[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Pat, are you against contraceptive use?
What is your personal opinion?
Again, not asking whether Obama should force Catholics to offer these services.[/quote]
Depends on the form, but personally no I am not. I speak only for myself.[/quote]
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Because they do. Or, they don’t.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Pat, are you against contraceptive use?
What is your personal opinion?
Again, not asking whether Obama should force Catholics to offer these services.[/quote]
Depends on the form, but personally no I am not. I speak only for myself.[/quote]
[/quote]
I’m sure he knows he’s outside of communion with the Church, then.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Pat, are you against contraceptive use?
What is your personal opinion?
Again, not asking whether Obama should force Catholics to offer these services.[/quote]
Depends on the form, but personally no I am not. I speak only for myself.[/quote]
[/quote]
I’m sure he knows he’s outside of communion with the Church, then.
[/quote]
I can’t imagine most Catholics follow the no contraception rule in 2012
[quote]therajraj wrote:
For a second I thought perhaps you had a view that didn’t align with the Catholic Church.
[/quote]
Say that again, and we are not friends!
[quote]therajraj wrote:
I can’t imagine most Catholics follow the no contraception rule in 2012
[/quote]
Doesn’t matter if they do or don’t.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
For a second I thought perhaps you had a view that didn’t align with the Catholic Church.
[/quote]
Say that again, and we are not friends!
[/quote]
hehe.
You’re the first Catholic I’ve talk to who was adamantly against birth control.
Most Canadian Christians are Catholics.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
I can’t imagine most Catholics follow the no contraception rule in 2012
[/quote]
Doesn’t matter if they do or don’t.
[/quote]
Sure, I know the Catholic Church’s policies aren’t up for vote.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
I can’t imagine most Catholics follow the no contraception rule in 2012
[/quote]
Doesn’t matter if they do or don’t.
[/quote]
Sure, I know the Catholic Church’s policies aren’t up for vote.
[/quote]
[quote]Sloth wrote:
What’s funny is that people want Catholic organizations that rescue people from sexual slavery to lose any public funding…
[/quote]
What’s pathetic is that an organization (the catholic church) jam packed with child rapists gets any public funding at all.
[quote]ranengin wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
What’s funny is that people want Catholic organizations that rescue people from sexual slavery to lose any public funding…
[/quote]
What’s pathetic is that an organization (the catholic church) jam packed with child rapists gets any public funding at all.
[/quote]
Jam packed you say? By your standard we should shut down public schooling.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/24/opinion/main1933687.shtml
John Karr isn’t a priest. He’s a teacher.
Most teachers are dedicated, hard-working people who wouldn’t dream of hurting a child. The same is true of priests.
If the suspect in the 1996 murder of JonBenet Ramsey were a priest, there would be a fresh outcry about a decades-long cover-up in the Catholic Church. Commentators from Left and Right would rightly unite in decrying the crisis and the entrenched complacency that led to it. Catholic pundits would take a special relish in pointing out that they agree: The Church had better get its act together.
Any institution that has allowed children to be harmed by predators deserves to be taken to task for it. No institution should get a pass. And no profession should get a pass. Not preachers, not priests â?? not even teachers.
Especially not teachers. And yet â?¦
Consider the statistics: In accordance with a requirement of President Bush’s No Child Left Behind Act, in 2002 the Department of Education carried out a study of sexual abuse in the school system.
Hofstra University researcher Charol Shakeshaft looked into the problem, and the first thing that came to her mind when Education Week reported on the study were the daily headlines about the Catholic Church.
“[T]hink the Catholic Church has a problem?” she said. “The physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests.”
"[E]xperts who study child abuse say they see little reason to conclude that sexual abuse is mostly a Catholic issue. 'We don't see the Catholic Church as a hotbed of this or a place that has a bigger problem than anyone else,' said Ernie Allen, president of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children ?
"Since the mid-1980s, insurance companies have offered sexual misconduct coverage as a rider on liability insurance, and their own studies indicate that Catholic churches are not higher risk than other congregations ? It's been that way for decades."
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/04/07/mean-men.html
But hey, I’m down with defunding public schools, so don’t let me stand in your way.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]ranengin wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
What’s funny is that people want Catholic organizations that rescue people from sexual slavery to lose any public funding…
[/quote]
What’s pathetic is that an organization (the catholic church) jam packed with child rapists gets any public funding at all.
[/quote]
Jam packed you say? By your standard we should shut down public schooling.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/24/opinion/main1933687.shtml
John Karr isn’t a priest. He’s a teacher.
Most teachers are dedicated, hard-working people who wouldn’t dream of hurting a child. The same is true of priests.
If the suspect in the 1996 murder of JonBenet Ramsey were a priest, there would be a fresh outcry about a decades-long cover-up in the Catholic Church. Commentators from Left and Right would rightly unite in decrying the crisis and the entrenched complacency that led to it. Catholic pundits would take a special relish in pointing out that they agree: The Church had better get its act together.
Any institution that has allowed children to be harmed by predators deserves to be taken to task for it. No institution should get a pass. And no profession should get a pass. Not preachers, not priests â?? not even teachers.
Especially not teachers. And yet â?¦
Consider the statistics: In accordance with a requirement of President Bush’s No Child Left Behind Act, in 2002 the Department of Education carried out a study of sexual abuse in the school system.
Hofstra University researcher Charol Shakeshaft looked into the problem, and the first thing that came to her mind when Education Week reported on the study were the daily headlines about the Catholic Church.
“[T]hink the Catholic Church has a problem?” she said. “The physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests.”[/quote]
Fair enough, let’s not throw the baby out with the dirty bath water.
But we could do the same for PP right? Public funds for the good parts of PP.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
…
Would it be fair to say that #1 above smacks of “temporal provincialism”?
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Thinking its morally wrong requires no proof. There is no proof of any moral judgments. Forcing people to pay for things they find morally wrong is also morally wrong by the way.[/quote]
But what requires proof is saying that it has neural repercussions on children.[/quote]
True, but the general claim that it’s morally wrong to expose 10 year olds to explicit sexual material doesn’t.[/quote]
If he wants to argue teaching sex education at 10 years old is too early, that’s reasonable to me and can be looked at. I can see that, maybe it is too young.
But he’s equating pornography to sexual health material and thus trying to assert sexual health material has neural repercussions.
[/quote]
Several of the studies were on sexually explicit material and the general normalization of sex to young people.
Additionally, I know for a fact that there is little difference between a naked woman in a playboy and a naked woman in a text book in the mind of a young boy.[/quote]
I reject the idea that sexual health material should be considered on par with pornography.
If sex education was truly damaging kids, sloth would be able to present a study that clearly mentioned sex health material. He can’t. Guess why?[/quote]
If rat poison served up in a green-and-orange-striped container were harmful to rats, then Sloth should be able to present a study that clearly mentioned the green-and-orange-striped container.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Here’s a supported position. When adults acted more like intelligent, self restraining actors, who’d beat the snot out of any person approaching their children with such material, instead of addiction-justifying, weak willed, public exhibitionists of deviancy, their children didn’t need to look at pictures of other children bending over to fondle themselves in a handheld mirror. Now you get them primded, throw them some contraception, and head to the bar for your own hook-ups. Progress? Get bent.[/quote]
Don’t overlook the importance of long-term social conditioning and mass-miseducation. I am sure there are a lot of people who are well-behaved singles or solidly-faithful-married folk who think this stuff is just fine, or possibly just in need of a little toning down and upward-adjustment of age brackets.
[quote]NealRaymond2 wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Thinking its morally wrong requires no proof. There is no proof of any moral judgments. Forcing people to pay for things they find morally wrong is also morally wrong by the way.[/quote]
But what requires proof is saying that it has neural repercussions on children.[/quote]
True, but the general claim that it’s morally wrong to expose 10 year olds to explicit sexual material doesn’t.[/quote]
If he wants to argue teaching sex education at 10 years old is too early, that’s reasonable to me and can be looked at. I can see that, maybe it is too young.
But he’s equating pornography to sexual health material and thus trying to assert sexual health material has neural repercussions.
[/quote]
Several of the studies were on sexually explicit material and the general normalization of sex to young people.
Additionally, I know for a fact that there is little difference between a naked woman in a playboy and a naked woman in a text book in the mind of a young boy.[/quote]
I reject the idea that sexual health material should be considered on par with pornography.
If sex education was truly damaging kids, sloth would be able to present a study that clearly mentioned sex health material. He can’t. Guess why?[/quote]
If rat poison served up in a green-and-orange-striped container were harmful to rats, then Sloth should be able to present a study that clearly mentioned the green-and-orange-striped container.
[/quote]
And I’m asking him to prove it’s actually rat poison. He’s arguing it is, just in a different container which I wholly reject.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]NealRaymond2 wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Thinking its morally wrong requires no proof. There is no proof of any moral judgments. Forcing people to pay for things they find morally wrong is also morally wrong by the way.[/quote]
But what requires proof is saying that it has neural repercussions on children.[/quote]
True, but the general claim that it’s morally wrong to expose 10 year olds to explicit sexual material doesn’t.[/quote]
If he wants to argue teaching sex education at 10 years old is too early, that’s reasonable to me and can be looked at. I can see that, maybe it is too young.
But he’s equating pornography to sexual health material and thus trying to assert sexual health material has neural repercussions.
[/quote]
Several of the studies were on sexually explicit material and the general normalization of sex to young people.
Additionally, I know for a fact that there is little difference between a naked woman in a playboy and a naked woman in a text book in the mind of a young boy.[/quote]
I reject the idea that sexual health material should be considered on par with pornography.
If sex education was truly damaging kids, sloth would be able to present a study that clearly mentioned sex health material. He can’t. Guess why?[/quote]
If rat poison served up in a green-and-orange-striped container were harmful to rats, then Sloth should be able to present a study that clearly mentioned the green-and-orange-striped container.
[/quote]
And I’m asking him to prove it’s actually rat poison. He’s arguing it is, just in a different container which I wholly reject.
[/quote]
Am I to produce a study on this specific material? Even you’ve been wondering if 10 years old might be too young for images of masturbating children and an ejaculating erection. But if that’s not explicit and gratuitous material to you, without a study to tell you as much, I can’t help you.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]NealRaymond2 wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Thinking its morally wrong requires no proof. There is no proof of any moral judgments. Forcing people to pay for things they find morally wrong is also morally wrong by the way.[/quote]
But what requires proof is saying that it has neural repercussions on children.[/quote]
True, but the general claim that it’s morally wrong to expose 10 year olds to explicit sexual material doesn’t.[/quote]
If he wants to argue teaching sex education at 10 years old is too early, that’s reasonable to me and can be looked at. I can see that, maybe it is too young.
But he’s equating pornography to sexual health material and thus trying to assert sexual health material has neural repercussions.
[/quote]
Several of the studies were on sexually explicit material and the general normalization of sex to young people.
Additionally, I know for a fact that there is little difference between a naked woman in a playboy and a naked woman in a text book in the mind of a young boy.[/quote]
I reject the idea that sexual health material should be considered on par with pornography.
If sex education was truly damaging kids, sloth would be able to present a study that clearly mentioned sex health material. He can’t. Guess why?[/quote]
If rat poison served up in a green-and-orange-striped container were harmful to rats, then Sloth should be able to present a study that clearly mentioned the green-and-orange-striped container.
[/quote]
And I’m asking him to prove it’s actually rat poison. He’s arguing it is, just in a different container which I wholly reject.
[/quote]
Am I to produce a study on this specific material? Even you’ve been wondering if 10 years old might be too young for images of masturbating children and an ejaculating erection. But if that’s not explicit and gratuitous material to you, without a study to tell you as much, I can’t help you. [/quote]
Show me a study that says sexual health material has negative neural repercussions on children.
For me It’s not the material itself, it’s the age at which it’s be introduced. I think 12-13 just before high school is much more appropriate.
The material is made to relate to the people it’s being taught to, that’s why it feature children. What exactly to you is appropriate material to you?
What about art? Should people under the age of 18 not be allowed to see Michelangelo’s David? Is that also sexually explicit material? Go to any art museum and you will see plenty of boobs, vaginas and dicks.