Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Govt. Tells Singles No Sex Till You're 30
ABSNews Health ^ | 10/31/06 | Brian Hartman

Posted on 11/01/2006 10:48:21 AM PST by steve-b

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 241-252 next last
To: Antoninus
I didn't mean to imply any form of moral relativism, one only need look at the state of modern day Europe to see what moral relativism achieves. That said, there is a fundamental misunderstanding of what "rights" are in this day and age.

According to the left, it's moral to do whatever feels good or absolves you of responsibility. I disagree wholeheartedly with the assertion that one isn't responsible for their actions, but morality tells you that. The idea that government should legislate what is or isn't moral is wrong. You can't legislate morality any more than you can legislate speech. To legislate morality is to negate and dissolve the very freedom that we all enjoy.

Many on this forum warn about slippery slopes of all kinds, but tend to turn a blind eye when the person doing the legislating have an "R" next to their names. This country is about freedom, and right now, I think we need freedom from government more than anything else. People can control themselves, let them; but don't have the government try to give people a moral compass. The left tries to legislate what is moral and what isn't, is the right headed in that direction now as well?

161 posted on 11/01/2006 12:41:49 PM PST by Andonius_99 (They [liberals] aren't humans, but rather a species of hairless retarded ape.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: TheMightyQuinn
Brilliant! It just might work.
162 posted on 11/01/2006 12:42:12 PM PST by miliantnutcase ("If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it." -ichabod1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: JackDanielsOldNo7

Yeah, but not even close to all women are as you described. Be careful not to buy into that attitude too much - it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy...


163 posted on 11/01/2006 12:43:51 PM PST by Stone Mountain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: Oberon
And it may not be "your side" making the rules. Better to just get the government out of everything but its most essential tasks.

Is it me, or was there a time when this was part of the Republican agenda?

I remember this too. But I'm old...

164 posted on 11/01/2006 12:46:12 PM PST by Stone Mountain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus
When and if the left starts calling for the abolition of ALL sex ed as a result of this, I'll be right there cheering them on.

But until then if you get the opportunity to spend federal money on abstainance education, you'll take it?

165 posted on 11/01/2006 12:51:54 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: steve-b
Anyone who would have SEX with a 29-year-old CHILD is a PEDOPHILE!
166 posted on 11/01/2006 12:52:24 PM PST by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide (Give Them Liberty Or Give Them Death! - IT'S ISLAM, STUPID! - Islam Delenda Est! - Rumble thee forth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bigg Red

The sex positive agenda seeks to end all moral judgments over sexual pairings regardless of age, sex, relation, marital status, number, or species of partner(s).

The advocates see abstinence as "unhealthy" because it is a supression of sexual desires.

The advocates wish to see everyone (even children) sexually active and do not believe in a concept of "age appropriate activity". They'll quote William Reich and claim sexuality as a birthright.


167 posted on 11/01/2006 1:04:48 PM PST by weegee (Remember "Remember the Maine"? Well in the current war "Remember the Baby Milk Factory")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: miliantnutcase
I have less sex now that I'm married! What's going on here?

Wedding cake is the permanent ANTI-VIAGRA for most women.

168 posted on 11/01/2006 1:19:46 PM PST by Centurion2000 (To liberals: Dead enemies need no political or diplomatic solutions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: the OlLine Rebel
1st, it is not a "need". It is a want. Not having sex will NOT hurt your individual health. Trust me on that last.

From a physical statement, there is room for debate. According to my urologist, for example, "cleaning the pipes on a regular basis is important for good prostate health."

2nd, the most basic NEED is FOOD. Then protection from the elements - clothing, and shelter.

You are correct. I should have said is "one of the most basic desires."

169 posted on 11/01/2006 1:34:23 PM PST by Labyrinthos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: Labyrinthos

Exactly, like it or nor Humans are a higher form of "animal", and have instincts and desires that drive them. Sure, they can probably be tamped down and fought, but sex is, and always will be, a natural act that humans are driven to. Putting a religious spin on it is what has made sex dirty, sinful, etc, unless that religion's rules for sex and intamacy are followed. Not everyone believes or follows the same idea of morality and religion, the government has no right in pushing an agenda in something as basic as sex. Just the same way that public schools have no right to push any sexual 'agenda', other than teaching the biology of it.


170 posted on 11/01/2006 1:45:01 PM PST by BritExPatInFla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: HapaxLegamenon
It is a shame that virginity has become something bad.

If virginity is your thing, and it works for you, great. Virginity in and of itself isn't bad, the government pushing an agenda based on abstinence for ADULTS is bad, it smacks of the Taliban. Sorry to be blunt, but that's the way I see it.
171 posted on 11/01/2006 1:48:20 PM PST by BritExPatInFla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: Oberon
The purpose of the Civil War was, apparently, to enfranchise people of color so that they could vote en bloc for the party of those who had formerly oppressed them.

That's bad. Their side may be getting the numbers, for now. I think our side is getting many of the best "people of color". I seem to have found another good place to post a link to this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrwtobdMm4M

Ah, but I'm being bitter...no point to that. =]

The author of the article did what the left does, take an issue & present it in an emotionally charged way. From the responses in this thread, I see that it worked. I see emotion laden responses, divisions between social & libertarian conservatives.

I'm trying to get us back on track, to put this issue back into thinking from reason instead of emotion. As I said in my previous post, this issue is about the Federalization of our education system, more specifically in the area of sex education. I think that is an area where social conservatives & fiscal conservatives can find common ground on this issue!

172 posted on 11/01/2006 1:50:40 PM PST by GoLightly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: steve-b
I thought that the government had come up with every conceivable way to waste our tax dollars, apparently I was wrong.
173 posted on 11/01/2006 1:52:05 PM PST by Zeroisanumber (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BritExPatInFla

If you think this education program is targeted at adults, you've lost sight of the issue at hand.


174 posted on 11/01/2006 1:53:11 PM PST by GoLightly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: HaveHadEnough
"Please don't tell me that masturbation falls into that "immoral, ineffective, and dangerous" category."

well... I dunno. Mark Twain had this to say about it:

"Of all the forms of intercourse, this has the least to recommend it. As an occupation it's to wearing, as an amusement, too fleeting; and as a public exhibition, there's no money in it."

175 posted on 11/01/2006 1:56:01 PM PST by Mugwump (Mohammed -- The L. Ron Hubbard of the 7th Century)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: BritExPatInFla
Just the same way that public schools have no right to push any sexual 'agenda', other than teaching the biology of it.

What if 100% of parents in a school district want more than basic biology taught in their local schools? One of the core Enlightenment concepts has to do with freedom of movement. When we force our society to be more homogenized through power of our Federal government, what's the point of having freedom of movement?

176 posted on 11/01/2006 1:58:53 PM PST by GoLightly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: BritExPatInFla
Exactly, like it or nor Humans are a higher form of "animal", and have instincts and desires that drive them. Sure, they can probably be tamped down and fought, but sex is, and always will be, a natural act that humans are driven to.

I would take the point one step further: In my opinion, the lack of sexual desire is as if not more abnormal than homosexuality. (Note that I said "abnormal," not "perverse." The distinction is important because whereas homosexuality is both abnormal and perverse, the lack of sexual desire is simply abnormal.)

177 posted on 11/01/2006 2:14:34 PM PST by Labyrinthos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: GoLightly
What if 100% of parents in a school district want more than basic biology taught in their local schools?

That kind of unanimous opinion is highly unlikely. If even just one parent objects to teaching more than "basic biology," why should they be forced to accept the decisions of of the majority? For that matter, why should one taxpayer be forced to subsidize teaching something he finds immoral or wrong?

One of the core Enlightenment concepts has to do with freedom of movement. When we force our society to be more homogenized through power of our Federal government, what's the point of having freedom of movement?

I'll take you one step further; why should a particular school district be homogenized through the power of the local public school board? Why not make education a private matter, where parents can pick and choose from a variety of different value systems offered by different private schools?

That would seem to maximize the freedom of movement and choice for individuals.

178 posted on 11/01/2006 2:14:40 PM PST by timm22 (Think critically)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: durasell
"I kid around alot on these threads -- but my brain shut down on some of the comments made here."

Me too. I just move them along because you know there are a whole bunch of women secretly reading these to see what men say:)

179 posted on 11/01/2006 2:42:07 PM PST by BobS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: timm22
That kind of unanimous opinion is highly unlikely.

As things are currently, you're right. Recognize that for what it is, a sign of the success of the homogenization. Our nation was founded by people who moved in response to things like communities that had different values than their own, even when moving involved risking life & limb. Movement for things such as a communities values are one of the things that contributed to the vibrancy of our nation. We now want to stay put & have government force the community to change. Like minded people built most of the early schools.

If even just one parent objects to teaching more than "basic biology," why should they be forced to accept the decisions of of the majority?

Put the local school districts policy out front & let people know that if they move into the district, this will be what their children are taught.

For that matter, why should one taxpayer be forced to subsidize teaching something he finds immoral or wrong?

Move to a community that is more in line with your beliefs. Sitting on your butt, demanding everyone else change what they do is contrary to the principle that involves freedom of movement.

I'll take you one step further; why should a particular school district be homogenized through the power of the local public school board?

If you wanna have a community that has no public school, more power to you.

Why not make education a private matter, where parents can pick and choose from a variety of different value systems offered by different private schools?

You'd be eliminating a local option to have a publicly supported school. When the issue is fully local, without any dictates from above, a lot of different options become available.

180 posted on 11/01/2006 2:50:52 PM PST by GoLightly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 241-252 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson