Also, if you think teaching abstinence results in LESS sex, then you are clueless about the history of sexual habits in times and places where abstinence wasn't just a choice, but the ONLY choice.
I doubt there's enough evidence either way, in the end.
A quick google search (really, only seconds) say something completely different: 1 2 3 I will look up peer reviewed articles when not at work.
One national study, published in 2001 in The American Journal of Sociology, found that while some teenagers who promised to remain abstinent until marriage delayed sexual activity by an average of 18 months, they were more likely to have unprotected sex when they broke their pledge than those who had never pledged virginity in the first place.
One national study, published in 2001 in The American Journal of Sociology, found that while some teenagers who promised to remain abstinent until marriage delayed sexual activity by an average of 18 months, they were more likely to have unprotected sex when they broke their pledge than those who had never pledged virginity in the first place.
This is pretty much what I said.
That's not about abstinence-only education, that's about abstinence pledges.
Um, no it isn't. While they delayed sex 18 months they then had unprotected sex. How is that inconclusive? If a 16 year old waits until she is 17 and has unprotected sex, how is that better than a 16 year old having protected sex? Moreover, that is the only information that supports the abstinence theory beyond anecdotal evidence.
That's not about abstinence-only education, that's about abstinence pledges.
Um, no it isn't. While they delayed sex 18 months they then had unprotected sex. How is that inconclusive. If a 16 waits until she is 17 and has unprotected sex how is that better than a 16 year old having protected sex?
It isn't, and I didn't say it was better! What I said:
Teaching abstinence probably does result in less sex, but significantly more unprotected sex and hence STDs and pregnancies.
However, Funfetus is right - there is no evidence between a correlation between such pledges and abstinence-only education.
Teaching abstinence probably does result in less sex, but significantly more unprotected sex and hence STDs and pregnancies.
Isn't fewer STDs and pregnancies the goal, though? Shouldn't this be all that matters rather than who has more sex?
...
And Kilarney, if you honestly want an intelligent response to any post you make,
STOP BEING AN ASSHOLE. This crap: Before you talk about the First Amendment, take the time to read it.(Woops... I bet you forgot that part.)Does not garner any respect, and you will get naught but further insult. The First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ." The Church has a right to free speech. They can say what they want, and to whom they want. (assuming they comply with tax laws) Congress, on the other hand, can't pass a law in violation of the First Amendment.WOW. What a challenge that was.
(PS, the quote I posted was discussing the INTENT of the First Amendment, not the literature of the Amendment itself, you pompous asswad.)
loltsundere, you still haven't justified why a religion should NOT have freedom of speech. Under this view, government is prohibiting the free exercise of religion.
If loltsundere wanted to talk personally to Stupak and was denied, would that infringe on her freedom of speech? Freedom of speech doesn't mean that people actually have to listen to you.
loltsundere, you still haven't justified why a religion should NOT have freedom of speech. Under this view, government is prohibiting the free exercise of religion.
I believe, and correct me if I am wrong here, that her issue is that the church's speech seems to have greater value than other organizations that would seek such an audience and wields an undue influence on law makers. While there is nothing expressly illegal about it, it does blur an ethical line.
Now we're into the whole uncomfortableness of a democracy. I agree that a church should not have undue influence. But at the same time, if Congress can't pass a law in violation of the Constitution, at least there is a level of protection. And keep in mind, the Congressman can always be voted out.
Now we're into the whole uncomfortableness of a democracy. I agree that a church should not have undue influence. But at the same time, if Congress can't pass a law in violation of the Constitution, at least there is a level of protection. And keep in mind, the Congressman can always be voted out.
True, and if Stupid,err, Stupak was in my district, I'd be furious. I understand listening to your 'constituents', but these bishops were going to represent religious interests, period. They can say they represent Catholics in the district, but if you want to go meddling in politics, pay some taxes bitches.
Honestly, though, it is no different than listening to any other special interest group. I hope the constituents are as outraged as I am. I think outrage is justified in this matter. At the same time, I am equally offended when any democratic leader seeks spiritual guidance in regard crafting, executing, and enforcing the law.
My point is a special envoy from a religious group who claims tax exemption waltzed into the speaker of the house's office with the intent to influence the creation of law.
BULL and SHIT.
Oh mans, I am going to hear so much about this from family in regards to "hooray, church influence" over Thanksgiving, and it's going to be impossible for me not to talk about how there needs to be a separation of church and state. I'm going to pack a flask now so I don't forget it...
The American College of Catholic Bishops and their flunkies are some of the main reasons that, while still adhering to various tenets of Catholicism, I no longer go to church. They're a bunch of radical theocrats who subtly encourage the hybridization of church and state -- even my obnoxious hardliner of a Catholic religion teacher in my senior year of high school was quick to point out that the American Catholic Church, in relation to its Vatican counterpart, is almost a schismatic element, it is so vastly removed in action and ideology.
They can say they represent Catholics in the district, but if you want to go meddling in politics, pay some taxes bitches.
501(c)(3), my friend.
Honestly, though, it is no different than listening to any other special interest. I hope the constituents are as outraged as I am. I think outrage is justified in this matter; however, it is legal for the time being.
That's scary. You do understand that homeless advocates, environmental advocates, poverty advocates, minority adovcates, etc are all special interest groups. I understand a complaint that the playing field is not level, by a blanket disgust at the concept of a special interest group lobbying is downright scary. You should be teaching people that their voice can (and should) be heard - no matter what that voice is.
No, religious interests lobbying bothers me. Also, do you note that I edited my post before you posted because I thought the wording was too extreme? Please pay attention, Kilarney.
loltsundere, you still haven't justified why a religion should NOT have freedom of speech. Under this view, government is prohibiting the free exercise of religion.
I believe, and correct me if I am wrong here, that her issue is that the church's speech seems to have greater value than other organizations that would seek such an audience and wields an undue influence on law makers. While there is nothing expressly illegal about it, it does blur an ethical line.
Thank you, Kate. It's not illegal, no, but the principle bothers me. It bothers me whenever the church swings its influence around a political issue. They know how much influence they have, and they know how capable they are of influencing the law by doing this. To me that goes against the very idea of a "wall" between church and state.
....
How many entries ago did I say: "Hypocrisy, thy name is loltsundere."
How many entries ago did I call you on your childish arrogance and tell you that you won't beget an ounce of respect for it? Since I first witnessed you debating here you have done nothing to deserve my respect, and you do not automatically have it by merit of your presence. It is not up to me to remove your head from your ass, and then teach you how to post in a political debate. If there had been less of this in the first place:
Told you. And Hungry Joe thought I was just Chicken Little. Kilarney +1.
Posted By: KilarneyWhen it comes to ignoring my advice I am reminded of a saying. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Don't get fooled again by ignoring my astute predictions.
Posted By: KilarneyJoe, you were pwnd huge. It was worth having to stay late at work to engage in this distraction.
Posted By: KilarneyIt will be so fun to refer to this thread later. So many chickens counted and so few hatched. Please - keep talking. Seriously.
Posted By: KilarneyIf I'm playing D&D; as a troll, and you have food, I know I'm going to get fed.
You wouldn't even have to deal with the lack of respect that you face on this forum.
Thank you, Kate. It's not illegal, no, but the principle bothers me. It bothers me whenever the church swings its influence around a political issue.
It bothers you that our democracy is working? Why should you get to choose who has freedom of speech? The whole point of a democracy is that everyone gets a voice. Just because you may not agree with them does not mean that you should trample over the Constitution. They've got a right of free speech. I may not agree with a lot of groups that lobby Congress, but I am not "bothered" at all by their right to do so. With religious interests, you have even greater protection since Congress is limited by the First Amendment. Ironically, you've got the least to lose, thanks to the First Amendment, and you're complaining the loudest.
Why should you get to choose who has freedom of speech?
I don't know Kilarney - why does the church/religious right get to decide whether or not I can be civilly married? Because of Democracy... or rather, the abuse of Democracy allowing the bigoted majority to decide on minority rights. It doesn't bother me that "our Democracy is working". It bothers me when it's used to unfair gains. "Everyone gets a voice" sounds great and all, but the system isn't flawless and it can be abused. The church has a louder voice than many an individual or lobbyist group. Everyone gets a voice, but not every voice is heard. The church knows its voice will be heard.
Please stop making assumptions about what I am saying. I'm being very straightforward. I do not think that the church's right to free speech should be taken away, and it seems as if you are skewing my statements to make your argument against me seem more valid. I do not like the church's involvement in state affairs, period. The church can influence voters to their hearts' content - hell, they did just that in every ballot initiative that has come against gay marriage - an issue very important to me - to crippling results. Do I think that they SHOULD keep their noses out of state affairs and let voters or politicians make up their own minds without having to consider religion on every single issue, including those where it really has no place? Yes. Do I think that they CAN'T? No.
And it seems you haven't been paying full attention, but... no. I'm not complaining the loudest.
I don't know Kilarney - why does the church/religious right get to decide whether or not I can be civilly married?
They don't get to decide. Lawmakers get to decide. And the momentum is on the side of gay marriage. Democracy may be slow, but it appears to be working in your favor. Having said that, the issue should be for the courts, and not the voting public. Minority rights should not be left solely to the vote of a majority.
The church has a louder voice than many an individual or lobbyist group. Everyone gets a voice, but not every voice is heard. The church knows its voice will be heard.
As I stated earlier, I understand frustration that certain groups enjoy greater access. The answer, however, is not to criticize the underlying right.
I do not think that the church's right to free speech should be taken away,
I do not like the church's involvement in state affairs, period.
These statements are inconsistent. If they have a right to free speech, they can speak to whomever they choose.
Kilarney doesn't pay a lot of attention to anyone who is not Kilarney . . . and sometimes the voices he hears in his head.
Typical HungryJoe factless ad hominem insertion. Troll fed. Of the scores of facts and opinions I've asserted you've responded to none. That's because they are correct. So the only hope you have is for a petty snipe. You crack me up. So desperate!
Kilarney doesn't pay a lot of attention to anyone who is not Kilarney . . . and sometimes the voices he hears in his head.
Typical HungryJoe factless ad hominem insertion. Troll fed.
Actually, you've provided a lot of factual evidence of this over the last few days, ad-hominem boy. All anyone has to do is read your posts to see what an ass you are.
It's not just me, Kilarney. Most everyone here thinks you're an ass and has commented on their opinion that you are an ass. That is a fact. Again, all one has to do is look over the posts for the last few day.
Not so. Any sensible person would tell you that they believe hate speech organizations should not play any role in state affairs, but that they should have free speech like everyone else because that's what the first amendment guarantees, and exceptions to that guarantee endanger everyone's freedom. In the words of a good friend of mine, loltsundere is more or less saying, "Have your opinions, but don't think that we care or want to hear about them."
Comments
1
2
3
I will look up peer reviewed articles when not at work.
What I said: However, Funfetus is right - there is no evidence between a correlation between such pledges and abstinence-only education.
...
And Kilarney, if you honestly want an intelligent response to any post you make,
STOP BEING AN ASSHOLE.
This crap: Before you talk about the First Amendment, take the time to read it.(Woops... I bet you forgot that part.)Does not garner any respect, and you will get naught but further insult.
The First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ." The Church has a right to free speech. They can say what they want, and to whom they want. (assuming they comply with tax laws) Congress, on the other hand, can't pass a law in violation of the First Amendment.WOW. What a challenge that was.
(PS, the quote I posted was discussing the INTENT of the First Amendment, not the literature of the Amendment itself, you pompous asswad.)
While there is nothing expressly illegal about it, it does blur an ethical line.
At the same time, I am equally offended when any democratic leader seeks spiritual guidance in regard crafting, executing, and enforcing the law.
The American College of Catholic Bishops and their flunkies are some of the main reasons that, while still adhering to various tenets of Catholicism, I no longer go to church. They're a bunch of radical theocrats who subtly encourage the hybridization of church and state -- even my obnoxious hardliner of a Catholic religion teacher in my senior year of high school was quick to point out that the American Catholic Church, in relation to its Vatican counterpart, is almost a schismatic element, it is so vastly removed in action and ideology.
That's scary. You do understand that homeless advocates, environmental advocates, poverty advocates, minority adovcates, etc are all special interest groups. I understand a complaint that the playing field is not level, by a blanket disgust at the concept of a special interest group lobbying is downright scary. You should be teaching people that their voice can (and should) be heard - no matter what that voice is.
.... How many entries ago did I call you on your childish arrogance and tell you that you won't beget an ounce of respect for it? Since I first witnessed you debating here you have done nothing to deserve my respect, and you do not automatically have it by merit of your presence. It is not up to me to remove your head from your ass, and then teach you how to post in a political debate. If there had been less of this in the first place:You wouldn't even have to deal with the lack of respect that you face on this forum.
Please stop making assumptions about what I am saying. I'm being very straightforward. I do not think that the church's right to free speech should be taken away, and it seems as if you are skewing my statements to make your argument against me seem more valid. I do not like the church's involvement in state affairs, period. The church can influence voters to their hearts' content - hell, they did just that in every ballot initiative that has come against gay marriage - an issue very important to me - to crippling results. Do I think that they SHOULD keep their noses out of state affairs and let voters or politicians make up their own minds without having to consider religion on every single issue, including those where it really has no place? Yes. Do I think that they CAN'T? No.
And it seems you haven't been paying full attention, but... no. I'm not complaining the loudest.
It's not just me, Kilarney. Most everyone here thinks you're an ass and has commented on their opinion that you are an ass. That is a fact. Again, all one has to do is look over the posts for the last few day.