gadgetlady

LOL! It's not teaching him not to look at women, it's teaching him not to look at women's BOOBS! How many times have you wanted to say to a grown man, "Hey buddy, my eyes are up here!" Teach 'em young and you'll never have to do that (That being said, I'm sure there are some of you out there who like it when men talk to your boobs instead of your face -- and that's fine, again, for you. I just prefer that women aren't objectified and that I'm valued for what's in my head rather than what's in my bra.)

I appreciate your apology. Your words were quite harsh. The problem is that those of us who believe sex is best reserved for marriage are often met with the sentiment that we think sex is "dirty" and the human body is "shameful". You're not the first person I've heard it from. What I'd like to get across to those of you who think sex is fine, whenever, with whoever, for whatever reason -- that's fine for YOU! But it's not for me and people who think like me, and just because it's NOT fine for us doesn't mean that we don't like sex and we're suppressed by the church or images of mean old ladies looking down their noses at us. It's just plain not true.

There are, btw, valid reasons for abstinence. Here's a cute little story. I was holding a notice from my 13-year-old son's school announcing a meeting to preview the new course in sexuality. Parents could examine the curriculum and take part in an actual lesson presented exactly as it would be given to the students. When I arrived at the school, I was surprised to discover only about a dozen parents there. As we waited for the presentation, I thumbed through page after page of instructions in the prevention of pregnancy or disease. I found abstinence mentioned only in passing. When the teacher arrived with the school nurse, she asked if there were any questions. I asked why abstinence did not play a noticeable part in the educational material. What happened next was shocking. There was a great deal of laughter, and someone suggested that if I thought abstinence had any merit, I should go back to burying my head in the sand. The teacher and the nurse said nothing as I drowned in a sea of embarrassment. My mind had gone blank, and I could think of nothing to say. The teacher explained to me that the job of the school was to teach "facts," and the home was responsible for moral training. I sat in silence for the next 20 minutes as the sexuality course was explained. The other parents seemed to give their unqualified support to the materials. At the break time, the teacher announced that there were donuts in the back of the room and requested that everyone put on a name tag and mingle with each other. Everyone moved to the back of the room. As Iwatched them affixing their name tags and shaking hands, I sat deep in thought. I was ashamed that I had not been able to convince them to include a serious discussion of abstinence in the educational materials. I uttered a silent prayer for guidance. My thoughts were interrupted by the teacher's hand on my shoulder. "Won't you join the others, Mr. Layton?" The nurse smiled sweetly at me. "The donuts are good." "Thank you, no," I replied. "Well, then, how about a name tag? I'm sure the others would like to meet you." "Somehow I doubt that," I replied. "Won't you please join them?" she coaxed. Then I heard a still, small voice whisper, "Don't go." The message in my head was unmistakable: "Don't go!" "I'll just wait here," I said. When the class was called back to order, the teacher looked around the long table and thanked everyone for putting on name tags. She ignored me. Then she said, "Now we're going to give you the same lesson we'll be giving your children. Everyone please peel off your name tags and look at the back of the tag." I watched in silence as the tags came off. "Now then, I drew a tiny flower on the back of one of the tags. Who has it, please?" the teacher asked. The gentleman across from me held it up. "Here it is!" "All right," she said. "The flower represents disease. Do you recall with whom you shook hands?" He pointed to a couple of people. "Very good," she replied. "The handshake in this case represents intimacy. So the two people you had contact with now have the disease." There was laughter and joking among the parents. The teacher continued, "And whom did the two of you shake hands with?" The point was well taken, and she explained how this lesson would show students how quickly disease is spread. She concluded by saying, "Since we all shook hands, we all have the disease." It was then that I heard the still, small voice again. "Speak now," it said, "but be humble." I wryly noted the latter admonition, then rose from my chair. I apologized for any upset I might have caused earlier, congratulated the teacher on an excellent lesson that would impress the youth, and concluded by saying I had only one small point I wished to make. "Not all of us were infected with the disease," I said. "One of us ... abstained." -- Author Unknown

She's not teaching him that the sex is dirty. It blows me away that everyone thinks that people who save sex for marriage think sex is dirty. We believe it is an amazing and powerful gift and is incredibly beautiful. There are a heck of a lot of females that do try to tempt men. My husband loves me and my body, fat or thin, and we love our sex life. Yet when a woman walks past him with her boobs hanging out, he averts his eyes. That makes me feel so incredibly special I can't even put it into words -- that he doesn't want to have sexual feelings about anyone but me. He respects me AND other women too much to look. You are being disrespectful. You can ridicule it all you want but I think it's an amazing thing. I never ridiculed or put down anyone who said they think sex is a natural thing and they want to get as much of it as they want, whether in marriage or not. I don't think you should be putting down how I feel about it just because you don't agree. And if you think pornography addiction comes from not looking at pornography, then show your kids a Hustler magazine before bed every night and let me know how that works out for you.

And I think public schools should follow basic guidelines like EDUCATION in school!

You know, the more I think about it the more that statement really pisses me off! I work damn hard to have the privilege of living here. My husband and I own two full-time businesses, I run another part-time business, and I homeschool two kids because I don't want to farm them off to the public (or even the private!) school system. I'm tired and worn out and yet I still find time to do volunteer work and donate time and money to charity. So yes, I'm conservative and I live in Orange County -- and I'm happy and unapologetic.

LOL! I was conservative long before I moved to Orange County. I was a conservative from the age of 6, when someone told me what taxes were. Are you saying there's a limited amount of money in this country and Rush, Anne, and other wingnuts like me have taken yours and/or kept you from rightfully claiming it? Do you think there are any left wingnuts who are wealthy? I could name a few dozen just off the top of my head. I could probably get to 100 ridiculously wealthy liberals without doing any research. And I think if anyone wants to see everyone get the chance to make -- AND KEEP -- their hard-earned money, it's conservatives.

Not all private schools are religious. I went to a private high school that had no religious affiliation at all. I think public education is substandard (besides the fact that public schools can often be physically dangerous places for kids). Some parents kill themselves (figuratively) to send their kids to private schools because they want their kids to be properly educated. So I think their tax dollars, which should have gone to pay for their kids' educations but didn't because the public schools aren't up to par, should go to where they're actually being educated.

Whatever funding would have gone to the public schools for those kids should go to the schools that the kids are attending. I just believe it should. It makes sense to me. Parents of kids at public schools have all sorts of fundraisers and donations for their public schools, but I'm sure you wouldn't argue that those additional funds should be redistributed to private schools, would you? I don't much care for O'Reilly. But I think Rush is insightful and Coulter is belly-laugh hilarious. I feel about Al Franken the way you feel about them.

Someone just shared this one with me, too. It's a lot shorter: [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98YZ5Af5vJ0]YouTube - Bush the Waiter[/ame]

Surprise, surprise. Did you think a left-wing organization would nominate him? Do you think right-wingers nominated Gore? :faint: Personally, I believe public school funds should be used for private schools.

I read this article a few years ago and just found it while cleaning: Medical Prayer Tests Researchers have found that heart disease patients were helped when prayers were said on their behalf by strangers who had only the patients' names. Those prayed for had fewer complications, fewer cases of pneumonia, needed less drug treatment and left the hospital earlier. Neuropsychiatrist Dr. Peter Fenwick told a meeting of 400 top scientists at the University of Salford (UK) that devout Christians may have been right all along. He said, "These are very good studies, properly done. Subjects who are unaware they are being prayed for can be significantly helped." The Sunday Mail (Qld), 21 September 2003, pg. 47.

Well, I didn't nominate him, but here's what the foundation that did nominate him said (from the link I posted above): Landmark Legal Foundation herewith submits the name of Rush Limbaugh as an unsolicited nomination for the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. We are offering this nomination for Mr. Limbaugh's nearly two decades of tireless efforts to promote liberty, equality and opportunity for all mankind, regardless of race, creed, economic stratum or national origin. We fervently believe that these are the only real cornerstones of just and lasting peace throughout the world. Rush Limbaugh is a nationally syndicated radio talk show host in the United States and one of the most popular broadcasters in the world. His daily radio show is heard on more than 600 radio stations in the United States and around the world. For 18 years he has used his show to become the foremost advocate for freedom and democracy in the world today. Everyday he gives voice to the values of democratic governance, individual opportunity and the just, equal application of the rule of law -- and it is fitting the Nobel Committee recognize the power of these ideals to build a truly peaceful world for future generations. It's all about perspective. I feel the same way about Al Franken that you do about Rush. I also happen to love Ann Coulter. She cracks me up.

:rofl: That's a good guestion!

It's worth listening all the way through, regardless of your political persuasion. I love people who can laugh at themselves.

I don't think Rush is a bad person, and I think Gore is an idiot. I don't feel like discussing it, though, because I know we will continue to disagree and I don't have the energy for it. He was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20070201/pl_usnw/landmark_legal_foundation_nominates_rush_limbaugh_for2007_nobel_peace_prize

You may not like him, but I think Gore is an idiot. I assume you know Limbaugh WAS nominated for the Nobel Prize?

Just read an interesting article, which can be found at http://www.dailybreeze.com/opinion/articles/5440526.html How about science-based ethics? By Paul Viggiano Faith-based science is the hot new derogatory maxim. From the sacred halls of secular bioethics, the encyclicals blazon: "We must annihilate the influence of the theist, and pure science must reign as the uncontested canon of decency and morality." With papyrus firmly clenched in their mandibles, the monkeys fly. Inscribed on the parchment are the names of scientists whose works were quelled by the myopic clergy: Copernicus, Galileo, Newton. Faith, it is asserted, is the absence of evidence. Faith has no place in science. Hmmm. Just how would someone go about scientifically proving that faith has no place in science? Is the assertion subject to the scientific method? Can it be tested, measured, observed and repeated? Wait a minute! Is the scientific method subject to the scientific method? How does one go about proving that the scientific method is scientific? A conundrum indeed! It would appear that the scientific method is based upon faith in its own methodology. If faith has no place in science, they might as well go public, make a bag of money and close shop, because faith has its ugly fingers all over science. The scientist must have faith in his observations, the accuracy of his instruments, the reliability of the conclusions of his predecessors, the uniformity of nature (that the future will be like the past -- something he can never prove), and his own ability to think clearly, which has already been proved questionable. Theists (people who believe in God) are not opposed to good science. They recognize the worth and the validity of the process. But they see its limitations. Einstein said that science teaches us no truth; it merely helps us organize the things we observe. Those who are opposed to faith-based science are now seeking to seize the language to advance, not their science, but their ethics. Faith-based science is not the problem; the problem is science-based ethics. Such politically charged issues as stem-cell research, abortion, euthanasia and cloning are not heated due to disagreements regarding what one sees looking through the microscope. The pot is boiling, not due to science but ethics. Two equally competent OBGYNs might have radically opposing views regarding pregnancy terminations and stem cell usage. Just how does science-based ethics work? Does the DNA code contain some type of secular scripture? Will the science-based ethicist eventually discover the 10 genetic commandments? What if the 10 genetic commandments are the same as the Ten Commandments? How long before that gets published in scientific journal? It's all so silly. Any thoughtful person realizes that the starting point of his world view is always based on faith. And faith is not a blind leap into a pool of irrational thoughts and concepts; it is a necessary beginning. And guess what? Even the atheists know this. In a brilliantly written article in Wired magazine by Gary Wolf, atheists are given their day in court. "No Heaven. No Hell. Just Science" splashes across the cover. The latest diatribes against religion -- The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris and Breaking the Spell by Daniel Dennett -- receive the free promo. But Dennett, perhaps the most renowned of all, drops the baton. This atheist-materialist, who demands good evidence for any conclusion, when asked the tough ethical questions by Wolf, responds with answers suitable for clerical ordination. Wolf writes, "Dennett knows that reason alone will fail. ... He doesn't want people to lose confidence in what he calls their 'default settings.' ... No rational creature, he says, would be able to do without unexamined sacred things." I'm ready to take the weekend off and give Dennett my pulpit. Perhaps he can give a sermon on faith-based atheism. But Dennett wasn't finished. "It's not that science can discover when the body is ensouled," claims Dennett. "That's nonsense. We are not going to tolerate infanticide." Why not? Someone might ask Dennett. It would, no doubt, be offensive to his faith.

I think it's disingenuous to say you're a virgin or you're not having sex with someone when you've done everything but physical penetration.

I can't think of one guy I dated who didn't try to get me into bed with him (except my husband). I can say there was definitely temptation to do so. So yes, self-control does play a part -- a big one. It doesn't make me a better person, but it certainly does reflect my mindset and my committment to my values. I dated a guy once who tried to talk me into bed with him. He told me that I was bound to have sex with someone one day so it might as well be him. He was right -- except the "someone" turned out to be my wonderful husband I don't think there are too many people on God's green earth who have never been put in a position where they had to say "no".

It does all boil down to our experiences and who we are inside. I've heard a heck of a lot of people say "I wish I hadn't done [insert action here] in my youth". If you're fine with whatever you did or do or plan to do in the future, more power to you. I was simply trying to explain the freeing feeling that some of us have in our relationships. I have a good friend who has a 10YO son. From a very early age, she taught him to "avert his eyes" whenever he saw a scantily-clad woman (at the beach, the pool, or just someone walking down the street who wasn't well covered). She told him that while he might not understand why, it was a good habit for him to develop NOW so that when he did understand, it would come naturally to him. I look at her early training and think, "That boy's going to make someone an awesome husband one day" (assuming he follows her teaching). Some of you may think the gawking and lusting and potential delving into pornography are just fine -- but for those of us who don't, what she's doing is an awesome thing. It's all a matter of perspective and values and what matters to each of us individually. For the people who only ever shared their bodies with their spouse, it's a wonderful thing. For those who don't care how many they shared their bodies with, it's not a big deal what they did. The sad stories are the ones who DID share and wish they HADN'T. And it's especially sad when no one ever affirmed their ability not to.

I've never been particularly fond of this "neener, neener, neener, I told you so, I'm right and you were wrong" approach. I think people who turn to Christianity out of the FEAR of hell really miss out on the whole message of God's love and forgiveness. I grew up Catholic and lived in fear of hell. I always used to wonder what would happen if I went to confession and got all cleaned up and absolved, then had a bad thought and drove over a cliff. It actually drove me away from God because it seemed so arbitrary. It wasn't until I truly understood God's grace and mercy and that my good works and righteousness were to Him like "filthy rags" that I stopped trying to EARN His love and instead just ACCEPTED it.

Scary, isn't it? Have you heard about the anti-spanking bill that's coming up in California? There are generally ways to opt out of "mandatory" vaccines for kids, but they never make it easy on you. And you have to know enough to ask.

THIS I have not heard, although I haven't been looking for it. Are you saying that the vaccine works just as well on all ages, but just won't be covered by insurance for those over 26?

YeeHaw, you're not alone. But let me get this straight. You never had to worry about STDs or a teen pregnancy. You never compare your husband to other men in bed, and you never have to worry about him comparing you to other women. You never wish that you hadn't given your body and a piece of your soul to someone else. You never think about old boyfriends while you're having sex, and you never worry that your husband is thinking about old girlfriends. You never (or rarely) worry that your husband might be cheating on you because you know he has the self-control and ability to stay true. You're never scared to open yourself up fully, emotionally and physically, to your husband because you know he's fully committed to you. You enjoy your sex life and it just keeps getting better. That sounds pretty awesome to me!