Alfred Kinsey: sexual psychopath

Dr. Judith Reisman, expert on Alfred Kinsey, the "father" of the American sexual revolution, has a new piece in Salvo magazine:

kinsey 2.gif

... [W]hen Al Kinsey's Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948) hit the nation, it did not just cause a sexual revolution, it caused a sex science revolution.

Kinsey's sex "findings" displaced the common law and Judeo-Christian theories of human sexuality, which had dictated our conduct, culture, and sex-crime penalties. The ideals of delayed rewards, complete abstinence before and fidelity within marriage, said Kinsey, were scientifically false, constraining, repressing, and, (most condemnatory), "hypocritical."

The test of a good scientific theory is its predictability. Kinsey predicted that when people believed his theories and data, divorce, venereal disease, "illegitimacy," sex crimes, and all sexual dysfunctions would decrease. You many have noticed that Kinsey's predictions didn't quite pan out. The science was bad....

We gutted our sex laws and changed our sexual behavior to fit the lusts of a team of Indiana University sexual psychopaths posing as scientists. It is time for Congress to investigate the Kinsey sex science fraud. Based on post-1950s hard data, the old sexual science was healthier for society. We had fewer sex offenders and therefore significantly fewer sex offender recidivists to argue about. Or to erase.

Speaking of Kinsey, also just out is The Kinsey Syndrome, a documentary:

This documentary shows how The Kinsey Reports have been used to change the laws concerning sex crimes in America, resulting in the minimal sentences so often given to rapists and pedophiles. Further explained is that the Kinsey data laid the foundation for sex education -- training teachers, psychologists and even Catholic priests in human sexuality. What has been the consequence? And what was Kinsey's research really based upon?

Working secretly in his attic, Dr. Kinsey was one of America's original pornographers. His influence inspired Hugh Hefner to launch Playboy magazine - the "soft" approach to porn - which in time would escalate the widespread use of pornography through magazines, cable TV and the Internet....

Perhaps most disturbing, Alfred Kinsey has been accused of training pedophiles to work with stopwatches and record the responses of children being raped - all in the name of "science." Among his workers was a Nazi pedophile...

Here's the trailer for The Kinsey Syndrome...

Read my previous post, The Alfred Kinsey cover-up.


Comments:

We gutted our sex laws and changed our sexual behavior to fit the lusts of a team of Indiana University sexual psychopaths posing as scientists."

This might be exaggerating Kinsey's influence a bit. I would guess we'd be in pretty much the same place we are now with or without his contributions.

Posted by: Hal at March 13, 2009 11:31 AM


A sick sick man whose dangerous ideas have nearly destroyed ALL morality in this world we live in.

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at March 13, 2009 11:34 AM


Hal, read up on the man. He was a pervert pedophile who likely died during a self-inflicted sexual escapade.

Posted by: Jill Stanek at March 13, 2009 11:39 AM


Hi Jill 11:39am

We've had a couple of fatalities in our city over the years resulting from such escapades. Very tragically, a man went beserk after accidentally killing his wife during one such escapade and killed his two small children and himself.

Posted by: Mary at March 13, 2009 11:58 AM


" Kinsey predicted that when people believed his theories and data, divorce, venereal disease, "illegitimacy," sex crimes, and all sexual dysfunctions would decrease. You many have noticed that Kinsey's predictions didn't quite pan out. The science was bad...."

Where Stanek fails in this argument:

1) decrease - well since a lot of sex crime wasn't reported in Kinsey's era or just beyond, (marital rape in the 50's - no such thing, domestic violence, not our problem said the police) not to mention population increases, so it would be rates per capita, not just numbers.

2) the possibility which you overlook is that people have not yet fully accepted their sexuality. For instance, abstinence only teaching - sex is bad, one should feel guilty, therefore to actually have/use birth control means the sex is pre-meditated, thus double guilt - if they don't buy bc and have sex, then ooops, it "just happened, passion of the moment," etc. which result not in kids abstaining (as studies have shown - and a BIG shout out to Bristol and Levi there)but having risky unprotected, disease transmitting babymaking sex.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 13, 2009 12:05 PM


Jill, I'm willing to accept for the sake of argument everything you say about the man. I don't, however, think that means our current state of morality or immorality is due to his influence.

Posted by: Hal at March 13, 2009 12:19 PM


"abstinence only teaching - sex is bad, one should feel guilty"

Yup, that's abstinence only education alright. You must be very well-read in abstinence only education because we won't admit that to the students. The phrase you used above is only found in the teacher's editions, and even then, it's in very fine print with a note to the teacher by it that says "Don't let the students know that this is the real reason you oppose sex. We have found that if you make up something about sex having meaning or intrinsic value, this will keep the students brainwashed into being abstinent until at least college." Now if only we could find a way to keep them from becoming free and liberated at college, then we could REALLY begin to control other people's lives...

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at March 13, 2009 12:25 PM


Kinsey predicted that when people believed his theories and data, divorce, venereal disease, "illegitimacy," sex crimes, and all sexual dysfunctions would decrease.

What???? You mean these things existed before 1948 Jill? ;)

To tell you the truth I'd never even heard of Judith Reisman, darling of the chrsitian right, until this post. Here's some background from the New Yorker. Interesting route she's had from Daughter of communist parents (yllas will have a field day!), Captain Kangaroo, staffer, PhD in communications and now founder of the modern anti- Kinsey movement:

The Culture Wars
Why Know?
by Daniel Radosh
December 6, 2004

When Judith Reisman and Eunice Van Winkle Ray lectured together recently in Nashville, Mrs. Ray was introduced by her husband, Colonel Ronald Ray, who grabbed the audience’s attention by announcing that the United States “lost the most important war of the twentieth century.” He was referring not to Vietnam, where he served, but to the sexual revolution. “Many of us are casualties of the sexual revolution,” he said cryptically. Mrs. Ray then took the lectern and presented an overview, complete with charts, of our current state of sexual degeneracy: the repeal of laws against abortion, adultery, fornication, and even sodomy. All of this they trace back to the work of one man: Alfred Kinsey.

The recent release of “Kinsey,” a film about the famous mid-century sex researcher, has made this a busy time for the anti-Kinsey movement. Most Americans no longer give much thought to Kinsey as a societal force, but his detractors believe that his significance can hardly be overstated. A recent newsletter of the abstinence-education group Why know? compared the publication of “The Kinsey Report,” in 1948, to the attacks of September 11th, and labelled Kinseyism “fifty years of cultural terrorism.”

Judith Reisman is the founder of the modern anti-Kinsey movement. She spent a week in Washington, D.C., recently, talking to people on Capitol Hill about opening a congressional investigation into Kinsey’s work. The new film, she said, is “deceptive and malevolently misleading, to say the least.” A sixty-nine-year-old independent researcher with a Ph.D. in communications and a former songwriter for Captain Kangaroo, Reisman is the president of the Institute for Media Education and the lead author of “Kinsey, Sex and Fraud” and “Kinsey: Crimes and Consequences.” In one article, Reisman describes Kinsey as “a scientific and moral fraud, a certifiable sexual psychopath as well as a sadomasochistic pornography addict and a sexually harassing bully.” Though largely unknown outside social-conservative circles, Reisman has been influential within them. She has served as a consultant to the Departments of Education and Health and Human Services and was given seven hundred and thirty-four thousand dollars by Ronald Reagan’s Justice Department to study pornography. More recently, she has been active in the rise of abstinence-only education; in June, her colleagues gave her an Abstie Award for lifetime achievement. Last week, Reisman testified at a congressional hearing about the dangers of pornography addiction, saying that police should be required to collect evidence of pornography consumption at any crime scene.

“Dr. Kinsey’s most egregious fraud is that he wasn’t a scientist,” Reisman said the other day. “He was an ideologue who was most importantly a sex offender at best, and, beyond being a sex offender, he was certainly a child sexual abuser and/or solicitor and guide in the perpetration of that abuse.” At the root of this accusation is an interview that Kinsey conducted with a sexual predator who kept detailed records of his activities with hundreds of women, men, and children.


from the issuecartoon banke-mail thisBut it is not simply Kinsey’s neutrality toward such people that upsets Reisman. She claims that Kinsey actively solicited pedophiles to molest children and report back to him. In fact, she said, “there is absolutely no reason to believe that Kinsey himself was not involved in the sexual abuse of these children.” (None of Kinsey’s four biographers have turned up any evidence that he was.) Reisman also believes that Kinsey died not from heart failure but from what she calls “brutal, repetitive self-abuse.”

To a reader of Reisman’s scholarly papers, it sometimes appears that there is little for which she does not hold Kinsey responsible. In her research on gays, for instance, she has written that the “recruitment techniques” of homosexuals rival those of the Marine Corps. The Kinsey paradigm, she holds, created the moral framework that makes such recruitment possible. Reisman also endorses a book called “The Pink Swastika,” which challenges the “myths” that gays were victimized in Nazi Germany. The Nazi Party and the Holocaust itself, she writes, were largely the creation of “the German homosexual movement.” Thanks to Alfred Kinsey, she warns, the American homosexual movement is poised to repeat those crimes. “Idealistic ‘gay youth’ groups are being formed and staffed in classrooms nationwide by recruiters too similar to those who formed the original ‘Hitler youth.’ ”

Reisman was not always a counter-revolutionary. Her parents were members of the American Communist Party, and she belonged to the Labor Youth League in Los Angeles in the nineteen-forties. But the sexual revolution caught her off guard, and she became concerned, first, about the spread of pornography. It was at an academic conference in Wales in the late nineteen-seventies that Reisman discovered Kinsey. She was lecturing on evidence of child pornography in Playboy cartoons, when, as she recalled it, a mysterious man approached her and said, “If you’re really concerned about child sexual abuse you have to look at ‘The Kinsey Reports.’ I said, ‘Why?’ and he said, ‘I worked with Kinsey and his aide Wardell Pomeroy. One is a pedophile and the other is homosexual.’ I said, ‘Which is which?’ and he said, ‘Read and discover,’ and he walked away and changed my life.”

Reisman won’t say exactly whom she met with on Capitol Hill, but she was “very encouraged” by the response. She is hoping that someone will revive H.R. 2749, a bill introduced, at Reisman’s urging, in 1995 to determine if “The Kinsey Reports” “are the result of any fraud or criminal wrongdoing.” It has been languishing since its sponsor, Congressman Steve Stockman, of Texas, lost his bid for reëlection in 1996. “I certainly would like to see a congressional investigation. Let Congress establish the truth of this matter. Or let it go to a courtroom.” She hopes that the film (along with two forthcoming television documentaries and a recent novel by T. C. Boyle) will foster a backlash, or at least persuade some of Kinsey’s alleged eight hundred child victims to finally come forward. She envisions a class-action lawsuit modelled after the Big Tobacco trials. She said, “Suddenly, people ask, ‘So much cost in celluloid, books, and press for some obscure sexual deviant in Indiana—who is profiting?’ Follow the money.”

Ultimately, Reisman and her colleagues hope to discredit not only Kinsey but the entire field of sexology which he created, and what she calls “the sexindustrial complex” that has grown out of it. “One doesn’t measure American sexual habits,” she said. “That’s not a science.”

Posted by: asitis at March 13, 2009 12:27 PM


Hal, read up on the man. He was a pervert pedophile who likely died during a self-inflicted sexual escapade.

Everything I've read says he died of heart disease.

Posted by: reality at March 13, 2009 12:39 PM


If sodomy is outlawed, only outlaws will have sodomy.

Posted by: Hal at March 13, 2009 12:52 PM


Dang, asitis, that article has got to be the funniest thing I've read all week!

“Dr. Kinsey’s most egregious fraud is that he wasn’t a scientist,” Reisman said the other day. “He was an ideologue

Well if that ain't the pot callin' the kettle black, I don't know what is! LMAO!

Posted by: reality at March 13, 2009 12:52 PM


Woe to those who call good evil and evil good.


Posted by: LizFromNebraska at March 13, 2009 12:56 PM


Reality,

I have no idea how Kinsey died and am not taking a stand on his death. I will only say that over the years death from "heart disease" has covered everything from death during a sexual indiscretion to suicide and murder.

Also, remember Rosemary, the "retarded" sister of John Kennedy who was in an institution in Wisconsin? It wasn't mentioned that her "retardation" resulted from her brain being scrambled by a botched lobotomy her father had "doctors" perform on her.

Very embarassing facts can be covered up very easily and are. Whether or not this is the case with Kinsley I have no idea. I'm just saying it wouldn't surprise me in the least if "heart disease" was used as a cover.

Posted by: Mary at March 13, 2009 1:00 PM


Glad you liked that reality!

I don't think Reisman actually claims to be a scientist. I don't see how she could.....


Posted by: asitis at March 13, 2009 1:05 PM


Okay, I'm not finding any evidence of anyone but the christian right putting much stock in the women's research. No wonder I haven't heard of her! ;)

Anyone got anything?

Posted by: asitis at March 13, 2009 1:16 PM


This reminds me of the old saying that "The love of money (not money itself) is the root of all evil". The same is true of science and technology, IMO, in that it is our reaction to them that causes us unending problems, not the actual science and technology. We react by becoming more conceited as a society, and less likely to care about things like morality, because we start to think that our science and technology will allow us to conquer everything, including the consequences of immoral behavior.

They will not do that.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 13, 2009 1:21 PM


I have read Judith's book. And it is very disturbing. Kinsey was a very sick man. I think part of the problem with priests molesting children was in part resulting from Kinsey's research. He wrote how children could enjoy sex with adults. And he was very instumental in changing the laws of the day. Thank goodness today we are seeing the depravation of his thoughts.

Did you know he interviewed imprisoned sex offenders for his research? He has wanted to talk to co-eds from a local college but the head of women would have nothing to do with it. And this research was then the basis for changes in the law.

Posted by: lovethemboth at March 13, 2009 1:50 PM


"Did you know he interviewed imprisoned sex offenders for his research?"

I don't see a problem with that. That's "research."

"And this research was then the basis for changes in the law."

What changes? And how do you know it was his research that was the basis for the changes? I doubt anyone said, "let's stop arresting people for adultery, Kinsey's research says it's normal."

Posted by: Hal at March 13, 2009 2:04 PM


asitis,
What is the christian right?

Posted by: Carla at March 13, 2009 2:14 PM


LTB 1:50PM

Tragically child molestation has been around ever since there have been children and sickos who will molest them so this is can hardly be blamed on Kinsey. Some of these sickos are of the mind children enjoy sex and sincerely think they are not harming these children in any way.
I don't know enough about Kinsey to have an opinion of him or what he did, but we can hardly blame him for child molestation.
These are individuals who are twisted for who knows what reason, as are rapists and other sexual deviates.

Posted by: Mary at March 13, 2009 2:18 PM


I thought that was a common term Carla. It's not? Basically it's right-wing conservative christians. Do you want more?

Posted by: asitis at March 13, 2009 2:19 PM


And once again I hear no outrage nor disgust of Kinsey's use of pedophiles and the raping of children for his "research."

But lets go after Judith Palin, I mean Reisman and seek to discredit her.

Posted by: Carla at March 13, 2009 2:21 PM


What does right wing mean?

Posted by: Carla at March 13, 2009 2:23 PM


That's Reisman's take on things and I personally am not sure yet if it warrants outrage or disgust.

Posted by: asitis at March 13, 2009 2:25 PM


basically conservative, traditional

Do you want more?

Posted by: asitis at March 13, 2009 2:29 PM


Said with such disdain, asitis. Wonder what label you would prefer for yourself and your peeps.

And why so formal?? You can call me Carla.

Posted by: Carla at March 13, 2009 2:32 PM


And why so formal?? You can call me Carla.

Posted by: Carla at March 13, 2009 2:32 PM

huh????

And did I convey disdain? I didn't mean too.

What label would I prefer? I don't have a problem with the ones I hear here: liberal, left-wing....

Posted by: asitis at March 13, 2009 2:41 PM


I am a Christian conservative right wing extremist with traditional values but you can call me Carla. :P

Posted by: Carla at March 13, 2009 2:43 PM


And you can call me Asitis!

Posted by: asitis at March 13, 2009 2:53 PM


I don't think he is the source of our problems. He is a symptom and to a degree an accelerant.

He was far from truth on his facts and findings. (ugly experimental design)

Posted by: xppc at March 13, 2009 2:57 PM


Our hearts are like computers designed to process instructions and infomation as input. They were designed to recieve input from One Source and that is God Himself via His Word executed through His Holy Spirit.

These instructions are typically defined as the "Ten Commnandments". Since our processors were completeley "fried" when Adam and Eve sinned, a complete reprogramming had to be done since the gateway to God and proper acceptance of His instructions was completely shut down.

Christ's death on the cross simply re-opened the gateway (the veil was torn in half) to our hearts to receive the proper instructions that would result in the proper output, i.e., the frutis of the Spirit: love, peace, joy, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.

Kinsey's laughable and pathetic perversion was simply another one of satan's ploys to substitute a new set of instructions. In fact, all of man's attempts, be they good works, abortion, materialism, sex, riches, fame, power....just fill in the blank, are feeble and impotent ploys to re-define God.

The choice to accept or reject God's Son (the repair) is ours but so are the consequences.

Posted by: HisMan at March 13, 2009 5:35 PM


Asitis:

Things are not as your moniker implies. Rather they are an indication of your total self-delusion and self-deception and really your utter arrogance at implying that somehow what you think and sya are "as it is" when they are simply not.

In actuality, you haven't got a clue. Perhaps, with God's grace, and just a few trials by fire, you'll soon realize that and you will be able to say someday, "not my will but thy will be done".

Posted by: HisMan at March 13, 2009 5:38 PM


The ideals of delayed rewards, complete abstinence before and fidelity within marriage, said Kinsey, were scientifically false, constraining, repressing, and, (most condemnatory), "hypocritical."

This sums up your views on sexuality asitis,as you have stated many times before.

BTW, you never did find me proof to back up this statement on the other thread:

BTW people oppose abstinence-only education not just because of its ineffectiveness but also because it is discriminatory.

Did you forget?

Posted by: angel at March 13, 2009 6:16 PM


@ Carla: How could you NOT know, m'dear?

traditional, conservative, right-wing, Christian = bigoted, narrow-minded, violent prolife terroristic AND homophobic

:P

Posted by: angel at March 13, 2009 6:19 PM


sure Hisman. And maybe someday pigs will fly too.

Angel should I even bother?

Posted by: asitis at March 13, 2009 8:03 PM


traditional, conservative, right-wing, Christian = bigoted, narrow-minded, violent prolife terroristic AND homophobic

:P

Posted by: angel at March 13, 2009 6:19 PM

Good try Angel. The implication is that Liberals are un-bigoted, open-minded, peaceful, anti-life, pacifist, and homowhatever?

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

You crack me up.

Some of the most bigoted, closed-minded, self-absorbed, pro-death, sissified Liberals are white New York Democrats. Well, at least they don't realize that they are, i.e., they are delusional.

And I expect you consider the decapitation, mutilation, murder, disfiguration and termination of a baby in the womb to be the actions of a pacifict, open-minded, faith filled, hope inspiring, loving, other person centered example of what a human being should be? (LOL)

Since you are anti-Christian you are by self-definition anti-Christ. Bring the barbecue sauce or, eat humble pie, your choice.

Posted by: HisMan at March 13, 2009 8:22 PM


Oh His Man, you're funny with your fire and brimstone. Do people really still talk like that????

Posted by: asitis at March 13, 2009 8:30 PM


HisMan I was being facetious. I'm sorry sometimes sarcasm just doesn't come across online! :-D
"The implication is that Liberals are un-bigoted, open-minded, peaceful, anti-life, pacifist, and homowhatever?"

yes, by George, you've got it! This is exactly was secular humanists believe themselves to be!! But then, we know that they are not grounded in reality.


Posted by: angel at March 13, 2009 8:54 PM


Angel should I even bother?

Posted by: asitis at March 13, 2009 8:03 PM

yes, you should apply the same rigorous criteria to yourself that you do to others.
You made a claim on another thread implying it to be factual. Therefore, back it up.
I'm doubtful that you will however, because you simply can't.

Posted by: angel at March 13, 2009 8:59 PM


asitis:

Doesn't matter. People laughed at Noah while he was building the Ark. And then....it rained.

Do you think hell exists? Or, has it disappeared merely by so-called reasoned thinking?

Do you think we can reason away black holes or the sun or the stars? Can we reason away gravity? Ah, you may say we can't see gravity but we can see its affects, therefore, it is real.

Why do I know hell exists? I know hell exists becasue there is evil in the world. I know hell exists because there are people who think abortion is OK.

Again astiis, you are delusional.

Posted by: HisMan at March 13, 2009 9:00 PM


I'm doubtful that you will however, because you simply can't.

Posted by: angel at March 13, 2009 8:59 PM

Okay, just so we are clear, you are saying I can't produce any evidence that absinence-only is ineffective?

Posted by: asitis at March 13, 2009 9:05 PM


"Doesn't matter. People laughed at Noah while he was building the Ark. And then....it rained."

Wait a minute HisMan! This actually happened? For rizzle?

Oh man, now I am scared.

Posted by: asitis at March 13, 2009 9:09 PM


Okay, just so we are clear, you are saying I can't produce any evidence that absinence-only is ineffective?

Posted by: asitis at March 13, 2009 9:05 PM

go back and read your comment woman. Determine the claims you made. Then back it up. I'm not spoon-feeding you. :P

Posted by: angel at March 13, 2009 9:17 PM


Angel, as I recall i said that poeple oppose abstinence-only education not just because it's ineffective but also because it's discriminatory.

There's a few things there. one of them I already addressed: how it's discriminatory. So I just want to be sure of what exactly of the following you want to see evidence:

That people oppose it because its ineffective?
That people oppose it because its discriminatory.
That it is ineffective.

Posted by: asitis at March 13, 2009 9:27 PM


you have proven nothing.

Do you not understand the comments you write on this BB?

Posted by: angel at March 13, 2009 9:30 PM


BB?

"You have proven nothing". Did say I did? I was asking you for clarification of exactly what you wanted evidence of?

Posted by: asitis at March 13, 2009 9:44 PM


how is abstinence only discriminatory? If its presented in the right away (consequences of sexual promiscuity for example: emotional, physical, etc) then I don't see HOW it would be "discriminatory" unless you mean it doesn't allow the Planned Parenthood view of sex which is seriously messed up?


Look up Jason Evert on Google or Yahoo and listen to the audio sample talk he gives for the public schools. It removes any mention of the bible/God because its adjusted for that environment.


Posted by: LizFromNebraska at March 13, 2009 9:50 PM


Asitis:

Yes, the Great Flood happened. It completely destroyed and reshaped the face of the earth and terminated all life as well except Noah and his family and male and female of each animal species. This was no fairy tale story. This was the most destructive, the most cataclysmic event in history and there are evidences of it to be found everywhere if one would only look. The Grand Canyon is probably the most significant piece of evidence of a Great Flood on the planet.

The hyrologic and flow forces of the water were so enormous, so unimaginable, that mountains were lifted, valleys and canyons were carved, climate was changed, tectonic plates were moved, and the meeting of water and magma caused such cataclysmic explosions, that whole portions of the earth were launched into space.

The propagandized and compromised scientific community that knows what really happened either refuse to tell the truth or are afraid to tell the truth. I am not.

If you were a true revolutionary, a true hero, you would rebel against the lies of today's evolutionsts. They are the enemies of society because of their lies and false religion. These are the same people whose false beliefs convince gullible yong minds that abortion is OK. It's all lies!

In reality you are not the enlightened, informed, and educated person you think you are. You are just another common conformist with a closed mind. You are a victim, by choice, of a great satanic deception.

Just imagine how the earth would have been changed by a Great Flood. Water covered the highest mountain. It wasn't just rain that flooded the earth. The Bible says that the storehouses of water under the ground opened up. Ever heard of an aquifer?

Phoenix is in the middle of the desert but sits over an huge aquifer that is 600 to 700 feet below ground. What if a sub-surface shift occured in aquifers all over the world that caused the water to meet magma and then began to flow out at 212 degrees F and 150 psi? Ever seen a boiler explode? Now magnify this by a trillion, trillion. The destruction was complete. Just open your mind and imagine that.

Ah, to be freed by God's Spirit!

If you were honest you would study the fossil record which only occurs in sedimetnaty rock, i.e., dirt that was in liquid suspension and then solified as the water receded. Fossils in sedimentary rock are found all over the world.

There are also numerous evdience of animals found in the fossil record going into a typical death roll, i.e., pulling their neck back (an involutary reflex action), as if being suddenly suffocated or drowned. They are found in groups and individually all over the world.

More and more honest sceintists are revisiting the reality that the Great Flood did occur.

So, asitis, thatsthewayitwas.

Posted by: HisMan at March 13, 2009 9:51 PM


Well that about proves it for me. I'm all pumped for Jesus now!

No, seriously HisMan, have you ever taken a geology course?????

Posted by: asitis at March 13, 2009 10:00 PM


How is it discriminatory Liz? Well, it teaches that sex outside of marriage is wrong. Which means it discriminates against gay couples and unmarried couples who have sex.

Posted by: asitis at March 13, 2009 10:03 PM


angel,
I knew what you meant. I heart sarcasm. :)

Posted by: Carla at March 13, 2009 10:09 PM


asitis:

Yes, have you taken a theology course?

Posted by: HisMan at March 13, 2009 10:18 PM


it teaches WHY sex outside of a committed relationships is wrong, which is common sense.

Please look up Jason Evert. Look for the sample audio of the talk given to PUBLIC SCHOOLS.


Posted by: LizFromNebraska at March 13, 2009 10:26 PM


No. But I don't profess to have a deep knowledge of religion and God. You, however, think you understand rock formation, plate tectonics, the fossil record, etc. and you don't. At all.

Posted by: asitis at March 13, 2009 10:30 PM


it teaches WHY sex outside of a committed relationships is wrong, which is common sense.

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at March 13, 2009 10:26 PM

And what's this common sense reason why they tell the kids it's wrong?

Posted by: asitis at March 13, 2009 10:33 PM


Emotional and physical consequences. There is no "Cure" for a broken heart when a girl gets dumped by a guy who was just using her.

And it cuts down the spreading of STDs (well, HIV can still be contracted through Blood Transfusions and sharing needles).

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at March 13, 2009 10:37 PM


Zealots are not reliable sources for empirical data.

I believe it was cameron who pointed that out in one thousand words or more.

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at March 13, 2009 10:38 PM


Emotional and physical consequences. There is no "Cure" for a broken heart when a girl gets dumped by a guy who was just using her.

And it cuts down the spreading of STDs (well, HIV can still be contracted through Blood Transfusions and sharing needles).

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at March 13, 2009 10:37 PM

Well, marriages end with perhaps even the most heartache of any relationships.....

But let's consider a man and woman in a longterm relationship that isn't marriage. Do they say that sex is okay? Why not?

What about the same, but make it two women? Two men? Do they say that's okay? Why not?

Posted by: asitis at March 13, 2009 10:51 PM


"There is no "Cure" for a broken heart when a girl gets dumped by a guy who was just using her."

How about time?

And what about guys' broken hearts when they get dumped??

Posted by: asitis at March 13, 2009 10:53 PM


I just tell my kids to go for it.

If it feels good to you, (let the other sucker look out for her/him self.) do it.

If it does not feel good, do not do it unless you get off on the pain (inflicted on yourself and/or on others).

All I can say for sure is someday you will die, so experince all the pleasure you can while you are still able.

Screw all this kindness and compassion crap. Watch out for number one.

If and when life gets too miserable then just off yourself. No use hangin around if ain't fun no more.

And take a few of the jerks who caused you so much grief with you.

Don't miss the opportunity to get even when there is no way to be punished for it.

Do unto others before they do it unto you.

Live and die by your own code. Do not let anyone else put their guilt trip on you.

yor bro ken


Posted by: kbhvac at March 13, 2009 10:54 PM


OK ssitis:

Pose a geological question as it relates to thr Great Flood and I will try to answer it.

Posted by: HisMan at March 13, 2009 11:08 PM


HisMan take a look at this:

"If you were honest you would study the fossil record which only occurs in sedimetnaty rock, i.e., dirt that was in liquid suspension and then solified as the water receded. Fossils in sedimentary rock are found all over the world".

Posted by: HisMan at March 13, 2009 9:51 PM

For starters, sedimentary rock is formed from sediments that are deposited on land or in water or from the crystallization of dissolved minerals. Sediments in water fall out of suspension as the water slows.

Over time, layers of sediment accumulate and the pressure from the overlaying layers compacts the layers and eventually they become sedimentary rock. Sedimentary rocks (and the fossils they contain) occur all over the world because this process occurred (and still is occurring BTW) all over the world. It is not because of a Great Flood

Posted by: asitis at March 13, 2009 11:27 PM


A:

In fact, we do not see fossils and strata forming on a large sale today! Why? Because of a little known and poorly understood phenomenon called liquefaction.

Liquefaction-associated with quicksand, earthquakes, and wave action-played a major role in rapidly sorting sediments, plants, and animals during the flood. Indeed, the worldwide presence of sorted fossils and sedimentary layers shows that a gigantic global flood occurred. Massive liquefaction aslo left oterh diagnostic features such as cross-bedded sandstone, plumes, mounds, and fossilized footprints.

Posted by: HisMan at March 13, 2009 11:43 PM


HisMan, you know quite honestly, if you really are interested in what can be learned from the geological record, then I suggest you take some courses or read some textbooks. But I know you're not really interested. You're convinced of your bible stories and will use them to explain how the earth is the way it is.

Posted by: asitis at March 13, 2009 11:45 PM


A:

I was an areospace engineer for 12 years and have been a construction engineer for 24 years. I also have a Master's Degree in Theology - so, bring it on. I also understand geology and soil mechanics as well as hydrology, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, dynamics, fluid dynamics, strength of materials, and vector calculus (force interaction between particles) my job depends on it. Current teaching in most secular universtiteis heinously doesn't take flood geology seriously and discounts the flood as myth. This is foolish, just as it is foolish to ignore that babies in the womb are living, breathing, human beings. To ignore so much evidence is to be unscientifc and prejudiced. That is not good science. I reject all teaching that does not at least consider the possiblity of a Great Flood.

The flooded earth had enormous, unimpeded waves, not just normal waves, but waves generated by undulating hydroplates. Also, the flooded earth had no coastline, so friction did not destroy waves at the beach. Instead, waves traveled around the earth, often reinforcing oterh waves.

With each wave cycle during the flood, water was forced down and up out of the sea floor. Under wave peaks, water was forced, not only down into he sediments below, but laterally through the sediments, in teh direction of the temporary poressure minimum that was simultaneously occurring one half wavelength away, under the wave trough. Later, when the wave trough arrives, both effects are reveresed, producing upward flowing water. Water almost completely surrouned each sediment particle depositied on the ocean floor during the flood, giving each particle maximum bouyancy. Therefore sediments were loosely packed and held much water.

Don't you see it? Or do you just beleive your lying mind?

Posted by: HisMan at March 13, 2009 11:59 PM


We do not see strata forming on a large scale today? What exactly are you saying? That sedimentation is not occurring today on a "large scale"? What?????

"Liquefaction-associated with quicksand, earthquakes, and wave action-played a major role in rapidly sorting sediments, plants, and animals during the flood. Indeed, the worldwide presence of sorted fossils and sedimentary layers shows that a gigantic global flood occurred".

Oh, so you're (or whatever pseudoscientist you got this from) is suggesting that we can explain away the issue of different sedimentary layers by saying it was due to liquefaction and because liquefaction was responsible we can say there was a Great Flood.

If you want to really know HisMan, I've already suugested how you can. I'm not going to even try.....

Posted by: asitis at March 14, 2009 12:00 AM


HisMan you might have knowledge of soil physics and hydrology, but that doesn't mean that you necessarily have much background in geology and the geological record. And what you say supports that.

I think this says it all:
"I reject all teaching that does not at least consider the possiblity of a Great Flood".

Though i think it's more likely:
" I reject all teaching that does not support the Great Flood"

Posted by: asitis at March 14, 2009 12:09 AM


C'mon A:

Don't be frightened of the truth.

Any question, anything.

The truth is that the flood caused such great global damage, like an abortion that totally rips apart a baby, or a fish being churned in a blender on SNL, that sedimentation occurred everywhere and universally and simultaneously. Have your elegant quack atheistic or half-baked theistic geology professors explain that. You know this too and are not honest enough to admit it. Nowhere is this same phenomenon happening on earth today, absolutely nowhere.

It can only happen in a micro-geologic pattern and even then the same time spans for deposition can't be duplicated except maybe after cataclysims like the Mount St. Helens eruption. Liquefaction, liquefaction, liquefaction.

Posted by: HisMan at March 14, 2009 12:11 AM


HisMan, how old is the earth? How old is man?

Posted by: asitis at March 14, 2009 12:14 AM


"sedimentation occurred everywhere and universally and simultaneously. Have your elegant quack atheistic or half-baked theistic geology professors explain that"

Sedimentation is occurring in that manner now HisMan. What are you saying?

Posted by: asitis at March 14, 2009 12:19 AM


HisMan, from your comments I can't help but think that you believe the earth to be young and therefore need a cataclysmic event to explain what we see in the geologic record. Is this the case?

Posted by: asitis at March 14, 2009 12:22 AM


"Oh, so you're (or whatever pseudoscientist you got this from) is suggesting that we can explain away the issue of different sedimentary layers by saying it was due to liquefaction and because liquefaction was responsible we can say there was a Great Flood.

If you want to really know HisMan, I've already suugested how you can. I'm not going to even try.....

Posted by: asitis at March 14, 2009 12:00 AM"

You resort to attacking me rather than countering my scientific argument.

Your reaction is typical of all those who act in the same way when presented with the truth - mental shut down.

Then provide a better reason for the origin of strata and layered fossils other than liquefaction that occured during the global cataclysm of the Great Flood.

And you still haven't dealt with the common death pose found in fossils all over the world within the saem strata suggesting a sudden, simulataneous onset of suffocation, i.e., being covered with water. If not a singular
event, what, were they posing for over millions and zillions of years, a Playboy photographer on the beach?

Oh I remember the science lesson....stones evolved into Nikon cameras....before homosapien. I think they called them Itakeapictureaus aka Brownies by Eastman Kodak.

Posted by: HisMan at March 14, 2009 12:26 AM


"Then provide a better reason for the origin of strata and layered fossils other than liquefaction that occured during the global cataclysm of the Great Flood"

In a word....sedimentation.

Posted by: asitis at March 14, 2009 12:30 AM


"And you still haven't dealt with the common death pose found in fossils all over the world within the saem strata suggesting a sudden, simulataneous onset of suffocation, i.e., being covered with water"

I'm not familiar with this "death pose" you are speaking of. What are these fossils of?

Posted by: asitis at March 14, 2009 12:35 AM


Hisman, would you care to tell me how old you think the earth is and how old man is. This would pretty much cut to the chase.

Posted by: asitis at March 14, 2009 12:36 AM


Yes I beleive in a young earth and the literal creation story. Six days, then He rested.

Big deal, so what. All the untwisted evidence supports this.

You don't really understand quantum mechanics do you or the space/time curve theory do you? No space, no time, no time, no space, ring a bell? Think deeply about that for just a nanosecond or a million years - take your warp time.

Let me give you a clue which is consistent with the word of God and Einstienian Theory: God is not limited by space or time. Has the light gone on yet?

What you think God needed more time? It's ludicrous. A day is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as a day to God or E=mc2. Have you ever calculated what the sped of light squared is?

Again, ad hominem attacks because you have no comeback except to try to discredit me. You are typical Liberal.

The point is......evolution and the discounting of the Flood gives many the false security that the Bible is a myth and belief in it is optional. This is a lie by the author of lies, satan, whose insane goals are to destroy you by believing lies. This is nothing new. Oh, he also thinks he can kill God by killing babies inthe womb and therefore, keep HImself from his hellbound destiny.

Let me tell you this. The Bible is an other-worldly book that was written by no man. Yes God used numerous writers to put it on paper, papyrus, vellum, whatever, however, they all wrote under the power and divine guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Did you know that Jesus walked thorugh walls after His resurrection? Now is that real or a myth or so beyond your ability to comprehend that you very foolishly discount the possility?

Do you think that maybe a God who created space and time, and babies in the womb, might not be subject to the limitations of space and time? Einstein just touched the surface.

Posted by: HisMan at March 14, 2009 12:47 AM


6,000 years old + or -.

Posted by: HisMan at March 14, 2009 12:48 AM


I know, the Big Bang.

Here's my answer grasshopper:

Let's assume the Universe is 13.7 billion years old per most evolutionists. That is not enough time for stars containing heavy chemical elements to form and then transmit their light to earth. A big bang would have produced only hydrogen, helium, and lithium, the three lightest chemical elements. Light from the most distant stars and galaxies shows that they contian much heavier chemical elements such as carbon, iron and lead, elements that could not have been in the first generation of stars to form after the big bang.

This too, the Hubble Space Telescope,(which I worked on) found distant galaxies whose age, based on big bang assumptions, exceed the age of the universe.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

Posted by: HisMan at March 14, 2009 1:00 AM


Well, there you have it. I should have thought to ask that question first. It certainly explains a lot!

If you believe the earth is only 6,000 years old it makes sense that you believe the Great Flood had to occur to produce what we see in the geological record.

But HisMan don't make the mistake of saying all the evidence supports the earth being created in 6 days and Noah building an Ark. It doesn't. But that doesn't matter to you. It's your faith that makes you believe all of this. Not science.

Good night.

Posted by: asitis at March 14, 2009 1:00 AM


In actuality, you haven't got a clue. Perhaps, with God's grace, and just a few trials by fire, you'll soon realize that and you will be able to say someday, "not my will but thy will be done".

Posted by: HisMan at March 13, 2009 5:38 PM

i don't think I'd be playing with any matches if I were you, Herman.

Posted by: Goddess at March 14, 2009 1:07 AM


Asitis:

I have presented numerous scientific supports to not only a young earth, but also to to creation and a Great Flood.

Not once have you countered as to why I am in error other than saying I am in error. Yes, if you can't kill the message, kill the messenger.

It's interesting, you said good night. Let me ask you this. I assume that if you understand what a night is that you understand what a day is as well. Why didn't you say, "good year" or "good minute"?

Can I also ask you this, is there any evidence anywhere that a day is more than 12 hours plus or minus the effect of 23 degree earth wobble?

Why would the writer of Genesis say the earth was created in six days and not say it was created in 50,000 years, or how about 1 minute, or how about 10,000,000 years? Do you think this writer knew what a night was and hence, what a day was? I think he did and I think he meant what he said. And I also think he would have been terrified to contradict what the Spirit was telling him to write.

Know this Asitis, in my short life of 56 years, I know that God means what He says and does what he says He will do. That is a lesson you should learn.

Posted by: HisMan at March 14, 2009 1:15 AM


Current teaching in most secular universtiteis heinously doesn't take flood geology seriously and discounts the flood as myth. This is foolish,....
Posted by: HisMan at March 13, 2009 11:59 PM

We also ignore tales of the Easter Bunny, fairies, Jolly Old Men bearing gifts, thuderbolt hurlign Olympians and UFO sightings. SO, if we invite one in, it would have to be all. Personally, I'd like to teach Harebrained Ideas 101. And you can be our first case study.

Posted by: professor at March 14, 2009 1:20 AM


Here's something for you too Asitis:

When Jesus confronted the religious leaders of the day he said in John 5:46-47:

"For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote of Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?"

Who do you think wrote Genesis Asitis? Bingo, Moses!!!! Yep, he wrote about creation and wow, the Great Flood. And you should read in Numbers where people that confronted God's man Moses, were sucked into the earth. Good thing, that grace stuff.

Discredit Moses and you discredit Christ.

Satan's ploys through the lies of evolution are exposed. Satan hates Christ because Satan knows that Christ is the only way that souls will escape his trap.

By the way, you have got it backwards:

The Bible defines Truth, sciences is a tool and method that discovers truth.

Evolution is very bad science and more and courageous scientists are being freed from the fear of being criticized or being considered stupid and are discovering the truth of the Bible and using science to prove its claims.

You are old-fashioned Asitis. Old ideas, old traditions, and lies.

Oh and here's another piece of wisdom. If you diss creation and accept evolution you can diss the Creator. If you diss the Creator, you can kill innocent babies in the womb.

Part of the solution to ending abortion is proving that the evidence for Creation and the Flood is true without compromise. Theistic evolution is just as evil as evolution. Destroy the Dawkins Doctrine and you destroy abortion.

Your arrogant and self-serving attitudes and belief system are proof of that and the virus is spreading to those who would be saved.

Posted by: HisMan at March 14, 2009 1:41 AM


"We also ignore tales of the Easter Bunny, fairies, Jolly Old Men bearing gifts, thuderbolt hurlign Olympians and UFO sightings. SO, if we invite one in, it would have to be all. Personally, I'd like to teach Harebrained Ideas 101. And you can be our first case study.

Posted by: professor at March 14, 2009 1:20 AM"

Gee Prof:

Not one of those accounts or claims that you have etched into eternal cyberspace as rock solid truth is mentioned in God's Word. Perhaps you haven't ever read The Book but assume those stories to have emanated from such eternal writings?

You know, not much is said about bunnies anywhere in The Book except to say somewhere in Deuteronomy that the hare is to be considered an unclean animal, you know all that Levitical Priesthood stuff.

Pleae don't tell me you get paid to propagandize or should I say, participate in the spiritual destruction of our young minds? Well, isn't tenure just another form of incompetence insurance?

Perhaps the dean never told you that assumption is the lowest from of knowledge? Oh, you missed that class?

You know I once had a differential equation prof who tried to tell me that there was no other way to derive a solution to a complex differential equation oterh than the text book way....well, I proved him wrong too. The ass used my solution to get some sort of accreditation for the college I went to and never mentioned my name. Tell me something, what does PhD stand for? Physical Disability? Or PhuddyDuddy? Oh, I know, Howdy Doody.

Bring it on.

Posted by: HisMan at March 14, 2009 1:56 AM


1 Corinthians 1:18
"18For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God."
____________________

1 Corinthians 1:21
"21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe."
____________________

1 Corinthians 1:23
23but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,
____________________

1 Corinthians 1:25
25For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.

____________________

1 Corinthians 2:14
14The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

____________________

1 Corinthians 3:19
19For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight. As it is written: "He catches the wise in their craftiness"

____________________

2 Peter 2:11-13
Bold and arrogant, these men are not afraid to slander celestial beings; 11yet even angels, although they are stronger and more powerful, do not bring slanderous accusations against such beings in the presence of the Lord. 12But these men blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like brute beasts, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like beasts they too will perish.

13They will be paid back with harm for the harm they have done. Their idea of pleasure is to carouse in broad daylight. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their pleasures while they feast with you.

______________________

Posted by: HisMan at March 14, 2009 2:08 AM


Hey Prof:

Why the late night surfing looking for Kinsey stuff?

Lonely?

Oh, a research paper on the Friday night before Spring Break. That'll work.

Posted by: HisMan at March 14, 2009 2:10 AM


Godless:

Actually, I use a torch. It's called God's Word.

Again, bring it on.

Posted by: HisMan at March 14, 2009 2:16 AM


This too Godless:

The Hebraic and Aramaic espressions for God always describe God as a He and not a Her.

But, I wouldn't expect a godless witch to know that.

The Lord deal with you.

Posted by: HisMan at March 14, 2009 2:20 AM


Asitis:

For your Saturday morning reading:

"A very interesting article was recently published in New Scientist magazine in honor of the bicentenary of Charles Darwin’s birth.1 Sixteen of the world’s leading evolutionary biologists were asked to identify the biggest gaps remaining in evolutionary theory. Apparently this exercise was a real test of the evolutionary faith, as only 6 out of the 16 scientists directly answered the question by giving a description of some sort of gap that needs resolution.

Of the 6 biologists who made it a point to answer the question, a number of comments highly relevant to the creation model were mentioned. Several of the scientists stressed the difficulty of explaining how life began in the first place. Despite the countless experiments conducted under highly-controlled laboratory environments using complex instrumentation, it appears that the essential biomolecules and biological structures needed for life just won’t develop “spontaneously.”

Interestingly, most biologists don’t often consider the insurmountable difficulties of the “RNA world” proposed to have started life. The general attitude among scientists not directly involved in origin of life research is that the biochemists will handle that issue, and they therefore assume all is well. And of course, macroevolution (complex life developed from simpler forms) cannot be reproduced in the lab either, a nasty little detail that is generally not considered at all. Instead, biologists will study existing genetic variation only in specific populations, like a type of squirrel or wildflower. Then they assert that the variation observed within such a gene pool is proof for evolution on a grand scale. These research projects are often also referred to as speciation studies in the biology community, which is probably more appropriate than claiming they are evolutionary studies.

This leads to the second gap mentioned by several evolutionists (2 out of 6): the unknown role that geographical isolation has played in creating new species. While the understanding of how geography affects genetic diversity is important to both creation and evolutionary scientists, the development of new major types of organisms presents a much greater problem. The primary issue is that there is no molecular genetic mechanism available to produce the quality and quantity of changes required by macroevolution. In fact, one scientist mentioned that perhaps the answer lies in studying the noncoding parts of the genome. However, it is primarily the coding parts of the genome that provide the blueprint for life (which is not to say the noncoding DNA does not play an important role in gene structure and function), particularly genes involved in organism development.

It is now known that genes themselves are quite complex in their structure and in their expression, both individually and in highly-complex overlapping networks. For macroevolution to work, new and useful coding regions are needed to create new traits for nature to select. The problem is that this is essentially impossible, as the coordinated changing of multiple genes—literally networks of genes—would have to occur simultaneously for many developmental traits to achieve a beneficial outcome. In nature, random uncoordinated genetic changes are only observed to be neutral or harmful. It does not require a statistician to see that the odds are stacked against the idea that gene networks, and the creatures that depend on them, were invented by mutations.

Certainly, it is better to trust in what is known: that life was created by God. His Word plainly states this, and science clearly supports it."

Posted by: HisMan at March 14, 2009 3:02 AM


"You have proven nothing". Did say I did? I was asking you for clarification of exactly what you wanted evidence of?

Posted by: asitis at March 13, 2009 9:44 PM

oh please, honey. Just get on with it and quit stalling. You've still proven NOTHING.....

How is it discriminatory Liz? Well, it teaches that sex outside of marriage is wrong. Which means it discriminates against gay couples and unmarried couples who have sex.

how is this discriminatory? What does the verb "to discriminate" mean?


You've not proved your point.

You made two claims. Back them up with US data showing that abstinence only education produce these two characteristcs, honeybuns.

*drumming fingers on desk while humming.....****

Posted by: angel at March 14, 2009 7:21 AM


Angel, I do not have to provide evidence that abstinence-only is discriminatory. All I have to do is explain how it is. And I already did that. It excludes gay couples and unmarried couples. And you know this.

Answer my question from 9:27pm and then I'll address this. If you want. but be patient - we havea houseguests for the next four days.

Posted by: asitis at March 14, 2009 7:50 AM


I have presented numerous scientific supports to not only a young earth, but also to to creation and a Great Flood.

No you haven't HisMan. These are not scientific facts you have presented. It's pointless for me to argue with you on this, and frankly I don't have the patience.

I'm not going to try to tell you your faith is wrong. It's not. It's what you believe. It's yours. And it's obviously the most important thing to you.

Posted by: asitis at March 14, 2009 7:58 AM


HisMan, how did Noah make sure the two polar bears didn't eat the kittens?

Posted by: hal at March 14, 2009 12:31 PM


HisMan:

You do an admirable job explaining the worldview of creation and how science supports it, though I'm sure no one is surprised that asitis is not interested in looking at your claims. My only note would be this: remember your audience. Since asitis does not believe in the existence of God, let alone that the Bible is the Word of God, arguments centering on why Genesis should be interpreted literally are lost on her.

Here's another scripture to remember:
First of all, you must understand that in the last day scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." But they deliberately forget that long ago, by God's word, the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.
-2 Peter 3:3-7

Remind you of anyone?

Posted by: YCW at March 14, 2009 12:42 PM


asitis:
By your logic, comprehensive sex ed is discriminatory against people who don't believe in birth control, or don't like it.

I live in MA, so (regardless of my personal opinion of it) your argument with regards to homosexuals is moot. Thus you are left only with the part about people in long-term non-marriage relationships. The obvious question here is why they do not formalize this relationship as marriage. No outside forces prevent them, assuming they are of age and not closely related. If it's mutually intended to be a long term relationship, why not just make it marriage? I can only assume that they do not want to marry because it involves a formal commitment. If they do not want that sort of commitment, perhaps they should not have sex. The argument of those who believe in abstinence-only education is that the bonding power of sex should be reserved for life-long relationships. Your problem with this is not that it's "discriminatory" but with the premise that it should be reserved only for the most serious of relationships. I do not believe you'd be in favor of a program that replaced the word "marriage" with the word "lifetime commitment," so don't pretend that you object to it on those grounds. For that matter, I don't think you would agree with it even if it worked better--after all, it worked quite well for hundreds of years. (No, not perfectly, but better).

Hal--the polar bears didn't eat meat yet. Duh.

Posted by: YCW at March 14, 2009 12:56 PM


YCW, there is no scientific eviidence for the Great Flood nor that the Earth was created 6000 years ago in 6 days. All there is is a deep faith that such things happened.

Posted by: asitis at March 14, 2009 1:01 PM


"By your logic, comprehensive sex ed is discriminatory against people who don't believe in birth control, or don't like it."

How so? No one is saying it's wrng for them not to use it because they want to be "open to having children".

But it is saying unmarrieds and gays should not have sex.

Posted by: asitis at March 14, 2009 1:03 PM


asitis:

If you don't think that comprehensive sex ed is discriminatory against people who don't like birth control, I got some ocean-front property in Arizona that you can get for a great price in this economy....

Even the terms they use imply discrimination and a mindset that is against having children: safe sex (safe from what? Are children dangerous? What are the dangers of a married couple having sex only with each other?) protection (again implying that children are dangerous) birth control (potentially offensive to those who believe God is in control). Is it a little silly to nitpick about this? Yes. But it's silly for you to claim abstinence education is discriminatory. The idea that pro-choicers have no problem with someone who is completely open to life is pretty hard to believe, too. That's not one of the choices they sanction.

Are you saying that you are okay with abstinence education as long as they say that sex is okay only in a lifelong, committed relationship? If not, give it up, because that's not your objection to abstinence-only sex education.

And asitis, there is no scientific evidence for macroevolution or the Big Bang. All there is is a deep faith that such things happened.

Posted by: YCW at March 14, 2009 2:55 PM



Where Stanek fails in this argument:

1) decrease - well since a lot of sex crime wasn't reported in Kinsey's era or just beyond, (marital rape in the 50's - no such thing, domestic violence, not our problem said the police) not to mention population increases, so it would be rates per capita, not just numbers.

2) the possibility which you overlook is that people have not yet fully accepted their sexuality. For instance, abstinence only teaching - sex is bad, one should feel guilty, therefore to actually have/use birth control means the sex is pre-meditated, thus double guilt - if they don't buy bc and have sex, then ooops, it "just happened, passion of the moment," etc. which result not in kids abstaining (as studies have shown - and a BIG shout out to Bristol and Levi there)but having risky unprotected, disease transmitting babymaking sex.
Posted by: Anonymous at March 13, 2009 12:05 PM

Where Anonymous' logic fails:

1) sex crime not reported- no evidence, just assertion
also what about disease and illegitimacy which have clearly increased

2) when Kinsey wrote there was very little truly effective birth control and yet there was a very low illegitimacy rate. Men used to marry their pregnant girlfriends.

Posted by: hippie at March 14, 2009 3:12 PM



Zealots are not reliable sources for empirical data.

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at March 13, 2009 10:38 PM

Issac Newton was a religious zealot, also discovered mountains of empirical data which formed the basis of the science of optics, the visible spectrum, the universal gravitation coefficient, laws of physics, calculus...

Posted by: Anonymous at March 14, 2009 3:19 PM


Euler was religious fanatic too. You know, Euler, as in Euler's number.

Charles Darwin had a degree in theology, and gave money to misssionaries working with natives near the Galapagos.

I guess we can't trust the work of Euler or Darwin anymore.

Posted by: hippie at March 14, 2009 3:24 PM


And asitis, there is no scientific evidence for macroevolution or the Big Bang. All there is is a deep faith that such things happened.

Posted by: YCW at March 14, 2009 2:55

I am well aware that there are gaps still. Nevertheless, evolution and the formation of Earth is supported by science. And scientists are continually making new discoveries.

Creation and the Great Flood are matters of deep faith. Leave it and that and I will be respectful.

Posted by: asitis at March 14, 2009 4:18 PM


YCW: Are you saying that you are okay with abstinence education as long as they say that sex is okay only in a lifelong, committed relationship? If not, give it up, because that's not your objection to abstinence-only sex education.

No, I'm not okay with that. Because sex is okay without a lifelong commitment. And even if I did believe that it should only be limited to a lifelong commitments, I'm still not okay with abstinence-only because it doesn't teach about safer sex and birth control and the fact is waiting for that lifelong commitment (and staying in it) is rare.

Would you be okay with comprehensive sex ed if it included that it was okay to be open to having as many children as God gave you, if those were your religious beliefs, and that people should be respectful of this choice?

Posted by: asitis at March 14, 2009 4:29 PM


Angel, I do not have to provide evidence that abstinence-only is discriminatory. All I have to do is explain how it is. And I already did that. It excludes gay couples and unmarried couples. And you know this.

Answer my question from 9:27pm and then I'll address this. If you want. but be patient - we havea houseguests for the next four days.

Posted by: asitis at March 14, 2009 7:50 AM

no thank you. I did not make any claims.
YOU made a claim - actually two assertions. Back them up.

You have proven NOTHING. As Oliver states you make claims but never back anything up.
I've been overly patient. You simply can't back up either of your claims. Admit it.

Posted by: angel at March 14, 2009 5:27 PM


"No, I'm not okay with that. Because sex is okay without a lifelong commitment."

your opinion and your values. Should not be stated as a fact. Not everyone shares your beliefs, asitis.

"And even if I did believe that it should only be limited to a lifelong commitments, I'm still not okay with abstinence-only because it doesn't teach about safer sex and birth control and the fact is waiting for that lifelong commitment (and staying in it) is rare."

also insupportable.

Sheesh, girl, when you gonna stop with this!

Posted by: angel at March 14, 2009 6:02 PM


Sometimes I honestly read this blog to see HisMan's comments cause they crack me up so much! Asitis I agree with you on all points, and I love reading the "fire and brimstone" of HisMan. Good stuff.

Posted by: Ashton at March 14, 2009 8:23 PM


Science has shown us the humanity of the child in the womb (3D and 4D ultrasounds) and yet, those who are abortion rights supporters REFUSE to see it.

And Big Bang is STILL a theory. While I don't believe the earth is only a few thousand years old, I do believe that God created everything around us. There is no way **everything** could spontaneously appear out of NOTHING without the guidance of a higher being. You can't get SOMETHING out of NOTHING. You can't REALLY pull a quarter out of someone's ear, can you?

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at March 14, 2009 8:34 PM


"Nevertheless, evolution and the formation of Earth is supported by science. And scientists are continually making new discoveries."


These are theories as to how the earth has been created. Theories but not proven facts.

Science and faith need not be seperate. Science can work to support faith and can help clarify moral discussion.

We may never be able to prove scientifically or archeologically for example, that the Flood happened or that the Israelites destroyed Jericho but that does not mean that these events did NOT occur. It does not mean they are myths as some would contend.

In a strange irony, modernists are quite willing to accept evolution and the big bang creation of the universe etc with very little proof while requiring rigorous proof of any event or theory that is Christian based.

Reminds me somewhat of the debate about the risks of the BC pill, abortion, when life begins, homosexuality.....

Posted by: angel at March 14, 2009 8:43 PM


The obvious question here is why they do not formalize this relationship as marriage. No outside forces prevent them, assuming they are of age and not closely related. If it's mutually intended to be a long term relationship, why not just make it marriage?

The question, in the minds of others, is why make it marriage? Many, having no spiritual or religious reason to get married, don't see the reason for spending the time and money on something that means nothing to them. It's not that people like this have something against marriage -- if marriage were the default state of two people in a committed relationship who live together, they'd be married. But unmarried is the default state, and some people see no compelling reason to change that.

Oddly, refusing same-sex marriage/union benefits has probably contributed to this phenomenon. In NY State, at least, you can qualify for a partner's insurance, and you can also qualify for hospital or prison visitation benefits, tenancy rights, bereavement, etc -- this is something homosexual and heterosexual couples can both apply for, so long as they meet the criteria for a domestic partnership. It takes a few minutes at city hall. I'd imagine this is something that people for whom marriage holds no special meaning would take advantage of.

Posted by: Alexandra at March 14, 2009 9:51 PM


if marriage were the default state of two people in a committed relationship who live together, they'd be married.

The problem is, is that this use to be the default state.
we have to ask ourselves, why is it that marriage is so belittled and why has it come to mean so little to so many?

Posted by: angel at March 14, 2009 9:58 PM


No, angel, I don't think that marriage was ever the default state. It has always been something you must actively do. Unless you're talking about common-law marriages, in which people who live together and present themselves as married for a certain period of time are considered married under the law -- but most states don't have common-law marriages on the books.

Posted by: Alexandra at March 14, 2009 10:18 PM


"No, I'm not okay with that. Because sex is okay without a lifelong commitment."

your opinion and your values. Should not be stated as a fact. Not everyone shares your beliefs, asitis.
Posted by: angel at March 14, 2009 6:02 PM

Yes, you're right Angel. Not EVERYONE shares this belief. Only like what? 98% of the population????

Posted by: Anonymous at March 14, 2009 10:22 PM


Thasnks Ashton!

Posted by: Anonymous at March 14, 2009 10:23 PM


Of course, marriage was the default state for committed relationships for quite some time -- but not the default state in general. There are any number of reasons that is changing, and I don't really claim to know the answers. I'm not particularly bothered by it, but I also think it's erroneous to say that people in committed relationships who don't marry are just avoiding a formal commitment.

Posted by: Alexandra at March 14, 2009 10:25 PM


Sometimes I honestly read this blog to see HisMan's comments cause they crack me up so much! Asitis I agree with you on all points, and I love reading the "fire and brimstone" of HisMan. Good stuff.

Posted by: Ashton at March 14, 2009 8:23 PM

Thanks Ashton! Good to see you here.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 14, 2009 10:25 PM


Anon at 10:22 and 10:25 were moi!

Posted by: asitis at March 14, 2009 10:31 PM


In a strange irony, modernists are quite willing to accept evolution and the big bang creation of the universe etc with very little proof while requiring rigorous proof of any event or theory that is Christian based.

Posted by: angel at March 14, 2009 8:43 PM

"very little proof"? wouldn't say there is very little proof of evolution "angel". Would you? Really? And scientists aren't looking for "requiring rigorous proof " of the Great Flood. How about any proof for starters......

Posted by: asitis at March 14, 2009 10:39 PM


Actually, one could make the argument that the Bible discusses marriage as the default state. Look at Isaac and Rebekah... and Isaac took Rebekah into his tent and made her his wife and was comforted after the death of his mother.

That was the whole flippin' marriage ceremony. Hi... how do ya do... let's go in the tent, shall we?

Posted by: Anonymous at March 15, 2009 2:31 AM


no back-up to your claims eh? about abstinence education? asitis

No surprise.

Let's correct, shall we?

BTW, in my opinion, people oppose abstinence-only education not just because of its ineffectiveness but also because it is discriminatory

Posted by: asitis at March 12, 2009 4:41 PM

there, much better!

Posted by: angel at March 15, 2009 8:13 AM


Anon, that's more what I'm talking about. I am not well-educated on the history of marriage, but I do remember learning that marriage has become increasingly the realm of the government, with increasing obstacles or restrictions, etc.

Apparently until like the 1600s, the Catholic Church accepted a wedding as valid if two people claimed that they had exchanged marriage vows; at this point marriage was considered a private contract between two families, so many churches accepted the families' word on the issue, I guess. In the US, state courts often held that cohabitation was considered sufficient evidence for marriage. etc.

Now, of course, most states no longer have common-law marriages, and if two people say, "Oh, yeah, we're married," that doesn't fly. Certainly marriage still holds a lot of meaning for some people -- most couples in committed relationships that they intend to stay in for life get married, I think -- but some people don't see much meaning in it. And with the changes in law to circumnavigate the imbalance caused by a lack of same-sex union rights, heterosexual couples can almost have the common-law marriage benefits again, without going through a wedding.

Posted by: Alexandra at March 15, 2009 8:32 AM


"And even if I did believe that it should only be limited to a lifelong commitments, I'm still not okay with abstinence-only because it doesn't teach about safer sex and birth control and the fact is waiting for that lifelong commitment (and staying in it) is rare."

also insupportable.

Sheesh, girl, when you gonna stop with this!

Posted by: angel at March 14, 2009 6:02 PM


Unsupportable????

Well let's have a look at that, shall we?:

1. Abstinence only doesn't teach about birth control and safer sex. Well, that's obviously true.

2. People rarely wait for marriage before they have sex.

The vast majority of Americans have sex before marriage, including those who abstained from sex during their teenage years, according to “Trends in Premarital Sex in the United States, 1954–2003,” by Lawrence B. Finer, published in the January/February 2007 issue of Public Health Reports. Further, contrary to the public perception that premarital sex is much more common now than in the past, the study shows that even among women who were born in the 1940s, nearly nine in 10 had sex before marriage.

The new study uses data from several rounds of the federal National Survey of Family Growth to examine sexual behavior before marriage, and how it has changed over time. According to the analysis, by age 44, 99% of respondents had had sex, and 95% had done so before marriage. Even among those who abstained from sex until age 20 or older, 81% had had premarital sex by age 44.

“This is reality-check research. Premarital sex is normal behavior for the vast majority of Americans, and has been for decades,”


No wonder you can't wait for me to stop this "Angel"!!!!!

Posted by: asitis at March 15, 2009 8:34 AM


Alexandra I don't know where you are getting your information from but this may help in the discussion:

"All authorities agree that during historical times promiscuity has been either non-existent or confined to a few small groups. Did it prevail to any extent during the prehistoric period of the race?"

"Writing between 1860 and 1890, a considerable number of anthropologists, such as Bachofen, Morgan, McLennan, Lubbock, and Giraud-Teulon, maintained that this was the original relationship between the sexes among practically all peoples. So rapidly did the theory win favour that in 1891 it was, according to Westermarck, "treated by many writers as a demonstrated truth" (History of Human Marriage, p. 51). It appealed strongly to those believers in organic evolution who assumed that the social customs of primitive man, including sex relations, must have differed but slightly from the corresponding usages among the brutes."

The experience of the race, particularly in its movement toward and its progress in civilization, has approved monogamy for the simple reason that monogamy is in harmony with the essential and immutable elements of human nature. Taking the word natural in its full sense, we may unhesitatingly affirm that monogamy is the only natural form of marriage. While promiscuity responds to certain elemental passions and temporarily satisfies certain superficial wants, it contradicts the parental instinct, the welfare of children and of the race, and the overpowering forces of jealousy and individual preference in both men and women.

"By many uncivilized races, and by most civilized ones, the marriage ceremony is regarded as a religious rite or includes religious features, although the religious element is not always regarded as necessary to the validity of the union."

"Under the Christian dispensation marriage is a religious act of the very highest kind, namely, one of the seven sacraments."

"Although Luther declared that marriage was not a sacrament but a "worldly thing", all the Protestant sects have continued to regard it as religious in the sense that it ought normally to be contracted in the presence of a clergyman. Owing to the influence of the Lutheran view and of the French Revolution, civil marriage has been instituted in almost all the countries of Europe and North America, as well as in some of the states of South America."

"In some countries it is essential to the validity of the union before the civil law, while in others, e.g., in the United States it is merely one of the ways in which marriage may be contracted. Civil marriage, is not, however a post-Reformation institution, for it existed among the ancient Peruvians, and among the Aborigines of North America. "

I'm sure asitis will not accept the Catholic Encyclopedia, the 1911 version used by those of her most-hated, late faith, Catholics, but the source was and remains impeccably researched.

Posted by: angel at March 15, 2009 8:52 AM


asitis! You fail! ***trap door opens and you FALL***

What were those claims again? The points you addressed in your 8:34am comment are NOT what you made in your original comment:

"people oppose abstinence-only education not just because of its ineffectiveness

and

but also because it is discriminatory

You merely made a comment in #1 which you did not support. Secondly you quoted stats for sex outside of marriage. This is not quite what we are talking about is it now?

Try again.

Posted by: angel at March 15, 2009 9:01 AM


angel, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Would you mind clarifying?

Posted by: Alexandra at March 15, 2009 9:02 AM


asitis! You fail! ***trap door opens and you FALL***

What were those claims again? The points you addressed in your 8:34am comment are NOT what you made in your original comment

You merely made a comment in #1 which you did not support. Secondly you quoted stats for sex outside of marriage. This is not quite what we are talking about is it now?

Try again.

Posted by: angel at March 15, 2009 9:01 AM


Nope sorry "Angel" you failed. Don't let the door hit you as you fall!

The points I addressed in my 8:34am comment were the exact ones you brought up at 6:02am. And #1 should not need further support, unless you are arguing that abstinence-only does teach about safer sex and birth control. If that is what you think is part of the abstinence-only program, let me know.

Here is the exchange again to clarify what it is we were talking about:

"And even if I did believe that it should only be limited to a lifelong commitments, I'm still not okay with abstinence-only because it doesn't teach about safer sex and birth control and the fact is waiting for that lifelong commitment (and staying in it) is rare."

also insupportable.

Sheesh, girl, when you gonna stop with this!

Posted by: angel at March 14, 2009 6:02 PM


Unsupportable????

Well let's have a look at that, shall we?:

1. Abstinence only doesn't teach about birth control and safer sex. Well, that's obviously true.

2. People rarely wait for marriage before they have sex.

The vast majority of Americans have sex before marriage, including those who abstained from sex during their teenage years, according to “Trends in Premarital Sex in the United States, 1954–2003,” by Lawrence B. Finer, published in the January/February 2007 issue of Public Health Reports. Further, contrary to the public perception that premarital sex is much more common now than in the past, the study shows that even among women who were born in the 1940s, nearly nine in 10 had sex before marriage.

The new study uses data from several rounds of the federal National Survey of Family Growth to examine sexual behavior before marriage, and how it has changed over time. According to the analysis, by age 44, 99% of respondents had had sex, and 95% had done so before marriage. Even among those who abstained from sex until age 20 or older, 81% had had premarital sex by age 44.

“This is reality-check research. Premarital sex is normal behavior for the vast majority of Americans, and has been for decades,”


No wonder you can't wait for me to stop this "Angel"!!!!!

Posted by: asitis at March 15, 2009 8:34 AM

Posted by: asitis at March 15, 2009 9:13 AM


"Angel" is it news to you that 95% of people have sex before marriage?

Posted by: asitis at March 15, 2009 9:16 AM


"Catholic Encyclopedia, the 1911 version..."

I hear that version is superior to the New Catholic Encyclopedia. Out of curiosity, as far as I know, the only place online where you can find the Old Catholic Encyclopedia is from Catholic Answers. Is that where you found it?

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at March 15, 2009 9:19 AM


I think my point was in bold Alexandra.But also consider:

First of all, there are no obstacles to marriage that I am aware of in modern society, except those that affect very young persons getting married.
It's still possible for a 14 year old to get married today as it was in the 1660's. It's just less likely to happen in western countries because we realize that this is not healthy for either "spouses".

Secondly, marriage ceremonies have existed in many cultures prior to 1660. Couples did not "claim" to have taken vows- they were witnessed and we have plenty of evidence from the early Catholic church about the binding together of couples as husband and wife. However you are quite right that the sacrament of marriage is conferred by each spouse to the other.

Also:
"The Council of Florence (undertaken in 1438), in the Decree for the Armenians, had already declared: "The seventh sacrament is matrimony, which is a figure of the union of Christ, and the Church, according to the words of the Apostle: This is a great sacrament, but I speak in Christ and in the Church.'"

"Pope Innocent IV in 1208 declared marriage to be a sacrament administered by the Catholic church."

"The reason why marriage was not expressly and formally included among the sacraments earlier and the denial of it branded as heresy, is to be found in the historical development of the doctrine regarding the sacraments; but the fact itself may be traced to Apostolic times."

Just because certain people do "not see the meaning" in marriage, does not mean it has no meaning for society as a whole.

have a blessed Sunday.

Posted by: angel at March 15, 2009 9:30 AM


Man, first the Old Catholic Encyclopedia, now the Council of Florence... you are hardcore, angel! God love you.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at March 15, 2009 9:34 AM


Oh "Angel" is most definitely hardcore Bobby!

Posted by: asitis at March 15, 2009 9:35 AM


sorry asitis, you've PROVEN NOTHING. I think you know WHAT you have to PROVE. What did you claim asitis? Are you usually this dense?

Bobby, I got this version from newadvent.org which has the 1911 version I believe - the best ever written.

Posted by: angel at March 15, 2009 9:35 AM


Well, okay, then you weren't really disagreeing or addressing anything I was saying, if your point was the part in bold and it comes with no clarification.

I'm not saying that the church didn't perform marriage prior to the 1600's. I'm saying that many people were also married in less formal or official circumstances.

And I'm not saying that there are legal obstacles to marriage. But it is something that people must proactively do, and there's no reason for some people to spend time and money on that. It's like if I said, "I just don't understand why some people don't have Sweet 16 parties. Do they have some aversion to being 16?" If having a Sweet 16 party was the only way to turn 16, then everyone would probably have one. But you're going to be 16 regardless of whether or not you celebrate it officially. Similarly, many people see their situation as being unchanged by the fact of being married: either way, they are in a committed, loving, and trusting relationship. If marriage were the only way to be in a committed relationship, then they would do that, but it's not, so they're less inclined.

Your comments about marriage being a sacrament illustrate my point precisely. Plenty of non-religious people, when given non-religious alternatives to marriage, will choose those.

Posted by: Alexandra at March 15, 2009 9:42 AM


Maybe I better show it to you again then "Angel". Read what you wrote. And then read how I clarified. Let me know if you still have any problems with my response.

And are you surprised to hear that 95% of people do NOT wait for marriage to have sex? Or did you already realize this?

"And even if I did believe that it should only be limited to a lifelong commitments, I'm still not okay with abstinence-only because it doesn't teach about safer sex and birth control and the fact is waiting for that lifelong commitment (and staying in it) is rare."

also insupportable.

Sheesh, girl, when you gonna stop with this!

Posted by: angel at March 14, 2009 6:02 PM


Unsupportable????

Well let's have a look at that, shall we?:

1. Abstinence only doesn't teach about birth control and safer sex. Well, that's obviously true.

2. People rarely wait for marriage before they have sex.

The vast majority of Americans have sex before marriage, including those who abstained from sex during their teenage years, according to “Trends in Premarital Sex in the United States, 1954–2003,” by Lawrence B. Finer, published in the January/February 2007 issue of Public Health Reports. Further, contrary to the public perception that premarital sex is much more common now than in the past, the study shows that even among women who were born in the 1940s, nearly nine in 10 had sex before marriage.

The new study uses data from several rounds of the federal National Survey of Family Growth to examine sexual behavior before marriage, and how it has changed over time. According to the analysis, by age 44, 99% of respondents had had sex, and 95% had done so before marriage. Even among those who abstained from sex until age 20 or older, 81% had had premarital sex by age 44.

“This is reality-check research. Premarital sex is normal behavior for the vast majority of Americans, and has been for decades,”


No wonder you can't wait for me to stop this "Angel"!!!!!

Posted by: asitis at March 15, 2009 8:34 AM

Posted by: asitis at March 15, 2009 9:13 AM

Posted by: asitis at March 15, 2009 9:43 AM


Man, first the Old Catholic Encyclopedia, now the Council of Florence... you are hardcore, angel! God love you.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at March 15, 2009 9:34 AM

;-D


@asitis:"Let me know if you still have any problems with my response."
Don't bother, since you can't prove what you claimed.

Posted by: angel at March 15, 2009 10:01 AM


"Let me know if you still have any problems with my response."

Don't bother, since you can't prove what you claimed.

Posted by: angel at March 15, 2009 10:01 AM

Funny... because that's exactly what I did. Unless you have a problem with my reponse. Are you saying you don't think abstinence-only doesn't teach about safer sex and birth control? Are you saying refuting that 95% of people have sex before marriage?

BTW, how's the weather up there "Angel"?

Posted by: asitis at March 15, 2009 10:14 AM


Angel,

Correct me if I'm wrong but I understand that marriage was a civil matter and religious institutions, church or synagogue, did not involve themselves in this matter until later. I have no idea what the years were.
I am referring to Christian European cultures here.
Marriages were often arranged between families, certainly among royalty, as well as monied families that wanted to build fortunes and keep them intact. Love often had little to do with it and people did not enter these unions with any type of romantic fantasies.

An incident occured within my own family. My cousin and his wife were legally seperated in the early 1950's. She became pregnant by another man, she and everyone new the child did not belong to my cousin, yet nonetheless he was legally the father and had to support the child until the ex-wife remarried. Her new husband adopted the child. The law was designed to protect children and wasn't particularly fair to all parties.

Posted by: Mary at March 15, 2009 10:43 AM


Angel,

My cousin and his wife, though seperated, were still legally married so that is why he was considered the legal father. The law was the law and he had little legal recourse, no matter how unjust the situation was. I'm sure he wasn't the first or last man this happened to.

Posted by: Mary at March 15, 2009 11:04 AM


"HisMan, how did Noah make sure the two polar bears didn't eat the kittens?

Posted by: hal at March 14, 2009 12:31 PM"

Hal, you know what turning the tables is, I think? Here goes oh wise one who always thinks he can destroy using sarcasm. I will try to restrain myself from totally ripping your sarcastic question apart.

God never gives us a command that we cannot fulfill. God commanded Daniel to be faithful, Daniel obeyed, and God caused the lions to leave Daniel alone. God commanded Moses to tell Pharoah to let his people go and the Red Sea parted when all looked lost. And the accounts are ad infinitum. So, if God commnanded Noah to gather two of every kind of animal and he obeyed, God would have also made a way for it to work.

Now, not wanting to insult your sense of logic, and aside from all that faith stuff, have you ever heard of cuddly, little cute polar bears that may have been easier to control, house and feed? Of course not Hal, you have a closed mind. I mean, you thought about kittens didn't you? Why would God want mature full grown polar bears on the Ark, hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm? Especially when such bears may be beyond their reproduction prime. I mean think Hal, these polar bears had to repopulate the earth with polar bears.

Hal, you don't even realize how closed minded you are and how satan has blinded you by filling your mind with half-truths which are really whole lies. He so limits your God-given potential Hal. In fact, in folllowing satan by aborting your first two daughters, eventaully you will end up aborting yourself and your soul. It will be check and mate and no way out.

All is not lost Hal. I suggest you go to a bible beleiving church today as is is Sunday, fall on your knees, admit to God that you need Him, and give your life to Jesus Christ. It's that simple.

Posted by: HisMan at March 15, 2009 12:00 PM


Hi Mary
I'm not sure about what you've asked. I'm not sure when marriages became religious ceremonies and I don't have the time today to research this. but I'd certainly be interested to know myself!

@asitis: please restate your claims?
Why will you not do this and then provide sources that back up your claims?
List the first point as #1 and a support it with documented studies then list the second one as #2 and back it up as well.

Until you do this, I'm sorry, but I simply can't accept your statement as originally posted.

Until such is done, the edited version remains:
BTW, in my opinion, people oppose abstinence-only education not just because of its ineffectiveness but also because it is discriminatory

Posted by: asitis at March 12, 2009 4:41 PM

in the meantime, have a nice Sunday everyone!


Posted by: angel at March 15, 2009 12:30 PM


God never gives us a command that we cannot fulfill.

absolutely - He nevers asks us to do the ridiculous (although by the worlds standards often it does seem ridiculous, wouldn't you say HisMan?)

But for example, living chastely seems ridiculous by today's modern standards, but in the light of a life liveded with Christ's grace it is not so.

Posted by: angel at March 15, 2009 12:53 PM


Hi Angel,

Thank you. I had heard this and I wondered if you might have some knowledge of when marriages became religious events. I just found it interesting that at one time churches and synagogues considered marriage a civil matter.

I just thought the situation with my cousin was interesting. I think it likely this was done by the state to protect children from illegitimacy and stigma, as well as to guarantee them support.

I took my first walk outside in two months. A beautiful Sunday afternoon!

Posted by: Mary at March 15, 2009 1:35 PM


@asitis: please restate your claims?
Why will you not do this and then provide sources that back up your claims?
List the first point as #1 and a support it with documented studies then list the second one as #2 and back it up as well.

Posted by: angel at March 15, 2009 12:30 PM

Well "Angel", that's EXACTLY what I did. #1 does not require documented studies. It simply is a fact that abstinence-only does not include education on safer sex on birth control. If you thnk this is incorrect, please let me know. But I doubt you do.

I have included evidence for #2 in the form of the Guttmacher story.

And BTW, are you at all surprised to hear that 95% of people do not wait for marriage to have sex. And that this is nothing new?

And how IS the weather up there this Sunday afternoon?

Here's the exchange, once again, from this morning when you claimed I what I wrote was in supportable. Oh how wrong you were!:

"And even if I did believe that it should only be limited to a lifelong commitments, I'm still not okay with abstinence-only because it doesn't teach about safer sex and birth control and the fact is waiting for that lifelong commitment (and staying in it) is rare."

also insupportable.

Sheesh, girl, when you gonna stop with this!

Posted by: angel at March 14, 2009 6:02 PM


Unsupportable????

Well let's have a look at that, shall we?:

1. Abstinence only doesn't teach about birth control and safer sex. Well, that's obviously true.

2. People rarely wait for marriage before they have sex.

The vast majority of Americans have sex before marriage, including those who abstained from sex during their teenage years, according to “Trends in Premarital Sex in the United States, 1954–2003,” by Lawrence B. Finer, published in the January/February 2007 issue of Public Health Reports. Further, contrary to the public perception that premarital sex is much more common now than in the past, the study shows that even among women who were born in the 1940s, nearly nine in 10 had sex before marriage.

The new study uses data from several rounds of the federal National Survey of Family Growth to examine sexual behavior before marriage, and how it has changed over time. According to the analysis, by age 44, 99% of respondents had had sex, and 95% had done so before marriage. Even among those who abstained from sex until age 20 or older, 81% had had premarital sex by age 44.

“This is reality-check research. Premarital sex is normal behavior for the vast majority of Americans, and has been for decades,”


No wonder you can't wait for me to stop this "Angel"!!!!!

Posted by: asitis at March 15, 2009 8:34 AM

Posted by: asitis at March 15, 2009 9:13 AM

Posted by: asitis at March 15, 2009 9:43 AM

Posted by: asitis at March 15, 2009 2:34 PM


what is #1?

Posted by: angel at March 15, 2009 3:20 PM


what points are you trying to back up asitis?
Unless you identify what points you are supporting I have no idea. I only know what you said on March 12:

BTW people oppose abstinence-only education not just because of its ineffectiveness but also because it is discriminatory

Posted by: asitis at March 12, 2009 4:41 PM

What points did you make in this statement? Please identify these FIRST. Since this seems to be the problem we will work on this first. If you don't I'm done with you because I can see that you are not serious and are stringing people along on this blog.

I am curious: what level of education do you have? Good grief is this how they teach our children today.


Posted by: angel at March 15, 2009 3:26 PM


Angel: what points are you trying to back up asitis?
Unless you identify what points you are supporting I have no idea

Oh you have no idea do you? Nice try! Read your comment that i have copied for you now like, what... 4 times. Here it is again below, with my repsonse. You copied what I wrote and then claimed it was insupportable. Pretty clear to everyone what you were questioning. Here it is yet again.........
"And even if I did believe that it should only be limited to a lifelong commitments, I'm still not okay with abstinence-only because it doesn't teach about safer sex and birth control and the fact is waiting for that lifelong commitment (and staying in it) is rare."

also insupportable.

Sheesh, girl, when you gonna stop with this!

Posted by: angel at March 14, 2009 6:02 PM


Unsupportable????

Well let's have a look at that, shall we?:

1. Abstinence only doesn't teach about birth control and safer sex. Well, that's obviously true.

2. People rarely wait for marriage before they have sex.

The vast majority of Americans have sex before marriage, including those who abstained from sex during their teenage years, according to “Trends in Premarital Sex in the United States, 1954–2003,” by Lawrence B. Finer, published in the January/February 2007 issue of Public Health Reports. Further, contrary to the public perception that premarital sex is much more common now than in the past, the study shows that even among women who were born in the 1940s, nearly nine in 10 had sex before marriage.

The new study uses data from several rounds of the federal National Survey of Family Growth to examine sexual behavior before marriage, and how it has changed over time. According to the analysis, by age 44, 99% of respondents had had sex, and 95% had done so before marriage. Even among those who abstained from sex until age 20 or older, 81% had had premarital sex by age 44.

“This is reality-check research. Premarital sex is normal behavior for the vast majority of Americans, and has been for decades,”


No wonder you can't wait for me to stop this "Angel"!!!!!

Posted by: asitis at March 15, 2009 8:34 AM

Posted by: asitis at March 15, 2009 9:13 AM

Posted by: asitis at March 15, 2009 9:43 AM

Posted by: asitis at March 15, 2009 2:34 PM

Posted by: asitis at March 15, 2009 5:44 PM


What level of education do I have "Angel"? Oh that's a good try.... I know you are well awre of my education!

How's the weather up there "Angel"?

Posted by: asitis at March 15, 2009 5:46 PM


Mary:
you are lucky. Where I live it is raining today.

Posted by: angel at March 15, 2009 5:50 PM


asitis: nice try at whatever it is that u are up to.

My point (since this is the end of the discussion, IMO): you stated that abstinence education in ineffective.
To support your claim you quoted stats reportedly demonstrating that a significant %age of people have premarital sex.
so what?
This proves NOTHING about abstinence education. It proves nothing about the effectiveness of abstinence education.

Nor have you proven that people who take abstinence education end up bigoted/biased/intolerant or that the education itself is in any way biased/bigoted/intolerant.

I guess Oliver is correct: you make claims that you cannot back up. This is unfortunate because it demonstrates that you are not open to real discussion on this blog.

:-(

Posted by: angel at March 15, 2009 5:55 PM


Oh that! I was addressing your claim from this morning that what I wrote was "insupportable". Clearly it is and I demonstrated that. Need to see it yet again?

I didn't claim anything about people taking abstinence-only becoming bigoted. I would hope that in this day and age they would not, given that society at large is becominh more tolerant and more and more gays are living opening and couples who don't want marriage for whatever reason, choose to have longterm unmarried relationships. But I did say that abstinence-only discriminates against these couples, because abstinence -only, by definition, teaches that sex outside of marriage is wrong.

And what do you think about the finding that 95% of people don't wait for marriage to have sex. Does this surprise you? Had you no idea? Or do you just like to pretend that's not reality?

That's what my friends told me... rainy day up there wahere they live too "Angel".

Posted by: asitis at March 15, 2009 6:34 PM


I don't think asitis knows what everyone thinks, because she certainly doesn't know what I think.

For instance, asitis seems to think I have some sort of problem with comprehensive sex ed in public schools. Surprise! She doesn't know what I am thinking.
First, I think there shouldn't be public schools, which makes the question moot. (The question is moot anyway, because I never implied I would support comprehensive sex ed if it wasn't biased, whereas asitis implied that this was a reason she didn't support it, but I'll ignore that for now.) Second, I kind of don't have a dog in that fight because I don't plan to send my kids to public school. So as long as I am not forced to teach my daughter in homeschool that sex with condoms is okay, I don't care that much. I do think that parents who have children in public school have a right to determine how sexual morality is taught to their children, and teach the children on their own if they don't agree with the school's approach. But if I'm not considering sending a child to public school, I don't get a say.

Under the assumption that public schools exist and are responsible for teaching sex ed, here is what should be in a comprehensive sex ed curriculum:

#1. How babies get made. It should be very clear what happens for the baby to be created, and how the woman's and man's bodies work. This would include knowing how fertility signs work. Also, the development of the human fetus.

#2. STDs and how they are spread.

#3. Things that may prevent STDs from spreading and babies from being conceived. It should be clear that a condom only may prevent STDs and children, not that they will. It should be clear which things are contraceptives, which are abortifacients, and which can act in multiple ways. I suppose it should also talk about abortion. The textual descriptions and illustrations would be as thorough as for the rest of the curriculum.

There are several options when it comes to morality: one would be to let the parents decide, either by choosing an extant system of morality (such as JudeoChristianity, or secular humanism) or by voting on each topic seperately. Children could be divided into groups if feasible (say, a secular humanism group and a JudeoChristianity group), and the parents would choose which group their children were in, and opt them out if they couldn't agree with any of the groups. The other option would be to offer no morality whatsoever. All children's thinking would be ascribed equal value.

"I think sex without a condom would feel better."
"Good thinking, Aidan."
"I don't think someone too stupid to figure out when she's fertile should get to choose whether my son lives."
"Good thinking, Jack."
"I'm only going to have sexual experiences that can't make babies."
"Good thinking, Diego."
"I don't think anyone should be allowed to rip up babies like that."
"Good thinking, Olivia."
"I think having sex isn't worth the chance of getting gonorrhea or AIDS."
"Good thinking, Madison."
"I want to get pregnant because I want to know what it feels like to have a baby moving around inside me."
"Good thinking, Marissa."

If you say that Madison and Diego are right but Aidan, Jack, Olivia and Marissa are wrong, that would be imposing your morality. And if Aidan and Marissa hook up after school, that's their choice.

News flash number 2: YCW thinks that marriage is a personal, religious decision which the government should not be involved in. YCW supports civil unions for whoever wants them and marriages for whoever wants them and can find a church that will marry them.

Posted by: YCW at March 16, 2009 11:08 AM


Oh, and by the way, have you thought about how legalized gay marriage combines with common-law marriage?

Never have I seen a legal definition of common-law marriage that includes having sex.

Consider this: Bob and Bill share an apartment for 10 years. Bob moves out, and Bill can't cover rent alone. Bill sues Bob for alimony on the grounds that their relationship (financially interdependent and cohabitating ten years) meets the state's definition of commonlaw marriage.

Not too far-fetched.

Posted by: YCW at March 16, 2009 11:13 AM


YCW: I wonder if there are any gay alimony situations? Just curious.

Posted by: angel at March 16, 2009 1:17 PM