you can't hack it and run. In the old days, courtships would last years before a marriage. Having sex with a person before you know them clouds the mind about that persons actual personality, that's one of the main reasons that casual sex is wrong. It tends to lead to a disasterous end, relationship wise.
-
becose marrage doesn't change people.
-
Because everyone has personality traits that don't become apparent until you've lived together for a while.
And because what you are suggesting is in fact, not that people make the hard decisions, but that, should an accident happens, they are not allowed to do anything to rectify it.
I've lived with my partner for a good many years, we aren't married, and I don't doubt that temptation has come along from time to time for both of us. But we chose not to follow that, not because of some altruism from a book, but because we love and respect each other. If we didn't, then the relationship would not work no matter what laws, pieces of paper of legislations were dropped on us. We don't plan to have children, quite frankly if I had kids, they would not get the upbringing I would like to give them because I can't afford it. I personally resent people like this Senator suggesting that somehow forcing me and Sharon to get married and have children will benefit us in any way whatsoever, though of course, in 18 years time, it does mean an unflux of free soldiers and taxpayers.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
When did I say that it was?
The problem I have is if it doesn't work, and a child is inconvenient to the parents, then it's off to the abortion clinic. Young People who are still in school or don't have a steady job or prospects for one, don't have any business participating in an activity that can lead to them having to care for a child. I don't care how much they love each other, unless one or both of them are capable of providing a living for any potential offspring, contraception or not, they don't have any business having sex.
The Husband and Wife can't get along? Oh, let's get a divorce instead of actually trying to figure out what wrong and fix it. To my mind there is no such thing as "irreconcilable differences" where a marriage is concerned. They saw something in their partner that told them "I want to spend the rest of my life with this person!" and now they let some petty little nothing of an argument grow into a raging beast and since neither one is willing to work it out, they call it quits. Oh, that's real mature....:rolleyes:
I understand that there are situations where the marriage needs to end, but just because you can't get along because you're too damn picky about behaviors THAT YOU SHOULD HAVE KNOWN ABOUT BEFORE YOU MARRIED THEM you decide you can't hack it and run. In the old days, courtships would last years before a marriage. Having sex with a person before you know them clouds the mind about that persons actual personality, that's one of the main reasons that casual sex is wrong. It tends to lead to a disasterous end, relationship wise.
Your opinion.
You're welcome to have it, but don't ask to force it upon others via legislation.
I'm curious, though - are you / have you ever been engaged or married?
-
Originally posted by Mongoose
What's the matter, an0n? Scared of a religion that isn't afraid to support actual morality and decency?
No, I'm just scared of a religion that backed the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the formation of the Vatican Archives, slavery, torture, rape, murder, paedophilia, stealing from the poor to make the rich richer, the concept of the chosen man of God being selected by a panel of Bishops and the belief that to talk to an omnipotent God who 'hears all prayers' requires a Catholic Church Official to act as a middle man.
I guess you think that abortion and divorce are good for society. I also guess that you hate me personally, and I would have to say that it wouldn't take too much for me to reciprocate the favor.
There's no point in abortion unless it endangers the mother. And divorce is good - It's letting 16 year old marry that's stupid.
If you'd bothered to read what I quoted, I was opposed to the generalized terminology and the predominantly Catholic belief that you can't use contraception and must have as many children as is humanly possible.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
The way I see it, quickie divorce and abortion let people run from the consequences of their poor decisions.
Not really.
Maybe if some dude got married, realised he didn't actually want to get hitched and buggered off somewhere - yeah, that'd fit. I think we can all agree that running away is running away.
Divorce isn't running away. Neither is 'quickie divorce'. Nor abortion. The problems are being resolved; the unwanted marriage is dissolved, the unwanted fetus is terminated. The fact that you don't like those solutions isn't grounds for them somehow 'not dealing with the problem'.
If anything, forcing people to go through with things they don't want to and things that just aren't working is more like running away from the truth than divorce or abortion. Hiding things underneath a harsh morality enforced by you on everyone else is more like running away than realising and understanding that multiple interpretations of reality exist and finding a way to cohabitate with the rest of the world despite differences in opinion and philosophy.
-
Listen to the Blaise, for it is wise.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
I'm curious, though - are you / have you ever been engaged or married?
Answered with explanation in the last post on the page. (http://www.sectorgame.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1353&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0)
For those that can't read it, I'm sorry. I know aldo has access and it answers his question.
-
A yes/no would've sufficed.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Answered with explanation in the last post on the page. (http://www.sectorgame.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1353&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0)
For those that can't read it, I'm sorry. I know aldo has access and it answers his question.
from sectorgame postI can't really contribute anything useful, as I tend to empty rooms just by going in and sitting down. No one in my life, that I can remember, has ever voluntarily spent any time with me just because they could. So somewhere along the way I just stopped trying and now spend all of my time alone. It's not so bad really, you just have to get used to the voices, they never actually say anything, they just murmur unintelligably.
So..you;r enot really in a good point to fairly judge then, are you?
-
Forced marriage and forced production of children sounds a bit controlling, which I'm sure everyone can agree. Here is a look into the lives of the Ms and Mrs Baxter:
Mrs - How was you're day?
Mr - Fine. What was your name again?
Mrs - Kelly. You met me at a gas station.
Mr - Oh that's right. Well, better start cranking out those kids.
Mrs - Oh, right...
What fun that would be. :rolleyes:
-
Frankly, I'm surprised how many real-life lesbians are agressively unattractive. This is not at all the impression I recieved from uh, educational films, on the subject.
edit: Seriously, since when did every thread become "lets beat on Liberator"?
-
I know, life is a big let-down in that respect. You think they look like Film stars and they end up looking like Dinner Ladies :(
-
I can't really contribute anything useful, as I tend to empty rooms just by going in and sitting down. No one in my life, that I can remember, has ever voluntarily spent any time with me just because they could. So somewhere along the way I just stopped trying and now spend all of my time alone. It's not so bad really, you just have to get used to the voices, they never actually say anything, they just murmur unintelligably.
I can't decide wether it's funnier if you made that up or if he actually posted it.
:lol:
-
I do think it's just a tinge unfair to be quoting from the protected forum at SG...........
Ah well, it's between you two. :)
Anyway, my voices are perfectly clear and distinct....
Worship the Devil
Worship the Devil......
And I have nothing against Lib at all, but I just had to siggify that comment, theres something about it that makes me laugh every time I read it ;)
-
My voices are very clear:
Shoot to kill
Shoot to kill...
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Frankly, I'm surprised how many real-life lesbians are agressively unattractive. This is not at all the impression I recieved from uh, educational films, on the subject.
You know, this is the best non sequitur I've heard in a while....
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
My voices are very clear:
Shoot to kill
Shoot to kill...
Make love not war
Make love not war...
-
kill the hippies...
kill the hippies...
-
I was refering to the video games. :D
Everyone thinks that if we play too many FPS games, we will turn into mass murders who know how to use every single weapon on the planet.
-
Yeah, most of the time it's every single weapon not on the planet.
-
It's strange you know, I've played most of the Need for Speed series and yet still don't drive like some kind of Phsychopathic suicide-case on Angel Dust :)
-
Originally posted by an0n
I can't decide wether it's funnier if you made that up or if he actually posted it.
:lol:
Believe it.:sigh: :blah:
-
I think a lot of people who talk with starry eyes about the golden days marriage forget that it was nigh on impossible for a woman to get a divorce or to live on her own.
-
Or for divorced women and single mothers to get a job, beyond whore.
The fact of the matter is that marriage has never been an institution. Unfaithfullness in marriage was at it's highest during it's 'Golden Days', since no-one could get divorced, men got 'Mistresses' and women got 'Friends' (in 'high' society at least - and they were high most of the time). In fact, for a while it was considered fashionable to have affairs.
-
Fashionable eh?
They should be hung...
-
you'r the one idealiseing that era.
-
Originally posted by Flipside
The fact of the matter is that marriage has never been an institution. Unfaithfullness in marriage was at it's highest during it's 'Golden Days', since no-one could get divorced, men got 'Mistresses' and women got 'Friends' (in 'high' society at least - and they were high most of the time). In fact, for a while it was considered fashionable to have affairs.
That doesn't make right. And High Society isn't a good thing to use as an example, High Society typically suffers from a disconnect from reality.
-
so, how about this, why don't we all just agree not to legislate our beleifes to force them on each other.
-
Has anyone seen John Carpenter's 'They Live'? Please see it if you haven't, then read 1984, follow that by watching several hours of world war videos, grab a gun and go out and have some fun.
Seriously, what's it gonna take to snap the rest of the American people out of this morality trance? I say we need a gay, black, liberal, economist for a leader. Gay to sort out problems like these, Black to stem the tide of anti-white sentiment in the ex-minority, Liberal to get the politicians off their asses and thinking again, and an Economist to know the difference between a recession and bad policy. Too bad that wount ever happen.
-
To anyone who says that marriage is threatened by freedom of choice, I would highly recommend The Awakening, by Kate Chopin. The only reason infidelity was more prevalant in higher society was because people had spare time with which to think about something besides how they were going to eat.
My main pet peave with social conservatism is the ease with which people think they can pass judgement on others without having the slightest notion of the implications of their demands; it seems like a complete absence of empathy. I just can't understand how someone could look at two people who are faced with being unhappy with each other for the rest of their lives and say, "Work it out-- you should have known beforehand." Who the hell KNOWS?! The interplay of human emotions is not like shopping for a new god damned car. Does anyone ever stop and entertain the notion that maybe 50% of marriages are ending in divorce because people are finally being allowed to be honest with themselves?
Perhaps my rage is better summarized with a desperate plea to STOP TELLING OTHER PEOPLE HOW TO LIVE THEIR LIVES. If society ever falls apart, it will not be because of marriage, sodomy, or people jacking off too much.
-
Lib: yes, society was arguably more innocent and "moral" (read: traditional) back in the good old days, but that came at a price. Lessened freedom for many groups, such a women, minorities, them damn kids and so forth. Society was much less tolerant and more rigid, and though it may not seem that way in nostalgic memories, a lot of people were a lot less happy than they are today.
The government is not to blame for what you percieve as the moral degredation of America (and I admit you do have somewhat of a point). The government does not set the agenda on societal issues, social institutions do.
I strongly suggest you watch the recently released Angels in America, its deals with some issues which I think you
wll find fascinating. Trust me on this one, but be warned, its like 5-6 hours long.
-
Interesting point - I was reading not long ago that a somewhat new view of developmental humans was emerging, being that we are not naturally monogamous. Our closest relative, the Bonobo (a species of chimpanze), is actually far from it, and use sex (including same sex couplings) as a sort of group building activity.
It's believed, through behavioural analysis and stuff, that purely biological human relationships would probably last several years after the first child was born, long enough for the child to be able to walk, talk and come close to surviving on its own. The adults would then be free to pursue other mates.
Food for thought anyway.
-
bonobo is the second closest relitive, the first closest is the chimpansee, well known for monogamy (well as close as any animal gets to it).
humans didn't live very long after there kids reached an age when they could survive on there own untill quite recently.
-
Originally posted by Flipside
I do think it's just a tinge unfair to be quoting from the protected forum at SG...........
Well, he did link to it.....
-
True, true, and he doesn't seem to mind, so no matter :)
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
bonobo is the second closest relitive, the first closest is the chimpansee, well known for monogamy (well as close as any animal gets to it).
humans didn't live very long after there kids reached an age when they could survive on there own untill quite recently.
Bonobos are also well known for their promiscuity regardless of gender despite having lifetime partners :)
-
...yeah, that... has been established...
-
"at it like bonobos" doesn't have the same ring to it, though.
-
Sounds like a U2 fan group or something ;)
-
Bumpzor...
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20041126/ap_on_go_pr_wh/second_term_abstinence
Initiate stage 2........ ;)
-
*sigh*
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
so, how about this, why don't we all just agree not to legislate our beleifes to force them on each other.
:yes: :yes: :yes: :yes: :yes: :yes: :yes:
-
Liberator, Mongoose - let me make something very clear to you
You have can hold your views all you want - I will defend your right to believe what you want
You cannot force those views upon others - I will defend everyone else's (including my own) right not to have other people tell us how to live/what to think
This is why I am pissed with you and your ilk - because YOU ARE NOT UPHOLDING WHAT IT IS TO BE AMERICAN (to be free)
-
I consiter facistic religious fanatic groups to be the greatest threat to the American way of life, be they the Islamo or Christo flavor.
-
so do i
-
Well horray, the kids can finally get along.
As for the article, yeah, I think teenagers would stop madly ****ing and start thinking about waiting until you are legal again. Doesn't pay to have kids at age 14 now does it?
-
Kids are going to have sex no matter what people tell them. I think birth control education makes much more sense.
-
Then I say we cut off their joh... ah nevermind that wont work.
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
I think teenagers would stop madly ****ing and start thinking about waiting until you are legal again. Doesn't pay to have kids at age 14 now does it?
so what's your point?
you think telling kids not to have sex in school is going to do a damned thing about it? remember how evvective all those anti-drug crap was on how you thought about the situation. not that you use drugs but did what happened to you in school have any bearing on that?
-
Actually, it just occured to me; schools really should be teaching proper masturbation techniques.
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
Well horray, the kids can finally get along.
As for the article, yeah, I think teenagers would stop madly ****ing and start thinking about waiting until you are legal again. Doesn't pay to have kids at age 14 now does it?
There's a 13-14 year old girl at my Bro's school that has a baby. What does that tell you?
-
it tells me her parents are deadbeats
-
What he said.
And that basically they are two things:
1) Irrisponsible
2) ****ed
You cant support a kid at that age without parents. Good luck you whore on raising the child.
-
Well that's one of the reasons that people feel abortion should be an option: so kids, prone to making mistakes as they are, won't have to live with them.
-
Originally posted by Mongoose
No matter what you believe, look at history: the status of marriage in past societies has helped to determine the longevity and success of those societies.
nonsense.
Status of marriage in Ancient Egypt or Mesopotamia didn't save them, not even after being nearly the same for thousands of years.
Hell, marriage, for most people in the west, didn't change much (essentially being in the form of the extended family. The modern core family is exactly that: modern, almost entirely 20th century development) until about 100 à 200 years ago. And during that time those people and their decendents (namely us) built a civilisation that is unequaled in history.
no, these people have nothing else in mind than reducing freedom and as such gutting western civilisation. It's the same mentality that guides the fundamentalist muslims that destroying the Towers on 11/9.
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
He's got a point...
no he doesn't, or rather: it's incorrect. see previous post.
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
What he said.
And that basically they are two things:
1) Irrisponsible
2) ****ed
You cant support a kid at that age without parents. Good luck you whore on raising the child.
Or maybe they are still too young to properly understand the consequences of unprotected sex, and require a more complete and detailed education?
-
those who say schools also should be teaching youths how to use contraceptives say Horn's argument ignores reality. Surveys indicate that roughly 50 percent of teens say they have sex before they leave high school. While the nation's teenage pregnancy rate is declining, young people 15 to 24 account for about half the new cases of sexually transmitted diseases in the United States each year.
No amount of preaching will overcome horny teenage biology....
-
I think their solution to this in the supposedly more 'moral' past was a) to force children into same sex boarding schools / exclude females from schooling and b) to have marriage between adult males and early-teenaged females (see Romeo & Juliet in particular; what the various films don't make clear is that Juliet was something like 15 in Shakespeares' play)
-
These guys really need to get those very long and quite constipating sticks out of their arses and take a good look around. Seriously, people look at Islamic countries because 'they force their beliefs on others', but in America its about just as bad at the moment.
For the umpteenth time, I'm so glad I live in Holland. :D
-
Originally posted by Tiara
Seriously, people look at Islamic countries because 'they force their beliefs on others', but in America its about just as bad at the moment.
as an american i complete agree with this foreigners statement
-
No Kazan, he's not correct.
Do we force Americans to be christian? Catholic? Islamic? Whatever religions are present in America we arent forcing on anyone, and it's only by our free-religion policy that all of these actually exist.
I thought their job was to drag you to the streets and shoot you if you didn't concur with that they thought. I dont think we do that here.
-
Tin Can: you are working on destroying that free-religion policy (freedom of religion MANDATE in the constitution - Seperation of Church and State)
When you legislate "moral issues" you're imposing your religion upon others
Prime examples of pushing your religion on others
A) "Under God" in pledge - I) violates non-religious individuals rights to free expression of religion II) violates non-christian individuals rights to free expression of religion [because it's understood that it's refering to the christian god]
B) "In God we Trust" on the money - See A-I and A-II
C) "Creation Science" in schools - See A-I, and A-II, I) This is not science it belongs in the Study of World Religions II) violates the rights of christian individuals not of the sect who's version of creation is being taught
D) Funding patently religious organizations ("Dept Faith-Baised Initatives") - See A-I, A-II, and C-I [only fundie chrisitan organzations have received money - making it qualify for C-I, and only christian organizations have made money making it qualify for A-II]
I could go on through the entire damn alpabet
I thought their job was to drag you to the streets and shoot you if you didn't concur with that they thought. I dont think we do that here.
you don't have to be so blatant about things to still be violation peoples free expression of religion
not literally - but metaphorically we do -- and if we continue down this road we will literally be doing this
-
What amazes is me is what is wrong with teaching Abstinence & Contraception?
I can't believe a country that has as much much access to phsychological data on teenagers as America is after anything but a 'Baby Boom' with this idea. The question is : Why?
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
he's
[size=9999]*COUGH*[/size]
Have I been away from this board for that long? :p
Anyway, I think this issue boils down to the issue of Freedom of Speech.
Freedom of Speech in itself is a good thing. But I think is that sometimes the boundries of Freedom of Speech are crossed and people head right into Agree-with-me-or-Die-ville without even realizing it.
-
T: about the glad we're in Holland thing. Are you sure about that?
-
Originally posted by kasperl
T: about the glad we're in Holland thing. Are you sure about that?
Ah, you are one of the people who take recent events too serious. I found that people tend to grab hold of opinions in the heat of the moment and stick to it rather then to calmly think about it. Thats probably what you have done.
Because really, has anything changed in Holland in any noticable way? Besides the fact that they stepped up security, which happens to be a good thing, barely anything has changed.
Yes, its bad what happened but you shouldn't get stuck on it. Neither should anyone else.
-
The passport thing? Dunno, alla criminal has to do after 1 jan is to go into a secondary school, past a rack infront of a lab class, and start opening bags. Or just rip the poor 2nd graders off on the way home.
And what's changed, dunno, really.The constant panic and scare? The posters urging people to report arms carrying in schools? The bombing of primary schools?
-
Originally posted by Flipside
What amazes is me is what is wrong with teaching Abstinence & Contraception?
I can't believe a country that has as much much access to phsychological data on teenagers as America is after anything but a 'Baby Boom' with this idea. The question is : Why?
Footsoldiers for WW3 in 20 years time?
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
Actually, it just occured to me; schools really should be teaching proper masturbation techniques.
Bah. There's nothing wrong with self-taught.
Besides, then you'd have to deal with that fat, sticky kid at the back of class practicing....
-
Originally posted by kasperl
And what's changed, dunno, really.The constant panic and scare? The posters urging people to report arms carrying in schools? The bombing of primary schools?
If you or anyone else lives in constant panic and scare you need to see a psychiatrists. Badly. :blah: Here, where I live, not a single person is actually scared as such. yes, they voice their discontent about what happened but thats basically all. You are blowing this WAY out of proportions, Kas.
Sure, some bad **** has happened, but isn't the friggin' end of the world you know. It were just a few incidents and it's being worked on as we speak.
Worrying too much about that sort of thing is exactly what you shouldn't do. It has a direct adverse affect on society.
-
Originally posted by Flipside
What amazes is me is what is wrong with teaching Abstinence & Contraception?
I can't believe a country that has as much much access to phsychological data on teenagers as America is after anything but a 'Baby Boom' with this idea. The question is : Why?
it's because some people are idiots and think this actually will work - despite all the evidence to the contrary
they also think it's the only "moral" option
well there are enough studies out there showing that
A) Abstinance-only raised the teen pregnancy (and and abortions rates)
B) The more fundamentalist a family is the more likely their daughter(s) is/are likely to become a teenaged mother (due to not being informed)
C) Comprehensive Sex Education (like europe) decrease teen preganancy (and hence abortion)
that if I were to print them all out it would more than fill my appartment with printer paper
-
Originally posted by Kazan
it's because some people are idiots and think this actually will work - despite all the evidence to the contrary
[/b]
Thats not really the big issue.
they also think it's the only "moral" option
This is :doubt:
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Footsoldiers for WW3 in 20 years time?
Relationship must = Marriage
Marriage must = Children
Making sure people are ignorant of contraception.....
You know, theres only one more step till we are talking 'God's Army' don't you?
We should run a book until the 'Marriage is only Marriage if it takes place in a Church' movement starts gaining weight ;)
-
Originally posted by Ace
Outlawing 'deliberate childlessness'?
Now maybe people can see what folks like Kazan mean by reproductive rights being infringed.
Oh wait... let me guess freedom to have children does not include freedom to not have children. :rolleyes:
According to Republicans, exactly.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
becose marrage doesn't change people.
errr...yes it does....at least, I believe its supposed to change one to suit the other's needs and persona........
-
/*sarchasm*/
-
Originally posted by Liberator
The way I see it, quickie divorce and abortion let people run from the consequences of their poor decisions. All this guy wants to do is force them to make the hard decisions. It's too easy to ruin lives(abortion aside), it a marriage has produced children, any petty disagreements that the parents have with each other immeadately take a back seat to the needs of the children.
He does have a point im afraid. The way the younger generation is going, they tend to run away from all the bad decisions or when hte going gets tough.
the point raised that everyone should have hte right to live the live how they want it, is valid, yet VERY selfish, especially when other lives are involved. If one of these youngsters happened to leave the pregneant wife and child to fend on there own, it would result in problems and probable death of the latter. Which would be more important? THe life of the child? or the Discomfort of some dumb kid that doesn't want to grow up and face the consequences?
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
/*sarchasm*/
and it slipped right by me :P
sorry.
-
T: I'm not scared. The only thing I'm scared of is getting airport like security in schools, with everyone over exeguarating everything. The fact that others clearly are scared, yeah, that annoys me.
-
Originally posted by Singh
He does have a point im afraid. The way the younger generation is going, they tend to run away from all the bad decisions or when hte going gets tough.
the point raised that everyone should have hte right to live the live how they want it, is valid, yet VERY selfish, especially when other lives are involved. If one of these youngsters happened to leave the pregneant wife and child to fend on there own, it would result in problems and probable death of the latter. Which would be more important? THe life of the child? or the Discomfort of some dumb kid that doesn't want to grow up and face the consequences?
Is someone immature / uncommited enough to run away going to be a good father, though? (NB: one of my cousins is a single mother; the father turned out to be a very dodgy character unbeknownst to her, so he cut all ties. He never knew she was pregnant, tho)
It's all about giving people choices. Removing the choice doesn't make people any more inclined to make the 'right' decision, it just traps them; and trapping people can have a profound change upon them. Is an absentee father better than a bitter, alcoholic, wife-beating father, for example?
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Is someone immature / uncommited enough to run away going to be a good father, though? (NB: one of my cousins is a single mother; the father turned out to be a very dodgy character unbeknownst to her, so he cut all ties. He never knew she was pregnant, tho)
It's all about giving people choices. Removing the choice doesn't make people any more inclined to make the 'right' decision, it just traps them; and trapping people can have a profound change upon them. Is an absentee father better than a bitter, alcoholic, wife-beating father, for example?
In some situations, I'd agree with you fully, and in others, I'd have to say no. Unfortunately it all boils down to Relativism. On one hand if were to enforce the choice, we'd end up with one set of problems.
Yet in the other, if we allow people to make other choices, we'd end up with a totally different set. The real issue from what I can see here, is do we want to give them freedom or happyness?
Contrary to popular belief, having one does not mean you'll have the other....i'll explain later tho.
-
You can't force people to be happy, though.
Unless you put prozac in the water.
-
true.
But if you let people be happy and give them freedom, they'll eventually step on each other's toes and end up making each other Unhappy and restrict the freedom.......
-
Originally posted by Singh
true.
But if you let people be happy and give them freedom, they'll eventually step on each other's toes and end up making each other Unhappy and restrict the freedom.......
But at least they'd be able to make that choice for themselves, not have it made. I mean, if you want people to be free, you have to allow for the inevitablity they'll make bad decisions.
And, of course, how can you fairly make decisions on what is right for people, because any decision - and policy - you make is just as likely to be unfair or wrong as any other decision a person will make.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
And, of course, how can you fairly make decisions on what is right for people, because any decision - and policy - you make is just as likely to be unfair or wrong as any other decision a person will make.
I could if it ended up that what they considered 'right' ended up killing me instead. What is right or not goes out of hte window as soon as >2 people are involved in the matter, as it is in real life.
Freedom is good, I dont dispute that. But freedom of an individual may just overlap with the freedom of a group. Which would have priority in this case? the few? or the many?
-
Eh, Singh, here in Holland we've had this particlar freedom for some time now and we're quite content with it.
-
Originally posted by Tiara
Eh, Singh, here in Holland we've had this particlar freedom for some time now and we're quite content with it.
err..I believe the country in question is the US, where people seem to be taking there freedom a bit too seriously :P
Besides, doesn't Holland kinda have a small population as opposed to the US and other places? Its a lot easier to manage a small population as opposed to a large one.
Still, good point.
*concedes round to Tiara and Aldo.
-
Originally posted by Singh
Besides, doesn't Holland kinda have a small population as opposed to the US and other places? Its a lot easier to manage a small population as opposed to a large one.
Holland is one of the most densely populated countries in western Europe IIRC.
EDIT: Actually, Holland is #25 on the world's most densely populated countries. The 24 above Holland are mostly 3rd world countries and the vatican :p
Still, good point.
*concedes round to Tiara and Aldo.
I say one line and it's over. Just the way i like it! :D:p
-
Originally posted by Singh
I could if it ended up that what they considered 'right' ended up killing me instead. What is right or not goes out of hte window as soon as >2 people are involved in the matter, as it is in real life.
Freedom is good, I dont dispute that. But freedom of an individual may just overlap with the freedom of a group. Which would have priority in this case? the few? or the many?
Well, usually it's not a hard decision IMO. Societal needs are usually well-established as to what sort of thing will 'hurt' the many; often the group dynamic influences people not to do this anyways as a sort of social conditioning from birth... i.e. chivalry, giving your seat up to pregant women or the elderly on the bus, etc.
What i mean is, that society demands certain constraints on how we behave; usually legally enforced. But usually these constraints are based on a clear definition of how said action does harm; in the case of divorce, it's not clear cut who a divorce harms, if anyone. And it's also unclear as to what the consequences of not divorcing are; would the marriage stabilise, or collapse and destroy the husband and wife (and children)?
So I don't think that you can make a generalisation over how 'good' or 'bad' divorce is, and I don;t think it is possible to explicitly specify when divorce should be allowed, simply due to the variance of cases.
And there are, after all, divorce courts for this sort of thing anyways. So I'm not sure the discussion is about restricting divorce, more restricting access to it as an option; because said courts should already act as a check.
Originally posted by Tiara
I say one line and it's over. Just the way i like it! :D:p
Expert nagger, then?
*runs*
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Expert nagger, then?
:drevil:
-
Originally posted by Tiara
Holland is one of the most densely populated countries in western Europe IIRC.
EDIT: Actually, Holland is #25 on the world's most densely populated countries. The 24 above Holland are mostly 3rd world countries and the vatican :p
Its pretty dense from the look of it. How much is the actual population number though? If you dont mind me asking that is.
I say one line and it's over. Just the way i like it! :D:p [/B]
Yeah, well im sleepy and cant think coherently either, so i'll wait till tomorrow before retorting :P
-
Netherlands has a population of ~16,300,000 IIRC
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Netherlands has a population of ~16,300,000 IIRC
Yes;
Holland
Pop/km^2 = 393
Total area = 41,526 km^2
Total population = 16,318,199 per July 2004
America
Pop/km^2 = 29
Total area = 9,629,091 km^2
Total population = ~280,000,000
See the difference? :p
-
Originally posted by Tiara
Yes;
Holland
Pop/km^2 = 393
Total area = 41,526 km^2
Total population = 16,318,199 per July 2004
America
Pop/km^2 = 29
Total area = 9,629,091 km^2
Total population = ~280,000,000
See the difference? :p
ok,ok I see it........
-
Fun fact for you since IIRC you come from India;
Holland is more densely populated then India which has ~318 ppl/km^2. And they have a fargin' 1,000,000,000+ population and increasing rapidly :p
-
ok, i GOT it already. Dont have to drive it all the way home you know :P
-
Originally posted by Singh
ok, i GOT it already. Dont have to drive it all the way home you know :P
Good. I always make sure people know what I'm talking about. A side-effect of being a teacher perhaps :p
-
Nag nag nag nag nag
:nervous:
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Nag nag nag nag nag
:nervous:
what he said.
*runs
:nervous: :nervous: :shaking:
-
:drevil: