"However, religion isn't harmful in and of itself"

I have been going to church for 37 years and I can tell you religion is harmful. It is an oversimplification of decision making and morality. This is right and that is wrong and we have God to back up what we say. This leads to intolerance and an unwillingness to explore different views. Churches and theologians do not rely on scientific advances that help us understand why people do what they do. They know their rights and wrongs. They don't care about hormones, pheromones, cognitive developement, cognitive biases... They already have the answers from God.

A religious upbringing and a religious wife have made my life and sex life more difficult and less happy than it should be. It amazes me that Christians think they get their sexual morality from the Bible. The hypocracy found in the Bible and with Christians is one of the reasons I am no longer a Christian.

Science, logic, reason and respect for others will produce a far better society than religion.


In reply to this comment by thepinky:
Something is wrong with both their religious and sex educations if they think that anal sex is preserving their virginity. It's an oversimplification to say that religion and abstinence-only sex education are to blame. The type of religious parents that shove dos and don'ts down their children's throats, shouting "LOVE JESUS" without bothering to check whether their children have real values, faith, and integrity, are the type of people that are harming their children. The kids aren't truly converted to the teachings of Jesus Christ, and they obviously don't understand them. Perhaps they're addicted to the high that they get when they hear a live band in church. If they're having anal sex, they have a very misguided concept of virginity brought on by parents and church leaders that sensationalize religion to the point that children are confused beyond belief. If this is all that you know of religion, I can understand why you despise it. However, religion isn't harmful in and of itself, but the watering-down and misuse of doctrine is, yes, extraordinarily evil and damaging to both straight and gay people.

Let's not forget that other types of sex education fail, too. However, abstinence-only sex education is bogus. The way I see it, if abstinence isn't being taught in the home, the school will probably be ineffectual, anyway. They might as well do some damage control and educate kids about safe sex and birth control. If parents are teaching abstinence, why should they worry that schools are encouraging teenagers to have sex? Stop expecting the government to fix your problems!

>> ^quantumushroom:
That's rich, being lectured about safe sex by a rep of the demographic responsible for 50% of all AIDS cases.


Responsible? Responsible? Poor choice of words there. And what are you saying anyway, that his arguments are invalid because he's gay? His homosexuality doesn't preclude him from being immensely knowledgeable about heterosexual behaviour or giving advice about that behaviour. That's a poor ad hominem, quantumushroom, shame on you for employing such a glaring logical fallacy.

>> ^quantumushroom:
That's rich, being lectured about safe sex by a rep of the demographic responsible for 50% of all AIDS cases.
Abstinence-only is a failure? Seems relatively new by comparison How many decades has there been "liberal" sex education in government schools? Results: 1 in 4 teen girls has an STD, half of all Black teens have herpes. FAIL.
Liberal "knowledge" always costs a little extra, as it's designed to undermine parental authority and encourage irresponsibility ("Don't worry, SOCIETY will pay for your bastard!") while downplaying real consequences.


You seem to be obsessed with the whole "every man for himself" philosophy of capitalism, but you have missed every single chapter on how this relies on informed citizens to actually work.

The entire concept of making a true free choice relies on our knowledge. Think about it: If you were asked if you with rather swim in water or swim in lava, and you had no idea what water or lava was, there is no point in making a choice in the first place, your "choice" would be no better or worse than after the flip of a coin.

If you really want people to fend for themselves, then why should we deliberately OMIT information in their sex education? Would you rather perhaps, that some official from the government should be sitting around the beds of 16 year-olds telling them not to have sex? Maybe we should have a more theocratic state, and go all-out on this whole "abstinence" idea, and just do like Saudi Arabia or Iran, and demand burka's and veils for all women, and threaten youth with 40 lashes for sex outside marriage?

Seriously, what is your real alternative? Do you like freedom, or do you like tax cuts and religion. You see, you cant have it both ways.

The statistics show quite clearly that when kids are given a proper sex education, abortions, STD's and teen pregnancies go DOWN, compared to this "abstinence only" bullshit.

Something is wrong with both their religious and sex educations if they think that anal sex is preserving their virginity. It's an oversimplification to say that religion and abstinence-only sex education are to blame. The type of religious parents that shove dos and don'ts down their children's throats, shouting "LOVE JESUS" without bothering to check whether their children have real values, faith, and integrity, are the type of people that are harming their children. The kids aren't truly converted to the teachings of Jesus Christ, and they obviously don't understand them. Perhaps they're addicted to the high that they get when they hear a live band in church. If they're having anal sex, they have a very misguided concept of virginity brought on by parents and church leaders that sensationalize religion to the point that children are confused beyond belief. If this is all that you know of religion, I can understand why you despise it. However, religion isn't harmful in and of itself, but the watering-down and misuse of doctrine is, yes, extraordinarily evil and damaging to both straight and gay people.

Let's not forget that other types of sex education fail, too. However, abstinence-only sex education is bogus. The way I see it, if abstinence isn't being taught in the home, the school will probably be ineffectual, anyway. They might as well do some damage control and educate kids about safe sex and birth control. If parents are teaching abstinence, why should they worry that schools are encouraging teenagers to have sex? Stop expecting the government to fix your problems!

That's rich, being lectured about safe sex by a rep of the demographic responsible for 50% of all AIDS cases.

Abstinence-only is a failure? Seems relatively new by comparison How many decades has there been "liberal" sex education in government schools? Results: 1 in 4 teen girls has an STD, half of all Black teens have herpes. FAIL.

Liberal "knowledge" always costs a little extra, as it's designed to undermine parental authority and encourage irresponsibility ("Don't worry, SOCIETY will pay for your bastard!") while downplaying real consequences.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'aides, aids, condoms, safe sex, the vibrators, baby baby' to 'aides, aids, condoms, safe sex, the vibrators, baby baby, glimpse' - edited by EDD

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Murder outside the law isn't justifiable. I tend to agree that pro-lifers who are willing to kill people who perform abortions are hypocrites of the highest order. The death penalty is completely different argument with ZERO moral equivalancy. The death penalty is a legal punishment reserved for persons who have violated the laws of society in such a gross manner that they are no longer worthy to continue to participate in it.


I'm curious why are pro-lifers trying to stop abortions? What the actually reason? Some people I've talked say that it is to protect the baby because life is sacred.

Yes, because life is sacred.... except when it isn't. It's great to able to choose when to apply one's morals - babies are cute and cuddly, while people on death row are much easier to rationalize.

So I'm curious: For pro-lifers, what exactly is your reason for saving a baby?


>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Politically, I'm pro-choice. Personally, I'm pro-life. If you're pro-life then you need don't need guns to do your talking. You discuss the many options available to a person wanting the abortion. Show how choosing to let the child live is the morally, socially, and intellectually superior option. If you cannot convince the person otherwise, then they should be able to do as they wish and their ultimate judgement lies elsewhere.


Here here! It would be great if people on both sides would stop listening to the fringe radicals and join together to promote safe sex practices (yep, beyond abstinence) and alternatives to abortion.

Personally, I'm undecided on the issue. My limited pro-choice stance comes from a weighing of consequences on society. If you wish to look at a society burdened with completely illegal abortions, you can look at the Philippines.

Thanks!

In reply to this comment by jacobrecker:
*promote

Sooo...I'm guessing you know why Johnny Rico is doing PSA's now?

Don't get me wrong, Child Abuse is terrible. But this is a rough equivalent to Han Solo doing PSA's promoting safe sex..it seems like a weird and unnatural coupling.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'hiv, aids, wank, eachother, safe, sex, pamphlet, watermelon, window' to 'hiv, aids, wank, eachother, safe, sex, pamphlet, e g watermelon, window' - edited by calvados

Farhad's opponent's argument is even flimsier than Farhad says.

Most porn is a depiction of consensual relations, not any form of assault. So that's one step further than the related spurious allegation of a cause-effect relationship between fictional violence and real violence. Most Porn is not a fictional version of sexual assault. So those who say Porn promotes sexual assault might as well say that televised baseball promotes baseball-bat-murder. Yes there are some nastier versions of porn, but don't overgeneralize.

Any problems that he had when he was younger stemmed from an exposure to porn at a young age. I am positive that he would not have done what he did if he hadn't been looking at porn since age 7. He was an innocent kid.

Since you have no data on what he would have done in the alternate universe where he didn't watch porn, that anecdote is not evidence that porn caused harm.

A society that teaches a healthy regulation of sexual activity is more likely to help that guy than a society that teaches him to masturbate to porn with increasing frequency. Just my opinion.

The overall rate of violent crime, and the overall rate of sexual assault, have decreased a lot over the past 15 years as the internet has risen. We all know that the first businesses to make billions on the internet were porn. This tends to refute your argument that porn promotes sexual assault.

Besides, masturbation is the only truly safe sex.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'condom, durex, English, cringe, gross, funny, safe sex, dildo, cucumber' to 'condom, durex, English, cringe, gross, funny, safe sex, dildo, cucumber, vibrator' - edited by Zifnab

Luckily I stumbled across your comment while I was reviewing my old sifts. What a great comment! If we could sift comments here this would be the first one I'd pick. Thanks so much for sharing.

In reply to this comment by Jordass:
Whats sad about this is i have a friend that did 2 years in the peacecore in the highest concetrated area of AIDS and AIDS related fatality in the world. She left after that because it ate her soul and in her own words "its fucked". She lost hope because warlords and others spread rumors that America invented the AIDS virus and infected them on purpose to kill the black man and she said many people there believed it. She was in charge of AIDS education but many didnt trust her, they thought she was there to infect more people by saying its "treatment". They also all refused condoms or any other type of safe sex either because of religous reasons or again distrust but still held to their right to have sex when ever they wanted. Everyone had mistresses, men and women, multiple ones as well, that both parties knew about. She was able to get through to some but nothing seemed to change since a lot of the people that she did get through to died anyway. She use to write emails 20 pages long to me once a month (the only time she had computer access) that i saved. All with horror stories and how today she held a child in her arms while they died. She has never been the same since.

Whats sad about this is i have a friend that did 2 years in the peacecore in the highest concetrated area of AIDS and AIDS related fatality in the world. She left after that because it ate her soul and in her own words "its fucked". She lost hope because warlords and others spread rumors that America invented the AIDS virus and infected them on purpose to kill the black man and she said many people there believed it. She was in charge of AIDS education but many didnt trust her, they thought she was there to infect more people by saying its "treatment". They also all refused condoms or any other type of safe sex either because of religous reasons or again distrust but still held to their right to have sex when ever they wanted. Everyone had mistresses, men and women, multiple ones as well, that both parties knew about. She was able to get through to some but nothing seemed to change since a lot of the people that she did get through to died anyway. She use to write emails 20 pages long to me once a month (the only time she had computer access) that i saved. All with horror stories and how today she held a child in her arms while they died. She has never been the same since.

That is probably the best commercial for safe sex I have seen in a long long time