Author: has written 1136 posts for this blog.

Return to: Homepage | Blog Index

61 Responses

  1. randomliberal/Robert
    randomliberal/Robert April 17, 2006 at 4:37 pm |

    Question: What exactly is sexual stimulation? Because if they define it anywhere near the way i define it (and the way most other sane people define it, for that matter), then they’re telling us that we shouldn’t even kiss. Or hug. Or have PG-rated dreams. So what are we going to do in the next few years when stress levels skyrocket and everyone stays at home and does nothing for fear of having stimulating thoughts about random people they see? You’d almost think these guys hate sex.

    Oh, wait…

  2. Thomas
    Thomas April 17, 2006 at 5:03 pm |

    Does Massachusetts’ Constitution even permit its schools to receive this funding with these guidelines?

  3. Lauren
    Lauren April 17, 2006 at 5:11 pm |

    Hey, the Mormons do it. At 18.

  4. colinsmith
    colinsmith April 17, 2006 at 5:49 pm |

    I think this is a great idea! Hopefully, it will have the added benefit of pushing more celebate homosexuals into the priesthood where they will be free of temptation.

    Oh, wait…

  5. Kyra
    Kyra April 17, 2006 at 5:52 pm |

    LOOPHOLE!!!!!

    “Abstinence curricula must have a clear definition of sexual abstinence which must be consistent with the following: ‘Abstinence means voluntarily choosing not to engage in sexual activity until marriage. Sexual activity refers to any type of genital contact or sexual stimulation between two persons including, but not limited to, sexual intercourse.’”

    Later, the guidelines explicitly define marriage:

    “Throughout the entire curriculum, the term “marriage” must be defined as “only a legal union between one man and one woman as a husband and wife, and the word ’spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.” (Consistent with Federal law)”

    It says no sex until marriage, but it never bothers to limit who you have sex with to just your spouse.

    So just marry a friend of the opposite sex the instant you’re legally old enough, and then have all the gay, lesbian, promiscuous, kinky, threesome, and/or (insert adjective here) sex your normal, healthy self desires, with anybody who wants you back.

    Problem solved.

  6. Kyra
    Kyra April 17, 2006 at 5:55 pm |

    Hey, wait a sec. It says

    Abstinence means voluntarily choosing not to engage in sexual activity until marriage.

    Which means that every abstinence-only under the sun is in violation of this rule, because they push it on people and misrepresent other options to make them look worse. Being pressured into abstinence when it isn’t necessary is not choosing it voluntarily.

  7. lavalamp
    lavalamp April 17, 2006 at 6:09 pm |

    and I’m guessing there might follow, a strict new definition for all the kids born from the pregnancies sure to occur when this abstinence-only delusional thinking fails and the human beings involved end up doing what human beings tend to do…?

  8. Mark
    Mark April 17, 2006 at 6:24 pm |

    1. I know this is highly unpopular, but the fact is that abstinence is the only way to guarantee not getting a sexually transmitted disease.
    2. Unfortunately, with all the sex being shoved on kids through TV, music, Planned Parenthood, etc, it is important that they get the message from somewhere that sex outside of marriage is wrong. Once again, I realize this view is not popular, but the Truth often isn’t.
    3. As an adult, I don’t care what you do. But I also don’t want my kids being taught in school that having sex, any type of sex, is OK as long as you’re protected.
    4. Sex is good. Sex is beautiful. As long as it’s between a man and a woman in a loving, committed, married relationship.

    Now, let’s see if the responses will be civil or if you all will resort to flaming.

  9. Hubris
    Hubris April 17, 2006 at 6:42 pm |

    I looked up the actual curriculum guidelines, and some of them are sorta hot.

  10. Lauren
    Lauren April 17, 2006 at 6:44 pm |

    Damn, Hubris. I have to go, um… I’ll be back later.

  11. Chuck
    Chuck April 17, 2006 at 7:09 pm |

    While we’re being loophole-finders since we’re the critically-thinking people these assholes never would’ve allowed us to be given their druthers, here’s mine:

    any type of genital contact or sexual stimulation between two persons

    You’ll notice it specifically defines sex as being between two persons.

    It doesn’t say anything about three people. Or four. Or, you know, everyone on the “cool” side of your dormitory’s floor.

  12. Joe
    Joe April 17, 2006 at 7:24 pm |

    Or animals!

    Too weird to be funny?

  13. bellatrys
    bellatrys April 17, 2006 at 9:22 pm |

    1. I know this is highly unpopular, but the fact is that abstinence is the only way to guarantee not getting a sexually transmitted disease.

    …including from your lawfully wedded husband – fatal cervical cancer included. So I guess women should just never have TEH SEX with any man, and goodbye human race.

    Good riddance, too, if we’re mostly this dishonest and dumb.

  14. Carrie
    Carrie April 17, 2006 at 9:25 pm |

    1. I know this is highly unpopular, but the fact is that abstinence is the only way to guarantee not getting a sexually transmitted disease.
    2. Unfortunately, with all the sex being shoved on kids through TV, music, Planned Parenthood, etc, it is important that they get the message from somewhere that sex outside of marriage is wrong. Once again, I realize this view is not popular, but the Truth often isn’t.
    3. As an adult, I don’t care what you do. But I also don’t want my kids being taught in school that having sex, any type of sex, is OK as long as you’re protected.
    4. Sex is good. Sex is beautiful. As long as it’s between a man and a woman in a loving, committed, married relationship.

    1. That may be unpopular (well, not in the world I live in) but it is true. That is the only way you can not get an STD. Even in marriage. I don’t know that anyone is saying we shouldn’t tell kids that. We SHOULD tell kids that. Abstinence should be presented as a really, very good option. An option.

    2. Not everyone thinks that sex outside of marriage is wrong. I don’t want my future children to believe that sex outside of marriage is wrong. I don’t want them to feel guilty if they DO have sex outside of marraige. We should teach that some people think sex outside of marriage is wrong and that some people believe that sex outside of marriage is ok. Both are fine and we should give kids tools to be able to think through that themselves.

    3. No one is saying to teach that. I think that is stretching it a bit far. I think it is far to emphasize and that these people would want to teach this, that sex can be dangerous and scary and has big consequences that you should be fully aware of. But they also should be taught that sex can be wonderful (in our out of marraige, whatever you choose), heterosexual sex, homosexual sex, and things in between.

    4. Teaching that sex can only be wonderful between a man and a women is leaving out an entire population of people whose lifestyle is not a mental illness and not a choice at a time when they are already confused enough. It feels like, to me, that teaching that sex can only be wonderful between a man and a woman is teaching discrimination. Not to mention that it is false. There are lots of gays, lesbians, and bisexuals that have wonderful sex in committed relationships. And saying that sex can only be good in a loving, committed relationship is false too. Casual sex can be good. Kids need to be prepared for the possible consequences of that…

    I guess I believe (and research backs me up but I’m too lazy to pull it out now) that kids are going to have sex. We might as well get used to this idea, tell them that abstinence at a young age is probably best, but if you do have sex, here’s how to do it responsibly (birth control, condoms, etc, etc).

    Hm. Civil enough, I hope. I really meant to be.

  15. Caja
    Caja April 17, 2006 at 9:45 pm |

    1. I can’t believe no one has said this yet, but being voluntarily celibate will not save you from being infected by some rapist.

    And speaking of loopholes, the guidelines say no sex “until marriage.” But it says nothing about after marriage, like in the case of divorce or your spouse’s death.

  16. Chuck
    Chuck April 17, 2006 at 10:31 pm |

    Carrie said:

    but I’m too lazy to pull it out now

    Well, I think everyone agrees that’ll be ineffective in preventing both STDs and pregnancy.

  17. Nomie
    Nomie April 17, 2006 at 11:02 pm |

    I realize this view is not popular, but the Truth often isn’t.

    …and you expect us to take that capital letter seriously?

    Sigh. It’s nice that you believe that marriage should only be between a man and a woman, but there are a lot of people who don’t. And we shouldn’t have to disappear so that your kids don’t have to be exposed to it. Put them in private school, homeschool them – but don’t force the education of others (who might be gay, promiscuous, both, or just curious about how the whole thing works and what their options are) to suffer for the sake of putting your morals on other people.

    That might not have been terribly civil, but I’m so stressed I could cry and I’m not up to being nice right now. Had to get this off my chest.

  18. runningman
    runningman April 17, 2006 at 11:56 pm |

    if homosexuals make up 3-5% of the population, or possibly upwards of 10% if more felt comfortable coming out, do you think those numbers would rise if homosexuality were given equal status and celebrated by society and those signals were picked up in the socialization process of children. please guestimate the impact. thanks.

  19. piny
    piny April 18, 2006 at 12:27 am |

    if homosexuals make up 3-5% of the population, or possibly upwards of 10% if more felt comfortable coming out, do you think those numbers would rise if homosexuality were given equal status and celebrated by society and those signals were picked up in the socialization process of children. please guestimate the impact. thanks.

    Celebrated? What, like with coming-out parties?

    Two things:

    Why would it be a problem if more people were happily forming same-gender relationships?

    Why can’t we deal with the issue of over-tolerance of homosexuality when we get there? Do you think we’re in imminent danger of becoming too queer-friendly?

  20. piny
    piny April 18, 2006 at 12:27 am |

    Oh, and? Smart money’s on total saturation. Look at the bang-up recruiting job we’ve managed so far. Your ass is ours, gaymo.

  21. CaitlinScarlett
    CaitlinScarlett April 18, 2006 at 12:45 am |

    As one of these “kids” discussed, I’m 17, and also queer, and what bothers me most about these policies is that they don’t respect young people, of any sexuality. I am young ,yes. I do not have as much life experience as those people making these laws.

    But I am not stupid, and I don’t enjoy being talked down to, or having scare-tactics used against me. In my Health class we learned that condoms are 73% effective when used by teens because teens don’t use them correctly. I think the obvious follow-up to that is, er, how does one use them correctly? And then “safe sex” involves using a condom, right? We got told that a condom protects you from STDs during oral, anal, and vaginal intercourse. I was kind of, um, dental dams, please? And that’s not even strictly a queer thing, which I would understand (not like or accept, but understand) if they didn’t include. It’s just another “subtle” implication that girls aren’t supposed to like sex. It’s always “how to say no”, and that’s not aimed at the guys.

    This kind of thing frustrates me because people my age aren’t stupid. We’re not adults, but we’re not children (and I don’t even think children are granted the respect they deserve by most people), we have viable opinions and we should have rights to our own bodies. We should be trusted to make our own choices with correct information, and we’re not. Instead, our bodies are the enemy. We’re the enemy.

  22. Norah
    Norah April 18, 2006 at 1:35 am |

    I realize this view is not popular, but the Truth often isn’t.

    Did this make anyone else think of The Simpsons episode where Marge gets her real estate license?

    Lionel Hutz: “There’s the truth (frowns, shakes head)…and the Truth”! (grins & nods enthusatically)

  23. Kat
    Kat April 18, 2006 at 7:19 am |

    “Mark, if you’re concerned about TV and music, parent your children and don’t let them watch, or talk to them about watching.”

    Hey, us parents aren’t the enemy here. We’re trying very hard not to raise serial killers, which isn’t easy these days. Just try to strike a balance in this society between accepting other people’s lifestyles and creating your own values. This is not an easy task. And modern kids are the same smarmy upstarts we were as kids. So we DO parent. But its not an easy job.

    I don’t agree with Mark about the man/woman/marriage thing. I am all for wholesome family units in whatever combination they come in. But there is a line somewhere. I don’t know what it is, but its there. Not every relationship is something I want my kids to accept. For example, I’m not at all convinced the women in polygamous relationships aren’t completely brainwashed. So do I teach my kids to accept that lifestyle? Parents struggle with these lines.

    “And we shouldn’t have to disappear so that your kids don’t have to be exposed to it. Put them in private school, homeschool them – but don’t force the education of others (who might be gay, promiscuous, both, or just curious about how the whole thing works and what their options are) to suffer for the sake of putting your morals on other people.”

    So for the sake of you not disappearing, they should disappear? For the sake of your morals, they should repress their morals? Hmmm…

    I’d just like to see a better balance. I’m just a parent, in the trenches, and I’m just saying is all…

  24. Kat
    Kat April 18, 2006 at 8:02 am |

    One more thing on the private school/homeschool option before I shut up.

    For many people that is not an option, because of MONEY. We have to send our kids to public school. No matter what we think of them. No matter what they are teaching or how.

    I have a child with Autism. Different issue, yes, but it means I must rely on the public schools for my child’s education. My other options are homeschooling/private school. I don’t have the money to homeschool (would require me quitting my job and as a single mom that would be devastating, besides I have issues with homeschooling in general) and private schools… uh, they cost more than some colleges these days and I still haven’t started saving for that.

    Oh, and because my son has a disability, he’s actually been turned down for even applying at a private school. That we couldn’t afford anyhow. But its not an option for us even if we could. (If the private school gets no federal funding, they have absolutely no obligation to accommodate for my kid–and they don’t). And the private schools that are geared for kids like him can cost $40k/year. Yikes.

    So really if you want to protect your child from any diversity, the best place to send him IS private school. He’ll be a completely non-diverse community. A perfect elitist subculture. No poor folks, no disabled folks. They are all over at the public school down the street. With my kid.

    Sorry, I’m really a cynic on education issues.

  25. Didi Hylobates
    Didi Hylobates April 18, 2006 at 8:32 am |

    Mark said:

    “Sex is good. Sex is beautiful. As long as it’s between a man and a woman in a loving, committed, married relationship”

    and
    “As an adult, I don’t care what you do”

    One of these must be a lie or a) you don’t care about the beautiful, which is inhumanly cold, or b) you don’t care about the bad (by your def, sex outside of a specific small subset of hetero-marriage), which is irresponsible and morally reprehensible. It also seems like a peculiar kind of magic that something ugly and bad, loving (committed, unmarried hetero sex) can be transubstantiated into something good and beautiful by the state issuance of a license. Perhaps someday George Bush will grant Thomas Kinkade an art license and all the Velazquezes and Rembrandts will be removed from our museums, sinful, ugly, unlicensed foreign trash that they are.

  26. Nomie
    Nomie April 18, 2006 at 9:02 am |

    Kat -

    I don’t think they should disappear, really. But neither do I think that the public school curriculum should suffer because of a few vocal people getting their panties in a twist.

    Just because the subject is taught doesn’t mean that the school is voicing approval of it. For example – tenth grade history, learning about lynching and racism in the South and the civil rights movement. We read statements on both sides of the issue. Does this mean my school endorsed racism? No. But in order to be educated, there must be a range of information presented.

  27. Kristen from MA
    Kristen from MA April 18, 2006 at 9:37 am |

    Sex is good. Sex is beautiful. As long as it’s between a man and a woman in a loving, committed, married relationship.

    there is something inherently pathological about people who care what other consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedrooms. people are only entitled to decide what’s right – what’s moral – for themselves. leave everyone else alone. and if you can’t stop obsessing about what your neighbors might be doing to and with each other – seek professional help. (jeez, i seem to be saying that A LOT lately.)

  28. Stacy
    Stacy April 18, 2006 at 10:10 am |

    @ Kat:

    I think another thing to be pointed out here is that most people are not adverse to teaching abstinence, whether it be until marriage or until they feel that they have the maturity to handle possible consequences, etc. Most people would fully well agree that abstinence should be offered as an option, as a good option for those that don’t have the maturity to handle sex.

    The problem comes in when people demand that abstinence be taught as the only option. I guess I feel that schools should supply the education, which means covering all the options. Morals, such as “abstinence is the only way”, should be taught at home.

    So, I feel that making “them” disappear kind of only applies if persons were pushing for sex education that doesn’t touch on abstinence at all. And no one is doing that. If I wanted schools to teach my kid that abstinence is evil, I think my best option would be to seek out a private school that would reflect those values, rather than demand that everyone abide by those same morals. So, if the opposite is true, and a parent feels that abstinence education is the only way, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask them to seek out the specific type of education they are looking for.

    Besides, can’t parents pull their kids form sex ed classes if they disagree with them? I thought that was acceptable, but I could be wrong. When I went to high school, there were kids that were absent from health class during the sex ed part.

  29. Kat
    Kat April 18, 2006 at 10:36 am |

    I didn’t hear him say he didn’t want to do it (parenting). As a matter of fact, he sounds like he’s really trying–he’s actually thought about what his kids are being exposed to, unlike some parents who either don’t care or have given up trying. You may not like how he’s doing it, but you can’t say he’s not making an effort.

  30. Kat
    Kat April 18, 2006 at 10:56 am |

    Stacy

    I *think* you are right, that schools allow you to pull your kids. Or maybe are required to allow you to opt your kid out of sex ed. Maybe a better option is to offer different types of sex ed classes. Abstinence-only is a respectable lifestyle. But it should not be the only class offered on the subject.

    And not to beat a dead horse, but private school is really, really, really not an option for most people, no matter what your morals.The public schools have to have a place for everyone.

  31. raging red
    raging red April 18, 2006 at 12:01 pm |

    I will never understand the belief of some people that information is a bad thing. It seems that lots of parents are primarily concerned with making sure their kids live their lives the way they (the parents) want them to. Newsflash: Your kids will make decisions that you don’t like, that you don’t agree with, and that you don’t think are the right decisions. But wouldn’t you rather prepare them the best you can so that whatever decisions they make, they can still be healthy, happy, and safe? Of course you should teach your kids about your personal moral beliefs, but to expect that they will adhere to them exactly as you do will leave you sorely disappointed in many (most?) cases.

  32. Rick DeMent
    Rick DeMent April 18, 2006 at 12:04 pm |

    On thing that I get a chuckle out of is that back during the early days of the Clinton administration, Surgeon General Jocelyn Elders was absolutely savaged across the board because she had the temerity to suggest that teenagers should be instructed that masturbation is a safe and disease free way of containing sexual urges. The strange part is that masturbation is almost completely unassailable from criticism on health, pregnancy, and emotional grounds. In fact the singular objection can only be made on a moral ground and even that is shaky unless your will to parse Xtian scripture to within an inch of its life. Yet, there were the moralizers out there banging the drum of immorality.

    The point is that any abstinence only education that doesn’t explicitly hold up “auto-eroticism” as a thoroughly acceptable form of sexual gratification is blatantly holding up a religious doctrine as having some sort of moral objectivity and should be indicted as such.

    And now since this is my second comment in as many day on the subject of masturbation I’m going to shut up least you people start getting the wrong idea [grin].

  33. Mark
    Mark April 18, 2006 at 12:08 pm |

    Thank you all for your comments. They were all reasonable and civil.

    I do talk to my kids a lot. My daughter is 15 and is very outgoing. She has lots of friends at school. She watches shows like The OC, Laguna Beach and shows on VH1. I watch them with her sometimes and do talk about the things that bother me and the things that I agree with. I grew up in the 70′s when a lot of the sexual revolution was starting to get on TV, so I know what it’s like to grow up with mixed messages (i.e TV and my Catholic faith). Unfortunately, my parents did not talk to me about sex stuff. They’re from the generation where it’s not discussed.
    I don’t think it’s possible to shield her from the shows, even if I did not let her watch them at home. She could see the shows at her friends’ houses, etc.

    The difficult part is what they’re being taught in school. I went to Catholic school and they did cover contraceptives. They told us what they were without getting into how to use them. So, I don’t have a problem with the topic. I fear that they are sending a message that conflicts with what I am teaching at home. “We know you’re going to have sex, so please be safe about it…” And with peer pressure, I can see where it could lead.

    Kat, you’re right… It is hard to be a parent today.

    Just one more thing and then I’ll listen to you all.
    Planned Parenthood does seem to promote sex to kids. See the new commercial that is on MTV. Go to Golden Gate Planned Parenthood.

    P.S. Sorry about the capital T thing. I didn’t mean to get all preachy. Just sharing my opinions and thoughts.

    Have a great day. I’ve got to go study for a final now. Parenting, work and school. It does keep a person busy.

  34. Kat
    Kat April 18, 2006 at 12:21 pm |

    See, I knew Mark was talking to his kids! Yeah Mark!

    And honestly, sitting through whole episodes of Laguna Beach? Now there’s a sacrifice in the name of parenting. Good man.

  35. evil_fizz
    evil_fizz April 18, 2006 at 12:52 pm |

    I fear that they are sending a message that conflicts with what I am teaching at home. “We know you’re going to have sex, so please be safe about it…” And with peer pressure, I can see where it could lead.

    See, here’s the problem. Encouraging abstinence is all well and good, but it’s never, ever going to be practiced widely enough to be effective. It’s not going to cut the STD rate or the rate of unintended pregnancies. Hence, kids and adults need to know what else is out there. I think that any practical sex education program must acknowledge that.

  36. Chet
    Chet April 18, 2006 at 1:55 pm |

    Sex is good. Sex is beautiful. As long as it’s between a man and a woman in a loving, committed, married relationship.

    Really? Even TEH BUTTSECKS?

  37. Sina
    Sina April 18, 2006 at 3:09 pm |

    Planned Parenthood provides information and health care to women young and old, but especially women who do not have the means to go elsewhere for the information and support they deserve. Planned Parenthood treated me like I was smart and responsible and gave me the tools to make smart and responsible decisions when I was a teen having pre-marital sex with my partner of now ten years. They taught me that I had the right to my body, my health, my mental and physical well-being, and ten years later, I’m still thankful for that.

    Planned Parenthood isn’t selling sex to teenagers. The OC, Laguna Beach, VH1, MTV, the NFL, Maxim, Cosmo, etc,etc and advertising executives all over the country sell sex to teenagers, by using women’s bodies as the means to sell crap, and by perpetuating the double standards of sexuality (punshing young women but at best, turning a blind eye to young men, boys will be boys, wild oats, don’t you know, wink wink nudge nudge). Young people make good decisions if given the tools and if given good models; look at Caitlin, man, she seems to know what she’s doing. Planned Parenthood has very little to do with it, and if it does, it’s on the right side.

    Also, those necklaces they’re selling out of the Golden Gate PP? Teh cute.

  38. piny
    piny April 18, 2006 at 7:06 pm |

    Thank you all for your comments. They were all reasonable and civil.

    Um, given that you insulted the loving relationships of at least some of the people on this blog as well as a great many other people we all consider beloved friends, family members, and mentors…why do you think you deserved civility? You weren’t respectful.

  39. Lauren
    Lauren April 18, 2006 at 7:26 pm |

    Word, piny. I still don’t understand how some can run about slamming people while calling for civility.

  40. vvj
    vvj April 18, 2006 at 7:32 pm |

    4. Sex is good. Sex is beautiful. As long as it’s between a man and a woman in a loving, committed, married relationship.

    Sex between a 37 year old married couple with two children from rural Tennesee consisting of a 355 pound septic tank cleaning husband with bad acne and chronic halitosis and a bald dual foot amputee wife: beautiful.

    Two 18 year old college freshman girls making out: an abomination unto god.

    Sigh.

  41. piny
    piny April 18, 2006 at 7:59 pm |

    Sex between a 37 year old married couple with two children from rural Tennesee consisting of a 355 pound septic tank cleaning husband with bad acne and chronic halitosis and a bald dual foot amputee wife: beautiful.

    …I get the point you’re trying to make here about this guy’s bizzaro standards, but this carries some pretty nasty implications wrt (lessee) people living with disabilities, fat people, Southerners, people living in rural areas, and people who otherwise don’t fit conventional definitions of beauty. Oh, and there’s some classist stuff, too–why should anyone be ashamed of cleaning septic tanks for a living?

  42. Mark
    Mark April 18, 2006 at 8:32 pm |

    Lauren, I don’t think I ‘slammed’ anybody. I just stated my opinion. If that’s slamming, then I guess we’re all guilty of it.

    Piny, I did not mean to insult anybody. You have your opinions, I have mine. I was just trying to start a conversation. It seems that anytime people with opposing views discuss these types of issues, it degenerates into ugliness. (And that’s on both sides of the issue) If this blog is only for the like-minded, then obviously I should stay away.

    And if you are going to resort to calling my standards “bizzaro” just because they don’t line up with yours, then I think you are the close minded person. Open-mindeness only seems to go one way.

  43. evil_fizz
    evil_fizz April 18, 2006 at 8:40 pm |

    Sex is good. Sex is beautiful. As long as it’s between a man and a woman in a loving, committed, married relationship.

    Mark, do you not see how offensive this would be to people who are single, gay, not monagamous, etc? You’ve said that the only good, beautiful sex is the kind that certain people have. By implication, the sex that the rest us have is bad, dirty, and wrong. You’ve judged us to be lacking. By quick count, that means you’ve insulted zuzu, piny, and Jill, plus however many commenters and people they care about. Can you not see how that would be construed as slamming?

  44. Jill
    Jill April 18, 2006 at 8:41 pm | *

    Lauren, I don’t think I ’slammed’ anybody. I just stated my opinion. If that’s slamming, then I guess we’re all guilty of it.

    Piny, I did not mean to insult anybody. You have your opinions, I have mine. I was just trying to start a conversation. It seems that anytime people with opposing views discuss these types of issues, it degenerates into ugliness.

    I hear ya, Mark. It’s kind of like when I tell people how I think sex is ok, as long as it’s between a man and a woman and they don’t use contraception and they’re white and they produce lots of white children. People who aren’t white, on the other hand, should not be allowed to marry whites (or even each other), and they definitely shouldn’t reproduce.

    But whenever I say that, people get all “offended.” And I’m like, hey, that’s just your opinion, man. I don’t think I slammed anybody. I just stated my opinion that non-white people shouldn’t be allowed to get married and have kids because they aren’t exactly “ideal” if you know what I mean. If that’s slamming, then we’re all guilty of it.

    I didn’t mean to insult anybody. You have your opinions, I have mine. I was just trying to start a conversation.

  45. Nomie
    Nomie April 18, 2006 at 9:21 pm |

    And if you are going to resort to calling my standards “bizzaro” just because they don’t line up with yours, then I think you are the close minded person. Open-mindeness only seems to go one way.

    AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

    I think I sprained something.

  46. Mark
    Mark April 19, 2006 at 12:10 am |

    Jill, that’s the same tired analogy that’s always given. Oh well. I understand your point though.

    I apologize to all of you for my offensive comments. Clearly, they were inappropriate for this website.

  47. piny
    piny April 19, 2006 at 12:20 am |

    Mark, do you not see how offensive this would be to people who are single, gay, not monagamous, etc? You’ve said that the only good, beautiful sex is the kind that certain people have. By implication, the sex that the rest us have is bad, dirty, and wrong. You’ve judged us to be lacking. By quick count, that means you’ve insulted zuzu, piny, and Jill, plus however many commenters and people they care about. Can you not see how that would be construed as slamming?

    Exactly.

    It’s not close-minded to refer to someone’s standards as “bizarro” if they flat-out exclude the kind of cherished romance you and most everyone you know happen to have found for themselves, mkay? My standards don’t define your loving relationship right out of existence; my understanding of love isn’t that narrow.

    Your comments aren’t “inappropriate for this website.” They’re wrong, full stop. You should be ashamed to say them in anyone’s company, not just within virtual earshot of the people you’re denigrating. But hey: I guess a sliver of apology is better than nothing.

  48. Mark
    Mark April 19, 2006 at 12:38 am |

    Hey Piny, I guess I could say you’re wrong too. I think I’ll trust my Catholic faith before I trust you to tell me what’s wrong or right.

    Everyone has free will. You have the right to do whatever you want.

    I know this won’t mean anything to you. God bless you and I’ll keep all of you in my prayers.

  49. Sarah
    Sarah April 19, 2006 at 3:32 am |

    Mark – Feel free to trust your Catholic faith, even though it has made you discriminate against many groups of people for stupid reasons. Please realize that your “faith” is not my faith, and I don’t have to abide by it. I’m glad your religious condescension makes you feel better than the rest of us. Is this the best your “faith” can do? A faith that turns you into a bigot? Or, do you just shurg that off and just convince youself you have the “truth?”

    Thanks for your prayers. I’ll keep you in my thoughts, since you don’t have any original ones yourself.

    Piny is right – you are wrong. Don’t hide your bigotry behind your “faith.” It gets old. Hate is hate, even though it seems you have a good time puffing it up with Catholicism – a religion that can’t even keep its sexual notions in order.

    Mark, you make me sick. You obviously came here to cause trouble and them claimed you would get flamed. Well gee, when you make such stupid and bigoted statements, don’t expect to win anybody over.

    I see through your act.

  50. Mark
    Mark April 19, 2006 at 11:52 am |

    I initially started to address this to Sarah, but I think it should be left open to everyone.

    I’m glad your religious condescension makes you feel better than the rest of us.

    It was not my intention to make me seem better than anyone else. Looking back at my initial post, I can see how that came across. Maybe I was looking for an argument at the time, and for that, I apologize. Since that post though, I have tried to listen to your thoughts as well.

    I am no different then you or most other people in a lot of ways. I have lived my life and made many mistakes. I’m a sinner, just like everyone else. I am not condemning anybody, that is only something God can do. If I condemn someone else, then I have to condemn myself at the same time. Just because I point out that I believe something is right or wrong, does not mean I am condemning anybody. I have done things that I know are wrong and have tried to make changes accordingly. I still commit many of the same sins. I am not perfect.

    If you don’t feel that there’s anything wrong with premarital sex or homosexual sex, that’s your choice and I respect that. Please don’t turn around and tell me that I don’t have a right to my beliefs.

    Thanks for your prayers. I’ll keep you in my thoughts, since you don’t have any original ones yourself

    I’m assuming that you are saying that since I follow the Catholic Church’s teaching, I don’t have any ability to think on my own. Just because I have come to believe the Catholic church is correct and have made a conscious decision to try to live by it, does not mean I am unable to have original thought.

    Piny is right – you are wrong. Don’t hide your bigotry behind your “faith.” It gets old. Hate is hate, even though it seems you have a good time puffing it up with Catholicism – a religion that can’t even keep its sexual notions in order.

    Once again, everyone has free will. If you don’t agree with the Catholic church, more power to you. But don’t turn around and call me a bigot since you seem to be quite bigoted against the Catholic church. I don’t consider myself a bigot. I have been friends and remain friends with many people you indicate that I hate. Like I said, we are all sinners. If I tried to be friends only with perfect people, I guess I would be very lonely.

    I see through your act.

    No acting here. This is just me trying to live and learn.

    Thanks for your comments. Some of them I disagree with, but I learned from you as well. Like I said, my initial post was harsh and I apologize for that. But I don’t apologize for my beliefs, which I don’t consider bigoted or hateful. I respect all people and despise hate. I haven’t used any derogatory terms for people based on the lives they live. That would be disreseptful and hateful. You all seem to be good people with good intentions. Like I said, I think we have more in common than not. It’s just the things that we don’t have in common seem to be very divisive. Wouldn’t it be nice if we could all learn to respect those differences. I’ll try to do the same.

    Have a great day everyone.

  51. piny
    piny April 19, 2006 at 1:09 pm |

    If you don’t feel that there’s anything wrong with premarital sex or homosexual sex, that’s your choice and I respect that. Please don’t turn around and tell me that I don’t have a right to my beliefs.

    No, you don’t. You just called me close-minded, remember?

    And your beliefs hold that our relationships are wrong; I’ll just point out for the second time that none of us usurp that decision on your behalf.

  52. piny
    piny April 19, 2006 at 1:59 pm |

    Maybe I’m talking out of my ass here, but aren’t all three of us at least partly culturally Catholic?

  53. piny
    piny April 19, 2006 at 2:14 pm |

    Mm-hm. People tell me I’m bigoted against Catholics and I’m all, “What, like my grandmother? I don’t think she would have liked you much either.”

  54. Lynn Gazis-Sax
    Lynn Gazis-Sax April 19, 2006 at 2:17 pm |

    He then goes on to say that he doesn’t want his kids taught in school that any sex is okay without marriage.

    In a sense, I don’t, either. But what I’d mean by that is that I don’t think it’s the place of public schools to say: Hey! Sex is just fine without marriage! If you think you want to wait for marriage, you’re wasting some of the best years of your life! Or something like that. Which my public school didn’t do.

    Rather, they should be giving factual information that students can use at whatever time is appropriate. Knowing about birth control is useful whether you wait till marriage to need it, or whether you need it much sooner.

Comments are closed.

The commenting period has expired for this post. If you wish to re-open the discussion, please do so in the latest Open Thread.