Democrats and Republican moderates and two issues.

[1John2_26]

Democrats and their liberal leaders decry a system that does not "support the poor," and yet no Democrat ever thinks of "freedom" outside of lascivious permissiveness and open and easy accessabilty?

When listening to Senators during Supreme Court nominee hearings and politics coast to coast, it is sexual promiscuity that takes precedence.

In Casey vs. Planned Parenthood abortion was mentioned by a Republican Senator (Spector) as a birth control method.

Why does sexual promiscuity take on such importance to Democrats and non-conservatives?

[juliod]

Why does sexual promiscuity take on such importance to Democrats and non-conservatives?

Because the fascists assert that the government has the right to control and override the decisions and choices of the autonomous individual. They have failed to convince the general public that abortion is a social ill in need of a cure, so they seek to pack the court with religious zealots who lie about their hidden agenda.

The ultimate goal is a court that will hold that the government has rights, the military has rights, and corporations have rights, but people do not.

DanZ

[1John2_26]

You may be right.

But I think these Judges whether W's or not, will have to allow perversions to be legalized to those adults that cannot mentally or physically control themselves.

But do Libs and moderates know what they are loosing on society with their permissiveness?

I think they have a hidden agenda they are lying about too.

[Chimp]

But do Libs and moderates know what they are loosing on society with their permissiveness?

I think the effort is to reduce teen pregnancy and STD transmission.

The pragmatic approach is to acknowledge that a certain percentage of
teens will have sex or engage in some form of sexual activity.
Advocating abstenance as the only form of sex education is causing more
problems. It should be reinforced with proper access to contraceptives and
information about STD's. The simple argument being...if they are going to
do it anyway they aught to be protected. Before you say it...yes...they
should abstain in the first place, but many don't...the sex ed programs
need to address that fact.

The most recent data shows that teens in abstenance-only programs are
more likely to get pregnant and more likely to contract an STD.

[juliod]

You may be right.

Words to live by.

will have to allow perversions to be legalized to those adults that cannot mentally or physically control themselves.

The only perversion is sexual repression. Pedophilia and sexual abuse stem from repression, not liberalism.

But do Libs and moderates know what they are loosing on society with their permissiveness?

Nothing at all. Everything you fear has always been a part of society, and always will be. You merely want to harm those people who practise those things.

I think they have a hidden agenda they are lying about too.

If so, it is very well hidden.

DanZ

[palmera]

Interesting topic.

But I think these Judges whether W's or not, will have to allow perversions to be legalized to those adults that cannot mentally or physically control themselves.

But do Libs and moderates know what they are loosing on society with their permissiveness?

As far as the "perversions" go- it's complicated simply because how society as a whole defines "perversion" is relative to how each individual perceives said act in relation to individual freedoms. These freedoms of course do not merely reflect the rights one has to act, but also the rights one has not to be acted upon.

I think a large part of the permissiveness also stems from a desire to not see censorship take a stranglehold on our society; this approach while well intentioned may overstep certain boundaries of decency unintentionally, so as to maintain the freedoms we have here.

An interesting example of permissiveness used to prevent apathy comes from Canada. There was a push for a while (I'm not really sure what happened to it) from two Canadians that wanted TV in the U.S. to allow two minutes of every hour of air time for public access messages. Meaning, that someone could conceivably come on for two minutes and plug the KKK in an attempt to bash black people and promote white supremacy. The goal in all of this, from their point of view, is to awaken Americans from our apathy about the world around us- to get people out socially active, and hopefully voting more as a country. I think this is already being done through the polemic here/now politically/religiously in the country, but the idea they had was fascinating.

[1John2_26]

Quote:
You may be right.

Words to live by.

Hey now, just because you know that you have to turn on the burner by turning that knob does not mean you know how to cook. One compliment does not an ally make.

Quote:
will have to allow perversions to be legalized to those adults that cannot mentally or physically control themselves.

The only perversion is sexual repression. Pedophilia and sexual abuse stem from repression, not liberalism.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you do not mean what it seems you mean.

Quote:
But do Libs and moderates know what they are loosing on society with their permissiveness?

Nothing at all. Everything you fear has always been a part of society, and always will be. You merely want to harm those people who practise those things.

And, the more decent in society have always opposed sexual perverts and perversion. I don't want to harm anyone. I just want no redefining of truth.

Quote:
I think they have a hidden agenda they are lying about too.

If so, it is very well hidden.

Some of us can see better during hide and seek.

[ST88]

Democrats and their liberal leaders decry a system that does not "support the poor," and yet no Democrat ever thinks of "freedom" outside of lascivious permissiveness and open and easy accessabilty?...

Why does sexual promiscuity take on such importance to Democrats and non-conservatives?

A few things here.

The concept of governmental "permissiveness" does not actually exist. The term implies that government should have control over the lives of its citizens except where it is not permitted to go. This is simply not true. The government can only enter the lives of individuals where the law allows it to. Just by using the term "permissiveness" you are implying that it's the government's job to maintain a check on individual behavior, and that we are only allowed to do the things that government allows us to do. That may have been true 300 years ago under a monarchy, but in the U.S., the government serves the people, not the other way around.

I'm not sure why you're juxtaposing this with caring for the poor.

As for sexual promiscuity, the Moderates and Liberals (I hesitate to use the Democrat/Republican paradigm for this question because of Reps like Snow and Specter, not to mention Lieberman) are being reactionary if they are talking about sex at all. That is, the Conservatives in government are the ones who bring this issue up -- abstinence-only education, abortion in no instance, sodomy laws, adultery laws, etc. So it becomes the task of the non-Conservatives to defend the rights of the population to have consentual sex because of the assault. The question "should people be allowed to have consentual sex whenever they wish" is a completely different question from "should people have consentual sex whenever they wish". The former is a legal question, and the latter is a moral question. The government has no jurisdiction over strictly moral questions except where they overlap with the public interest. It doesn't serve the public interest to prevent homosexuals from copulating, nor does it serve the public interest to praise homosexuals for copulating. Government should be dispassionate enough to tell the difference between allowing something and not preventing it; it should be morally neutral.

[micatala]

Why does sexual promiscuity take on such importance to Democrats and non-conservatives?

It doesn't.

I think this assertion is simply reflecting the fact that conservatives are the ones that seem most obsessed about sexual issues within the public realm.

[Vladd44]

But do Libs and moderates know what they are loosing on society with their permissiveness?

I think the effort is to reduce teen pregnancy and STD transmission.

The pragmatic approach is to acknowledge that a certain percentage of
teens will have sex or engage in some form of sexual activity.
Advocating abstinence as the only form of sex education is causing more
problems. It should be reinforced with proper access to contraceptives and
information about STD's. The simple argument being...if they are going to
do it anyway they aught to be protected. Before you say it...yes...they
should abstain in the first place, but many don't...the sex ed programs
need to address that fact.

The most recent data shows that teens in abstinence-only programs are
more likely to get pregnant and more likely to contract an STD.

I couldn't agree more. European countries with a far more realistic view on sexuality in general have teens with much better odds.

Lower STD, pregnancy and abortion rates. Less sexual partners, and have sex for the first time at a later point in life.

Abstinence pledges cause problems. Research has shown that a girl who takes it is 8 times more likely for oral sex, and 4 times more likely for anal. Not exactly safer behavior.

But its not something limited to sexual behavior and regulation. It is the nature of regulation of almost anything. Attempts to control are almost always the cause of a new host of problems. It is the fundamental flaw of passing laws with the masses self interest at heart.