The UK has decided that Catholic Charities must allow gay couples to adopt, or risk losing it public funding and it’s “charity” status.
From the Telegraph:
The tribunal ruled that a “heterosexuals only” policy in the adoption field of the Catholic Church in England and Wales would fall foul of the ban on discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation brought in two years ago.
The Tribunal’s ruling leaves leading charity Catholic Care (Diocese of Leeds) facing a deep religious impasse and creates a fundamental conflict between the tenets of the Catholic Church and the law of the land.
If the charity now sticks to Church policy and continues to follow its “heterosexuals only” policy it could lose its charity status and public funding.
It might also face discrimination claims by same-sex couples it has turned away in the past.
Catholic Care has a respected reputation, particularly in finding new families for “hard to place” children, but has never provided adoption services to homosexuals for religious reasons.
The introduction of the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007, threw the charity’s long-standing position into doubt.
Catholic Care, whose avowed aims include the relief of suffering of impoverished and distressed children, applied to the Charity Commission to amend its statement of objectives so that it could continue to limit its adoption services to heterosexuals only.
The charity wanted to formally incorporate in its objectives a statement that its adoption services would only be provided to heterosexuals “in accordance with the tenets of the Church”
That triggered a lengthy dispute before the Charity Tribunal which has finally ruled that Catholic Care cannot be exempted from the ban on discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation.
How long, do you suppose, before this comes to America? I have been asked numerous times by one of our commenters why the Catholic Church has the right to force it’s beliefs on the rest of society. And I have responded numerous times, that society is the one forcing it’s policies on the Catholic Church. This is an example of that.
First of all, I want to say I agree with you, that the Church should not be forced to provide services She considers immoral. Therefore I agree that the Church shouldn’t be forced to allow same sex couples to adopt.
That being said, I am not against homosexuals adopting. I taught a girl who would have been aborted if her aunt, who is lesbian, didn’t agree to adopt the child. The mother had already aborted several children before, so this was no empty threat. Now, if it is okay for that girl to be raised by a homosexual (and it sure as H-E- double hockey stick beats death!), why not other children? A precedent has been set. I can’t turn back and say “Well…..”
We don’t prevent the greedy from adopting, do we? Do we prevent people from adopting based on the other seven deadly sins? Do we check if they are heterosexually promiscous. There is more than one sin in the world. Homosexuality should not be treated as the only one.
Helen,
I haven’t quite made up my mind on the adoption thing. A single homosexual I have no problem with, but a couple makes me uncomfortable. It’s not that I’m saying homosexuals can’t have relationships, but I seriously resent that the idea is being pushed that these relationships are on equal footing with heterosexual ones.
I do agree that alive is better than dead, so if you are choosing the greater good between those two choices, it become elementary. BUT more often than not, those aren’t the only two choices. If anything, I’d say gay couples adopting should be one of the last choices. Married heterosexual couples, singles, then gay… But I don’t think that a gay couple should ever be given precedence over a heterosexual couple.
Man, I miss the 50′s and early 60′s. Pip says we glorify them, but I lived in them and I’m telling you, it was simpler. You knew what society expected from you and you did it. You didn’t have play dates, you just played. A wagon was high tech and kids shows were only on on Saturday mornings. Ice cream was a big deal, being a Christian was considered “normal”, being gay was something you didn’t talk about let alone flaunt, bathing suits were for swimming, boys were for dreaming about not sleeping with, right was right, wrong was wrong and everyone knew the difference or was shunned. It wasn’t perfect no. I’m not an idiot. We’ve always had rape and adultery and pedophilia…but I swear your kids really could play outside for hours without checkin’ in and you NEVER worried that they’d be molested, or stolen or worse. We’ve had three notes come home in the last month from school about some pervert or other trying to lure young girls into their cars…
I’m waxing maudlin I know…must be that triva quiz on the other thread…*sigh*
Well, if they’re publicly funded, I don’t really see how the “public” can’t tell them what to do. If they were privately funded, I’d say the Church should go tell them to pound sand, but I don’t really see how that would work if they’re funded with government/public money. If they’re public, they have to follow the public laws including not being able to discriminate.
If I’m missing something please let me know. I don’t agree with them making the Catholic Church do this but I don’t know how they would get around it if they’re publicly funded.
wrong was wrong and everyone knew the difference or was shunned
So you think we should go back to shunning people? REALLY?!
I think we should really go back to speaking out when something is wrong, yes.
They didn’t shun them as in send them into the wilderness, they shunned them by making it known that society as a whole did not put up with adultery, promiscuity, sex being taught in schools, 11 year olds getting pregnant, abortion…pretty much racism is the worst thing goin’ on and that was slowly going in the right direction.
You didn’t say the “F” word in public, you didn’t wear thong bikinis, you didn’t protect the criminals and punish the victims. You didn’t celebrate sin and condemn virtue.
Yeah, I do wish society had a clearer set of moral values that they pressured everyone to live by. Call me nuts, but yeah, I do.
Obama is over in Egypt as we speak lecturing the arab world on morality…seriously, if it wasn’t so sick, it would be funny. There isn’t a moral left in this country
Heck it used to be that when you turned over a rock you found something slimy, now the scum walks the streets and decent folk hide under rocks…
I remember walking over a mile to a friends house by myself and sometimes at night and no one ever worried about that. It was safe. As kids, we all knew which houses to avoid and who the perverts were. We knew because if someone was caught doing something wrong, especially when children were involved, everyone knew and everyone judged those actions and took the necessary steps to take the temptations away from that person. I see nothing wrong with that.
I hitchhiked on several occasions with no fears – most of my friends did and there are no horror stories to tell. I had one friend that was murdered – the person who did it was her father (shock of the decade, by the way) so I know “things” happened. But nothing like today.
In the same town I grew up in there are news reports almost every day of a child being injured, neglected and/or mistreated. When I lived there we didn’t need the news telling us this stuff, we all knew and we all dealt with it accordingly. If a husband hit his wife, people banded together to either get him help or get her out of there. If a mom hit her kids – same thing. Now a days a person can’t even spank a child for fear of being turned in to the authorities, yet we look the other way when a child is getting the snot kicked out of them by a guardian or parent. It’s sick.
There are too many excuses for bad behavior and not enough correction and moral judgments of these behaviors. Look at society – for the first time in history we are having severe problems with violence among teenage girls. These girls are even video taping these fights and proudly posting them on the web. Back when I was young if you were a girl that was violent you were considered a “hood” and something to avoid.
There is a movie that came out in the late 1980′s called “Heathers” that shocked alot of people. – girls treated each other like that? wow? All the murders that happened in the movie was scoffed at because “that would never happen”…well….it does now.
I only remember one school fight happening and I went to the same school from 3rd grade to senior graduation.
Times have changed, and it isn’t for the better.
OH – and we were able to eat our Halloween candy without our parents going through it or getting it X-rayed. We were even able to go to houses that we didn’t know and leave our neighborhood going door to door. Malls weren’t even opened on Halloween night because no one would be there.
“How long, do you suppose, before this comes to America? ”
it already has, in Massachusetts.
http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=19017
Jasper –
Remember we have the “community news” section – that would be an excellent one to post. *hint**hint*
How ironic –
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,525088,00.html
This is what happens when society doesn’t think the court system will stop the “bad people”. They turn into “mobs” who take justice into their hands.
History has proven that time and time again……..
Jasper-
First that is an old article, though the practice did stop just last month after the Church forced them to do so. The board was willing to let gays adopt, and when they were told it would not be permitted, they resigned.
It became an internal Church debate, not one between the Church and the state.
Jasper-
Please disregard the old article bit, an incorrect time stamp on an article I was reading was just fixed, my apologies.
Dan,
do you mean this is not correct?
“Catholic Charities in Boston announced March 10 that it is getting out of the adoption business, over Massachusetts state law requiring that that the agency place children with same-sex couples.”
Is Catholic.org lying? Correct me if I’m wrong.
“The controversy began in October when the Globe reported that Catholic Charities had been quietly processing a small number of gay adoptions, despite Vatican statements condemning the practice. Over the last decades, the Globe reported, approximately 13 children had been placed by Catholic Charities in gay households, a fraction of the 720 children placed by the agency during that period.
Agency officials said they had been permitting gay adoptions to comply with the state’s antidiscrimination laws. But after the story was published, the state’s four bishops announced they would appoint a panel to examine whether the practice should continue. In December, the Catholic Charities board, which is dominated by lay people, voted unanimously to continue gay adoptions.
But, on Feb. 28, the four bishops announced a plan to seek an exemption from the antidiscrimination laws. Eight of the 42 board members quit in protest, saying the agency should welcome gays as adoptive parents.”
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/03/11/catholic_charities_stuns_state_ends_adoptions/
Jasper-
I thought it was wrong based on a blog post I had been reading. However the post had been updated to include more information on gay adoption/gay marriage a couple weeks ago and so the timestamp was no longer correct. I apologize. Should’ve been more careful on my end. They simply referenced “last month” and had a timestamp only a week or two old. Again, my apologies
Dan,
no prob.
My nephew Jason was adopted through catholic Charities. They are a wonderful organization. In Massachusetts, the gay mafia has alot of power, the state is run by liberal democrats.
First of all “gay mafia”? Really? Lmfao.
Gotta love that after the 5 year anniversary of legalized gay marriage just rolled by and there were nice articles about how all the things that gay marriage opponents said would happen- didn’t, and that it raked us in something like $111million. The estimates for cali were in the billions. Too bad, it could really help them out over there.
Second, this was a council put together by the Vatican, and they STILL ruled in favor (UNANIMOUSLY) for gay adoptions, when 4 bishops said nah, we’ll close in its place. They made their decision. For all that preaching of oh well you can be gay, just dont have sex talk, they don’t exactly act like that’s fine. Two gays are together so they must be having sex and thus its inappropriate for the child seems to be the argument behind this, and it’s pretty ridiculous.
As for trying to get an exemption, that would lead a slippery slope. Can protestan churches get waivers not to allow catholics into their church? Could a company request to get a waiver so they could have an all-black staff? It goes on and on.
Jasper-
Not to mention, this happened just 2 years after gay marriage was legalized and whether it would stay that way or not was still unclear. So much for all that power at the time this happened.
Dan –
I think you misunderstood:
“the state’s four bishops announced they would appoint a panel to examine whether the practice should continue. In December, the Catholic Charities board, which is dominated by lay people, voted unanimously to continue gay adoptions.”
How is that the Vatican appointing the council? The four Bishops appointed a “panel” not the board. To me is sounds like the board, dominated by lay people, tried to stop the panel from ruling…..
I could be wrong because the article you posted in the only one I’ve read on the subject….I think…..
lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy and pride
Yes, homosexuality is a sin. But even as far as lust goes, why is it the only sin that we seem to deem one unworthy of adopting? Greed and envy made the top seven in terms of sin, yet we don’t seem to have regulations disallowing the envious or greedy from adopting.
Dan,
Forgive me for being stupid, but after having read the article you linked to it would appear that while it started out as a problem with Bishops allowing gay adoptions, flouting the Churches ban on this behavior, utimately Catholic Charities closed because the STATE said gay adoptions or get out…where am I wrong?
Here’s a thought that just popped into my head – so it may not be well thought out. However…….
Lust of Homosexuality has a “lifestyle” and parades and books and legislation and must be accepted or discrimination lawsuits will happen.
I can’t really think of any other “lifestyle” that fits one of the deadly sins with a name and parades,etc, that is being shoved down our throats.
The other sins are not so easy to define because it depends on your state of mind. Like Greed – how do you know if someone is truly greedy? Can we say Bill Gates is when he give more than 50% of his income to charity? Do we really know what is in his heart and that his actions are pure or unpure? Same with envy – Is someone envious, or is someone looking at someone else in order to follow in the footsteps so they could do good to compliment the person they are looking at. What we may see as envy, is actually healthy and needed – or it can be the deadly sin, we just don’t really know. Where as homosexuality is considered lust with no exceptions because it is in dealing with the pleasures of the body.
Another example – and I’ll use myself. There are times in my life where some can look at me and say that I am being slothful. However, I suffer from Major Depressive Disorder which causes a slothful appearance at times. Does this mean I am in the sin of sloth?
It’s really complicated……….ouch…..I think I hurt my brain……
Helen,
When two men or two women live together they are passing on the idea that homosexuality is a “good”. You wouldn’t let a pedophile adopt a child would you? Or a bank robber?
There is a difference between sin, which we all do, and condoning something that is intrinsically evil. Homosexuality, like abortion, is considered an intrinsic evil.
Intrinsic evil refers to actions that are morally evil in such a way that is essentially opposed to the will of God or proper human fulfillment. The key consideration here is that intrinsically evil actions are judged to be so solely by their object, independently of the intention that inspires them or the circumstances that surround them (See the Catechism, Part Three, Section One, Chapter One, Article 4, n. 1756). In this sense, “intrinsic” does not convey the notion of a particularly heinous act (although all heinous acts are intrinsically evil), but that the act is wrong no matter what its circumstances..
The homosexual act is NEVER okay. Abortion is NEVER okay. Other sins, are goods that are twisted. Or perverted. But abortion and homosexuality are never good, not even goods that are perverted. You can read more here:
http://www.ascensionhealth.org/ethics/public/issues/intrinsic_evil.asp
MK-
There is a lot of evidence that our kids are at least as safe if not safer now than then. It’s the media that is creating this fear. And to put it simply, being able to say, “see ya! Don’t cross the tracks!” as we rode off in our bikes was there in the 90′s, too.
http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/parenting/parenting-without-fear-our-kids-are-safer-than-ever-so-why-are-we-still-afraid-470187/
Here are some examples of intrinsic evils…
1. Fornication
2. Lying
3. Calumny
4. Condemning an innocent person
5. Immorality
6. Idolatry
7. Adultery
8. Sexual perversion
9. Theft
10. Greed
11. Drunkenness
12. Reviling
13. Robbery
14. Blasphemy
15. Any kind of homicide
16. Genocide
17. Abortion
18. Euthanasia
19. Voluntary suicide
20. Mutilation
21. Torments inflicted on the body or mind
22. Attempts to coerce the spirit
23. Subhuman living conditions
24. Arbitrary imprisonment
25. Deportation
26. Slavery
27. Prostitution
28. Trafficking in women and children
29. Degrading conditions of work which treat labourers as mere instruments of profit, and not as free responsible persons
In the Catholic Church we differentiate between gravity of sin…there are mortal sins, and there are venial sins. Venial sins are more like lack of virtues than actual outright evils…
A serious, grave or mortal sin is the knowing and willful violation of God’s law in a serious matter, for example, idolatry, adultery, murder, slander. These are all things gravely contrary to the love we owe God and, because of Him, our neighbor. As Jesus taught, when condemning even looking at a woman lustfully, sin can be both interior (choices of the will alone) or exterior (choices of the will carried into action). A man who willfully desires to fornicate, steal, murder or some other grave sin, has already seriously offended God by choosing interiorly what God has prohibited.
Mortal sin is called mortal because it is the “spiritual” death of the soul (separation from God). If we are in the state of grace it loses this supernatural life for us. If we die without repenting we will lose Him for eternity. However, by turning our hearts back to Him and receiving the Sacrament of Penance we are restored to His friendship. Catholics are not allowed to receive Communion if they have unconfessed mortal sins.
Venial sins are slight sins. They do not break our friendship with God, although they injure it. They involve disobedience of the law of God in slight (venial) matters. If we gossip and destroy a person’s reputation it would be a mortal sin. However, normally gossip is about trivial matters and only venially sinful. Additionally, something that is otherwise a mortal sin (e.g. slander) may be in a particular case only a venial sin. The person may have acted without reflection or under force of habit. Thus, not fully intending the action their guilt before God is reduced. It is always good to remember, especially those who are trying to be faithful but sometimes fall, that for mortal sin it must not only be 1) serious matter, but 2) the person must know it is serious and then 3) freely commit it.
These two categories of sin are explicitly to be found in Sacred Scripture. In the Old Covenant there were sins that merited the death penalty and sins that could be expiated by an offering. This Law was a teacher that prepared the way for the faith (Gal. 3:24). In the New Covenant these material categories are replaced by spiritual ones, natural death by eternal death. There are thus daily faults for which we must daily ask forgiveness (Mt. 6:12), for even the “just man falls seven times a day” (Prov. 24:16), and mortal faults that separate the sinner from God (1 Cor. 6:9-10) for all eternity.
From the Amber Alert Registry:
United States Statistics Missing Children Statistics
- A child goes missing every 40 seconds in the U.S., over 2,100 per day
- 800,000 children go missing each year
- 90% are juveniles
- 50% are 4 to 11 years old
- Strangers commit 53% of child abductions that end tragically
Another 500,000 go missing without ever being reported
You can go here to see the stats of violent crimes from 1960 – present http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
Also the Bureau of Justice Statistics http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/
It looks like things got really bad in the 1990′s and have been improving slightly since then. It would be interesting to see if sept 11 created more violence or less violence, but I don’t have time to look into it right now…..
Pip,
I raised kids in the 80′s and I’m raising kids today. I was a kid in the early 60′s. I’m telling you, whether you believe it or not, that it is different today. 6 teenagers have committed suicide in the last year in a small suburb here in Chicago. The last one, two days ago, was a 16 year old that threw himself in front of a train.
In 1965 I didn’t know ANYONE that did drugs. Now I know very few people that HAVEN’T. If you are being allowed to leave your home at 8:00 in the morning and not check in again til dinnertime that night, then you must live in a town with a population of 10. And they are all relatives. I’m not saying you can’t let your kids go outside unsupervised at all…but I bet you don’t let your 7 or 8 year olds just go and roam…maybe your 10, 11 and 12 years olds.
Even this gay adoption issue. We are not looking out for what is best for the kids. Instead we are looking out for what is best for the gay couple. Must hurt their feelings. There are plenty of heterosexual couples looking to adopt, and until every one of them has been used, gay couples shouldn’t even enter the picture. Because a mother and a father are what is best for the CHILD.
Good heavens, in 1960, do you really think that 40% of babies were born out of wedlock?????
Oops – I forgot to link to the Amber alert registry: http://www.amberalertregistry.org/amber-alert-statistics.html
When two men or two women live together they are passing on the idea that homosexuality is a “good”. You wouldn’t let a pedophile adopt a child would you? Or a bank robber?
Well…my child lives with me..and I am unmarried, so I’m passing on the idea that it is a “good” to have sex out of wedlock and become a single parent. Why am I allowed around my child? I’m just passing on that intrinsic evil known as “lust” onto her. Why don’t we just take away everybody’s kids who don’t live in the approved 2 straight parent household? They’re both doing damage aren’t they?
Comparing homosexuals to pedophiles is really stupid too…because pedophiles actively seek out to hurt CHILDREN. OF COURSE you wouldn’t send children to the pedophiles house. Now, arguing that the parent’s homosexual lifestyle inadvertantly hurts the child is a different scenario. There are plenty of parental lifestyle choices that hurt their children. Like single parents…they don’t have the ideal situation, but I believe single people can adopt children or foster them can they not? So why’s it okay for one and not the other if the 2 straight parent household is the best thing?
here are the statistics per 100,000 persons…
MK:
http://www.suicide.org/suicide-statistics.html#death-rates
The suicide rate has decreased from the 1950-1980 rate of 13.2 to the present rate of about 11.
he suicide rate for ages 5-24 (youth suicide) increased dramatically from 1950 to the early to mid 1990s but then began to decrease thereafter.
The suicide rate for ages 45-85+ decreased significatnly from 1950 to present.
The suicide rates thus were increasing during your time, MK, but have been decreasing since mine.
Main difference? Awareness. Mass media. Newspapers. Etc.
http://www.policeone.com/patrol-issues/articles/1654449-Chicagos-murder-rate-lowest-since-1965/
Chicago’s murder tally officially fell to its lowest in more than four decades, with 443 murders, according to final statistics released Thursday by the Police Department.
The total marks the fourth year in a row that murders fell below 500 and represents the fewest homicides since 1965, when the city posted 395.
Overall reported crime decreased 3.8 percent in 2007 compared with the previous year, while violent crime declined by 2 percent.
As for drugs, that doens’t really have a lot to do with letting kids to trick-or-treating, etc. It just shows how the war on drugs has been completely ineffective.
Furthermore, the gay adoption issue doesn’t prove anything. There are no comprehensive studies that show that gay adoption is bad for children, or any worse than normal parents. If the best argument against it is “it teaches sin” then you might have some issues with atheists, etc. adopting too.
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/
I just spent 45 minutes trying to figure out how to put the chart itself up, but forget it. No computer geeks in this house.
So you’ll just have to use the link. But look at violent crime, rape and murder rates per 100,000 persons for 1960, and then 2007. It’s the second chart…
2009
* Number of live births to unmarried women: 1,641,946
* Birth rate for unmarried women: 50.6 births per 1,000 unmarried women aged 15-44 years
* Percent of all births to unmarried women: 38.5%
1960
POLICY BRIEF #5
Since 1970, out-of-wedlock birth rates have soared. In 1965, 24 percent of black infants and 3.1 percent of white infants were born to single mothers. By 1990 the rates had risen to 64 percent for black infants, 18 percent for whites. Every year about one million more children are born into fatherless families. If we have learned any policy lesson well over the past 25 years, it is that for children living in single-parent homes, the odds of living in poverty are great. The policy implications of the increase in out-of-wedlock births are staggering.
http://www.brookings.edu/papers/1996/08childrenfamilies_akerlof.aspx
PIP,
you’re not thinking about the child, every child should have a mother and a father if possible. Placing a child in a home to be raised by homosexuals is not whats best for the child.
Thats why Catholic Charaties got out of it.
You should talk with your priest.
MK, it’s so individual per state; but generally we see trends for most crime rising between 60s and 80s. They usually peak late 80s, early 90s, but have decreased. I find it odd that the independence I was able to have as a kid was when all of these terrible trends peaked, and now that all of that stuff is decreasing steadily or sharply (depending on statistic), we think the world is a terrible place to be out in. In fact its this ‘let’s put our kid in a bubble’ thing that is responsible for our craze over disinfectants (leading to resistance) and more obesity and laziness.
“Placing a child in a home to be raised by homosexuals is not whats best for the child.”
Where’s proof of this?
I don’t have a priest right now, Jasper.
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
That wasn’t the right link…I’m losing my mind.
In 1960 there were 160.9 violent crimes per 100,000 persons
In 2007 there were 466.9
In 1960 there were 9.6 rapes per 100,000 persons
In 2007 there were 30.9
In 1960 there were 86.1 assaults
In 2007 there were 283.8
I’m not comparing 1990 to today. I’m comparing 1960 to today. While the rates might be going down since the peak of the 90′s they are still WAY up there from 1960. My claim was that life was simpler and safer in 1960…and the numbers say I’m right.
As for your suicide statistics, they don’t say what the numbers are in 1960 compared to now. They only say that they peaked in the 90′s, which doesn’t really address what I am claiming. I don’t want to go back to the 90′s either.
I want to go back to the 50′s and 60′s morality wise.
Yes, but the independence YOU had is not the independence I had…that’s my point. My oldest didn’t have what I had, and my youngest doesn’t have what he had.
Drugs might not be a problem to you, but they are to mothers all over the country. I don’t care what the reason for it’s proliferation is, the fact is it’s out there. And to protect your kids from the filth that is being preached as “normal’ and “good” you pretty much DO have to keep your kids with you at all times.
It isn’t just worrying about chester the molester…it’s worrying that little timmy is going to give your son crack, or your daughter an std…
I don’t care what you say. It’s not the same world, and in my mind, it hasn’t changed for the better.
You’ve got a group of people here that LIVED in the 50′s and early 60′s, something you did not do. So please, don’t tell me it’s the same now. Because your wrong.
“Where’s proof of this?”
thousands of years of proof that man/women marriage is the best.
PIP,
If you were an adoption concilor and 2 couple came in to adopt but you only had 1 child to give away. One couple was 2 men and the other was 1 man and 1 women. Both had equal income, lived in safe neiborhoods, etc.
what couple would you give the child too?
Jasper, that’s not proof. You need number, studies.
If I were an adoption counselor I would give the child to the couple that has the best interests of the child in mind. No couple is the same. It all comes down to who they are.
MK,
Oh, I’m not saying crime and drugs are better, or not different, than your time, but it’s getting better and parents are getting worse..just saying. It’s odd and causing problems of its own.
Geez everybody, take a xanax will ya?
Maybe the world is the way it is today because people were tired of it being the way it was. Blame it on whatever you want to blame it on, but you can’t change what happened then that led to now. You just have to accept it and do the best you can with what you’ve got.
“Jasper, that’s not proof. You need number, studies.”
LOL…no PIP, certain things can be explained by nature, no other study is needed..
“If I were an adoption counselor I would give the child to the couple that has the best interests of the child in mind. No couple is the same. It all comes down to who they are.”
well let’s there almost exactly the same…which couple would you give the child too?
Pip,
I’m sorry that came out so harsh. I’m just feeling particularly battered today…it seems like everytime I turn around the world changes for the worst.
As a mother, all I can say is it is really, really, really hard to raise a moral child today. Just look right here. Every person on here thinks they are living a moral life. And yet, with no disprespect intended, I want my kids to have different dare I say it?, better morals than many of you guys here. I want them to know that abortion is wrong, contraception is wrong, premarital sex is wrong, drugs are wrong, homosexuality is wrong…How do I battle the entire world?
It didn’t used to be like this. It wasn’t this hard. You knew what was right, and 99% of the population agreed with you. If someone acted “out of line” it was known…no one tried to pretend that pornography or adultery was normal, or good. Bad was called bad. Good girls didn’t do that stuff. Nice boys were who you hoped your daughter would marry. Yes marry. Hopefully before she was so old she had to have invitro. Sex talks involved saving yourself for your husband not which condom was best, or where you could get the cheapest birth control pills. You worried your kids weren’t reading enough, not that their teacher was reading your kindergartner books about gay penguins.
We’ve lost our moral compass, PIP. We live by moral relativism and it’s breaking my heart to see the world going this way. You don’t know, because you’ve never lived in any other kind of world. But I have. And this is just so sad.
Not all evil, is criminal. Just because birth control and abortion and homosexual marriage are considered perfectly legitimate, doesn’t mean it is good. I don’t just want a world with less crime. I want a world with more GOOD. There is a difference. Just as a lack of violence does not equal peace, a lack of crime does not mean morality. If you make immorality legal and acceptable, you are still immoral.
“certain things can be explained by nature, no other study is needed..”
Cop out.
“well let’s there almost exactly the same…which couple would you give the child too?”
Whichever one the parents liked best.
alright MK, I’ll drop it then
“Cop out.”
PIP,
some things are just very obvious that need no explaining… Is the ocean blue? Do birds fly? Does a bear poop in the woods?
same for tradional marriage….
“Whichever one the parents liked best.”
Cop out.
“some things are just very obvious that need no explaining…”
It’s very obvious this is not one of those things. Saying ‘oh it’s obvious, so I can make universal statements about human behavior with no evidence’ is indeed a cop out.
““Whichever one the parents liked best.”
Cop out.”
Oh, be original Jasper. You wanted me to say something that’s against my beliefs and you are disappointed that you aren’t getting it. So, I gave you an honest answer that was different than what you were digging for. Boo hoo!
Pip,
That’s actually an intersesting point that you bring up…about parents being worse. We learn how to parent FROM our parents. Generation to generation…I agree with you. Parenting skills are nil these days. My pediatrician said as much last month. Combing your kids hair, clean clothes, wiping their nose, two parent families, manners, schoolwork…she said it just isn’t the same as when she was raising her kids. Said the same thing about the quality of doctors she has to hire. They want to come in at 9:00 and leave at 5:00. Doesn’t matter that there is a kid that needs attention…the clock says 5:00.
I think that when you have single moms, raising kids, and non traditional famililes, blended families, roles get more and more blurred. How do you teach your kids how to parent when your not sure yourself what makes a good parent.
I also think a lot of young parents today are lazy. Not about their work. I don’t mean they are lay around the house lazy. I mean when it comes to parenting. They don’t get how much work is involved in making your kid pick up his own toys. Or clean up after dinner. Or go to bed at a regular time. I mean, even with the grandkids it’s constant. Sure it would be easier to pick up all their toys after they go to bed. But that’s NOT my job. My job is to teach THEM how to pick up their toys. I remember sitting at the table with Charlotte trying to get her to eat ONE bite of chicken so that she could say she had eaten dinner. It wasn’t about the chicken. It was a war of the wills. If I lost that one, it would have been nigh impossible to get my authority back. THREE SOLID hours we sat there. Finally, both of us exhausted, she stuck it in her mouth and swallowed. It was all over in a matter of seconds, and she has NEVER challenged me again. It would have been easier to just say okay, forget the chicken. But I knew that this was THE test. And the “easy” way might have been easier in the short term, but the long term? Let’s just say,it was worth the 3 hours.
I know what you mean, MK.
When I was young and we saw a ballet or something in the theatre we were expected to shut up. If nothing else fall asleep, but don’t make a lot of noise. My mom was babysitting for a friend’s in-law (new mom) and her kid was impossible to control! She couldn’t believe how disobedient she was.
I think part of it too is that it is exceedingly difficult (unless one parent makes a lot) to raise a family on one breadwinner and guarantee things like college for your child. So both parents feel obligated to work constantly to afford it. Dropping out of the workforce for a few years can be devastating on mothers because when they come back after a few years, their job might be given away and they will be considered too old or not as competitive. Maternity leave is lacking in terms of set standards so some people get a matter of weeks. A lot of businesses don’t want to accommodate motherhood.It’s hard to have it all when a lot of businesses are so competitive that it’s hard to take off for a few years or get a more flexible schedule.
Also, a lot of parents want to be ‘liked’ by their children so they make them happy by giving them what they want. They worry that their kid will get injured by playing outside and use videogames and TV as a babysitter. They feed their kids whatever they desire and then we wonder what is making our children fat?
I see a lot of good parents but sometimes when I see or hear these kind of parents they just drive me CRAZY, but what can I do about it?? I’m not a parent so I can’t claim higher authority. What pisses me off more than anything is seeing these reality TV shows glorifying bad parenting. ESPECIALLY super rich families who spoil their kids rotten and then complain that their children are flunking out of school and disrespecting them all the time.
/rant over.
I’ll pick up where you left off. One of the things that is a problem tho, I think, and you can ask your mom, is that we feel entitled to more, so we work those two jobs not to make ends meet but to get cable and cell phones and TV’s and bikes and two cars and yes, even college. College is not a right. It’s a privelege and not everyone will or should get to go. We still need plumbers and electricians and painters and cops and firemen….and there is NOTHING wrong with that. The idea that your children will be less if they DON’T go to college, imo, has actually hurt our young people.
Your mom will tell you that she went “without” a whole lot of stuff, just so that she didn’t have to work. Of course that’s assuming that she didn’t work, but my point is that a man can work two jobs while mom stays home. I did it. Val did it. Bethany does it. It CAN be done. You have to make a choice tho. One pair of shoes, one TV, no cable, a budget, no starbucks, and maybe no college. State colleges are very affordable, if your determined to go that route. My point is that at some time some snake oil salesman sold women a bill of goods, telling them that not only CAN they have EVERYTHING, but they SHOULD. And we bought into it. It’s the same mentality that gives us atrocities like abortion. I want, what I want.
Kids aren’t accesories. They aren’t toys. They aren’t commodities. and they aren’t “rights”.
Which brings us back to “a mother AND a father”, all other things being equal, really IS the best for a child. A mother is the only one that can teach her daughters how to be women. A dad can clothe them, and listen to them, and share ice cream cones with them…but he cannot teach them how to be women.
A mother can ride a motorcycle with her son, read him books, and watch star wars movies with him. But she CANNOT teach him how to be a man.
Single mothers, especially those raising sons, are disserviciing their kid. Even if she is raising a girl, the girl needs a role model for what kind of man makes a good husband and provider.
Gay men, while they might have a boatload to offer, cannot teach a girl how to be a woman. And if their child is a boy, there is no mom to image the kind of wife and mother he should be looking for.
We learn from our parents. Generation to generation.
And make no mistake…no matter what the world tells you, no matter what you tell yourself, your were made, with few exceptions, to meet a mate and build a life together.
Wow! I missed alot! I’m going to take this step by step, so forgive me if I end up repeating things that have already been said…….
The suicide chart – you are looking at it wrong.
Yes, the overall rate decreased however it is the age groups that must be looked at.
From 1950 – 2003
5 – 14 years old went from 0.2 to 0.6
15- 19 went from 2.7 to 7.3
20-24 went from 6.2 to 12.1
25- 44 went from 11.6 to 13.8
45 – 64 went from 23.5 to 15
65 and up went from 30 to 14.6
You see – as medical science advanced to make life more comfortable as you get older, the suicide rates decreased in the older years.
The suicide rates in the 1990′s for ages 5 – 24 increased in the 1990′s with the increase in cults. The FBI had established that the cults were able to get at the kids with no religious based background or with an extreme religious based background (extreme meaning fire and brimstone/can’t wear makeup or cut hair/going to hell if you sneeze wrong type thing)…
So you actually just proved our point. That this society with the lack of morals has created an increase in suicides. Thank God there was education in the 1990′s about the cults and parents were able to take action, along with the government.
My point on all this is the extreme increase in the 1990′s was do to some other force than just society – so if you take that into account, the stats actually were gradually increasing year after year.
On to the next topic……..
Oh – here is an article (done with a quick search and I didn’t read it in its entirety) is an FBI report in 1992 talking about the increase in satanic cults:
http://www.rickross.com/reference/satanism/satanism1.html
Even Libraries are different. I remember when we used to get a giggle fit from trying to be quiet…you know how one of you starts, and then the other one, and before you know you’re practically crying? Now, they talk in their outside voices and NO ONE says anything. I was floored!
Even Mass. We can no longer get our kids to sit through Mass, so instead of disciplining them, we remove them to “sunday school” OR we make an entire Mass CATERED to them. I HATE Childrens masses. They are nonsense. Teach your kid to sit still and BE QUIET for forty five minutes. It’s like math. You learn the basics really well, and you slowly build on what you’ve learned. You dole out discipline in small doses so that by the time your kid is 25 they can SELF discipline! Or you rearrange everything to suit them.
Which is what we are doing in our society. Instead of upholding marriage laws, we change them to fit those that can’t handle them. Instead of insisting that our kids respect their bodies and each others bodies, we change all the rules of decorum to cater their impulses. Rather than insist they keep THEIR clothes on, the rest of us have to accept that walking around half naked and screwing everything that asks is perfectly fine. Thank God for the Catholic Church. She never compromises, doesn’t change and stands like a beacon in a turbulent sea!
Did you read my Red Riding Hood Post???? IT”S INSANITY. which is why I added a new category to the list. INSANITY!
@Jasper: The ocean isn’t blue.
Usually, I agree with you – but not with this……
If we do not look back at history and see where we got here then we are doomed to continue to repeat it. This kind of discussion between the generations is very enlightening to everyone. It won’t be the laws that change our environment, it is us, we the people, that will change it. We changed it from what it was in the 1960′s to what it is now. We just need to find that happy medium…….
BTW, the word that got bleeped out was not what you think. It was a much more ladylike term…that involved screwdrivers.
Rae,
Sometimes you’re just too much! arrrrrggggghhhhh! Young whippersnapper!
Bwahahahahahahaahhaa
*wallows in hedonist society*
Aaaaaah- this is the life.
Elizabeth,
Are you saying that we should roll over and submit? That we should not fight for what is right?
You really think people are happy today? You think the world is a place you want to send Gabriella into? Seriously? You don’t want her to be safe, and pure, and good? You want her having sex at 14, on birth control at 15 and pregnant at 16? or 21? You are really lucky that you have a family that supports you. But you have a mom and a dad and two brothers. Gabriella has you. God forbid something were to happen to you, she wouldn’t have the support system that you have. Most girls don’t. Wouldn’t you rather she lived in a world where 40% of her peers weren’t living without their fathers?
More importantly, aren’t you willing to FIGHT for a world where 40% of her peers are living without their fathers?
Jasper –
I’ll help you out with Pip’s question……
but first, a rant – do none of you look at the Community News section????? The answer was right there!
http://marriage.rutgers.edu/Publications/swlt2.pdf
cohabitation study showed that children do better with traditional families of a man and a women……..(actually it really shows that traditional families are a heck of a lot easier on women than not……)
Of course, my two cents – there are some single parents that do an awesome job. My good friend was a single mom for quite some time and did an excellent job. (of course she had the best babysitter in the world…..Me!)
I do have to say that taking situations on a case by case basis isn’t too much of a bad idea as long as it isn’t just one persons say so. A committee of sorts would be good.
Let’s say that something happens to me and Stu and we divorce. Now lets say that there is an unruly 8 year old in need of adoption that has severe ADHD – the cause of his unruliness. Why should I not be one of the first people to get consideration since I am highly experienced with this type of disability? Actually – we can even add a highly depressed pre teen needs adoption – I’ve got excellent experience controlling that as well…….
I understand Pip’s frustration in this. There are many not too perfect toddlers and older that need homes that just get shifted from place to place. Wouldn’t a ‘not so perfect home’ be better than multiple foster homes?
Then again, that all may have been brought up….I didn’t have time to read everything…so I just may be babbling………which is normal……
Whatever it is your taking…….can I have some?????
Bad Val….Bad!
Never mind!
Ooooh the list of bad things! Let’s see what I’ve done! :-p
1. Fornication –> Nope.
2. Lying –> Ehehehehehe- yup.
3. Calumny –> WTF. Need to wiki that one…Ah- fraud. Nope.
4. Condemning an innocent person –> Nope
5. Immorality –> This is far too subjective, but probably by The Catholic Definition (TM).
6. Idolatry –> Of course! *bows to Darren Hayes*
7. Adultery –> Nope
8. Sexual perversion –> Nah.
9. Theft –> stealing cookies count?
10. Greed –> oh you betcha.
11. Drunkenness –> Once every 6 months, lol
12. Reviling –> Probably
13. Robbery –> Nope
14. Blasphemy –>Oh most definitely.
15. Any kind of homicide –> I killed a bird once with a hatchet. It kept flying into our house and I wanted it to STOP DOING THAT.
16. Genocide –> Many times. It’s called “using an autoclave”.
17. Abortion –> Nope.
18. Euthanasia –> Nope
19. Voluntary suicide –> Not yet (not anytime soon…I’ve been very happy lately)
20. Mutilation –> Does this count tattoos and or piercings? If so- yup. Gleefully.
21. Torments inflicted on the body or mind –> Yup.
22. Attempts to coerce the spirit –> Probably?
23. Subhuman living conditions –> Nope
24. Arbitrary imprisonment –> Nope, but my parents are guilty of that one. :-p Who was grounded on a weekly basis? I was!
25. Deportation –> Nope
26. Slavery –> Nope, but Cold Stone is guilty of that one. Bahahahahahahahahaha.
27. Prostitution –> Oh snap you got me…not.
28. Trafficking in women and children –> Nope
29. Degrading conditions of work which treat labourers as mere instruments of profit, and not as free responsible persons –> Nope- again…Cold Stone is totally guilty of this.
RAE!!!
You and Stu will have a lot to talk about. When I first met him his joke was that he was trying to break all the 10 commandments…..
The false idol ‘god’ was a stuffed camel that had a cigarette hanging out of its mouth. Too funny!
MK – you didn’t read that……..
val,
but we can’t use exceptions to change the rules, to prove the rules yes, but not to break them.
OF COURSE, there are excellent single moms out there. OF COURSE a single parent can do a great job. No one, or at least I’m, not questioning that. What I said was that “all things being equal”, a mother and a father are the BEST choice. Not the only choice. And certainly almost ANY family is better than an institution or death, but we are talking about choosing the GREATEST GOOD. And in normal circumstances, in the most cases, the BEST scenario is a mother and a father.
Elizabeth is a PERFECT example of the exception to that rule. But she IS an exception, and she has 3 men and 2 woman helping her raise Gabriella. She is not a mom all by herself, putting Gabriella in day care for 8 hours a day, while she works and comes home dead tired with no help
Tell the truth Elizabeth, your wonderful parenting aside (and I’ve seen it firsthand…it truly is awesome, I’m not talking out my head) wouldn’t you rather be married to a really good man, and staying home with Gabriella and a little brother to boot? Not are you miserable, but wouldn’t it be even better if you had a life partner?
Val,
I’ve met Stu, remember? I know a whole lot his dirty secrets. And, er, ahem, he knows quite a few of mine…I think I’ll shut up now…
MK- I agree with you on most respects.
My mom worked through her college education and she expected me to do some work through mine (although she didn’t make me pay for the whole thing sadly). She took some time off work when we were born to take care of us. Also, for quite a while she worked in our little school cafeteria so she could spend more time with us. Once we got old enough she went back to work in the micro lab. It shows, IMO, how you can be a working woman and still be there for your children. You just have to do it right and be there for them when they need you.
College, to you, may not be a right, but it is the main way to get many desirable jobs. I wouldn’t be happy being a medical assistant or an LPN, I wanted to be a doctor. If parents can find a way to ensure that for their children, they will. But I still had to work hard. I am still expected to apply for a lot of scholarships and pretty much my entire graduate school will be paid for by loans that I am expected to pay off after I graduate by myself. I think that when people desire a career that requires a college education, parents should have some level of responsibility in aiding their children in doing so. It doesn’t mean you should let them just do whatever they want with no responsibility to pay back their parents or help pay for it while they are there, either. But back in your time, college wasn’t as important as it is now. A lot of parents and grandparents have told me that a lot of jobs used to be ones that were trained for. Now, I had a friend who had a bachelor’s in Social Work, still couldn’t find a job beyond retail. Now even BS’s and BA’s will get passed over in favor of people with master or doctorates.
However, if the child does want to be a policeman;, fireman, etc, that does not require 4-year college, the parent should be equally supportive of such.
To be honest, the people that I see having these parenting problems are not homosexual people, they are young straight couples that never learned to think about what’s best for their children. I dont’ see gay couples on Nanny 911! I don’t think they are the parenting problem we are facing.
MK –
I do totally understand what you are saying…… I just have a sister that works with disadvantaged children and her stories are heart wrenching. Sometimes it just gets to me.
Don’t worry – I’ll get you to talk. Around the campfire while you are drinking beer and I’m sober….oh the things I’ll get you to confess to!
BWWHHAAHAHAHAHAHA
I think we need to have more children trained by the Dog Whisperer.
TSST!
@Val: I have broken just about every commandment except the adultery one and the whole business about murdering folks.
And a few of the commandments I have broken SEVERAL times (particularly “honor your mother and father”- that one was broken daily between age 4 and 14).
“I understand Pip’s frustration in this. There are many not too perfect toddlers and older that need homes that just get shifted from place to place. Wouldn’t a ‘not so perfect home’ be better than multiple foster homes?”
Yes. A supportive and strong gay couple would be a much better home for children that would just be a hockey puck in the foster system. I think it would be worse for the children to deny them a supportive family and say ‘too bad, those people are sinful, you’ll just have to keep waiting!!’
Actually come to think of it- I probably have broken every commandment. Even the “thou shalt not screw other people’s spouses” and “thou shalt not kill folks”.
The 10 commandments take into account “thoughts” right? Like…”killing somebody in your heart”?
If so- yup. I win.
Oh Rae. Go to Hell!
@MK: I DON’T WANT TO GO TO MICHIGAN. THE ECONOMY IS SUPER, SUPER BAD THERE! :-p
Oh! I just had a really possibly fun idea.
We should do a “100 word story”. Like- each of us gets to write 100 words and we write a story! Or something!
Pip,
I’m not dissing college. Don’t get me wrong. I’m just saying that it isn’t a right. You aren’t entitled to it. If you can manage it, and it’s what you want, then go for it. It’s the think you are owed it, or MUST have it that I’m talking about.
I taught preschool for 11 years…brought my kids with me. So I know what you mean about working and still being a good mom. But, I never chose work OVER my kids, or even treated them as equals. My kids WERE my job. If I couldn’t have that attitude, then I shouldn’t have had kids.
i gotta go to bed…I’m dyin’!
Val, you’ve got to be exhausted! How’s Danny?
Alright MK, I think we agree then
My mom’s friend (practically my aunt) did the same thing, btw. She was a stockbroker; became a preschool teacher for awhile and went back to work after her kids got a little older.
Ha,ha, MK
Since you’re waxing nostalgic, keep in mind that even that screwdriver term wasn’t considered ladylike back when we were girls.
Okay, kiddies, while I was gone I see we had lots of talking about me
so let me clear some of this up for you.
Elizabeth is a PERFECT example of the exception to that rule. But she IS an exception, and she has 3 men and 2 woman helping her raise Gabriella. She is not a mom all by herself, putting Gabriella in day care for 8 hours a day, while she works and comes home dead tired with no help
Tell the truth Elizabeth, your wonderful parenting aside (and I’ve seen it firsthand…it truly is awesome, I’m not talking out my head) wouldn’t you rather be married to a really good man, and staying home with Gabriella and a little brother to boot? Not are you miserable, but wouldn’t it be even better if you had a life partner?
Of course I would. I am almost certain it would make me a better parent. I really feel bad for Gabriella as I’m sure I’m harder on her because I do every single little thing for her (when I’m not in class) so when I’m utterly just DONE, she often feels the results of that. It’s not like I have my husband bathing her while I fold some laundry…I’m watching her take a bath while I fold laundry. It’s constant for me. Or she doesn’t get to go to the park because I have to cook dinner. If I had a husband, she would get to go to the park because he could take her and still eat a nice home-cooked meal. A lot of times it’s one or the other for her, and I feel bad about that. But I am only one person and I can only do the best I can.
So the answer to your question is yes, I would rather be married and all those other things you said. Except the brother. We are having only girls in this house.
Just kiiiidding. I’ll take whatever I can get.
YES!!!!!!!!! I was sooooo happy when our last pastor dumped the “Family Mass”. Unfortunately, we have some Masses where 1/4 of the assembly is “attending” from the narthex, using their kids as their excuse. I actually had a 20 minute converstation, in the hallway, with a woman following an RCIA class I taught, only to discover she was actually “at Mass”. She finished our conversation and then proceeded into the church to receive Communion. Now how does that teach a child to behave in church? School mom too. UGH!
Are you saying that we should roll over and submit? That we should not fight for what is right?
No, that’s not what I’m saying. But you can only control what you do, or what you teach your children. You can’t really control other people’s children.
You really think people are happy today?
Some are. Some aren’t. Happiness isn’t a constant state of being. It’s work. Some days it requires more work and some days it doesn’t happen at all.
You think the world is a place you want to send Gabriella into? Seriously?
Nope. But I can’t get around it.
You don’t want her to be safe, and pure, and good?
I can only do my best to ensure her safety as her parent which is what I’ve done since before she was born. I will continue to do so to the best of my ability, and as far as my paranoia will let me.
You want her having sex at 14, on birth control at 15 and pregnant at 16? or 21?
Am I her parent still? Am I the one in charge? 14, 15, and 16 I sure am, and as long as she’s living in my house, I’ll be ensuring she won’t be doing any of said things. At 21? What can I do about it at that point? I can only hope I gave her the tools she needed in life to be a successful person who can withstand societal pressures. And if she does not, she knows that I will be her mother and love her regardless.
You are really lucky that you have a family that supports you. But you have a mom and a dad and two brothers. Gabriella has you. God forbid something were to happen to you, she wouldn’t have the support system that you have. Most girls don’t. Wouldn’t you rather she lived in a world where 40% of her peers weren’t living without their fathers?
I would, but I have very little control about that. I can only control the impact I have on her, and whatever people in her life I come into contact with.
More importantly, aren’t you willing to FIGHT for a world where 40% of her peers are living without their fathers?
In what way would I fight? I would fight for my child. I would fight for other children who reached out to me who needed help or even if they didn’t reach out, I would help them. I don’t know really what you mean by fighting, though.
Gordon Brown and the Labor Party are going to be eliminated in the coming election. Purnell quit the cabinet today, and told the “liberal” Brown to “stand down”. Jackie Smith, Blears, have resigned due to nothingmore then being petty crook parlimentarians, who are rich in private life. It’s a damn insult,while millions of citizens, are losing their wealth/retirment/homes.
His MP’s are even asking him to “go away”. Many of those same MP’s are also retiring before they are voted out. Liberal morals have hit the wall in England and are going to be thrown out with the government that has left the British Treasury totally broke. They have had “bond offerings”, not being bought.
Such silly legislation as being reviewed here, is going to be reversed, and thrown out with the liberal Labor Party.
Every revolt, every overthrow of a government, has a “sex angle” that eventually infuriates the citizens. No matter how much one may deny the fact, that when people are suffering and dying, and their government is flaunting their sexual perversions, anger rises it’s head and, off come their heads. Much less enforcing a culture of death, for anyone but them.(government)
The hidden secret appeal of communism to the masses, was its criticism of the “depraved capitalist”. Which is why communism eventually failed on many levels, but also by becoming the new sexual abuser of fellow comrades by the second generation of socialist/communist totalitarianism. First generation socialist/communist/humanist hid their sexual depravtions by controlling all means of communication. China, being a example of offering the “liberation of women” from binding their feet(leaving only the big toe to grow normally), in a sexual competition with homosexual males for “upward mobility”.(The Song Dynasty;Seagrave 1986)
Religion or not, one must ask, if the homosexual fascist have reached the high tide mark of their efforts to actualize a reality where passion has overuled the simple fact that the center of their attention is only for procreation?. What is left? The answer follows.
From innocence, to the realization to being a victim, to being delivered from wrong(redemption), to self/god empowerment(see article) is the path of homosexualism, and is a Judeo/Christian principle, which is why Christians are unable to actually stop homosexualism.
The eternal sin, is that the poor do inherit the Earth, and then having been driven insane by reaching their final stage of empowerment, which ends in a action that persecutes those that took their “perceived innocence”.
Elizabeth,
By fighting for laws that ensure the world Gabriella is living in is a moral one.
Your original comment was that we should all get over it and accept it. I will fight for an end to abortion, I will fight to protect marriage as between a man and a woman, I will find to keep drug illegal, I will fight to keep the schools from teaching my child that certain immoral behaviors are moral, I will fight to keep homosexuals from doin’ the deed in public places, I will fight to keep adultery illegal, I will fight any and all immoral acts that are being pawned off as moral.
I may not win, but I WILL fight. Won’t you?
Cape,
I think I understood that…and I hear you. We must fight this stuff at every turn. People can’t stay asleep forever…and each time they wake up to something, they usually work to make the wrongs, right again. It does seem tho, that in 2009, there are so many wrongs being pawned off as rights, that it is becoming increasingly difficult to tell the difference. And each generation has a little less “moral history” to go on.
By fighting for laws that ensure the world Gabriella is living in is a moral one.
As long as she is living HER life in the most moral way possible, then she is living in a moral life. Laws won’t ensure that my child is lilving in a moral life. Whether she’s living in a moral society is a different argument. Voting/fighting for laws in society only works when society adheres to them. We have laws against murder,rape, stealing, etc. and they still happen. Laws only restrain certain people so far. So of course I’ll vote for the pro-life person or the person who’s tough on crime, but other then that, I’ll try to control what I can in the lessons I pass on to my child.
Isn’t that what I said?
aren’t you willing to FIGHT for a WORLD…as in a society.
No you cannot force a person to be moral. But you can work to create a moral setting, upping the odds that the world won’t undo what you have spent 18 years doing.
Well, see there…you are fighting to create a moral world. I just happen to think that there are a LOT more immoral things that are going on. Almost everyone agrees that murder is immoral. Not everyone agrees that same sex marriage is. So while there is no need to fight to keep murder illegal, there is a need to fight for the sanctity of what marriage means. While no one is advocating dumping rape laws, because EVERYONE believes rape is immoral, I am advocating for chastity, because much of the world thinks promiscuity is moral.
BAD MK!!! BAD!
If we start telling people to do that we will have to get fire proofed computers so we can all still blog!
BTW – Danny is doing find. Stopped puking – thank goodness!
But she won…sort of like saying pass go and collect your $200.00. Or “GIN”!
No the Ten Commandments are the bare minimum of God’s Laws. The beatitudes are His “you should be’s”.
because much of the world thinks promiscuity is moral.
I don’t think it’s moral…but I really don’t see how I can stop promiscuity, other than in my own child(ren).
I can’t control what they show on tv, so I just don’t let my child watch stuff she shouldn’t. I can’t control really who my child will choose to associate with when she goes to school, but I can control who she sees/doesn’t see when she comes home from school. I can’t control what my daughter WANTS to do, but I can control what she WILL do.
I may not like the way other people live their lives, but this is America, and they have a right to live it, whether I find it moral or not. Just as they do not have a right to force me to live a certain way, I don’t have a right to force them to live a certain way. That’s why, when I vote, I vote with my moral compass, as does everybody else in this country (at least I hope so).
“I’m just saying that it isn’t a right. You aren’t entitled to it. If you can manage it, and it’s what you want, then go for it. It’s the think you are owed it, or MUST have it that I’m talking about.”
I disagree. If you’ve put in the time, work, and effort I absolutely feel you have the right to a good public education. I’m not saying college is for everyone, which is why there are admissions standards. But if you meet those standards you should be welcome to attend a subsidized public school. Granted, it will be a long time before we see that, but eh, we’re trying. Doesn’t help that the first things states cut in times like this include the state public higher education system.
Sigh. Education needs to be made a major priority.
MK.
Will 2009 be the high tide of liberalism/Democrats, and their vision of “moral history”? What more can they demand in the name of perversion and “rights?” As in all revolutions, based upon the cycle of innocence/victim/redemption/empowerment, the final stage is the persecution of those that opposed the revolution. In this particular article, it is the “sexual revolution.”
Israel is a example of being born a “victim nation”, to being perceived by the Obama generation(and younger) as the “makers of victims”.
That’s some slick moral propaganda, to erase the moral history of Israel, or the moral neutering of a nation’s right to be founded and exist.
Same with torture.
But, it is the conumdrum of using the Judeo/Christian principles/codes/morality/tradition/(I/V/R/E) against itself, that confronts you, and others at this site.
In essence, you are fighting against yourself in the battle of moral homosexualism.
You have young posters who think that they have broken all the commandments in their heart or mind. And what does that say of their character and nihilism? Why write such a thing? Yet, it is common, and is actually a bravado in the development towards the final stage in the cycle. It ends in persecution, or looking the other way as those communist did while their fellow comrades died in the millions. Or, it ends as Chesterton wrote in the chapter named, ” The Suicide of Thought”.
So, grab a bag o’ popcorn, and watch the show in Britain(and Russia), as they reclaim their culture and heritage based upon the human cycle closely enmeshed in a religious/human principle of innocence/victim/redemption/empowerment. Or, for you MK, Malta may be your show to watch!!!
“Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to that arrogant oligarchy who merely happen to be walking around.” – Orthodoxy, 1908
Cape,
Hear, Hear!!!
Elizabeth,
Everytime you vote with your moral compass, you ARE fighting back. That’s my point. You can “fight” in many ways. Most of them are not violent. Just teaching Gabriella that the world is wrong IS fighting. Sure we can fight whats on television. Every time you don’t watch a show, they lose a viewer. If more people “fought” this way, you’d see the results. Problem is most folks have grown complacent…It’s just the way it is, why fight it. Or worse yet, I like it the way it is.
And you most certainly DO have a right to tell other people what you will and will not tolerate. I can’t pray in public, but I must allow gay pride parades??? How nuts is that??? Obviously, THEY are fighting for what they want, and how the world should be. They are telling ME how to live. Public schools are a great example of how I’m being told what my kids will be taught, whether I like it or not. Again, read that Red Riding Hood article. It’s an eye opener.
MK –
(emphasis mine)
“And you most certainly DO have a right to tell other people what you will and will not tolerate. I can’t pray in public, but I must allow gay pride parades??? How nuts is that??? Obviously, THEY are fighting for what they want, and how the world should be. They are telling ME how to live. Public schools are a great example of how I’m being told what my kids will be taught, whether I like it or not. Again, read that Red Riding Hood article. It’s an eye opener.”
AMEN!
Val,
Thank you veddy much!
Who says you can’t pray in public? I’ve never heard that..I’ve never seen someone arrested for just praying. Besides, how would anyone know you’re praying? You can do it silently in your head. In fact, there’s some guy who stands down on Michigan Ave. with a microphone and hand-held speaker box yelling about how we’re all going to Hell, especially the gays. I think if THAT GUY doesn’t get arrested, I don’t think you can be arrested for just praying. I see him every time I go downtown and I’ve never seen him arrested lol.
Dan,
I’m just curious…if everything gets subsidized, what will the desire to be to go to college and get a job anyway? People don’t want to have to pay for their healthcare, they don’t want to pay for their school, what exactly does anybody think they should have to pay for anymore?
Elizabeth-
I’m not for subsidizing everything. Public education should be subsidized, and the state should have a responsibility to at least pay a majority of college cost if it’s going to be a public university, otherwise a majority comes from private funding and it may as well be a private school system (UMass is dealing with that right now. Supposedly there’s a taskforce actively looking at privatizing, and students now contribute more than the state for their education for the first time in the history of the system).
Not to mention, it helps the state in various ways. 85% of those who attend public school in MA stay here. They are our workforce, add in that the MA economy is largely knowledge based, and you have a good reason for the state to invest in these people’s education. It benefits the state and the individual alike- the state has an educated workforce with more money in their pocket, which in turn leads to consumer spending, further aiding the economy indirectly. Win win. Ideally, I’d like to see public higher ed to be free, but I could live with at least beginning to bring down the cost, which has more then doubled here in MA in the last decade, and looks as if it may double again within the next, which will likely finalize the privatization of UMass.
I know Arizona is facing similar problems. The governor has pledged to cut their state spending on higher ed by 40% within the next couple of years, essentially pushing privatization and will likely lead to layoffs, increased use of part time and adjunct professors, etc, which not only hurts the faculty/staff, but also the quality of the education students receive. It’s a huge problem in our community college system, and is beginning to hit the state and University system here as well.
It was the people seeing this happening who organized and got our governor to take a public stance as to how the Education stimulus funds should be spent- including preventing cuts in the UMass system as well as trying to stop the 1500 dollar (17%!) fee increase they’ve tried to push on us (though it looks like this will be used anyway). Unfortunately, they’ve received a waiver for maintenance of effort for next year’s stimulus funds, which means we’ll likely be facing an increase of the same magnitude, or perhaps even higher, next year since it seems like we will get no stimulus funds. Which is why we’re leaving the Board of Trustees alone and trying to go directly to the legislature to push for higher investment for public higher ed and its aid programs.
Elizabeth –
I just googled “arrested for praying public” and this came up:
http://bridgetdgms.wordpress.com/2008/02/28/free-speech-on-trial-christians-arrested-for-praying-silently-at-gay-event/
http://www.frostillustrated.com/atf.php?sid=984
The point isn’t that you can “pray in your head” I mean – can’t you be gay in your head instead of having a parade? The point is letting people know that you are praying, just as the gays let us know they are gay.
The guy you were talking isn’t getting arrested because he isn’t really saying anything that can “hurt” the agenda’s of some. Pray outside an abortion clinic – there are laws and permits you have to get and you can still get arrested – Walter Hoyle comes to mind. Even with video evidence (which I watched) that proved he did not violate the law he still spent something like 28 days in prison. You can’t pray anywhere near a gay pride parade, as seen in one of the above examples, even if you aren’t doing anything other than praying.
However, you can stand by the pro-lifers praying at the clinics and yell obsenitites at them and that is protected under free speech even without a permit. I watched 3 people get arrested for doing nothing other than praying the rosary all the while people were stopped at the side of the road screaming obsenities at us and the cops told us straight up that they had the freedom of speech to do that. The crime of the people praying the rosary? They had the audicity to face the street and pray the rosary – the permit stated you had to face the parking lot. OH, no one was told that the permit had been changed…..Judge was forced to throw out the charges of those people because the permit was changed without any knowledge of the protesters who filed for the permit. Gee, I wonder who had it changed?
There is so much more I can say to that….but I think you get it.
To bad if you are in many other states…. Michigan is a good example. Something like 50% leave… So it is not always a “win-win” proposition.
Elizabeth,
Or this story:
http://www.infowars.com/san-diego-county-threatens-to-fine-couple-for-holding-bible-study-meetings/
or this:
http://www.operationsaveamerica.org/legal/legal/stlouiscourt1.html
How about the fact that you can’t pray in a public school. They are our schools too. No one says you MUST pray, so why can you tell me that I CANNOT pray?
But you can have gay clubs, and gay days, and gay indocrinization…seems a little backwards to me…how ’bout you?
Stu-
UMich is has also gone further down the road that UMass is headed towards now. They’ve have seen further declines in state funding which has in turn led to a nationalization in order to further subsidize their in-state students. They began using the high-fee high financial aid model (round 1997) that UMass is now turning to, saying it will not adversely affect the very students they say they want to serve, where UMich is a clear example of why that is a failure (50% leaving the state means not only are more of their students out of state, but likely also demonstrates the floundering of the general state economy).
MK-
I used to pray in school fairly often, I personally never had a problem, and I’m in one of the most liberal states in the nation. There were also students who met regularly on school grounds, before or after school depending on the day, to pray and/or do Bible studies.
Dan,
The point is not that we can NEVER pray. The point is that there are people on the OTHER side who would be thrilled to tell me how to live my life. And they are trying, slowly, to do just that. No, it isn’t common to be arrested for praying in public, but it IS happening. As the post says…comin’ to a country near you.
And they have the right to try. But SO DO I. That’s all I was saying. I have the right to fight back and try to make laws that favor the morals I believe are best for society. To say that I don’t, is ludicrous.
What I do NOT have is the right to do this outside of the law. WHich is why the murder of Tiller was “wrong”. But within the law? You betcha!
“The point is that there are people on the OTHER side who would be thrilled to tell me how to live my life.”
And they’d be wrong, just like you would be to tell them how to live THEIR lives. I would fight them 100% even though I don’t pray. There are legal principles that protect us all from each other.
I prayed in school all the time. I went to college with Muslim students who would pray five times a day. People rant on street corners every day in this city. I’m sure at least some of them believe they’re praying.
And going back to condoms/premarital sex, what if people outlawed praying not just in public but IN YOUR OWN HOME, because they weren’t content to merely not have to see you praying? That would be 100% unequivocally wrong — not because praying is “right” and sex is “wrong” but because legal ethics is separate from religion.
“What I do NOT have is the right to do this outside of the law. WHich is why the murder of Tiller was “wrong”. But within the law? You betcha!”
It is entirely possible to do things that you’re legally able to do, and still be wrong to do them. Just because it’s legally possible doesn’t mean it’s right.
“It is entirely possible to do things that you’re legally able to do, and still be wrong to do them. Just because it’s legally possible doesn’t mean it’s right.”
Liek aborshun?
Like YOUR FACE.
@Alexandra: THEM’S FIGHTIN’ WORDS! YOUR MOM!
Alexandra, 6:32 p.m.
I completely agree!
MK,
Did you just link to Operation Save America? Isn’t that the group that advocates Texas seceding from the US and starting their own country? I also thought they advocated executing gays…I don’t remember where I heard that but I’m pretty sure I did…I’ll have to find it.
Crap, I couldn’t find it when I went to there website…maybe it was another organization..but I read some crackhead stuff on Operation Save America’s website too. Uhh, so much crazy, such little time.
Elizabeth –
I do agree with you that Operation Save America is a bit off – but I looked at what MK linked to and the facts are legit.
I don’t think they are the ones you are thinking of though……and I think I know who you are thinking of and I just can’t remember who they are! But I don’t think that group is near as big as Operation Save America is.
Somebody forgot to close an italics tag somewhere…
Elizabeth,
What you and Alexandra aren’t getting is that every time society makes a law of any kind it is telling SOMEONE how to live their lives. We don’t usually mind, because these laws protect us, and we agree with them.
It’s only when we don’t agree with them, that we feel bent out of shape.
For instance, no one is complaining that we can’t masturbate in public, even though, technically it isn’t really hurting anyone.
BUT, we also allow people to kill their unborn children. Some people are fine with that, others aren’t. If abortion is legal, then I’m being told how to live my life. If it’s illegal, then the pro choice side is being told how to live their lives.
Do you see? If gay marriage IS allowed, then I’m being told that marriage isn’t what I thought it was. If it isn’t allowed, then gays are being told they can’t be married.
All I’m saying is that each of us has the right to advocate for what we want. If we get it good. If not, then we fight harder, depending on how important it is.
But WE ALL tell other people how to live their lives. It’s called the law.
BTW, I don’t know who Operation Save America is but I personally would have complained about Infowars…now they’re nuts…but the stories are still true…the messengers are just suspect. But you didn’t really think the MSM would report on this do you?
“It’s only when we don’t agree with them, that we feel bent out of shape.”
No, I don’t give a crap about praying or Bible study but I am REALLY freaking offended by the government telling people they can’t pray or study the Bible. Some of us see beyond our own beliefs.
“What you and Alexandra aren’t getting is that every time society makes a law of any kind it is telling SOMEONE how to live their lives.”
Again, no. A lack of laws banning smoking does not tell anyone what to do — it does the exact opposite. A lack of laws banning condoms does not tell anyone what to do. A lack of laws banning premarital sex doesn’t tell anyone what to do. You are free to do whatever you want, under these laws.
“When it comes time that ALL doctors will be required to perform abortions or lose their liscenses, the legal principles will be wrong. Right now we have a law that says it is okay to kill our unborn children. That law is wrong. And I am fighting to change it.”
Do you honestly not see the difference between abortion, or rape, or murder, and sex/condoms/whatever? Seriously? Abortion, rape, and murder are all DIRECT conflicts of human rights. It is not possible for both the child to have a right to life, and the mother to have a right to bodily autonomy; nor for both the victim to have a right to life and the murderer to have the right to, I don’t know, pursuit of happiness or whatever. There is no direct conflict of rights in many arguably moral situations. Where there is one in some circumstances but not others, the law often reflects that. You can masturbate at home but not in public. You can smoke at home but not in a restaurant. However bad masturbating and smoking are on their own, the act of them — when done in certain circumstances — does not cause a direct conflict of rights.
Val,
I think I just remember some of those Operation Save America nutters commenting on Jill’s once..and thinking..”wow, they’re crazy” lol. That may be why I thought it was them.
Alexandra, I said “Anytime a LAW IS MADE…” and you came back with “A LACK OF LAWS…” Huh?
Alexandra,
However bad masturbating and smoking are on their own, the act of them — when done in certain circumstances — does not cause a direct conflict of rights.
Then why was that couple warned about having a bible study in their own home?
Why can’t I shoot up heroin in my own home?
Why can’t I hire a prostitute in my own home?
Why can’t my 14 year old drink beer in my own home?
“Alexandra, I said “Anytime a LAW IS MADE…” and you came back with “A LACK OF LAWS…” Huh?”
According to you, a lack of laws banning condoms affects your right to live your life — that’s why you’re “right” to advocate on behalf of controlling the behavior of others. I’m not sure why you brought up the creation of laws controlling people by their necessity if you don’t feel that controlling people is unavoidable.
I am 100% finished explaining that I absolutely, unequivocally do not support the government interfering in a home bible study. I JUST SAID IT in my last post and still you’re throwing it at me like I haven’t mentioned it at all. I hope the people who were affected respond with legal force.
Minors can’t do tons of things adults can do. IMO kids should be able to drink with their parents — I had a sip of wine here and there when I was a teenager — but we do accept restrictions on actions for children with the understanding that the possible consequences of those actions cannot reliably be consented to by an adolescent mind. The equivalent situation to your example would be banning teenagers from having sex, not informed and consenting adults.
I don’t think too much about prostitution so my opinions aren’t as well formed, but it seems to me that it’s more akin to selling organs than to engaging in consensual and non-commercial sex — that is to say, it relates to selling the resources of the human body, rather than to sex. At this point in my thought process I don’t know that I would oppose the decriminalization of prostitution, if it were regulated and if there were resources in place to help women who didn’t actually want to be prostitutes.
Heroin, and similarly addictive substances, by their very nature take away the user’s ability to give informed consent. After the first time you’re incapable of rationally weighing the pros and cons/risk versus benefit. There aren’t too many things like this that I’m aware of. Things that merely have the potential to be like this don’t get banned: alcohol, prescription drugs, etc. Does using condoms make one unable to rationally decide not to use condoms?
Speaking of the bible study group, though, I still am curious why you think that you should have the right to ban people from using condoms, but you don’t think that others should have the right to ban people from reading the Bible.
It’s the difference between banning public nudity, and banning people from walking around naked in their own houses. Even Muslim women who are required to wear head scarves in public are not required to do so at home, with family.
Alexandra,
I never said that I wanted to ban people using condoms in their own homes. Where are you getting that from? What I said is that if asked my opinion I don’t think anyone should use condoms. The only birth control I am for legally banning are the ones that end childrens lives or are harmful to their users.
I am also not harping on this one incident to throw it in your face, I am simply saying, and that is the point of this entire conversation, that society is overstepping it’ s bounds and that we need to be vigilant. While they allow public displays of indecency (Folsom street Fair), they don’t allow public (now private) displays of religion.
Try to hear what I am saying. We are living in a political environment where the it is NOT okay to bash ANY group, lest it be labeled a hate crime, EXCEPT for religious groups.
And we need to fight to retain our rights to free speech, free expression of our faiths. You are actually agreeing with me, when you say that it is an atrocity to threaten folks that are praying privately in their homes.
If anyone is throwing things up in someones face, it is you. You keep accusing me and the CC of trying to control peoples lives.
I am simply pointing out that laws are made precisely TO control peoples behavior both in public and to a lesser extent in private. I have the right to advocate for laws that reflect my belief system. So do you. I have the right to express my opinion on what I think is right and wrong, and to try and sway popular opinion. So do you.
WHERE do you get this idea that I am advocating telling people what to do in their private lives????
“WHERE do you get this idea that I am advocating telling people what to do in their private lives????”
From the ancient Saturday Mixer thread where I asked if you would vote to ban condoms, premarital sex, etc, and you said yes. Seems pretty straightforward to me.
“You are actually agreeing with me, when you say that it is an atrocity to threaten folks that are praying privately in their homes.”
That’s what I’ve been trying to tell you all this time! I don’t understand HOW you can see that it’s wrong for people to control what you do in your own home, and not see that it’s equally wrong for you to control what other people do in their own homes.
“If anyone is throwing things up in someones face, it is you. You keep accusing me and the CC of trying to control peoples lives.”
What have I thrown in your face, despite you repeatedly correcting me? You’d vote to ban sex outside marriage if you could. You’d vote to ban condoms if you could. etc etc etc. These are things you’ve said. You’ve also said that to NOT do so would be to go against your religious beliefs. So yes, based on those comments I do believe that you’re trying to control people’s lives. How else should I interpret those statements?
Okay,
Sorry. Let’s try again, cuz I think we are talking past each other.
If I believe something is immoral, of course I would not want it to exist. Would you?
I think that all laws in some way or other control people’s lives. And I think that society votes to make laws that reflect their beliefs and morals.
I don’t think this is wrong.
I don’t think it is wrong to be given the right to vote for gay marriage. I also would abide by that law IF it was voted into being.
What my complaint is, is that right now, the laws reflect beliefs that I do not agree with. I do not disagree with the ability to vote that way. I disagree with the outcome and am willing to fight for a different outcome.
Yes. I, personally would like to see a country where birth control was not sold. No I would not personally be able in good conscience to vote that birth control be legal. However I am in the minority, and probably will be for a long time. IF that ever changed, then it would reflect the will of the people.
All I am saying is that right now, this country is not how I would like it to be. I am not happy with legalized abortion, the gay agenda, bashing of Christians, lies in the media…
I would like to see these things change. Do I think there is a chance in hell that condoms would ever be made illegal? No. Would I go out of my way to advocate for that law? No. But IF that vote was put to me, which it won’t be, then I would vote to ban them.
But I am not advertising on buses, and hiring the ACLU to advocate for me. I’m not really trying to tell you what you can and cannot do in your bedroom.
Premarital sex, is a different story. Not because of the sex per se, but because 40% our the children born this year were born to single parents. And because many of those that weren’t, were aborted. This is not just affecting the couple having sex. It is and is going to have, a GREAT impact on society in the years to come.
So really, condoms are the only thing that could be construed to be interfering in a person’s private life, that doesn’t harm anyone. And babies are conceived from failed condom use, and then aborted, so EVEN that has a social ramification.
But honestly, this idea that I’m pushing my agenda on the country, is ludicrous…
However, the “other side” is in my face pushing THEIRS. And I am just saying that it’s time to push back.
Just as you would push back if condoms were suddenly considered illegal.
I’m really pointing out the hypocrisy (which I realize you are also doing) that we are constantly being accused of trying to force our views on a group of people that is forcing THEIR views on us…
“If I believe something is immoral, of course I would not want it to exist. Would you?”
Of course not. Personally I think it’s immoral for people to send their kids to freaky Jesus Camp type places, and I’d much rather people didn’t. But what a scary country this would be if people COULDN’T.
“IF that ever changed, then it would reflect the will of the people.”
Only some of them. That’s my point. People who don’t want birth control are currently free not to use it. Birth control being legal does not impose on the lives of those who don’t like it. If millions of MKs made up the majority and banned birth control then there would be many, many people whose lives were being imposed upon.
Regarding premarital sex, again, criminalize abortion, criminalize neglect. Don’t criminalize sex.
“I’m not really trying to tell you what you can and cannot do in your bedroom. ”
But you would, if given the chance. Lack of opportunity does not change the principle of it. You may not be “trying” to control people’s lives, but you would try if you had a chance to.
It’s the extension of the beliefs that I find illogical. Follow those beliefs to their end and you get a religion that imposes its will on the minority should it ever gain the majority. No thanks — cold day in hades before I sign on for any of that.
I’m pretty much done commenting here because this is undoubtedly getting really boring for everyone else to read.
It’s not boring for me! You’re pretty much stating everything I’m thinking, Alexandra!
Heh, thanks Elizabeth! Just to clarify I mean Jesus Camp as in the movie, not as in Jesus lower-case-c camp. I went to Jesus camp when I was a kid; I am only offended aesthetically, not morally, by pre-teen-crafted God-themed bookmarks and ashtrays. Oh, the endless ashtrays we collected through years of art classes and summer camps. If only my parents smoked.
Freedom is not being able to do whatever the hell you want to do, thats license. Freedom is being able to do what one ought to do.
“Birth control being legal does not impose on the lives of those who don’t like it.”
Yes it does.
Alexandra,
If you don’t think allowing immoral behavoir effects the rest of society, you are very wrong.
@Jasper: I suppose “swearing” could be considered “immoral”. Is my sailor’s tongue damaging to society? I don’t think so.
“Why can’t I hire a prostitute in my own home?”
You can in some states. I think one of them is trying to outlaw that, but we’ll see.
“Why can’t my 14 year old drink beer in my own home?”
If you buy it and supply it to your 14 year old, and ONLY your 14 year old, you can. It’s legal for a child to drink with their family in their own home if supervised by their parents. Once you bring their friends into your home, it becomes a whole other story.
Just felt like responding to those two points
Alexandra –
“I’m pretty much done commenting here because this is undoubtedly getting really boring for everyone else to read.”
Bad Alexandra! BAD!
If someone is talking back to you, then someone is interested and not bored. How many times have we said that you can’t convince the thought process of a mob to take a second look at their opinions, but you can do that to one person – one at a time. That is what we are here for.
I have to say, that my many debates with many of you (Pip and Rae in particular) have led me to change my mind on some things. And I’m as bull headed as they come! Keep talking. Never feel like you should stop. You are talking from your heart – and that is where this all begins.
I helped changed your mind on something? What did I help change, out of curiosity…?
You always challenge me on things that I think are facts. You make me realize there is another side to something when I think all sides are covered. Both you and PIP do it……. Sometimes it takes me forever to post a story because I just know you will find the loop hole in my thought process…….
I do remember one time you challenged me on one of my statistics…I can’t remember the whole thing, but I tried to make a connection between North Dakota’s low abortion rate in comparison to birth rates and you questioned my reasoning because I didn’t take North Dakota’s demographics in consideration. I really can’t remember the outcome – but now I look at all state statistics differently.
I also can’t remember if it was you or Pip that challenged me on the abortion breast cancer link and now I don’t think there really is one……… However, I do think more research needs to be done as none of the studies followed anyone longer than 4 years (as far as I know.)
I also can’t remember if it was you or Pip that challenged me on the abortion breast cancer link and now I don’t think there really is one……… However, I do think more research needs to be done as none of the studies followed anyone longer than 4 years (as far as I know.)
Rae and Pip enlightened me to this one as well.
Yay for them and all their science smarticles. Rae’s have always come in handy taking all my pre-nursing courses!
Alexandra,
I’m sorry if this conversation has become tedious. I’ll let it go if you really want to, but I don’t think it’s because people are bored. We’ve kind of “been getting into it” and I have felt unsettled as well.
So I’ll add my thoughts and if you answer great, if not, well that’s fine too.
I have said any number of times that ALL laws impose the will of the people on someone. That’s what laws do.
The pedophiles are pissed off because we won’t let NAMBLA be legitimized.
The rapists want to rape.
I have to wear a seatbelt.
Most of these are laws that protect individuals and societies.
I have explained why I think the pill hurts society. It leads to children in single family homes (as a rule, not the exception) and it leads to abortion.
It also leads to the notion that sex outside of marriage is good, and that you can ignore it’s consequences. It’s NOT good. Neither for the individuals having the sex, or society as a whole.
You haven’t addressed things like Folsom Street Fair. Or the garbage that’s allowed on television. Why should my 12 year old daughter have to listen to endless commercials about birth control and Cialis? Why does she even have to know what erectile dysfunction is?
The response has been, “Just turn off your TV”…Which means I must police everything that my kids watch, or chuck the TV altogether. Why is that fair?
Why are laws that make society the least offensive it can be, wrong? George Carlin became famous for his comedy routine about the 7 words you can’t say on TV. Rae asks, should swearing be illegal.
My answer is yes. When I was young, to get a job, you had to show that you were “worthy” of representing the company you were going to work for. You had to to be kempt, clean…
Now, I go to K-Mart and theres a man with a pony tail, 20 piercings and blue fingernail polish. 20 years ago, I would have crossed the street to avoid him, now he’s ringing up my purchase. The “F” word is used with as much frequency as the word “THE”. Guys in target, EMPLOYEES, use it when they are talking to each other, stocking the aisles.
You say you wouldn’t want to live in a world where your life is controlled by the majority. I say, while freedom is a GOOD thing, when it is abused, the world can become a very ugly and frightening place.
I don’t want to live in a world where there is road rage, and swearing, and uncontrolled sex, and children without parents, and 1/2 of the population has an STD. Where my television is being held hostage, where hate language is censored unless it is directed at me, where gay mens right to have sex in public is protected, but my right to walk in the woods is not. Where there are parades to celebrate perversion.
If the sexual act hadn’t been brought INTO the public, I wouldn’t be fighting to get it out. You say I can’t tell people what to do in their bedroom and I’m saying if they kept it IN their bedroom, I wouldn’t have too. Keep you alley talk in the alley. Keep your limp penis between you, your doctor and your spouse. Keep your birth control methods out of my living room.
And keep your sexual “freedom” out of the schools!
It is because these things are being shoved in MY face, that I am pushing back.
Let’s pretend that I wouldn’t vote to ban condoms. Let’s, just for the sake of this argument, pretend that I have changed my mind. What gets you riled up about the rest of what I want banned? The pill? I’ve already shown that it’s harmful, to more than just it’s user, and to it’s user when they are minors. The language? Freedom of speech is all well and good, but you don’t believe that there are times and places where it is inappropriate? Like at a kid’s park? Premaritial sex? When it leads to millions of kids with no dads? And millions of women with no partners and less chance of finding one because they have an STD and a 4 year old?
Where does a persons right to do whatever they want end, and my right to not have to stare at it begin? Why does society have the right to behave immorally, but I don’t have the right not to be confronted with it on a daily basis.
Fine, let people have sex, married or not. But don’t shove it in my face.
Don’t advertise the fact. Have the decency to take your disgusting behavior and keep it behind closed doors. I have the right to eat a meal in a restaurant and not have to watch the couple at the next table french kissing, or listen to the waitress tell the busboy to get F******. I have the right to turn on my television and watch a prime time television show without watching endless commercials touting immoral behavior and nonfunctioning genetalia. Don’t I?
Jasper is right. You are talking about license, not freedom. Freedom respects ALL freedoms. Freedom doesn’t stamp it’s foot and say “I CAN AND YOU CAN’T STOP ME!” True freedom respects the rights of others.
“I’m sorry if this conversation has become tedious. I’ll let it go if you really want to, but I don’t think it’s because people are bored. We’ve kind of “been getting into it” and I have felt unsettled as well.”
It does feel tedious, but it’s mostly because I feel like I’m just saying the same things over and over.
“You haven’t addressed things like Folsom Street Fair. Or the garbage that’s allowed on television. Why should my 12 year old daughter have to listen to endless commercials about birth control and Cialis? Why does she even have to know what erectile dysfunction is?”
I don’t think that people should be naked or lewd in public, so it’s not like I support people having sex in the street just because they’re gay. I take issue with drug commercials but mostly for different reasons, and I don’t have a problem with restrictions on what can be shown during “prime” hours. Personally I don’t think prescription medications should be advertised to the public, but I don’t really know what I’m talking about so no one quote me on that.
“The pedophiles are pissed off because we won’t let NAMBLA be legitimized.
The rapists want to rape.
I have to wear a seatbelt.”
Do you not see the differences between these three things? Molesting a child, raping a woman, and wearing a seatbelt? I don’t think people should be required to wear seat belts, actually, because if you want to be a huge dimwit then that should be your right, and it legitimately doesn’t affect anyone else except the loves ones you might leave behind when you fly through your own windshield. If anything it should be an insurance-company issue, not a government one.
“When I was young, to get a job, you had to show that you were “worthy” of representing the company you were going to work for. You had to to be kempt, clean…
Now, I go to K-Mart and theres a man with a pony tail, 20 piercings and blue fingernail polish. 20 years ago, I would have crossed the street to avoid him, now he’s ringing up my purchase. The “F” word is used with as much frequency as the word “THE”. Guys in target, EMPLOYEES, use it when they are talking to each other, stocking the aisles.”
You still do need to be “worthy” of representing the company you work for. The concept of what is worthy has changed, as it has throughout history. Employers are within their rights to restrict the appearance of their employees when it comes to voluntary attributes like piercings or attire. Maybe you’re visually offended that they choose not to do so in ways you would if the business were yours, but is your aesthetic preference actually grounded in some moral basis? What, morally, is problematic about an eyebrow ring or blue nail polish?
Are piercings and nail polish inherently dangerous or offensive? Why is it pretty to have pierced ears and scary to have a pierced nose? Why is pink nail polish okay but blue nail polish offensive? Why is nail polish beautiful on a woman but offensive on a man? Your complaints are things that every generation has said about the one after it. “It’s immoral, women in pants. Used to be that people had some dignity and respect.” The bob immorally blurred the lines between men and women. etc etc etc.
Excerpt from NY Times letter from a prominent social figure, on ragtime, 1912: “It seems remarkable to me that nothing is being done to stamp out the epidemic of these positively dangerous songs, the titles of which are now stock phrases about town, and all too common from the lips of children.”
A Ladies’ Home Journal article on jazz, from 1921: http://faculty.pittstate.edu/~knichols/syncopate.html (ten years later, ragtime is okay, but jazz takes things too far.)
Woe to those who let the swung and blue notes infect their minds. Woe to those who allow a minority-demographic-originated cakewalk rhythm to whistle past their lips into majority-member society.
Certainly some changes are for the worse, not for the better — just because every generation has fretted about the one following it doesn’t make such concerns inherently invalid. But many changes are just neutral. Surely there is a difference between style — fashion, music, etc — and morals. Sometimes immoral things are in style, but that doesn’t mean that all stylistic changes are immoral.
When Christian’s parents visited, we walked to a neighborhood bar one night, and on the way we passed some teenagers sitting around with an iPod in a dock, listening to music and talking. When we were out of range of them, Christian’s father said, “See, now, that would scare me, living near stuff like that.” I was honestly shocked. My neighborhood is really safe! Yeah, they were wearing ugly clothes (it is a rare man who can rock skinny jeans), and had a few extra piercings among them, but they were just sitting there. They moved a little bit when we came, to make room on the sidewalk; they were just talking and laughing.
“The pill? I’ve already shown that it’s harmful, to more than just it’s user, and to it’s user when they are minors.”
I don’t think that some possible chance of maybe preventing implantation (or just the unwillingness of the manufacturer to state unequivocally that the pill will NOT prevent implantation) is a reason to ban it. Many things in our society can do the same. If the intent of the pill is to prevent ovulation, and there is some small chance that ovulation occurs and then an even smaller chance that the fertilized egg can’t implant, that doesn’t mean that the intent is to prevent implantation. I think that the reaction to the possibility of birth control to interfere with implantation is rooted in moral opposition to contraception, because you don’t see people calling to ban vitamin c, caffeine, breastfeeding, ibuprofen, or other things that could also possibly interfere with implantation. These are things where the intended function is arguably morally neutral, and that a possible side effect may be failure to implant is not an issue. The intended function of birth control is to suppress ovulation, which is arguably not a morally neutral act (and it’s one I don’t agree with, personally, for a variety of physical and “holistic” health reasons, but whatev); and it’s the one that gets all the attention for maybe, possibly causing failure to implant.
Legally, I don’t think that minors should be able to access prescription medication without a parent’s consent, unless it’s a life-or-death situation. And on prescription drugs just having risks in general, I’m no fan of unnecessary medication but birth control shouldn’t be held to some higher standard of safety just because some people object to its intent.
“The language? Freedom of speech is all well and good, but you don’t believe that there are times and places where it is inappropriate? Like at a kid’s park?”
I know of municipalities that take action against public profanity and I don’t really have much of an opinion on the matter. Public space is community space. Profanity is also often “piggybacked” onto disorderly conduct laws or used as evidence in such cases.
Honestly I find thoughts/attitudes more offensive than words. I’m far more bothered by a man saying something degrading about a girl who slept with him than I am by a guy muttering the f-word when he drops a crate of oranges outside the grocery store. One is a guy having a bad day and forgetting where he is, the other is a disrespectful and objectifying love-hate attitude towards women as sexual beings. Social disapproval is the only way you can change things like that. Otherwise you end up like much of Europe, banning Holocaust denial (though maybe you agree with that).
Have you ever heard of Stetson Kennedy? He is often credited as being one of the single people most responsible for weakening the KKK’s influence on US culture/society. He started the “Frown Power” campaign in the 1940′s, which encouraged people to pointedly and actively frown when they heard someone saying racist or bigoted things. You can’t ban racist language, because of course there are all sorts of issues that go with that — what is offensive is a matter of relativity, and racially offensive sentiments can be expressed without using racist words. But social disapproval is a powerful tool. People know when something is racist, more than the law can reflect. People know when something is profane, more than the law can reflect. I am upset by so many of the things I hear people saying, and I wish that our society disapproved of such things more strongly — expressing disapproval is like social voting. Vote with your reactions, your dollars, your voice — it’s the most realistic way to combat such things. I am in the majority on some things and, sadly, in the minority on others. C’est la vie.
“Premaritial sex? When it leads to millions of kids with no dads? And millions of women with no partners and less chance of finding one because they have an STD and a 4 year old?”
This is, in many ways, more a difference in attitudes towards marriage than in premarital sex. In the early- to mid-1800s, approximately 1/3 of women were pregnant when they got married. You see a drop in the rates of this in the middle and later 1800′s, suggesting both increased abstinence and increased awareness of contraception. When there are closely-felt repercussions for irresponsibility, people are more likely to behave responsibly — so in some ways it makes sense that maybe a generation that was so affected by premarital pregnancy would work to ensure that their kids weren’t getting up to the same sort of business. Still, 88% of women born in the 1940′s had pre-marital sex before age 44. Most of them, if they got pregnant, got married or gave the kid up for adoption. Today people are having premarital sex at only slightly higher rates. The difference is that they are not as likely to marry in the event of an unplanned pregnancy.
I think that, had abortion never been so widely legalized, we would probably be entering a “corrective” period around now, akin to the late 1800′s when premarital pregnancy decreased. I don’t necessarily think that changing attitudes towards marriage are a bad thing, in this specific respect — that is to say, I think that people like Elizabeth are on the whole happier and better off than they would be had they been socially pressured into either marriage with the father, or adoption. But I do think that, if pregnancy always meant a baby rather than just a tough choice about what to do next, social trends would swing towards being discriminating in sexual partners, waiting longer to have sex at all, and (for better or worse) probably being more careful in the use of birth control.
(Elizabeth I didn’t want to use you as an “example” because sometimes I get shy or awkward when people do that to me! But I do consider you a perfect example of one of the benefits of changing social attitudes towards marriage. I would have used a friend in in a similar situation — but I didn’t feel like explaining the whole thing since I’m already writing too much.)
“Freedom respects ALL freedoms. Freedom doesn’t stamp it’s foot and say “I CAN AND YOU CAN’T STOP ME!” True freedom respects the rights of others.”
“Freedom to do what I want you to do” isn’t freedom, and it doesn’t respect the rights of others. So many of the things that you are talking about in this comment are just social forces, which you can’t really regulate effectively via laws. Kids dress weirdly. People are rude if they’re consistently not called out on it. It’s not like we used to ban piercings and rudeness, and then we legalized it and all hell broke loose. People stopped upholding the standards of public behavior (profanity), or they changed the standards (fashion), or whatever. These changes, for better and for worse, are driven by the community.
Haiku:
choirs of Angeles
singing down to spanish jews
heralding tevet
(Angeles, tevet. I hate LA so I went with angels instead)
Alexandra,
I am not saying we should make premarital sex illegal because it’s against my religion. Nor am I saying we should ban the pill because it’s a nasty. You actually argued FOR me.
You are correct in saying that women did not get pregnant tho they did have sex in the early part of our century.
But the advent of the pill and abortion gave girls the opportunity to have sex sans the responsibility. They could pop a pill, and if that didn’t work, then they could kill the kid.
Here are some statistics:
In 1950 there were 142,000 children born to unwed mothers. Pre Pill/Pre abortion.
In 2000 there were 1,300,000 children born to unwed mothers. Post pill/post abortion.
In 1950 62% of African American women with children were married. In 2000, only 36% were married.
In 1960 there were 2.8 million single family households.
In 2000 there were 12 million.
In 1975 there were 294,796 reports of child abuse.
In 2000 there were 3,500,000.
http://books.google.com/books?id=uaY6Cka4w9IC&pg=PA98&lpg=PA98&dq=out+of+wedlock+births+statistics+1950&source=bl&ots=STwahJUbmW&sig=JDmdgHJx6_cmAR44C57RvcZn3XE&hl=en&ei=D8ArSoXIM5mUMfLBycwJ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#PPA98,M1
51% of food stamp recipients last year went to children under the age of 17.
65% of those children lived in single family homes.
79% of ALL benefits go to households with children.
36 percent of households with children were headed by a single parent, the overwhelming majority of whom were women.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_Stamps
The pill was legalized as a contraceptive in 1960.
I’ve already reported that the birth control pill can cause low birth weight, and that repeated abortions result in low birth weight and premature births.
Now, who is picking up the bill? Who is supplying those foodstamps? Who is paying for those abortions? Who is going to live in a society that doesn’t know what marriage is, or what it’s like to have two parents, and the parent they do have is either working thus leaving them alone, or living off of welfare?
And I haven’t even mentioned STD’s.
A study shows that 1 out of every 4 teenagers has an STD.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88140117
You can read the statistics here, but they are broken down by specific disease and for our purposes, it’s enough to know that they are rampant.
So why are there so many? Because the pill has enabled teens to have sex, thinking it’s safe…but not only does it not work (remember the 40% of new mothers that are unwed; presumably most of them were using some form of birth control), it does nothing to prevent STD’s. Condoms only protect you from some STD’s, and do nothing for those transmitted through oral sex.
You say that making laws would be overstepping my bounds. You say that society should put pressure on people to stop having sex irresponsibly. Well, how is that supposed to work when “society” is the one PROMOTING this sexuality?
Again, I have stated, and this argument began with me stating, that we needed to “fight back”. That is what I am doing. And if voting is a way to do that, then I would vote. If blogging helps, then I’ll blog. If teaching my own children to respect their bodies helps, then I’ll do that.
You yourself said you’d have no problem with commercials being regulated. Why? Why would that be okay to regulate but not sex?
Of course there is a difference between seat belts and the pill. But there is no difference in regulating both. I’m not talking about equal evils, I’m talking about regulating harmful behavior. No matter what laws we make, someone will feel put out. But we make them anyway. The whole gamut, from seat belts to rape, from smoking to murder.
The pill, condoms, premarital sex…these ALL have grave consequences on our society as a whole. Whether it is harm to the children born in unfavorable circumstances or taxpayers footing the bill so Janie and Jimmy can get it on, consequence free.
It’s too late to put the toothpaste back in the tube. Laws might be the only thing that reigns in this trend.
I do not advocate telling people what to do, unless that behavior harms society, and clearly I have shown that illicit sex, the pill and yes, even condoms, cause harm…serious harm.
Sorry, here’s the link to the STD’s site.
http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats07/figures.htm
MK and Alexandra –
FYI –
http://www.2secondsfaster.com/2008/09/more-money-more-education-means-more-std-and-more-abortion/
http://www.2secondsfaster.com/2008/04/abortions-on-the-decline-means-stds-are-declining-as-well/
http://www.2secondsfaster.com/2009/01/stds-probably-may-have-never-declined/
Thanks Val.
I’m getting a lot of grief because I said that I would vote to ban certain activities that I think are harmful and or immoral.
But Alexandra, you hold the right to freedom (of speech, sex, privacy) to be of greater moral value than the right for kids to have 2 parents, the right for my children not to have to listen to foul language on the city streets and the right to send my child to a school without being taught that homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality, morally speaking.
So in essence, you, as well as I, are voting from your conscience. You are saying that given the chance to vote for the right to become pregnant out of wedlock, go on welfare, live off my tax money, raise a child/children without benefit of a father, you would vote “yes”, because you don’t feel you have the right to tell others what to do.
I said that given the opportunity to vote to ban birth control and make illicit sex illegal, I would vote yes, because I feel that the freedom to do what you want should not have such dire consequences to other members of society.
I don’t think either one of us really wants to control the others lives, but whichever one our votes wins, they WILL be controlling the others lives.
If I win, you can’t use birth control.
If you win, I have to pay for other people’s children, and for their promiscuity.
I tell you what to do, or you tell me what to do.
The price of the school lunch program alone is enough to argue that people that cannot afford to have kids, should NOT have sex.
Thanks for those links, Val!
“The price of the school lunch program alone is enough to argue that people that cannot afford to have kids, should NOT have sex.”
Well then there goes my whole extended family, lol.
“you hold the right to freedom (of speech, sex, privacy) to be of greater moral value than the right for kids to have 2 parents, the right for my children not to have to listen to foul language on the city streets and the right to send my child to a school without being taught that homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality, morally speaking. ”
I am pretty sure that I said that I don’t have any strong opinions on the issue of regulating profanity in public, though I question its practicality; and I don’t know where I said that moral opinions on homosexuality should be taught in schools. So no, that’s not the case.
“So in essence, you, as well as I, are voting from your conscience. You are saying that given the chance to vote for the right to become pregnant out of wedlock, go on welfare, live off my tax money, raise a child/children without benefit of a father, you would vote “yes”, because you don’t feel you have the right to tell others what to do.”
I’m not sure where I discussed social welfare programs. Tell me, though, how do you take away the “right” to become pregnant out of wedlock? Can a natural consequence in the human body in reaction to natural actions like sex be considered a “right?” What, then, does it mean to say that some people don’t have the “right” to be pregnant? (Interestingly, China does not restrict pregnancy to married women.) And if it’s about a child’s right to two parents, how do the “rights” of a person who does not yet exist, and may never exist, a person who only MIGHT exist one day, supercede the rights of currently living people to do what they want with their own bodies in the privacy of their own homes?
Not all women who have premarital sex become pregnant, and not all women who are single mothers rely on social welfare; not all children of legally single mothers are fatherless (I don’t mean in the biological sense, because obviously they all have fathers.); and not all single mothers got pregnant out of wedlock.
“I don’t think either one of us really wants to control the others lives, but whichever one our votes wins, they WILL be controlling the others lives.”
Ignoring the debate on social welfare spending, there IS a difference between directly controlling someone’s individual choices, and controlling where someone’s tax dollars go (or, more broadly speaking, controlling the possible effects of an individual’s choices). It’s like if I said, “Well, I don’t think people should be able to study the Bible unless there’s a state-sanctioned, mainstream-denomination theologian in the room, because otherwise people can just interpret any old thing they want and potentially convince themselves that they are supposed to kill non-believers.” The problem is people killing (whether they justify it theologically or not) so that’s what we outlaw. The problem with drunk driving is that it kills, so that’s what we outlaw — not drinking, even though without alcohol to drink there would be no drunk driving.
I’m not saying that something being legal means it’s totally desirable. But there are real, and often frightening, implications that come with banning a behavior just because isn’t desirable.
I’m sorry you think I’m giving you grief. Perhaps we should just leave it be.
I guess I just am wigged out because you honestly think I want to ban condoms…that that is some kind of goal of the Catholic Church.
When you asked me that, I knew it was going to get me into trouble, which is why I tried to phrase my answer as carefully as possible.
I can’t seem to make you understand…I am NOT advocating for the banning of contraception, condoms, premarital sex. I am NOT pushing for it. I am not trying to talk the government into doing it.
You asked me, IF, this was put to a vote, would I vote yes. I answered I would have no choice, because to vote no, would be to violate my conscience. The odds of this happening are NIL. IF I was on the street trying to make this public policy, then I could see you getting freaked out. But I’m not, and neither is the church.
By the time something like this came to a “vote”, a lot of people would already have had to advocate for it. There would have to be overwhelming reasons for it. By that time, I assume the government would feel it had no other choice.
But I WOULD NOT be one of those people pushing for it. IF, however, it actually came to a moment, where I would have to say “are you in favor or against the banning of birth control, premarital sex…” I would have to say yes.
This is why, for the most part, the Catholic Church stays out of politics. It has to be something REALLY serious, before She would be out there actually PUSHING for LAWS on a moral issue. Like abortion or gay marriage.
She is NOT out there pushing to ban condoms and birth control, and neither am I.
I think I see a big difference between pushing to make something illegal, and voting a certain way IF I was asked to. You don’t.
But to say the the Catholic Church wants to tell everyone how to live their lives is ludicrous. Other than abortion and gay marriage, where exactly is she voicing her opinion in a significant political way?
Where is She asking that anything be made illegal? Or where is she asking for laws to tell people how to live their lives, particularly in their bedrooms? She’s not. She voices her opinion, but she does not advocate taking legal measures. That is for the government and the people to decide.
The only time She steps in is when She sees horrendous injustices being done. Like abortion. Or the holocaust.
You come up with this totally out of realm of reality situation where the government is asking my personal opinion on condoms, birth control and premarital sex and when I give it, you accuse me of trying to run peoples lives.
Crazy talk. We don’t even vote on issues here in the US. We vote for representatives. As far as I know, no one has ever run on the ticket “NO MORE CONDOMS”…if they did, they’d lose before they began…meaning I’d NEVER get a chance to vote. This whole thing has gotten blown out of proportion.
The only thing I can say, is that there actually are good, sound reasons why birth control and premarital sex are harmful, and if those things ever DID become issues, there would be good, sound reasons to ban them.
But I’m not going to be the one to push that, because this is America and that’s simply not how it’s done.
I even remember asking you “Do you mean if I owned my own country and I was Queen?” Well, in my own country all sorts of things would be different. In a way my home IS my own country, and we behave a certain way here, because I AM the queen. But in America? I wouldn’t have a chance in hell of getting the country to do things MY way.
And for the record, if it ever came to be that 40% of people that drink, drove drunk, we might ban alcohol. I mean following your logic, punishing the result of irresponsible behavior, we would say you could have premarital sex, but if you get pregnant and aren’t married, then we arrest you and take your kid away…
And I don’t think you’re giving me grief…I just worry that our relationship will be damaged and I want you to know that I am keeping this conversation separate from that. This is an important conversation, as it is a real problem. The out of wedlock kids, AND, the idea that the Church wants to run everyone’s lives.
I think it’s important that we discuss these kinds of things, and you are really intelligent, so you’re arguments are well worth reading. And thinking about. I know you’ve given me pause.
I guess I just feel like the world is going insane, and the doctors have all flown the coup. I hate seeing our country getting more and more depraved. You used the example of music. There is a huge difference between Elvis swingin’ his hips and some of the trash that is played on the radio today. You know that. It’s like the frog in the hot pot. It has gotten cruder and cruder in such small increments that we hardly noticed, but all of a sudden I can’t let my kids listen to the radio or watch television without worrying that something will “slip” through. Good heavens, I went to see star wars with my priest and nine year old son…STAR WARS for goodness sake,, and there was a scene that was really appalling…granted it was tame by most standards, but it came out of nowhere and it had no business being in a star wars movie. NOTHING IS SAFE. It’s a really awful feeling. Maybe if you had kids, you’d see things differently. Only because you’re responsible for their little brains, and in my case their souls and it’s like endless filth being thrown at them…sometimes it feels like I’m drowning. Ask the other moms here. Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe it’s not that bad…I’d be interested to hear what they say…