State Sen. Paul Stanley is a good ol’ Republican boy. He teaches Sunday School at a United Methodist Church and is on their school board. He sponsored a bill to keep gay couples from adopting children. He’s quoted as saying that he “didn’t believe young people should have sex before marriage anyway, that his faith and church are important to him, and he wants to promote abstinence.” He’s married and has two children.
And now he’s admitted to having sex with his 22 year-old intern and taking nude photos of her.
How utterly shocking!
Okay, not really.
It came out when the intern’s boyfriend tried to blackmail the senator for $10,000.
He doesn’t want gay couples to adopt children because, in his bigotry, he sees them as depraved individuals who are not fit to raise children. The irony is his own religion condemns him — he committed adultery, which goes against one of his precious 10 Commandments. By his own standards, he’s not fit to raise children. It’s unlikely he would admit that, however. There’s nothing like hypocrisy to make fundies find excuses for what they normally denounce as heinous sins.
Sen. Stanley, and Christians like him, would do well to heed the words of Jesus:
“You hypocrite! First take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.” (Matt. 7:5)
Tyler!: Sooooo who exactly are they taking our country back from??? And i am in the process of moving so... 
NoYourGod: Yerp – nuthin’ saiz “patriotic” like “love it or leave... 
LawnBoy: Gee.. when exactly was this golden age of pureness in politics and the reign of common sense? 
Daniel Florien: So why aren’t you out in Montana with a bomb shelter, stocked food, and tons of ammunition? 
nazani14: Things that can’t go on forever don’t. Following the record heat, the power outages in the D.C.... 
Nelly: my apologies for using “duplicate” way too many times………..I really wish... 
Ty: Please. A moon hoaxer talking about good science? “I personally do not believe that we can prove that... 
79 Comments
Oh Daniel. If he did take heed to that scripture, he would also have to sacrifice goats as well. What’s the point in cherry picking then?
Because some verses actually have some wisdom in them. Others not so much.
Although, I hear sacrificing goats can be very beneficial…
Not for the goats.
I thought it was all the undeniable word of God. If you ignore some passages and choose to live by others, that’s ignoring God when convenient to make your life easier or more comfortable.
I pick at the scab of this point all of the time. I am truly curious to know why would an all knowing highly intelligent Yaweh would put/allow so much sillyness in his “word” that it would cause great confusion even amongst believers.
I cannot figure out why Yaweh would inspire a book that a signifigant percentage of christians would end up picking and choosing from according to how the Xtian feels. Why would a perfect god allow so much garbage in his “holy text” that many Xtians have a hard time figuring out the gargabe from the actual devine word of god.
It’s worth nothing that the scriptures were written 2,000+ years ago for the people living 2,000+ years ago.
History is history, now is now.
That it was written 2000+ years ago begs the question, and the point remains unanswered. Why would an all-powerful, all-knowing deity write a book which would be understood for a very brief time, and then cause confusion for the rest of history?
Not to mention that the original books caused so much confusion in themselves that they had to have a Council at Nicea to decide what they believed, which books should be in the Bible (many were discarded), and whether or not Jesus was divine. Yes, that’s how clear the message was: the divinity of Jesus was decided by a ballot carried out by humans in AD 325.
You asked why would he have had it written? I have been trying to get a reply to why christians even need the bible. I hear them say that they have a personnel relationship with their god but then they need a book of books to know what he is talking about. If they have a personnel relationship, then why do they have to find guidance in the bible and church?
But I’m sure Jesus has forgiven him by now. His sins are washed away “as far as the east is from the west.” It’s just like he’d never sinned. So now he can get back to bashing gays and condoms with a clear conscience. If the bad old atheists still hound him, it’s persecution.
That doesn’t work if he isn’t truly repentant of his sins – i.e. this guy cannot justly continue how he was unless he fixes up genuinely.
Doesn’t sound like he will though.
At least this one didn’t try to justify his actions by comparing himself to King David!
I think the price for failing int his way should be what David would have done too: A thousand foreskins of his enemies.
We take the senator, drop him in Afghanistan with a knife and say, “Senator, all is forgiven when you can come back with 1000 Taliban foreskins.”
But Muslims circumcise, so I imagine he would have a hard time trying to come up with 1,000 of them.
Those particular Muslims also carry AK47s and RPGs, so when he comes running at them with the knife aimed at their groins, I get the result I actually wanted.
The Republicans have quite the sex scandals recently, haven’t they? lol
Yeah, the fun thing about Christianity is that you can sleep with your interns and, if you apologize sometime before you die, all’s forgiven!
The major difference between Republicans & Democrats (aside from the Pubbies having their party hijacked by lunatic fundamentalists) is that the Pubbies preach hell & damnation over acts that they commit, then beg Jesus & his family for forgiveness. The average Dem will say, “Yea, he screwed-up. Let’s get back to work.” I strongly respect the Dem attitude even if I do loathe infidelity.
According to the standards of the bronze age isrealites who wrote the ten commandments he didn’t commit adultery since the woman was not married herself. Since polygamy was the norm at the time a married man having sex with a woman other then his wife was not considered a adulterer unless the other woman was already married to someone else and therefore in a classic biblical double standard was not allowed to sleep with anyone else on pain of being stoned to death. What a bright light of morality is the bible that we should all live by?
why is it we only hear about sunday school teachers, ministers, priests and congressmen having these issues, and not atheists?
To be fair, atheists do things like this, too. However, they’re not out telling everyone they go to hell for doing it. And they’re not out legislating their morality.
Atheists are a small % of the population, so there will be less of a % that do things like this. As we grow, it will increase.
And they’re not out legislating their morality.
This is a confusing argument to me, because I think that a lot, if not most, of legislation is legislating morality.
Take speed limits, for example. Speed limits are designed to promote safety and to protect citizens. The moral underpinning is that it’s wrong to harm another citizen.
Or, to take something more current and controversial, take proposed hate speech legislation. It’s wrong to incite violence against other people, so some are trying to make it illegal. So, if you think hate speech is wrong, and you’re a supporter of hate speech legislation, aren’t you legislating your morality? Is that a bad thing?
If you define morals as “the rules that make social behavior cohesive in a given colony”, then yes, laws are there to enforce them. Hurting people is a bad thing because hurting people is counterproductive to the colony’s health.
Legislating about things that only a sect of the colony thinks is relevant and even the sect itself is unable to enforce in its midst (such as being abstinent and monogamous) is what I call “hypocrisy” and/or “an epic waste of resources”.
The difference here is that the legislation you mentioned above involves actions that infringe upon others rights and freedoms. When we discuss legislating “morality” it’s generally people trying to attack our freedoms because they personally don’t like it. Murder is wrong because it infringes upon the right of the victim to live. Gay marriage is different because it doesn’t affect anyone but the people performing the act. Therefore, it’s legislating morality because it’s forcing people to act how you would act, despite it not affecting you at all.
No such thing as a victimless crime. Consenting adults. No victim, no crime.
“It’s a victemless crime, like punching someone in the dark”
-Neslon from The Simpsons”
Sorry, everytime I hear that phrase I think of that line hehe
gah, but I usually don’t misspell Victim =P
Hypocrisy. That’s what such stories are meant to expose. Obviously atheists have no morals and therefore there is nothing to be exposed.
Loathing infidelity, isn’t that a moral?
…are you serious? Read the story again, the fact that he’s an abstinence-supporting senator is the whole story. If it were an atheist the story would be “Guy has sex with completely legal adult woman — doesn’t expect to go to hell”.
… he was kidding, methinks ;p
which would be a great headline.
I am 46 and single. I once had a 23 year old Latina girlfriend. Many Latinas like older men. So I have no problem hooking up with younger women.
But you’re not a preacher preaching against it while doing it.
@ Daniel or any other serious or hard core christian
Im asking this because I myself was never ever a committed christian. From what you (former committed christians) can tell, did the whole abstinence thing inside the church work out generally speaking. Were the single folks in your church a lot more likely to wait until marraige to have sex.
Im curious to know because from what I can see the whole abstinence thing in church is pretty much lip service. From what I have seen even from so called serious christians, they arent that much better at getting people to wait until marraige than any one else in this country.
Most people fail from my experience. It’s not something most people admit when it’s going on, but when you get close to people and ask them, you find that almost no one could actually wait — and even if they could wait for intercourse, they did almost anything else. ;)
That is what is killing me these abstinence folks for the most part have never been able to explain how they themselves was able wait until marraige. But then on the other hand they still keep popping this abstinence Yang. Oh the sweet, sweet hypocristy. Nothing but pure do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do-ism.
By the way, what you described Daniel is the exact same impression I have always got from christians on the matter of abstinence.
Thought sex doesn’t start at intercourse. ‘Anything’ else is part of sex. Some Muslim girls on our side will have anal sex because then they are still ‘virgin’.
I mean to say
@ Daniel or any other former serious or hard core christian
Im asking this because I myself was never ever a committed christian. From what you (former committed christians) can tell, did the whole abstinence thing inside the church work out generally speaking. Were the single folks in your church a lot more likely to wait until marraige to have sex.
Im curious to know because from what I can see the whole abstinence thing in church is pretty much lip service. From what I have seen even from so called serious christians, they arent that much better at getting people to wait until marraige than any one else in this country.
I tend to agree with Daniel. The majority of people don’t actually succeed in waiting — although I’m not sure exactly how majority should be defined (51%? 75%? Not sure).
Some data I’m aware of here. Purity pledges don’t seem to work.
But, then again, there are people like Joshua Harris who are case in point of examples of people who abstained and are willing to explain how freely.
I abstained, although I don’t agree with Harris on much else, but I’m not about to share those details of my personal life on the interwebs.
@ BR
” I abstained, although I don’t agree with Harris on much else, but I’m not about to share those details of my personal life on the interwebs.”
mark: I am not asking for folks to spill thier guts, I just would like for those repubs/conservatives who parade the abstinence only crap in public to explain how they were personally able to abstain.
Also I think the % of folks who have sex before marraige is way higher than your #s BR. I think Daniel mentioned 95% bieng the percentage of americans who dont wait until marraige. I think Daniel mentioned this in an article last week.
I think Daniel mentioned 95% bieng the percentage of americans who dont wait until marraige. I think Daniel mentioned this in an article last week.
That may be true. I don’t know for sure.
I’m not aware of any numbers related to what % of Evangelical Christians abstain, which would be the relevant study — because Evangelicals are the group promoting abstinence.
Based on my experience 95% would be far too high. If I had to guess, I’d say it’s probably more likely that somewhere between 50%-80%, but again, that’s just based on my experience. I don’t know of any numbers other than what I posted above.
Are you kidding me? 95% is more likely TOO LOW if anything. 50% HA !!!Jkfjaslfjslfjdsa That’s hilarious. Do you have any relationship with reality?
Do you have any relationship with reality?
Hi, Jonny. Nice to meet you, too.
What’s reality?
I think people been lyin’ to you. ;)
Watch their eyes next time if you ask if they had sex before marriage.
Depends, define sex ;p
Some people don’t count some acts, after all…
My thoughts on abstinence depends on what you count. Ranging between “creating unnecessary hangups and pointlessly denying yourself some fun” and “having a good time without having to worry about pregnancy or contraceptives”
I’ve known a good many “christian girls” who had no problem with a little back door action so they could remain “pure” Life must be great when you can create your own morals and rules to suit your needs. Bob forbid I chose to live morally because it’s the right thing to do not because some pretend jerk in the sky says so….but then again…he thought it was pretty moral to kill babies and pregnant mothers if they didn’t see things the way his minions did…Now excust me, my girlfriend seems to be wearing some clothes that are of mixed materials so, I have to take her into town and kill her as decreed in the bible
I qualified my comments based on my experience.
I grew up in a particular youth group and remained close with a lot of those people. I also went to an evangelical Christian college, where I met even more young Evangelical Christians.
In my experience, based on those relationships, 95% is simply too high.
Daniel’s experience is different. I’m not saying he’s wrong. Only that my experience has been different.
I went to a Lutheran high school (hey, no laughing) where they pushed the whole abstinance thing on us. We were even asked to sign little papers before prom saying that we would not do the hippity-dippity. I signed the paper and then yelled, “holy crap, now I gotta know what i’m missin’…quick! someone sleep with me!”
the pastor wasn’t amused…
Whenever I think of abstinence, I think of Harris. He had amazing self-control, and I admire his discipline. (Though I’d never put myself through that torture again.)
He’s a rarity in that regard. He wanted to wait, and he waited (and so did you it seems). I think that’s great if you wanted to do that. But I see no reason for mature people to wait unless they want to.
Don’t see any reason why that should be encouraged, either.
In regards to Siberia’s comment.
“Don’t see any reason why that should be encouraged, either.”
I was not aware of any program that does not preach abstinence as the only option as encouraging young people to have sex. I am aware of these groups informing them that if they choose to have sex to do so with intelligence and to do so safely. With teen pregnancy on the rise and the startling numbers that 1 in 4 sexually active teens have an s.t.d. a little bit of education is a good thing.
Mm, I’m not sure if I get what you mean; but what I meant was, “I don’t know why abstinence should be actively encouraged”.
I’m in big favor of “teach them the facts and let them do as they please”.
These holier than thou motherhumpers are the worst human beings in the world. The Republican party needs to go away.
” Based on my experience 95% would be far too high. If I had to guess, I’d say it’s probably more likely that somewhere between 50%-80% ”
mark: 50%-80% are not close #s at all. I think its closer to 80% because if thier really was that many (50%) evangelicals that waited until marriage to get thier freak on I would think we would see a much larger percentage of them adding thier voices to the abstinence only debate.
It would make the abstinence only argument much stronger if they had more people standing up and saying this is what you do to remain sex free until marraige I know from personal experience because it worked for me.
I think its closer to 80% because if thier really was that many (50%) evangelicals that waited until marriage to get thier freak on I would think we would see a much larger percentage of them adding thier voices to the abstinence only debate.
I think you’ve made a mistake in your assumptions, or I’ve misunderstood what you mean by “abstinence only.”
I believe abstaining is desirable. I do not support the “Abstinence Only” movement, especially when it comes to sex/health education. “Abstinence Only” curriculum is naive and damaging, and I don’t support it even though I do think abstinence is desirable.
In other words, even though I think abstinence is desirable, I have no interest in supporting the “abstinence only” group, and I think there are a lot of folks who feel exactly the same way.
I didnt say you support the abstinence only crowd. I was however responded to your low figure of 50% abstinence rate for evangelicals. One of my points remains the same, if 20% of evangelics waited until marraige to get the freak I would expect to hear about more of them using their personal experience as a way to teach others about how to abstain.
The fact that you dont have thousands of christians in the abstinence only movement giving thier personal testomonials on how to abstain tells you all you need to know about the rate at which evangelicals remain sex free until marraige.
The fact that you dont have thousands of christians in the abstinence only movement giving thier personal testomonials on how to abstain tells you all you need to know about the rate at which evangelicals remain sex free until marraige.
I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree.
You interpret that more evangelicals aren’t involved in the abstinence only movement because they failed to abstain. That’s a possibility, but I don’t think it’s the only or even necessary conclusion to reach.
I think there’s an alternative explanation, namely, that at least some people abstain but think the abstinence only movement is misguided. I’m one of those people, and I know from my experience that there are more.
” You interpret that more evangelicals aren’t involved in the abstinence only movement because they failed to abstain. That’s a possibility, but I don’t think it’s the only or even necessary conclusion to reach. ”
mark: Now I fell like you are playing the games you play all of the time. Things such as playing dumb or purposely being vague or mystical. Thier are millions of evangelicals all over america.
If even only 20 % of them waited until marraige their should be thousands of them preaching about what folks can do to remain abstinant until marraige.
What I am saying is I hear fundies all the time talking about abstinence (on radio and tv) only but very few of them actually say this is how I was able to keep the purity vow.
If you are going to ask someone (or a group of people) to do something dont you think it would help if you actually told them how you were able to do that something yourself. Especially if what you were asking folks to do is something that the majority of people havent been able to do.
Stop acting like you arent that bright BR even if most evangelicals dont support the abstinence only crowd there are still plenty of them that do. Now if your 50% of evangelical christians wating until marraige was true I still should hear about more fundies giving thier stories of how they personally waited until sex.
Wouldnt agree with that BR?
really bad typo I meant to say at the end.
Stop acting like you arent that bright BR even if most evangelicals dont support the abstinence only crowd there are still plenty of them that do. Now if your 50% of evangelical christians wating until marraige was true I still should hear about more fundies giving thier stories of how they personally waited until marraige to have sex.
@ brgulker
” Just go to a youth group at any evangelical church for a summer. You’ll see what I mean. Or, if you want more celibrity, check out Joshua Harris and the entire movement he’s sparked; it’s friggin’ huge. Or, check out A.C. Green, former NBA player. ”
mark: Look I never heard of this guy Joshua Harris as for A.C Green he is the only baskettball player I have ever heard of who claimed to be abstinence.
If you cannot admit that if 50 % of evangelicals actually wait until marriage to have sex then that should translate into a lot more people in the abstinence only movement preaching how they were personally able to wait until marraige then you are a piece of work.You are either blinded by your religion, stupid or you are bieng purposely decietful.
Thier is no way an intelligent person (christian) can make a statement that 50% of evangelicals wait until marraige and then not recognize the fact that if this were true then we should see thousands of of people in the abstinence only crowd publicly giving personal testimomials about how they were able to save it until marraige. And not just in church either, fundies dont just keep the abstinence rhetoric confined only to church they are pushing it as a form of sex education in publicly funded shcools.
To put it simply if thier are as many fundies who wait until marraige as you claim we all should hear from them a lot more during the abstinence only debates.
Your comments are a main reason I despise all religions, which is religion influences smart people such as yourself to say and believe ridicilous things.
mark: Now I fell like you are playing the games you play all of the time. Things such as playing dumb or purposely being vague or mystical. Thier are millions of evangelicals all over america.
I’m not playing games. Here’s the timeline.
You made an accusation (hypocrisy) against the abstinence only crowd. They say one thing but don’t offer any proof as to 1) whether or not they actually do what they say 2) how to do what they say they do (assuming they actually do abstain).
Daniel mentioned his personal experience, which confirmed your assumptions.
I mentioned mine, which is significantly different from Daniel’s even though we have had similar experiences, and that goes against your assumptions.
You’re arguing that the only reason there aren’t more people involved and vocal in the abstinence only movement is that there really aren’t that many people who abstain.
I’m arguing that your conclusion isn’t the logically necessary conclusion based on my experience, namely, that there are a lot of people who would be pro-abstinence but conscientiously against the “abstinence only” movement.
In short, you’ve made three arguments:
1) Abstinence only folks are hypocrites.
2) Furthermore, they don’t offer how it would be possible to actually abstain.
3) If Evangelicals were really abstinent, then we should see more supporters of the abstinence only movement.
My response has been:
1) No, they’re not all hypocrites, and I’ve offered reasons why.
2) Yes, they do. You’ve said yourself you were never a dedicated Christian, right? Evangelical churches address the “how” question all the time. Spend one summer regularly attending any Evangelical church in the country and tell me what the most talked about topic is.
3) There are people, like myself, who have chosen abstinence but want nothing to do with the “abstinence only” movement. I don’t know how to quantify how many of such people there are, but your conclusion is not the only logical conclusion, nor is it the necessary one.
I’m not playing games with you mark. In fact, I’m doing just the opposite. I am responding to all of your claims explicitly and directly.
You keep missing a fundemental point I am making. You miss that I am not implying that all of the abstinence only crowd are hypocrits only the ones who expect folks to wait until marraige to have sex but want explain how they themselves were able to wait until marraige.
You also seem to miss my point about how there should be more fundies giving thier personal testomonials about how they were able to remain pure if the #s you mentioned were close to accurate.
Quite frequently I hear holy rollers talking about abstience only but very, very rarely do I hear of them giving personal testomony about how they were able to remain pure.
Christians give witness to the greatness of god and how he rescued them from a life of sin all of the time.
The fact that christians dont have a problem witnessing for the lord about thier personal experiences of bieng saved tells you that more christian in the abstinence only movement should be giving personal testimony on how they kept thier purity.
Simply stated BR if the #s of evangelicals that wait until marriage is accurate in your statement there should be a lot more people in the abstinence only movement teaching how they were personally able wait until marraige. Even if the majority of evangelicas arent feeling the abstinence only crowd.
Would you not agree with this.
You also seem to miss my point about how there should be more fundies giving thier personal testomonials about how they were able to remain pure if the #s you mentioned were close to accurate.
To which I respond from my comment above:
2) Yes, they do. You’ve said yourself you were never a dedicated Christian, right? Evangelical churches address the “how” question all the time. Spend one summer regularly attending any Evangelical church in the country and tell me what the most talked about topic is.
Because you don’t hear it on the radio or see it on TV doesn’t mean it’s not happening. You’ve said you’ve never been all that involved with church, right? I don’t think it’s unfair of me to question whether or not you have a complete picture of what actually goes on in church if you’re not a regular there. I don’t mean that as a slam on you, just an observation.
Simply stated BR if the #s of evangelicals that wait until marriage is accurate in your statement there should be a lot more people in the abstinence only movement teaching how they were personally able wait until marraige. Even if the majority of evangelicas arent feeling the abstinence only crowd.
I can only speak from my experience in the evangelical church. From what I know based on that experience, there are a lot of evangelicals who are very vocal about this issue, and they speak freely about it in church all the time.
Some abstained until marriage and are vocal about that; others did not and express deep regret for not doing so.
I grant that you don’t see it in the news as much as the hypocrites show up, but that doesn’t mean it’s not happening. Just because it doesn’t appear in the venues that you prefer and does appear in the venues you don’t doesn’t necessarily mean that people aren’t doing the very thing you think they’re not doing.
Just go to a youth group at any evangelical church for a summer. You’ll see what I mean. Or, if you want more celibrity, check out Joshua Harris and the entire movement he’s sparked; it’s friggin’ huge. Or, check out A.C. Green, former NBA player. Those types of spokespeople who trumpet the message do exist.
For clarification, when you say “abstinence only” I think of a very specific group of people, those who would advocate for abstinence as the only form of appropriate sex ed., etc. If you mean something different, please let me know.
You keep missing a fundemental point I am making. You miss that I am not implying that all of the abstinence only crowd are hypocrits only the ones who expect folks to wait until marraige to have sex but want explain how they themselves were able to wait until marraige.
There are plenty of hypocrites, I’m not disputing that. I am simply pointing out that there are plenty of people doing exactly what you ask.
“There are plenty of hypocrites, I’m not disputing that. I am simply pointing out that there are plenty of people doing exactly what you ask.”
Except YOU pulled the numbers out of your ass when it was convenient and when you’re called on it, you back away and try to obfuscate saying it wasn’t what you really meant’
“Because you don’t hear it on the radio or see it on TV doesn’t mean it’s not happening.”
Just like that God feller you believe in too? Except that there are all those people willing to share their personal testimonials about that God Feller but when talking about abstinence only the masses of the followers are curiously silent. As has been pointed out to you several times.
Player: I want to evade again.
Referee: You need to roll a 5 or better on a six sided die.
Player: I rolled a 2 again. :(
Saw somewhere, but cannot recall where, that girls who pledge chastity before marriage are eight times more likely to have anal sex pre-maritaly than those who do not pledge. Makes you wonder…
Makes me wonder why this movement didn’t exist when *I* was in high school.
Arguing numbers isn’t relevant – it’s too subjective and based on situation. What’s relevant is that abstinence doesn’t work – people don’t stick to it.
The question I always want to ask the ‘purity vow’ people is
Why don’t you have purity rings and balls for mothers and sons?
Sexual double standard.
Did Faux Noise put a big (D) after this guys name as they did when the Foley, Sanford, and Craig scandals broke? :P
Paul Stanley looks so different without his makeup.
LMAO..finally….I made the same joke too at work…
You ignorant heathens! How dare you impugn such a fine Christian? (And he’s “Senator Stanley” to you.) You call him an ADULTERER? Your minds are warped by twenty-first century scientific mumbo jumbo homosexual communist hippie dippie propaganda. True adherents of the Bible know that technically adultery can only be committed by a married WOMAN not a married MAN. For a man to know more than one woman is no less Godly than, say, boarding more than one horse in the stable.
That particular argument never worked for me with my fundie friends.
Though out human history teenagers have been having sex. If they did not the human race might be extinct. For most of human history most humans were lucky to live to be 30 years old. Also 50% of children births resulting in the death of the mother. Often as soon as a girl had her period, she was a women. Jews also view manhood and starting at age 13.
Because of renissance art, most Christians views the famous mothers of the Bible as being women in the last 20s or 30s. (As well as being white Europeans) If Mary, Ruth, Hannah, Leah, Rachel existed they were young teens. Women in bible times were breeders and property, to be trading to a wealthy men, who needed more then one wive in case another wife died in child birth. It is doubtful a girl was a virgin for long after she had her first period (unless her knew the islamic prophet)
Today’s Christians still view Mary as a middle class white woman, somehow still single and a virgin in her mid 20’s when god knocked her up. So if Mary could wait, so can any one else.
Because of the modern world we live in, it is not wise or vaiable for a women to get married and have a child until she finishes college and has a caraar. This could happen between the ages of 24-30. Yet that same woman has been aware of her sexuality since maybe the age of 12.
What the religious right demends of people today is sometime that was never demended of any generation before, to remain celebrite for the first 10-20 ages of the person’s sexual awakening. My grandparents, either fundie or Calvinist, all got married in their teens.
On a personal note, as a fundie teen I was a true believer, I was told if I waited until I got married, god would bless me. When I was 19 I was a virgin, I had never done drugs, alcohol or even scene a movie, (later to find out I was a minority in my own youth group) Also at 19 I also died of menigitis. It so mess up my health, I took me 6 year to finish college (going part time) and because of the pain I was in, I did not have a social life. I was not heathly again until I was 30. I finally lost my virginity when I was 31. When I asked most Christians why this happened to me when I had obey the major rules, I would get these responses, your reward it that you are alive, anything short of being in hell is your reward, you reward is coming, if you had not been sick, you life would be worst or the one they believed but would never say to my face, that I was whoremonger pot smoking teen and got my just punishment. The church F*CKING lied to me (all of the teenage sex I missed out on) and they do to any children they promise rewards for moral behavior.
I do not have children, but still hope to, but I have teenage nieces and nephews. Half are being raised by fundie parents. I have told them my story, told them they would be foolish to wait until got married to have sex. (I have yet to tell them their parents weren’t virigins when they got married). I also tell them they will truly know who their friend are, when something really bad happens to them and their fundie friends don’t find a way to blame them for their own misfortune.
I like what Chef on South Park told the boys about sex “17″ sounds like a good number to me.
Don’t forget all, the virgin Mary was an unwed teen mother too……
It’s getting to the point where i feel like I can’t trust some of these guys.
2 Trackbacks
[...] RELIGION VS. SEX: Abstinence-Supporting anti-gay-adoption Senator Admits To adultry With 22-Year-Old… Yet another hypocritical religious person. Trying to force his viewpoint on the world via politics — saying gay couples should not adopt because they are not fit to raise children — while not even adhering to his own beliefs and cheating on his wife. I wonder how fit his own 2 kids think he is as a parent? [...]
[...] RELIGION VS. SEX: Abstinence-Supporting anti-gay-adoption Senator Admits To adultry With 22-Year-Old… Yet another hypocritical religious person. Trying to force his viewpoint on the world via politics — saying gay couples should not adopt because they are not fit to raise children — while not even adhering to his own beliefs and cheating on his wife. I wonder how fit his own 2 kids think he is as a parent? [...]