Hmm, just a thought

If Jesus can take care of his church, why do you need to write your religion into the state constitution to control the lives of others-- to stop people from acquiring equality and legal rights? This law would not force any church to marry anyone. And for the record, plenty of churches out there already perform ceremonies for same sex couples.

This law simply grants gay and lesbian people the same legal rights their heterosexual counterparts share.

Is that so hard to understand?

And just WHAT about that is comparable to Nazi Germany I'd like to know??

I *heart* Shelby Knox

Ever since this.




But now as you see from the Daily Show clip, she's still fighting the good fight.



Godstick vs. Shame Cave, does it get any funnier?

Also, I love Samantha Bee (the very pregnant woman at the end)


**UPDATE: I should have clarified--- Shelby Knox is the woman in the Daily Show clip speaking about the "dirty toothbrush" -- she is also the subject of the documentary (first vid). See Knox's entire testimony here

Glenn Beck & Bill Donahue tie for IDIOT of the year award

My last post was all about the middle school in Maine dispensing birth control for girls. So I'm not going into all the details or why I think it's a good idea. You can just read it.

When it comes to controversial topics involving sex, some things are just 100% predictable. I'm talking romantic-comedies-starring-Drew-Barrymore predictable. First predictable thing: CNN's Glenn Beck will be a total moron and #2 President of the Catholic League will be invited on moron's moronic show to be an even bigger moron. ... one more time for good measure... MORON!

It's no surprise that people are talking about girls getting birth control and it's definitely no surprise that Bill Donahue would get in on the action-- he revels the opportunity to bash feminism, contraception and talk about "saving women from themselves." Here's some of the gems from the conversation between Beck and Donahue:

Beck: Now, right now it is illegal in Maine for kids under the age of 14 to have sex at all, whether it is consensual or not. Yet you have a local school commission that is not only underhandedly encouraging sex; they`re actually enabling it. "Hey, kids, go break the law."

I understand that there`s disease out there. But we`re talking now about taking the pill. Now we`re saying, "Hey, you go ahead" -- I mean, how easy are we going to make it?

Sex Ed 101, Glen-- The pill isn't about preventing disease, it's about preventing pregnancy! Giving a woman (or girls) a prescription for birth control is not the same as saying "go have sex." It's saying, "if you have sex, and don't want to become pregnant, you need this."

Since 2000, this middle school gave out condoms and Glenn Beck wasn't wetting the bed. Now that we give young girls the option to protect themselves against pregnancy (itself terribly dangerous for an 11-13 year old) NOW-- it's a problem.

Such a problem that we're practically building a copulation room and tearing down the library. Seriously, Beck was on Good Morning America when he said,

Why don`t we -- the library`s outdated. Why don`t we have a copulation room?

What type of rounded logic is that? By giving a sexually active girl options to prevent pregnancy we're forcing sex on her?

The program only gets better because then, Bill Donahue (AKA EVIL INCARNATE) is invited to speak.

DONAHUE: Well, you know, this is the goal of the sexual engineers. It has been for a very long time. This libertine notion of sexuality.

....I would say this. You know, the original feminists -- I`m talking about the ones in the 19th century -- they understood that one of the goals of their movement was to protect innocent women from being preyed upon by irresponsible men."

Really? Feminism was started to protect innocent women from irresponsible men. I thought feminism was about giving women equal opportunity so she wouldn't have to be dependent on men-- irresponsible or not. Feminism meant that women could vote, be assured safety within her marriage, hold property, secure a job to feed herself and have some control if she wanted a divorce but didn't want to lose her kids.

But no, I guess Susan B Anthony just wanted to save women from "irresponsible" men. What kind of bullshit, non-committal word is "irresponsible" anyway, Bill? What irresponsible things were these men doing-- beating their wives? Taking all their money? Raping women? WHAT?

The insanity continues:

Donahue: There`s no question that -- that young men have always been throughout all of history in all societies the most irresponsible segment of society. You know what the message is being sent to young men, and I`m talking about ones who are also over the age of 18.

The message that will be sent to young men is this: they`re fair game. The girl is just off her tricycle. She`s 11 years of age. You can`t even dispense an aspirin to the kid in the school, but you can get them the birth control kit. The boy picks up the message she`s fair game; let`s go get them.

If you want them to exploit girls, this is the way to go.

This is the classic argument against contraception (and frankly it's insulting to women and men). Most often you hear this nonsensical tirade from the Catholic Church. You can't give women the option to prevent pregnancy because if she has that, men will take advantage of her sexually and use her as an object (cause that never happens to women who aren't on the pill).

This asinine argument makes women out to be helpless pawns. Rather than admit that preventing/planning pregnancy gives women power, these pricks twist the argument so that THEY are the only ones looking out for women... poor little woman, she doesn't realize the harm she'll cause to herself.

In Donahue's world, these 11 year old girls would be safe and chaste without the pill, but with it, they'll be preyed upon by boys who just want to use them. Anyone else think that's unreasonable?

Donahue further explains that contraception is really the root of all evil for women and that girls who dare use this method are setting themselves up for a life of terrible sadness.

When these girls become emotionally distraught and when they grow up and they realize that they gave in to young guys and some of the guys not so young, because their own mother had the nerve to go ahead and offer that girl the pill, and the guys in the neighborhood all knew about it and therefore took advantage of her, that`s the real price and the damage that will be done.

I like how this is all the mother's fault-- where is the dad? It's pretty obvious that Donahue blames feminism and contraception for "destroying the lives of your children."

Also-- once you're on the pill, "all the guys on the block will take advantage of you" -- it sure sounds like Donahue is calling contraception the SLUT pill.

If you still have any questions as to Donahue's sanity, guess what he thinks the evil libertines want to do with newborn boys?

You know, these people say that they`re on the side of women? The biggest enemy of women in America today, and particularly young girls, are coming from the sexually libertine sexual engineers who will stop at nothing. And if they had it their way, they would order the doctor to sew a condom onto the infant male on his penis as soon as he`s born. They`re simply out of control.

How is it possible that Glenn Beck and Bill Donahue equate pregnancy prevention with copulation rooms at school, sewing condoms onto infants and getting freaky on a tricycle? It's because the idea that women could avoid consequences of sex (PREGNANCY) scares the shit out of them.

As I stated in my last post, it is awful to think that young girls would have sex. But if we can all agree that we don't want a pregnant 11-year old girl, and we can't FORCE kids to remain chaste (or force their parents to ... parent), then we should help them prevent pregnancy. Yes, the pill won't prevent disease but condoms do and the school has those on hand as well. Imagine that-- equal opportunity protection!

Beck and Donahue give us a world where women and girls are helpless victims incapable of making good choices about sex. Their solution is to give them less options. Raise your hand if you detect circular logic and misogyny!

Purity Balls -- great for those "touch-feely" dads

I'm stealing this disgusting tidbit from Feministing.

This clip is the creepiest six minutes ever. The dad (who feministing rightly labels "pseudo-incestuous") is obsessed with his daughters purity. And the mom says that women were "created to feel accepted by men."

What a great message for their daughters. Your entire purpose in this world is to stay "pure" (not even kissing before marriage) for your husband. You weren't created to have any autonomy of your own, follow your own dreams and passions, but rather to be completed by a man.

During their purity pledge, the girls promise to offer themselves "as a priceless gift." All while wearing prom dresses and dancing close with their fathers-- who also take them on dates-- ugh.

Part of me looks at this and sees potential. Plently of women I know are unhappy with their relationship with their father. I myself have always wanted to be closer with my dad and was jealous when friends talked about how they were "daddy's girls." I have often jokes that my dad-daughter time ended abruptly the minute I grew boobs and he forgot how to talk to me. *sigh*

However, I don't want a relationship that's based on dad's protection of my precious hymen or my "potential worth" for nameless future husband. I like the idea of father's establishing relationships with daughters, valuing them and wanting the best for them in future relationships. However, this isn't really about a woman, but about a woman's worth as sexually pure.

And Leslee Unruh, I have a question-- What the F*&%^ is up with the bridal gown and suit of armor behind you? Crazy woman! Is this something to do with the pure, princess/white knight fairytale?

Excuse me while I shudder.

This is why religion scares me

At first I thought it was just the Catholics with their mandatory natural family planning courses and anti-birth control policies. But now we see that idiocy in church doctrine spreads denominations.

Victim-blaming never got so low.

"When she became pregnant with Amyx's child at age 18, church leaders forced her to go before the congregation and ask forgiveness as an unwed mother. But the congregation was never told it was Amyx's baby."

Amyx being a church leader.

ps: The graphic is not related to this story but it's a fabulous book and I highly recommend it for all those progressive Christians out there.

I don't understand

I don't pretend to be a scientist. Hell, I got a C- in college meteorology and that was that the extent of anything I could call science.

However I know that stem cells could promise some amazing results and possibly even cures for people suffering from serious diseases.

Reading a story like this just makes me want to go visit every pro-life, anti-stem cell person and ask... WHY!?!? Why would you doom this human life to death and extinguish any hope for cure? Why would you take away the possibility for that family to keep their mother? How would you feel if this was the mother of your children or your father? Would you want them to have the chance then? Ask Nancy Reagan about that.

While I think it's noble that these people talk about all human life having value, I just don't really buy it. How can you say that, really?

Mr. Bush promises to veto anything to do with stem cell research because "human life has value." Yet he wants to send so many of our living, breathing American citizens to fight and die. If human life has enough value that we protect it, even at a one-cell stage, you'd think we'd avoid war at any cost. No matter what, we'd have to go a pacifist route to keep the sanctity of human life.

I guess Bush could spout something about "sacrifice for the greater good." Yes, we have to send our finest to fight for the security of all Americans. Okay fine.

Well then let me talk a little bit about sacrifice.

How about the sacrifice to save people from suffering, disease and death? If some cells need to be sacrificed for the common good of all Americans and really-- people everywhere, I think we should do it right?

I'm only using the Bushman's logic here....

GAG

Watch this-- if you can handle it...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYX-N3Ms7hQ

Your dog is gay....

Sorry, the pic might be in bad taste, but so cute! On to the serious story...

Isn't it interesting that more big news stations haven't picked this up?

And yet not that surprising. This isn't the first time studies like this have come out. I've seen at least 3 other specials on this same thing. Two on National Geographic and one on Animal Planet! Are we really that shocked to learn that animals have exhibited homosexual behaviors?

Not really. One of the museum directors said, "The sexual urge is strong in all animals. ... It's a part of life, it's fun to have sex,"

The exhibit documents gay or lesbian behavior among giraffes, penguins, parrots, beetles, whales and dozens of other creatures. In fact homosexuality has been observed in more than 1,500 animal species, and is well documented for 500 of them.

And perhaps the coolest part of the story, one that seems to suggest that bonding of same sex animals may be more than just sex.....

One exhibit shows two stuffed female swans on a nest -- birds sometimes raise young in homosexual couples, either after a female has forsaken a male mate or donated an egg to a pair of males. (!!!!)

For some of you out there who might try and claim this is some liberal special interest study, I would encourage you to look at the classics. Even Greek philosopher Aristotle noted apparent homosexual behavior among hyenas 2,300 years ago!!

The article also talks about Bonobos, a type of chimpanzee. They have sex with either males or females, apparently as part of social bonding. Every single Bonobos chimpanzee is bisexual!

Not surprisingly Religious whackjobs have come out of the woodwork, saying that this study should "burn in hell"
...
Hmmmm, not much of a counter argument is it? Can we say DESPERATE?

Thanks for Feministe for giving me a link to this

Katherine Harris... be afraid

One of the scariest things I've read recently. It's an outright attack on separation of church and state.

Apparently the people of the United States don't elect their leaders, GOD does that!!! Who knew? And unless you elect Christians (who obviously hate gays and abhor abortion) we're going to ruin our country.

The Religious Right is trying to kill you

Seriously!

Where could I be going with such a dramatic statement? Let's talk stats first.

Did you know that the Human Papillomavirus (HPV) -- a sexually transmitted disease-- infects over 80% of 15-50 year olds and can cause cervical cancer?

The American Cancer Society estimates that in 2006, over 9,700 women will be diagnosed with cervical cancer and 3,700 women will DIE from this cancer in the U.S.

There is promising news. An vaccine has been created to prevent HPV. It has already been tested in over 11,000 females (ages 9-24 years) in many countries around the world and there are no serious side effects (only problem reported was soreness at injection site). The vaccine contains no thimerosal or mercury and there are no infectious materials.

This vaccine will guard against 70% of cervical cancers and 90% of genital warts. Clearly women would still need pap tests to regularly screen for possible cancer. And this vaccine would not prevent other S.T.I.'s (Sexually Transmitted Infections).

Public Health officialls are speaking out for administering this vaccine before females are sexually active (the proposed age of vaccination would be for girls 11-12 year olds with catch-up vaccination for 13-26 year olds).

So what does all this good news have to do with the religious right? Or the religious WRONG as they ought to be known...

Because those bible beaters are doing everything they can to ensure this vaccine never becomes a reality. True, it has already become FDA approved (they failed there) but the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) will vote on June 29th whether or not to recommend the vaccine and if so, who should get it and at what ages. Even then laws will vary from state to state regarding, age of vaccination and insurance coverage. You can bet the religious wrong are lobbying hard.

The religious wrong in this country and the pro-life groups have come out against the vaccine suggesting among other things, that it will simply incite youngsters (read: especially women) to become more promiscuous. They say it will give kids the green light to have sex and send the wrong message.

These religious wrong is basically saying: "Sluts deserve to get cancer."

Think about it, that IS what they are saying. Since they know women are getting cervical cancer every day but keep preaching that if you don't have sex you're a good person and God loves you then what does that mean for the infected? They are bad. They deserve it. If they had simply done what they were told, they'd be healthy now.

The Religious Wrong are gambling with your lives and trying to tamper with medical information. They do this by constantly lobbying against life-saving vaccines and Emergency Contraception going over the counter. The continually lobby for the FDA to change warning labels on condoms so the label will talk NOT about what condoms actually do, but rather talk of the condoms' ineffectiveness.

Well to that I say, read this article --- BOO YAH!

It's sad that people had to conduct a whole study proving to these morons that YES condoms are effective.

"A three-year study of female college students -- all virgins at the start -- found that women whose partners always wore a condom during sex were 70 percent less likely to become infected with the human papilloma virus, or HPV, than those whose partners used protection less than 5 percent of the time."

Notice that in the numbers, condoms do not 100% prevent HPV. Well that's a given. Every one knows the only way to 100% prevent a S.T.I. or pregnancy is to abstain. However, if you are going to engage in sexual activity and want to DRAMATICALLY lower your odds of contracting HPV or a number of other diseases... WEAR A CONDOM. This is not rocket science.

We shouldn't have to prove that this is scientifically the right thing to do. It should only take common sense. But in a world of these nutjobs... we have to prove common sense with exspensive scientific studies.

Wearing a condom is safe. It prevents disease. Getting a vaccine against a widespread S.T.I. is a great medical breakthrough. If it's safe and approved, why not sign up your daughters?

Think... even if your daughter was a virgin on her wedding day, her husband could still pass her the virus if he had even just ONE other sexual partner. Does that mean she should contract cerivcal cancer and die? OF COURSE NOT! Stop punishing people for engaging in sex!

Help protect your community's health!

For more info:
http://www.cdc.gov/std/hpv/
http://www.cdc.gov/std/pubs/

Or browse for more internet stories
http://www.sci-tech-today.com/story.xhtml?story_id=1010001QQOY6

Great articles

A great article:

What happens when there's no Plan B -- very interesting and illuminating.

Another interesting read:

Contra-Contraception

Just makes you mad to read it... One pro-life group states, "The mind-set that invites a couple to use contraception is an antichild mind-set."

Ummmm, okay? And I guess we can't enjoy married life sexually unless we're wanting to create children? No common sense... so sad.

I cannot fathom why people put up this intensly silly argument..

"Sexual union in marriage ought to be a complete giving of each spouse to the other, and when fertility (or potential fertility) is deliberately excluded from that giving I am convinced that something valuable is lost. A husband will sometimes begin to see his wife as an object of sexual pleasure who should always be available for gratification."

That's just plain old offensive to men. Suddenly if men know they can have sex with their wife without possibility for a child, he'll decide she's simply an object... as opposed to the other option where women are supposed to be incubator-like objects, ready to pop out a kid at any moment?

People who make arguments like that are the REAL problem. Apparently they are incapable of finding any respect, spirituality or love in sexual relationships. They feel "dirty" and "used" for pleasure when they have sex. But you know what I say to them? That is your issue, not mine! The fact that you find sex so damaging... take that up with your therapist. But leave the majority of people (those who can enjoy married life and a healthy, happy and nurturing sexual relationship) ALONE. Leave them alone! They want to enjoy sex and there's nothing wrong with that! You cannot dictate when other Americans bear children.

Get a new soapbox.

History of marriage-- complications of "I do"

This summer I have a wedding almost every weekend. Many of my close girlfriends are planning their ceremonies. It’s an exciting and happy time. But this makes me really take a closer look at the institution of marriage…

For instance, I know a gal (we’ll call her Katie) with extremely evangelical, traditional Christian values. Katie felt the need to quiz her sister on whether or not she and her fiancée had ever engaged in pre-marital sex. First of all, it isn’t uncommon in this day in age for people to engage in sexual relations while in serious, monogamous relationships. And contrary to the “NO SEX BEFORE MARRIAGE” message, people don’t regret having sex before marriage. It doesn’t ruin you or ruin what you will have with the person you are going to marry. On the other hand, I completely respect people who choose to wait. If that’s what makes them happy and comfortable, I say “mazaltoff!” But let adults decide what God wants for them and when they’re going to be sexually active. Even if you think it’s a better choice to remain celibate until marriage, it’s still none of your business, so back off.

Marriage is such a hot-button issue these days that even the U.S. Senate is getting involved. The Federal Marriage Amendment (the “one man, one woman” law) is once again being deliberated. On May 18th of this year, 10 Republicans said "aye" to writing marriage discrimination into the U.S. Constitution—and all 8 committee Democrats said "no." The amendment will now be sent to the Senate floor for a full vote.

You might be thinking, “I haven’t heard about this!” That’s because sneaky republicans are hiding this from you. Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (Republican-Pa.) moved the vote from the committee's normal room in the Dirksen Senate Office Building to the obscure President's Room in the Capitol, where there are no cameras or press allowed. Hence, no public scrutiny.

According to President Bush in a 2004 radio address, "The union of a man and woman in marriage is the most enduring and important human institution, and the law can teach respect or disrespect for that institution."

For once I agree. Marriage is wonderful and important. I hope people approach it with respect. When you say “I will take this person in sickness and health,” I hope you mean it. I hope when you start a family, you commit to them fully. I want people to commit to their family’s safety, both emotionally and financially. BUT… I don’t believe for one second that same-sex couples don’t understand this and can’t be part of the institution of marriage.

People that don’t want gay people to get married are bigots disguised as religious crusaders. There’s no reason, other than ignorance that you could argue for the Federal Marriage Amendment. Maybe you've heard people say:

“We need to get back to the way marriage used to be”

And what “way” would that be exactly?

According to the Old Testament, the ancient Hebrews were polygamous. Ancient Egyptian royalty practiced brother-sister marriage in homage to the Egyptian gods Osiris and Isis. And in some Native American cultures, transgendered women born as biological males were among the most prized of wives.

The history of marriage is surprisingly not dominated by love. The institution was created to help the elite consolidate power, wealth, and property.

“For the lower classes, common-law and other informal arrangements were more customary,” says Stephanie Coontz, a family historian working on a new book about the history of marriage. “They had little property to protect, and there simply weren't enough priests or judges to officiate their nuptials or organized records to track them. And slaves, a substantial percentage of the population, were forbidden to marry.”

As marriage became more accessible across class lines, it still remained a relatively business-centered deal. For example the wife of a hunter might process his furs — and a legal marriage helped the husband lay claim to the benefits of his wife's labor.

Romance didn’t enter the picture until the 20th century! "According to the director of research and public education for the Council on Contemporary Families, as late as 1967, one poll of American college students showed that 75 percent of the young women said that they would marry a man they didn't love if he met their other criteria — if he was a good provider, and he was decent and sober."

Marriage has changed as our society has changed. This change has a great deal to do with the women’s movement. Women are no longer business deals, sold by their fathers to husbands to work in a husband’s fur trade. Women work outside the home and may even be the primary breadwinner. Women also control their reproductive destiny with birth control. All this has contributed to shaping the modern marriage. It has allowed Americans to be pickier about whom and when we get married, how our careers progress and the number and spacing of our children.

This is the first time in the history of humanity that marriage has become strictly about love—a rather unpredictable emotion.

Even with all the changes and divorce at high rates, people still believe in marriage. They find a person with whom they think “forever” is possible. It’s the sweetest, most hopeful sight in the world. I look forward to bearing witness as so many friends take their walk down the aisle to the person they love.

But marriage still feels bittersweet to me. Even with all our social advances:
*Women and children are no longer property of the husband,*
*interracial couples can now legally be married*
*people are allowed divorce if the marriage is unhealthy*

Yet we still find same-sex marriage such a threat that we’re willing to write discrimination into our constitution!!!

People want to tell you that marriage has always been between one man and one woman (but that’s not true) and people want to tell you that sex is only for marriage (well that’s also not true because marriage used to be something only reserved for the elite class, and not even associated with religion or ethics, rather business).

The people who want to “educate” you on proper sexual behavior pre-marriage have a giant stick up their ass. Tell them to mind their own business and move on. People that want to deny homosexuals the right to marry are uneducated at best, and bigots at worst. Never trust people who pick and choose parts of history and the bible that suit their agenda.

Read this article for more

Go here to oppose the marriage amendment

If you want to rant, Get a blog!

Oh my eyes have rolled so much over this, I'm getting a headache. Now, I understand passion for your principle --- clearly I do, I opened a blog for crying out loud. But there is a time and place. If you're running for office, or debating an issue, for example. But not at a graduation ceremony! I would never dream of getting up at my graduation and saying, "Well done on 4 years of hard work and how about the pro-life movement, what a bunch of assholes?"

Well this man certainly felt entitled. Maybe cause he was the star football player, or because he's becoming a priest so he thinks he's holier than his classmates and can pass judgment. Mostly he just sounds like a classless jerk. His apology is a joke. If someone did that at my ceremony, I'd ask for a year of tutition back.

For article click here

Abstinence Education = dangerous for Teens

In my perfect world, our government and schools would advocate "abstinence based education" There is nothing wrong with advocating abstinence – especially for teenagers. Showing respect and restraint is something to be admired. While I love the show Sex and the City, I would never advocate Samantha’s lifestyle for any of my friends. Young people -- are receiving far too many irresponsible messages about sexuality. Sex is cheapened in our culture today yet at the other end of things, the abstinence-only movement is making a fear campaign of our human sexuality.

Abstinence-only education is simply a moral movement thinly disguised as a public-health campaign. They like to quote alarming statistics about high STD rates, teen pregnancies and talk about scary emotional scarring. Take for instance the picture of the duck. Several abstinence-only groups use the example of duct tape in their teaching.

I have read of this example in Ariel Levy’s book “Female Chauvinist Pigs” and also in an online debate that is well worth reading. Here is an exerpt:

When speaking, the Abstinence Clearinghouse sometimes gives students a mental picture about premarital sex using duct tape. We stick duct tape to someone's arm as though they were my sexual partner to represent the bonding associated with sex. The first time it sticks very well. Then, we break up.

As we break up, the tape is ripped off his arm along with several arm hairs. When I find my next boyfriend and sexual partner, I can stick the duct tape to his arm, but it won't stick as tightly as the first time. The tape sticks less and less with each sexual escapade and eventually will not stick at all.

The bonding can't be as special or powerful, and with each relationship you carry the garbage from the past right along with it. Would you call that a healthy, loving relationship? I most definitely would not.

The deep bonding and "emotional expression" that only sexual intimacy creates must be limited to marriage. One cannot be deeply bonded with many people. That would contradict the very definition of intimacy. Do you think that prostitutes have many deeply bonded friendships just because they have had sex with so many people? It is this faulty bonding and "emotional expression" that leads to increased divorce and abandoned families.

How charming. Their motto, “Sexual attraction is like duct tape. It sticks really well the first time, but if you peel it off it doesn't stick so well the next time. After five or six go 'rounds, it hardly sticks at all...”

Promoters of abstinence also use analogies of fire.

Story 1: You are coming home from school on a cold afternoon and you walk in your house to the warmth of a fire in the fireplace. You feel warm and cozy and can‘t wait to get closer to warm your hands. As you sit by the fire you unwind you begin to relax from a hard day at school. You talk with your parents about your day, drink hot chocolate and listen to the crackle of the fire in the comfort of your own home. You continue to feel safe as you nestle by the fire.

Story 2: You are coming home from school on a cold afternoon and you notice a fire is burning on the hill beside your house. You drop your backpack and start screaming for help. Your heart is pounding and the look of terror is on your face. The fire is blazing down the hill just yards from your home.

Ok. Two stories about fire. Two completely different feelings going on in your mind. You see fire is really nice and warm; pretty to look at and great for relaxing on a cold day, WHEN IT IS IN THE FIREPLACE.

However when a fire is not in the fireplace and is about to destroy your house, the fire isn’t so pretty and enjoyable.

Abstinence education is insulting. Many people are not virgins on their wedding day and most do not regret this decision. To insist that sex is immoral and profane when outside the bounds of marriage is narrow-minded. Plenty of people can have a sexual relationship before marriage that is healthy, spiritually moving, and can heighten the emotional and physical intimacy of the relationship.

Refusing to have an adult conversation that recognizes the complexity of sexual exploration is patronizing at best and frankly, endangers the rights of adolescents.

I recently learned that someone very dear to me was molested as a child. So tell me what happens when someone like her enters an abstinence-only sex education program? We tell her, “it’s too late, you’re a used up piece of duct tape because you’ve already experienced sex outside of marriage. People who are virgins on their wedding day are really happy and loved in the eyes of society and God because they are pure clean pieces of duct tape.”
Please.

And I’m sure it’s pure coincidence that these religiously based moral groups say “sex is only for marriage” and homosexuals can’t get married. Pure coincidence.

Abstinence education is a cruel thing to impart on teens who deserve real discussion on how to respect their partners and how to be as safe as possible to protect themselves from pregnancy, disease, and any sort of sexual manipulation (pressure, molestation, and assault). Abstinence should always be encouraged since it is safe and promotes respect for sex. But it shouldn’t be trumpeted as the only way to educate on sexuality.

How BIG is the problem?

Go to this great site for more info

One of my biggest fears is that America is being swayed by a extremely small but very vocal minority who wants women to lose access to contraception. "The culture of life" has deemed any form of contraception as an abortifacient. This is very confusing to me since combination pills work "by preventing a woman's ovaries from releasing eggs (ovulation). They also thicken the cervical mucus, which keeps sperm from joining with an egg."

The hormones in combination and progestin-only pills also thin the lining of the uterus. In theory, this could prevent pregnancy by interfering with implantation of a fertilized egg. But there is no scientific evidence that this occurs.

However, it's becoming more and more clear that we need to fear, not just the grassroots campaign but the office of our presidency. President Bush has REFUSED to answer press questions regarding birth control.

Excerpt from May 26, 2005 White House Press Briefing:

Q There are news reports this morning that parents and children who were guests of the President, when they visited Congress, wore stickers with the wording, "I was an embryo." And my question is, since all of us were once embryos, and all of us were once part sperm and egg, is the President also opposed to contraception, which stops this union and kills both sperm and egg?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think the President has made his views known on these issues, and his views known -

Q You know, but what I asked, is he opposed -- he's not opposed to contraception, is he?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, and you've made your views known, as well. The President --

Q No, no, but is he opposed to contraception, Scott? Could you just tell us yes or no?

MR. McCLELLAN: Les, I think that this question is -

Q Well, is he? Does he oppose contraception?

MR. McCLELLAN: Les, I think the President's views are very clear when it comes to building a culture of life --

Q If they were clear, I wouldn't have asked.

MR. McCLELLAN: -- and if you want to ask those questions, that's fine. I'm just not going to dignify them with a response.
**********

The White House and Bush have also refused to answers several letters from members of congress--

“Mr. President, does this mean that abstinence is the heart of your birth control policy? Mr McClellan mentioned teens but what about married women, college women, working women, women in the military, divorced women, mothers who don’t want more children? Do you think promoting absitence should be their birth control method as well? If so, then this position is a radical departure from previous administrations, and undermines women’s Constituional right to birth control that has been respected in this country since the landmark 1965 Supreme Court case Griswold v. Connecticut.

For 95% of Americans- including the 43 million women who are sexually active, many of them married, and do not want to become pregnant- it would be a shocking revelation to learn that you believe that their preferred method of birth control is abstinence.”

The fact is that the majority of Americans use and support the right to use birth control. So why is our President refusing to come clean on this issue?

Pro-life = Anti-woman/Anti-sex

Today I renewed my drivers license and while I was standing in line I was reading some interesting information. Did you know...

-- Every 13 minutes someone's name is added to the list of people who need an organ donation

-- 80,000 men, women and children are waiting for organs

-- Donating your organs can save the lives of 8 people and enhance the lives of 40 others.

So here's my question. In our "culture of life" why isn't organ donation mandatory? I mean, 18 people die every day waiting for transplants. (http://www.organdonor.gov/)

The pro-life movement practically foams at the mouth when talking about saving innocent lives. They are willing to take over a woman's body and strip her of her rights as a moral authority to make her own decisions. Pro-life advocates want to force women to carry a pregnancy to term under the guise that they care so much about life. How about the innocent men and women and children who die because people refuse to donate their organs? It's hard to understand why people are going into graves with perfectly healthy organs meanwhile someone somewhere is dying of kidney failure. That "life" is going to waste.

Organ donation happens after you die! You won't feel pain of surgery or suffer complications; absolutely nothing physically is going to happen to affect your health. Yet, women who are ALIVE are supposed to carry unwanted or unsafe pregnancies to term. And pregnancy affects a woman for 9 months-- 9 months that carry immense health risks and challenges, physically and mentally. For some it is a painful reminder of a violent attack. Others are reminded of a mistake that her community and family will always judge her for. Some women see a pregnancy as a serious, constant anxiety. They think, "How will I pay for another child?"

It isn't as if women can carry a pregnancy to term and be done. Then she has a child!!! Yet pro-lifers conveniently overlook this. Correction- they conveniently overlook the woman. This is all about a fetus. An unborn with a POTENTIAL for life that is being valued over the life of a female ALREADY BORN. Yet, when it comes to organ donation we tell people, "It's your choice, it's your body. You should be able to decide what happens to it." And this a decision that won't affect you physically. After all, you're dead, you don't need a kidney.

If pro-life zealots were really about "saving life," organ donation would also be a huge concern. So would ending war, and ending poverty that leads to malnourished children... Come on. This isn't about life; it's about punishing women and not giving them rights to their procreative power.

Can you trust the other side?

It's hard to listen when you vehemently disagree with someone's opinion. I force myself to be quiet when I really want to shake people and say, "Are you kidding? You buy this?" And barring people who are downright offensive, I can usually listen and take in their point of view. Even if we both walk away disagreeing, it can be counted as a small victory that we were at least respectful and courteous.

I allow comments on my blog and I've only rejected a handful that were deliberate attacks on someone else who had commented. The rules of my blog are simply that people don't call out others by name and slander them. Fortunately that doesn't happen too often. But I've printed comments from people who called me a "cunty bitch" (I actually appreciate them taking the time to make "cunt" into an adjective).

What I really crave is an actual discussion. It's much easier call me "cunty bitch" than sit down and make a valid point. REAL DISCUSSION is hard to stomach.

I have a friend who is entering the priesthood. We talk on the phone and we disagree on pretty much everything. He recently sent me a book that I'm forcing myself to read, although most of it goes against everything I believe in. Why? Because it would mean a lot to him and I want to honor him by trying to see his point of view. Besides, the more you know-- the better. At least that's the motto, I live by. This woman, not so much... I stumbled upon her website:

"The Revolution" (http://myheartsrevolution.blogspot.com/)

In it, Mary Worthington details her call to arms, "On Divine Mercy Sunday in 2001, I answered God's call to dedicate my life to building a Culture of Life. These posts are careful reflections of the pro-life movement and the moral state of the world at large."

I spent some time on her site, reflecting on many of her posts, and even looking through her archives. I took the time to comment on one of her latest posts titled:

"Do women want contraception?"

In it she talks about a study conducted in Brazil where the Family and Food and Nutritional Security Unit of the Pan-American Health Organization (PAHO) determined that women in Brazil would be greatly aided by gaining access to contraception.

Mary Worthington calls this conclusion a "planned parenthood related agenda." I wonder if she's heard the stories about women in Uganda who fight over who gets the used condom they find in the alley? Women there are reduced to washing used condoms so they can protect themselves from AIDS. But Mary Worthington says that giving women means to protect themselves is "societal suicide."She says this can even lead to abuse,

"But, can't birth control be considered abuse? Men get to expect unlimited sex from women without regard for her health or the natural consequences of sex, children."

Mary says one thing I agree with. She states that women need potable water, vaccinations and protection from spousal and child abuse. Of course they do, but I would argue that being able to plan families is also crucial and no one is arguing that we give these women education on sexuality and then disappear, ignoring their obvious need for food and water.

I wrote Mary a comment for her blog. One that was free from a lot of the anger I was feeling. It was also vulgarity-free and attempted to engage her in real discussion. She has REFUSED posts from me. It is her blog, her right of course, but I noticed in reading other posts that she will post comments from people that are opposed to her views... as long as they are cruel and rude and make no real argument. People who say things like, "You are so obsessed with other people's sex lives because you don't have one of your own." Yet she refuses to publish me. Why is that you suppose?

I want to publish my reply... this is my answer to Mary Worthington's claim. Tell me if you find it inappropriate to publish?

"One must pray for women who live in those conditions with so many problems on their hands like getting clean water etc.

But I would argue that they probably would very much want access to contraception. Since they live in poverty, it would be helpful to plan their families in number and spacing. That way they could provide for the children that they have and perhaps the mother can stop being pregnant long enough to maybe even get a job and help support the family she loves so much.

Birth control is a gift from God to women AND MEN everywhere. Before birth control, what do you suppose happened to married couples when a doctor told a woman, "Don't have any more children, it could kill you." Does that mean a married couple should turn away from each other in bed and deny their physical love? Sex is not just for procreation but having sex doesn’t always mean you want a child.

Both men and women benefit from being able to enjoy sex for its emotional and physical benefits. If a child resulted from every time a married couple had sex, how could they support all these children? Not just in food, clothing, water, education but also in the woman’s medical costs?

I completely support your right to refuse contraception. If you do not want it, don’t take it, or perhaps choose natural family planning but as for myself, my friends and my daughters, we can choose family planning and we have a right to make a decision with our doctor on how we are going to do so.

In case you aren’t aware—pregnancy is extremely hard on a woman’s body especially when adequate health care is not available (in a third world country). Most women do not want 5 children under the age of 7 when there is no money to care for them.

You have a right to do with YOUR body as you choose. So do not deny other women that choice. Contraception is not being forced on anyone, not you and not me and not the women of Brazil.

Furthermore. Birth control cannot be considered abuse in any way, shape or form. If a husband is using birth control as a means of forcing sex on his wife, then that is marital rape and she is not being abused due to birth control but due to an abusive relationship."

AMAZING article for the day

Religious zeal not conducive to progress
By STEVE GUSHEE

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. -- All great religions look forward to a better world, driven by their trust in a gracious God and the inquisitive spirit God gives his creation.

Religious institutions, on the other hand, tend to look backward to some imaginary golden age and try to preserve that fantasy -- and the power they derive from it. Signs of the success of such reactionary attitudes are increasingly visible and disturbing. A new Dark Ages triggered by religious conservatives with increasing power could descend on this country, as it has in much of the Muslim world.

Islamic leaders dominated by an unreformed faith have crippled many Muslim countries. As those leaders forced the faithful to practice their faith by looking backward, those countries have suffered enormously in their quality of education, social development, economic prosperity and personal freedom.

The political rise of religious movements in America now threatens our future. Little things add up. Blocking stem cell research for religious reasons, preventing potential medical breakthroughs, is an example. Another is the thinly disguised religious motivation behind the prevention of medicines like the morning after pill from getting to market. The silly attempt to insert a valid faith statement like Intelligent Design into science classes makes research a theological rather than a scientific discipline. Fossilized attitudes toward women and homosexuals retard social development.

The Holy Spirit blowing where he will is at the heart of a vibrant Christianity that looks forward to new things God has promised to do. The resurrection of Jesus opened the future to that graceful opportunity in which the faithful could know God in ever new and powerful ways.

The great gift of the Gospel is the imperative to risk new life, discover -- and serve -- God through heretofore unheard of ways. The disciples did just that, adding gentiles to a Jewish sect, moving into a Greek civilization from a Hebrew backwater and ultimately overcoming the world. Much of western civilization is rooted in the driving energy of an energetic Christianity that too often has had to fend off the church to express the Gospel.

The institution of the church has long been reluctant to greet any new day. It argues that God is already fully known. Such a closed approach to faith shuts down initiative and stifles hope. As religious groups gain political power, they impose their will, enshrine the past and kill the spirit. The descent begins.

 Steve Gushee writes for The Palm Beach Post