Disturbing news on so many levels

[Ozone]

I hated middle school as well, and I was kinda shy until sometime in Sophomore year in high school, but no one really messed with me because word traveled quickly that I was able to handle myself well in a fight.

Religion as a whole has some good ideas like don't kill, don't steal, live a good life, etc. but the dogma and supernatural aspects just kill it for me, like for instance, the Pope being infallible is complete and total bull. Don't know why I'm talking about my views on religion, but, meh.

It's really important to stress to kids that there are real consequences with having sex, and it's just not done today. As I've said before, sex saturates the society and culture of the United States, mix that with parents who barely parent and you have ten year olds having sex at recess. Then the teenage invincibility syndrome kicks in, you know, it's the same one most kids have when they are able to drive a car for the first time, and then -Dragon Diamond- happens. It doesn't just go to sex either, I've seen kids as young as fourteen drinking alcohol and smoking pot and cigarettes. It really has gotten ridiculous, I mean, half of my classmates smoked like chimneys by the time we were Freshmen in high school.

[DragonmasterAndy]

Yeah, the invincibility thing goes with a lot of things, not just sex. The drinking thing is also done because it's said to be "wrong".


I feel that drinking is okay on some level. I drink sometimes, but I never do it with the purpose of getting trashed. It's a very casual thing for me to do, and I feel that I'm pretty responsible with it, in comparison to my friends. Those guys get wasted every weekend and have no idea the toll it's taking on them, really.

[exigence]

Inever really had much trouble in middle school, i just stuck with the same friends from elementery school (our middle school combined 3 elementry schools). It wasnt until high school that i started hanging out with new people i notice things like drinking and weed and cigaretts and sex. i partyed with my friends and i think the media makes these things out to be worse than they are. it only takes a few idots to spoil it for everyone, like when kids get stoned and drunk then decide to go for a ride in the car yeah good idea.

[JWL]

I don't think JWL was insinuating anyone here believes that, but was just pointing out what Christians believe on the matter. I was thinking of posting something similiar. And I think it's relevant, since I know it's how I view the topic.

That is correct. I just wanted to put that out there, since it's something which should be said more often. Regardless of denomination, I think that most Christians would agree with what I said, and yet it's somehow taboo to say it.

Religion as a whole has some good ideas like don't kill, don't steal, live a good life, etc. but the dogma and supernatural aspects just kill it for me, like for instance, the Pope being infallible is complete and total bull.

Religious misunderstandings can be very dangerous as well. Being a Catholic Christian, I can tell you that we do not now nor have we ever argued that our Pope is infallible. "Papal infallibility" refers to our belief that when the Pope and Magisterium (bishops) make an official statement related to faith, morals and theology, that statement is not negotiable among Catholics. Such statements are rare and are always in line with Scripture and Catholic Tradition. The Pope is by no means infallible; if he was, he wouldn't need to go to Confession (which he does).

[Kizyr]

And this is a good opportunity for me to point out Christian theology on sexuality. Ask most folks the question, "Do Christians think that sex is good or bad?", and the answer you'll get is "Christians?! They think it's bad, of course!"

That is, however, the exact opposite of Christian theology. Christians think that sex is sacred and therefore should only be between a husband and his wife. It is the physical representation of the vows of unity spoken during a wedding ceremony. Christians don't think that sex is bad; Christians think that sex is good and they object to how it has been cheapened by society.

Unfortunately, anyone who speaks in this manner in modern times is labelled a religious fanatic. We can thank the 'sexual revolution' for that.

Ok, you pretty much articulated verbatim what I think. Well, with the obvious difference of talking about Islam as opposed to Christianity.

But yes, in Islam, sex is viewed as a gift, when it's between husband and wife. And, I've always had very strong views against premarital sex, and alcohol and drug consumption for that matter (and gambling, but I don't want to stray too far from the subject). I object to two things, both of which you've articulated.... how sex is cheapened now, and how it's somehow "wrong" to avoid premarital sex. Hell I don't even get preachy about it, or even judge others on that basis, but somehow I'm still in the wrong--or a religious fanatic, or a fundamentalist, or whatever.

Though I do have to say, I'm still a pragmatist. In high school when we were teaching the younger classes about HIV/AIDS prevention, we all still discussed condom usage. But that's more because I don't believe it sends a conflicting message, and not because I don't have reservations about premarital sex. KF

[Sonic#]

First, what the fifth graders did... is terrible, and what they have learned is the drudge at the bottom of the gutter as far as sexuality goes. It has never been explained to them, perhaps... just shown, referred to... yeah.

Now, I feel like I have to speak in defense of nonmarital sex. I see nothing wrong wtih the Christian or Islamic treatment of sex as being a gift (I like that word too) within a marriage. Anyone who pressures you otherwise is wrong to do so.

I think that sex outside of marriage is fine, as long as:
(a) It's in a long-term relationship/partnership that would result in marriage, if they were legally/financially able or receptive to the idea of marriage.
(b) It's between two people that already know and trust one another, and decide to.

I don't think sex is cheapened under those two conditions, but simply takes a different (but perhaps similar) currency and meaning for the people involved. I think it's cheapened when it becomes, in an explicit form, public and visible, rather than private and intimate. I might simply frown if it is still consensual, but I won't explicitly object unless it is not a choice, which is a terrible act.

That is correct. I just wanted to put that out there, since it's something which should be said more often. Regardless of denomination, I think that most Christians would agree with what I said, and yet it's somehow taboo to say it.

Yes. When people react so negatively to your opinion, perhaps it is because there are certain small groups that would deny access to birth control and important parts of sex education, and the smaller becomes an (incorrect) representation for the larger. I am sorry for that.

[JWL]

Yes. When people react so negatively to your opinion, perhaps it is because there are certain small groups that would deny access to birth control and important parts of sex education, and the smaller becomes an (incorrect) representation for the larger. I am sorry for that.

And even those folks are usually misrepresented. Often we hear about people attempting to "ban" birth control, when they're actually arguing against taxpayer funded birth control or other government regulation. I don't believe I've ever heard anyone say that they want a ban on birth control.

For example, say a Catholic hospital doesn't want to dispense birth control since it considers it to be immoral. Then along comes government and it says that the hospital must provide birth control. The hospital objects, obviously, and then the representation in the media is that the "extremists" who run the hospital are trying to "deny access" to "vital medical services", or something along those lines. If I had a dime for every time normal Catholic orthodoxy was called "extreme" by the media, I would be very rich.

I also have no problem with "comprehensive" sex education in public schools, as long as those programs are voluntary, or at least students have the option to opt out of them. I believe that parents have the right to educate their own children on such issues. I have to admit that I find it very trying when, for instance, the spread of HIV is blamed on the Catholic Church which is against birth control. This argument ignores that the Catholic Church is also against pre-marital sex and adultery, and that most Catholics are far more likely to ignore Church law on birth control than on just about anything else.

[ilovemyguitar]

Now, I don't want to belittle anyone's beliefs or anything, but I have a real problem with being told that something that two consenting adults choose to do, something which in no way effects anyone else, is wrong.

[JWL]

Now, I don't want to belittle anyone's beliefs or anything, but I have a real problem with being told that something that two consenting adults choose to do, something which in no way effects anyone else, is wrong.

By that measure, taken to its logical conclusion, adultery is not wrong. Suicide and euthanasia are not wrong. Self-mutilation is not wrong.

But certainly you meant that sex between two consenting adults isn't wrong when it doesn't affect anyone besides those two. This is operating under the assumption that the family and friends of the involved parties would not be affected, and that no children would be affected. Such cases are rare, but they do exist. Yet even in those cases, the two are affected.

Not to belittle anyone's beliefs, but in modern society, we are often extremely self-centered. We are concerned only about ourselves, thinking that as long as we don't do something that bothers anyone else, then everybody else can just leave us alone and everything will be fine. I don't believe that human beings exist just to look out for themselves, but also to look out for others.

[ilovemyguitar]

By that measure, taken to its logical conclusion, adultery is not wrong. Suicide and euthanasia are not wrong. Self-mutilation is not wrong.

But certainly you meant that sex between two consenting adults isn't wrong when it doesn't affect anyone besides those two. This is operating under the assumption that the family and friends of the involved parties would not be affected, and that no children would be affected. Such cases are rare, but they do exist. Yet even in those cases, the two are affected.

Adultery effects other people. Euthanasia is one person hurting another person, and suicide and self-mutilation are blatant cases of a person hurting one's self.

Two people choosing to have sex are not hurting themselves or anyone else, especially in today's world of condoms and birth control. If they choose to forgo these options, then yes, they're being irresponsible and they could have unfortunate repercussions. But sex in and of itself is not harmful. You seem to be using hypothetical situations that would possibly involve other people (like the presence of children in the equation) to argue in favor of an all-encompassing right/wrong judgment.

I suppose you could made an argument that the parties involved are hurting themselves psychologically, but that's extremely debatable and even if they are it's an extremely far cry from anything like suicide or self-mutilation.

I'm not saying everybody should run around having casual sex with strangers. Hell, I wouldn't even dream of doing this. But I'd also never dream of telling another person that their judgment calls are wrong when they don't effect anyone except themselves.

[Sonic#]

And even those folks are usually misrepresented. Often we hear about people attempting to "ban" birth control, when they're actually arguing against taxpayer funded birth control or other government regulation. I don't believe I've ever heard anyone say that they want a ban on birth control.

There are several issues I was alluding to, and I'll bring up a couple.

This one touches on what you ask. Do pharmacists have the right to refuse to distribute hormonal birth control based on a personal conviction or belief, protected by conscience clauses passed in certain states? To say yes is to deny an important form of control for many women who live in areas where such a belief would be predominant. To say no is to have to face an uncomfortable realization of bias in a group we're supposed to implicitly trust, and try to find a way that the doctor's objectivity and their beliefs can be separated. I don't have any problem with the Catholic hospital in your example refusing to dispense what it does not believe in, as long as there is ready access elsewhere.

Then (connecting to this) there is the issue of incidental birth control, used after unprotected sex. It starts to stray into the direction of pro-life v. pro-choice arguments for some. Though emergency contraception is supposed to be used before implantation, some consider the point of fertilization the point where the life should be sacred. As well, RU-486 can be used after implantation as well, contributing to the abortion argument.

I have heard on a couple of occasions women (and men) speak against all birth control. Do they want to ban it? I didn't get around to asking that, but they were certainly trying to convert me. But these weren't mainstream people by any means, and it would be wrong to mistake them for anyone else.

And (associated with these people, on one of those occasions) there is this group that comes on campus once a semester and, with large untasteful posters conflates abortion and genocide. They are wrong in several of their facts, but I have a problem with the simple assigning of the two together. It's not an apt comparison.

[JWL]

Adultery effects other people.

Most of the time our actions affect other people in one way or another, even if we pretend that they don't.

Euthanasia is one person hurting another person, and suicide and self-mutilation are blatant cases of a person hurting one's self.

Actually, no, they are examples of consentual adult activity. Just because you and your personal morality view them as harmful doesn't mean that somebody else does. Surely you wouldn't attempt to force your moral judgements on others.

Two people choosing to have sex are not hurting themselves or anyone else, especially in today's world of condoms and birth control.

Sure, providing:

-Their families are not affected
-Their friends are not affected
-Their future relationships are not affected
-The powerful emotions related with the act don't affect them
-The birth control method doesn't fail

If they choose to forgo these options, then yes, they're being irresponsible and they could have unfortunate repercussions. But sex in and of itself is not harmful. You seem to be using hypothetical situations that would possibly involve other people (like the presence of children in the equation) to argue in favor of an all-encompassing right/wrong judgment.

And you seem to be arguing that human beings are biological robots who have complete mastery of their actions and their emotions.

I suppose you could made an argument that the parties involved are hurting themselves psychologically, but that's extremely debatable and even if they are it's an extremely far cry from anything like suicide or self-mutilation.

Yes, of course, and it's exactly that kind of thinking which eventually leads to fifth graders having sex in the classroom, to get back to the original topic.

I'm not saying everybody should run around having casual sex with strangers. Hell, I wouldn't even dream of doing this. But I'd also never dream of telling another person that their judgment calls are wrong when they don't effect anyone except themselves.

Right; it's as I said. Some of us have the philosophy that human beings are supposed to help each other, and others have the philosophy of "Every man for himself" or "Just leave me alone". I get it.

There are several issues I was alluding to, and I'll bring up a couple.

This one touches on what you ask. Do pharmacists have the right to refuse to distribute hormonal birth control based on a personal conviction or belief, protected by conscience clauses passed in certain states? To say yes is to deny an important form of control for many women who live in areas where such a belief would be predominant. To say no is to have to face an uncomfortable realization of bias in a group we're supposed to implicitly trust, and try to find a way that the doctor's objectivity and their beliefs can be separated. I don't have any problem with the Catholic hospital in your example refusing to dispense what it does not believe in, as long as there is ready access elsewhere.

How ironic that you would choose such an example, considering that that is exactly why I left the Pharmacy profession. Perhaps my story will show you that your nonsense about birth control drugs not being available because there are one or two Catholic Pharmacists in a city where you have a drug store on every corner actually amounts to mindless religious discrimination which has REAL consequences on people's lives, instead of the bogus, made up consequences of women supposedly not being able to get birth control.

When I decided to study the Pharmacy profession, I admit I was an ignorant teenager. I didn't truly understand that as a Pharmacist, I would be giving out birth control pills and even outright abortifacients every day for the rest of my life. The more I came to terms with this reality, the more I knew I could not go through with it. And so I am not in the medical profession. I am not helping people, and thanks to the Pharmacist shortage, that probably means that several people have had to wait longer for medication or go without it. See how actions which we think only affect ourselves can really affect other people, too, because we don't live isolated in a bubble?

I am not some bizarre exception, either. This anti-religious discrimination - and that's what it is, anything else is a lie - is affecting thousands of people, and not just in the medical profession. More and more, people of faith are being forced out of the business of helping people by anti-religious bigots, and so people are going unhelped.

So feel free to repeat the arguments of bigots. Note that I am not accusing you of bigotry; rather I am accusing you of being deceived by bigots. But you should learn to recognize that such bigotry is having a dramatic, terrible affect on the world.

[ilovemyguitar]

Most of the time our actions affect other people in one way or another, even if we pretend that they don't.

But not always.

Sure, providing:

-Their families are not affected
-Their friends are not affected
-Their future relationships are not affected
-The powerful emotions related with the act don't affect them
-The birth control method doesn't fail

Hypothetical. Purely hypothetical. These situations are not issues every time people have premarital sex. They could, if people are irresponsible and/or irrational, but not everybody who engages in premarital sex is.

And you seem to be arguing that human beings are biological robots who have complete mastery of their actions and their emotions.

You seem to be arguing that everyone is irrational, and that everyone who engages in premarital sex is unhinged somehow. It's possible to have premarital sex in a responsible manner (wrap it up, be honest and forthright about your sexual history, etc).

I suppose you could made an argument that the parties involved are hurting themselves psychologically, but that's extremely debatable and even if they are it's an extremely far cry from anything like suicide or self-mutilation.

Yes, of course, and it's exactly that kind of thinking which eventually leads to fifth graders having sex in the classroom, to get back to the original topic.

No, it doesn't. Those kids were not rational adults, and they obviously had no idea what the consequences of their actions would be. A responsible, rational adult does know the consequences of their actions. To say that two unmarried people choosing to have sex in a responsible manner causes children to have a warped sense of sexuality is insane.

Some of us have the philosophy that human beings are supposed to help each other, and others have the philosophy of "Every man for himself" or "Just leave me alone". I get it.

Deciding that the actions of another person are wrong isn't "help." It's judgment. No rational adult needs your "help" in deciding what's right and wrong.

And the likening of premarital sex to self-mutilation or suicide is ridiculous. These are things that are accepted by the entire medical community to be signs of mental instability. Premarital sex is not.

[Ozone]

Most of the time our actions affect other people in one way or another, even if we pretend that they don't.

But not always.

You'd be surprised, really. We effect each other in the smallest ways that can have the largest consequences. Let's say you work at a drive through coffeeshop or something, you don't have to, but let's say you do. Let's say you're in a bad mood because you don't like your job. You act -Dragon Diamond- to a customer, pissing them off. They drive a little too fast while angry and crash into another car, sheerly accidentally, but still, you're the one who pissed them off, you didn't cause them to drive fast, but you certainly didn't help. The questions remaining are why are you working at a coffeeshop, etc? Let's say that the coffeeshop wasn't your first choice of jobs, but someone more qualified took the job you were looking for, and another person decided that they hated the job at the coffeeshop, leaving an opening for you.

See, whether you like it or not, we live in a world were we are directly effected by each other. There's no real way of avoiding it. Even if you live in isolation, your family will probably miss you, and, therefore, you'll still be effecting them. This is basically what most people refer to as fate, but it's not really anything that mystical, it's just cause and consequence.

I'll admit that this is a gross oversimplification, but I had to keep the variables within reason otherwise this post would be huge.

[ilovemyguitar]

Most of the time our actions affect other people in one way or another, even if we pretend that they don't.

But not always.

You'd be surprised, really. We effect each other in the smallest ways that can have the largest consequences. Let's say you work at a drive through coffeeshop or something, you don't have to, but let's say you do. Let's say you're in a bad mood because you don't like your job. You act -Dragon Diamond- to a customer, pissing them off. They drive a little too fast while angry and crash into another car, sheerly accidentally, but still, you're the one who pissed them off, you didn't cause them to drive fast, but you certainly didn't help. The questions remaining are why are you working at a coffeeshop, etc? Let's say that the coffeeshop wasn't your first choice of jobs, but someone more qualified took the job you were looking for, and another person decided that they hated the job at the coffeeshop, leaving an opening for you.

See, whether you like it or not, we live in a world were we are directly effected by each other. There's no real way of avoiding it. Even if you live in isolation, your family will probably miss you, and, therefore, you'll still be effecting them. This is basically what most people refer to as fate, but it's not really anything that mystical, it's just cause and consequence.

I'll admit that this is a gross oversimplification, but I had to keep the variables within reason otherwise this post would be huge.

By that logic, we should all board ourselves up in our homes and never do anything, especially not interact with anyone. That way we'll never cause something bad to happen to anyone.

[DragonmasterAndy]

People that allow others to affect what they do are not being true to themselves entirely, and at that point in time are weak. We are all guilty of this, but it is NOT right. We can't ever pass blame on someone else just because we decided to do something stupid. Sure, they triggered the anger, but that's because we've ALLOWED them to get to us.

[Ozone]

Most of the time our actions affect other people in one way or another, even if we pretend that they don't.

But not always.

You'd be surprised, really. We effect each other in the smallest ways that can have the largest consequences. Let's say you work at a drive through coffeeshop or something, you don't have to, but let's say you do. Let's say you're in a bad mood because you don't like your job. You act -Dragon Diamond- to a customer, pissing them off. They drive a little too fast while angry and crash into another car, sheerly accidentally, but still, you're the one who pissed them off, you didn't cause them to drive fast, but you certainly didn't help. The questions remaining are why are you working at a coffeeshop, etc? Let's say that the coffeeshop wasn't your first choice of jobs, but someone more qualified took the job you were looking for, and another person decided that they hated the job at the coffeeshop, leaving an opening for you.

See, whether you like it or not, we live in a world were we are directly effected by each other. There's no real way of avoiding it. Even if you live in isolation, your family will probably miss you, and, therefore, you'll still be effecting them. This is basically what most people refer to as fate, but it's not really anything that mystical, it's just cause and consequence.

I'll admit that this is a gross oversimplification, but I had to keep the variables within reason otherwise this post would be huge.

By that logic, we should all board ourselves up in our homes and never do anything, especially not interact with anyone. That way we'll never cause something bad to happen to anyone.

No, it's just called accepting the facts. I chose to pick a way that we could influence other people in a bad way because it makes a greater impact. You could make the person smile and put them in a great mood, which leads them to have a great day. We all influence each other, just live and deal with it. Be smart in your decisions.

I also agree with Andy, it's not right, and we can't blame the other person for pissing us off, well, not entirely, but telling a police officer that you did something because some coffeeshop tool pissed you off definitely won't fly, nor should it. But it also works in actions, because most stupid decisions are ones that are made impulsively or without much thought, like driving drunk, which often ends up impacting someone in a negative fashion whether you intended it to or not. This argument works for just about any action that you choose to take.

I'm really just asking people to take responsibility for themselves, because when you do, I know it's cliche, but, the world will be a lot nicer. Negligence makes you look like a fool.

[DragonmasterAndy]

That's exactly my point. You need to take responsibility for your own actions, no matter what the reason is. You're ultimately the one that made the decision(s) and so it's your fault if there are negative consequences.

[JWL]

The disagreement in this thread can be summed up by the term "culture clash". In America, the two main cultures are the Judeo-Christian traditional culture and the secularist permissive culture. Seeing as how these two cultures can never come to terms with each other, it is extremely unlikely that we can ever do anything except agree to disagree.

It is good that I am able to give voice to the Judeo-Christian traditional culture, which so often goes without a voice. People should be aware of it - the REAL traditional culture, that is, not the caricatures of it in the media.

And just to make something else clear, no, I don't appreciate the medical profession - which is supposed to be a profession of healing - being abused for the sake of dispensing birth control and abortifacients. But if the businesses which employ pharmacists and/or doctors want to fire them for refusing to provide birth control or for refusing to take part in an abortion, fine. What I object to is the government coming in and telling those doctors and pharmacists that they must provide contraception and abortion services or else face punishment. That is disgusting and is a clear violation of the principle of separation of church and state.

[Sonic#]

How ironic that you would choose such an example, considering that that is exactly why I left the Pharmacy profession. Perhaps my story will show you that your nonsense about birth control drugs not being available because there are one or two Catholic Pharmacists in a city where you have a drug store on every corner actually amounts to mindless religious discrimination which has REAL consequences on people's lives, instead of the bogus, made up consequences of women supposedly not being able to get birth control.

When I decided to study the Pharmacy profession, I admit I was an ignorant teenager. I didn't truly understand that as a Pharmacist, I would be giving out birth control pills and even outright abortifacients every day for the rest of my life. The more I came to terms with this reality, the more I knew I could not go through with it. And so I am not in the medical profession. I am not helping people, and thanks to the Pharmacist shortage, that probably means that several people have had to wait longer for medication or go without it. See how actions which we think only affect ourselves can really affect other people, too, because we don't live isolated in a bubble?

I am not some bizarre exception, either. This anti-religious discrimination - and that's what it is, anything else is a lie - is affecting thousands of people, and not just in the medical profession. More and more, people of faith are being forced out of the business of helping people by anti-religious bigots, and so people are going unhelped.

So feel free to repeat the arguments of bigots. Note that I am not accusing you of bigotry; rather I am accusing you of being deceived by bigots. But you should learn to recognize that such bigotry is having a dramatic, terrible affect on the world.

I don't think that the concern they have is a bigoted one. For one, not everyone lives in a city, or close to one large enough to have a drug store on every corner. We live in a society where birth control and family management are getting increasingly important, and when access to them is denied, and there isn't another convenient place, that's when there's a concern. And I'm not suggesting that forcing pharmacists to comply is the solution at all. I don't know the answer. I only see valid concerns on both sides.

Anti-religious discrimination... yes, it's there. So is pro-religious discrimination. (Oh, and yes, it exists.) There are bigots on every side, and I'm sorry that they made you change your profession.

I wish to ask, because I don't understand it at all, and it's one reason why I might be going in circles. Why do you consider birth control immoral? Or, what are reasons for considering it immoral?