Yay, Texas! We're No. 1!

surferdude

beachdweller wrote:

love to see those abstinence programs working so well

Why are they working for the caucasian population in Texas?

And you did read the part where it said the teen rate is going down, right? So it is working better than the previous program.

RainDog

CorporateWhore wrote:

That is not the teaching of the church.

Venial sins and mortal sins. Look 'em up.

Oh yeah. What can I say, it's been a while. However, all immoral sexual acts are mortal sins - and that includes pre-marital sex.

And, all venial sins are mortal sins if you know you're sinning yet continue to willfully do it anyway.

soulsinging

CorporateWhore wrote:

For heterosexuals, sex is always about pro-creation. It's just a matter of time and will. Perhaps the individual act might not pro-create, but across the spectrum of time, the couple will pro-create IF THEY WANT TO.

and if they don't? is having one's tubes tied sinful? vasectomy?

sex isn't about procreation fi you are engaging in sex at the moment with no intention and a strong opposition to pregnancy. that is like saying it's ok to steal as long as in the long term you think maybe you might decide not to steal anymore. it's ridiculous.

CorporateWhore

RainDog wrote:

Oh yeah. What can I say, it's been a while. However, all immoral sexual acts are mortal sins - and that includes pre-marital sex.

And, all venial sins are mortal sins if you know you're sinning yet continue to willfully do it anyway.

This from the one who didnt know about venial and mortal sins a few minutes ago.

surferdude

soulsinging wrote:

there is a difference. saying i occasionally lie but strive not to or have occasionally stolen but try not to is different from saying "sure pre-marital sex is wrong but i don't care and will continue to do it whenever i feel like it and will also condemn all others who engage in similar behavior for it becos my situation is special." there is a huge difference between falling short of perfection and simply disregarding values. it would be like saying stealing is wrong, but it's ok for me to steal cars at gunpoint becos that's an ok exception.

Maybe CorporateWhore thinks homosexual sex acts are wrong and doesn't indulge in them at all. Does that make him correct in thinking homosexual sex acts are wrong just because he doesn't do them? Attack the idea and not the person.

soulsinging

surferdude wrote:

Why are they working for the caucasian population in Texas?

And you did read the part where it said the teen rate is going down, right? So it is working better than the previous program.

the theory i proposed... income and education. let's see the stats broken down by poor white people in trailer parks vs. rich white suburban teens, and black middle class families vs. blacks in the ghetto. only they probly don't track that becos 1) race is such a better headline for scare tactics and 2) anything that might cause people to question the fairness of the completely unchecked capitalist system that creates huge opoprtunity disparity is taboo.

Abookamongstthemany

surferdude wrote:

Maybe CorporateWhore thinks homosexual sex acts are wrong and doesn't indulge in them at all. Does that make him correct in thinking homosexual sex acts are wrong just because he doesn't do them? Attack the idea and not the person.

How about attacking the concept of saying an act is a sin but living like it doesn't matter?

This thread is one of the reasons why I detest organized religion.

1970RR

beachdweller wrote:

love to see those abstinence programs working so well

Something must be working since the teen pregnancy rate has been falling for over 10 years.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/pubs/pubd/hestats/teenpreg1990-2002/teenpreg1990-2002.htm

soulsinging

surferdude wrote:

Maybe CorporateWhore thinks homosexual sex acts are wrong and doesn't indulge in them at all. Does that make him correct in thinking homosexual sex acts are wrong just because he doesn't do them? Attack the idea and not the person.

i am attacking the idea. the idea that there is a distinction between the type of sexual act in catholic theology is nonsense. all immoral sexual behavior is a mortal sin of lust. it doesn't matter if it's gangbangs, homosexual acts, or pre-marital sex for the sake of feeling good by having sex with no intention of children. these all fall under the same cloak according to the belief system he claims to espouse. like i said, it's like saying stealing is wrong, but certain kinds of stealing are ok... and we're back to "stealing is wrong, unless im stealing a car in which case it's ok." im asking him to resolve the contradictions in his own ideas. he's not. he's just ignoring the inconvenient ones or distorting them.

RainDog

CorporateWhore wrote:

This from the one who didnt know about venial and mortal sins a few minutes ago.

Oh, please. So I forgot the terminology. The truth is, all sins committed willfully and repeatedly are mortal sins. Like this:

Pre-marital Sex is mortal.

Homosexual Sex is mortal.

Masturbation if done in a time of weakness (i.e. you actually regret it afterward) or without the knowlege of its sinful nature is venial.

Willfull, consistant, unrepentent masturbation is arguably mortal.

There's no getting around it. If you've had pre-marital sex, you've committed a mortal sin. Now go to confession and sin no more.

surferdude

soulsinging wrote:

i am attacking the idea. the idea that there is a distinction between the type of sexual act in catholic theology is nonsense. all immoral sexual behavior is a mortal sin of lust. it doesn't matter if it's gangbangs, homosexual acts, or pre-marital sex for the sake of feeling good by having sex with no intention of children. these all fall under the same cloak according to the belief system he claims to espouse. like i said, it's like saying stealing is wrong, but certain kinds of stealing are ok... and we're back to "stealing is wrong, unless im stealing a car in which case it's ok." im asking him to resolve the contradictions in his own ideas. he's not. he's just ignoring the inconvenient ones or distorting them.

You don't think you've been trying to attack CorporateWhore?

beachdweller

surferdude wrote:

Why are they working for the caucasian population in Texas?

And you did read the part where it said the teen rate is going down, right? So it is working better than the previous program.

it also says it's declining at a slower rate that other states.

I'll say one thing, if they are also teaching about condom use with the abstinence, then that's great, if not, seems ignorant to me with the undisputed fact that sex sells most everything in our country, including comic books, cartoons (those more for teens, than younger kids), etc...

beachdweller

1970RR wrote:

Something must be working since the teen pregnancy rate has been falling for over 10 years.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/pubs/pubd/hestats/teenpreg1990-2002/teenpreg1990-2002.htm

at a slower rate than other states...I'm just saying focusing on abstinence only doesn't seem very smart in our sex sells country. I would also say that the so called "everything but" approach is kind of rediculous also. I think it's smart to include proper condom use, but I'm not a parent at the moment, so I'm not thinking my opinion is more important than a parents.

soulsinging

surferdude wrote:

You don't think you've been trying to attack CorporateWhore?

i attack him all the time. id not hide it if i was at him. see the executing hitler thread if you like

in any case, this thread isn't about homosexuality so i'll stop now. my original disgust was with his "idea" that the cause for the discrepancy you noted was that minority women are all just sex crazed. it's a ridiculous contention and he still has produced no proof to support his contention. if it were true, id never date another prudish, stuffy white girl again. latin women can be so fucking hot!

beachdweller

soulsinging wrote:

the theory i proposed... income and education. let's see the stats broken down by poor white people in trailer parks vs. rich white suburban teens, and black middle class families vs. blacks in the ghetto. only they probly don't track that becos 1) race is such a better headline for scare tactics and 2) anything that might cause people to question the fairness of the completely unchecked capitalist system that creates huge opoprtunity disparity is taboo.

I would think the more unfortunate would have higher rates than those of their race that are better off.

surferdude

soulsinging wrote:

id never date another prudish, stuffy white girl again. latin women can be so fucking hot!

I'd sugges this any way except for you'd be passing up some of the fine and intelligent ladies of this board like Abbok and Angelica.

I agree that the differences come down to a socio-economic type thing. I actually think there is very little institutionalized racism or sexism anymore. Governments just seem to hate poor people now. They don't care about race, sex, creed or sexual orientation. If your poor it's your own damn fault and they hate you for it.

soulsinging

beachdweller wrote:

I would think the more unfortunate would have higher rates than those of their race that are better off.

that's what im saying. i think this has far more to do with class than race. rich people have health care, strong education, stable families, supoprt networks, birth control prescrips, etc. the poor do not have these luxuries. and since a much higher proportion of minorities are poor/in poverty, im not surprised their teen pregnancy rates are much higher.

soulsinging

surferdude wrote:

I'd sugges this any way except for you'd be passing up some of the fine and intelligent ladies of this board like Abbok and Angelica.

I agree that the differences come down to a socio-economic type thing. I actually think there is very little institutionalized racism or sexism anymore. Governments just seem to hate poor people now. They don't care about race, sex, creed or sexual orientation. If your poor it's your own damn fault and they hate you for it.

nothing against them, but id kill either of those women if i got involved with them... or they'd kill me

but yeah, i think racism is on the wane. the old prejudices are all but dead. the problem now is classism, which is much more subtle. it's hard to blame someone for being black, but easy to blame them for being poor. and the devotion to unfettered capitalism spreads an almost darwinistic ideal at times. it's so ignrained in this country that it's VERY hard to talk about or combat.

blackredyellow

even flow? wrote:

Just using your post, this is no way directed at you. But....If you came from a family where you were male and raised by a mother that you watched struggle and never knew your father. Why would you go out and pull the same stunt and think it right? I'm always curious to why that happens repeatedly.

I agree but to take another view... if you're a boy and grow up and all of your role models have kids with different women, all of your music and culture portrays it, and you have nothing telling you that it's wrong, that's a problem.

When I was in high school, of course we had sex... and there were some people who got caught up in the status of getting so many girls or whatever, but we (as middle class kids from decent families) did everything we could to avoid getting girls pregnant. Sure some kids did stupid things, but there was always that fear that a) your parents would kill you and b) your life would be over - couldn't go away to college or whatever... when you don't have those two things to worry about, I can see how you wouldn't care.

surferdude

soulsinging wrote:

nothing against them, but id kill either of those women if i got involved with them... or they'd kill me

But what a way to go!!!

soulsinging wrote:

but yeah, i think racism is on the wane. the old prejudices are all but dead. the problem now is classism, which is much more subtle. it's hard to blame someone for being black, but easy to blame them for being poor. and the devotion to unfettered capitalism spreads an almost darwinistic ideal at times. it's so ignrained in this country that it's VERY hard to talk about or combat.

Agree. I think the thread went off when it was giving too much weight to how religious doctrine affects the rates. First it was unfounded and then using religious doctrine as the reason then pointed out what hypocrites religious people are. Not quite realizing they were cutting their arguement off at the knees at that point. It's hard to argue that people are hypocrites and they don't follow doctrine but birth rates are higher because of religion.