Palin's stance on sex ed coming back to bite her

Judged:

1

1

1

Logan wrote:

The kind of high school I went to was one that demanded teens act like decent persons. We were expected to have high moral values, which meant no sex before marriage, and to have self-respect, a quality few teens or adults now have; and guess what, we had much better lives than this current generation. Unlike you, we didn't have sex at seventeen. It used to be a shameful thing to have sex before you married (and that wasn't a hundred years ago), but now, no one is ashamed of anything.
If your school didn't teach you how to have sex, you must have gone to an outdated one, for the sex ed classes in the schools with which I'm familiar do teach that. Don't you consider it explicit when a girl has to demonstrate to a mixed class how to put a condom on a cucumber?
I disagree that telling them how to protect themselves while being promiscuous is the best thing one can do for them. Teaching them moral values so they will have a sense of right and wrong is one of the best things one can teach them.<quoted text>

The Golem wrote:

<quoted text>
You said,"You should have the 'intellectual honesty' to investigate before making an ignorant determination based on false information."
You accuse me of intellectual dishonesty, making an ignorant determination and spreading false information, then you are supriseed that you don't get a warm, gushing post in return?
If Xtianity is a way of life for you, fine; but your attempt toown G-d by putting down my spiritual path makes me doubt your own.

Judged:

1

1

JaneKrahe wrote:

<quoted text>
Morals are subjective, and I do not believe that marriage is the be all and end all of relationships, nor do I think it is necessary.
"Mixed class"? BOTH genders need to learn to protect themselves, why does that matter?
And no, I don't believe that showing a teen how to put a condom on is explicit. It is simply education.
Again, no one in my high school (which was not outdated, this was only four years ago) told us to be promiscuous OR how to have sex. It was in fact emphasize that abstinence is the ONLY way to be 100% safe. HOWEVER they were not stupid enought to assume that everyone would remain abstinent.
And if you think no one in your generation had sex before marriage, no matter what generation it is, then you've been living under a rock.

Judged:

1

1

Logan wrote:

You accused another poster of that without reason so I felt you should have practiced what you expected of another. I wasn't surprised at all by your comments. Nothing surprises me anymore.
Sorry, but your accusation that I try to own God by putting down your spiritual path has no basis in truth. My faith has the Jewish religion as its basis; Jesus was a Jew; the early Christians were Jewish; my God is the Jewish God; so why would I put down your religious beliefs? I am not anti-Jewish and I am very pro-Israel. It may not interest you, but years ago, one of my very good friends was an elderly Jewish lady who had survived the concentration camps. Most of her family were killed, but she survived only to be murdered by black militants in America for the sole reason she was white. I felt very unwelcome but I went to her funeral uninvited to say goodbye; and was pleasantly surprised to be treated kindly by her children.
<quoted text>

Logan wrote:

Sorry but you are wrong. Morals are never subjective. Your feelings about marriage does not surprise me and I didn't expect you to agree that the cucumber thing was expicit.{Do you know what explicit means?) As I stated, most today have no moral values. In fact, most have no idea what morals are.
I didn't say no one in my generation had sex outside marriage. The fact is most did have good moral values but there are always a few bad apples. Those who were immoral found themselves in an unpleasant position, unlike today when no one sees anything wrong with promiscuity.
<quoted text>

JaneKrahe wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually, yes, morals are subjective, even different sects of the same religion will have different morals. How do you decide whose are right or wrong? WHO decides?
Main Entry: ex·plic·it
Pronunciation:\ik-&#712;sp li-s&#601;t\
1 a: fully revealed or expressed without vagueness, implication, or ambiguity : leaving no question as to meaning or intent <explicit instructions> b: open in the depiction of nudity or sexuality <explicit books and films>
I guess it WAS explicit, but does that make it wrong? Sex is a fact of life, not something to be hidden or ashamed of. The more you hide it in the shadows, the more likely kids are to try it.
Morals change as time change. It was once considered "moral" to own another human being. In some places of the world, it still is. But does that make it right? Of course not. But those are MY morals, which others will say is wrong.
And what is wrong about having more than one partner in your lifetime? As long as you are responsible and mature about sex, you are doing nothing wrong.

The Golem wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm not going to waste any time on playing your silly game of "gotcha." But you are awfully righteous in your own eyes.

Logan wrote:

Sorry but I still disagree. Morals are NOT subjective regardless of what college professor teaches otherwise. As to who decides, the answer is God. Basic laws are based on the moral laws listed in the Ten Commandments. Like it or not, we have a Creator who has laws to obey, and those laws are for our benefit.
You ask what is wrong with multiple sex partners? It's a sin; it causes psychological damage in some cases; it spreads diseases; and it takes away self-respect. Sex is a fact of life, but that doesn't mean it's okay to be promiscuous. There are consequences for all our actions and sin has consequences, as the current condition of our society verifies. Many things are facts of life, but that doesn't mean it's okay to do all things.<quoted text>

JaneKrahe wrote:

<quoted text>
Morals are not subjective? Fine, then which sects translation and interpretation of the Bible is correct?
Not everyone is Christian. The Ten Commandments are nice, but I don't consider them the word of any God.
I also don't believe in the idea of "sin". That some God would create us with these insticts then tell us the instincts are wrong. It makes no sense.
And being married is obviously not working for people either - look at the current divorce rate.
Sex is not what ruins people's lives. It's how you deal with the consequences of sex that does that. I have safe sex. Always. And have never had any bad things come from my sex life. Yet, if I'd been stupid, and naive, and uneducated, I would probably be just another high school dropout working on her fifth kid.
And I have plenty of respect for myself. But that's because I don't think of sex as a sin, or as anything shameful. I think it's sad when people do.

Judged:

1

1

Logan wrote:

It doesn't matter what sect translates the Bible. It remains the same regardless of anyone's translation or interpretation. The Ten Commandments were straight from God, written on stone by his own hand. The movie, The Ten Commandments, is very accurate and displays this.
Sin exists whether or not you believe in it.
I wasn't implying sex itself is a sin, only the misuse of it.
You're right. Marriage doesn't have a great track record today, but that can also be attributed to the lack of morals. Divorce is more prevalent today because the institution of marriage and the concept of the permanency of it is considered to be of no significance today.
<quoted text>

Judged:

1

1

The Golem wrote:

<quoted text>
That's your assumption and definition. At least have the intellectual honesty to own it.

verad wrote:

<quoted text>
That is open to interpretation.
Have you ever been pregnant?

Judged:

1

1

The Golem wrote:

<quoted text>
No,like most members of the majority culture you are pretty blind to ways that segment of society gets priviledged, whether it is race, religion, or gender identity and orientation.

Judged:

1

1

1

Wasilla Residents Know wrote:

Matt Damon says what is on the mind of most Americans.
Besides, anybody who abuses their position of power to try to
have fired a former brother in-law and fires a Commissioner
simply because of personal vendettas and not on the basis of job
merits is unethical, untrustoworthy and unfit to be a heart-beat
from the highest office in the Land.

TAS wrote:

<quoted text>
You're just mad because Matt Damon is right and was telling the truth. Funny thing about republipigs.......they absolutely HATE the truth.........

Patricia wrote:

Some of you miss the point. Sarah Palin speaks of her own "personal beliefs" - nowhere does she say she wants everyone to fall in line with her. Sarah Palin's actions differ from her beliefs. She vetoed a bill that would have left gay couples without benefits, even though she "personally" believes that marriage should only be between a man and woman. She respects the fact that everyone is not like her and is not out to change everyone. Do the research, just don't blindly go beserk based on what the media is feeding you.

Judged:

1

1

1

TAS wrote:

<quoted text>
What exactly is an "opinioin" there, dumbf**c....?
Smart, educated people care about someone like Matt Damon's opinion..........of course dumbf**k, degenerate, full o' bull republipigs like you don't like what he has to say ........

Judged:

1

1

1

Chuck Law wrote:

<quoted text>
Hmmmmmm......you demand rights for gays, but you apparently could give a rats @ss about the rights of a baby. Nice consistency.

Judged:

1

1

1

TAS wrote:

<quoted text>
What exactly is an "opinioin" there, dumbf**c....?
Smart, educated people care about someone like Matt Damon's opinion..........of course dumbf**k, degenerate, full o' bull republipigs like you don't like what he has to say ........