U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 08-25-2009, 04:13 PM
 
Location: Europe
2,735 posts, read 2,083,121 times
Reputation: 637

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Omaha Rocks View Post
I seemed to have missed all that 200-year old teaching about masturbation leading to severe diseases. Got a copy of that anywhere?
That is not what i wrote.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-25-2009, 04:16 PM
 
Location: I think my user name clarifies that.
8,293 posts, read 22,453,494 times
Reputation: 3868
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pamky View Post
That is not what i wrote.
This is what you wrote: "200 years ago people thought that masturbation would lead to severe diseases."

I'm curious where you got that information, because I've never heard it. So either you have some evidence of that teaching, or you just made it up, correct?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-25-2009, 04:25 PM
 
Location: Europe
2,735 posts, read 2,083,121 times
Reputation: 637
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omaha Rocks View Post
This is what you wrote: "200 years ago people thought that masturbation would lead to severe diseases."

I'm curious where you got that information, because I've never heard it. So either you have some evidence of that teaching, or you just made it up, correct?
I read a book about the science of love, sexuality and relationships. I do not have the authors name of that book, but Bas Kast`s "Die Liebe" uses the same sources and studies. The first book started every chapter with some historic background about love and sex during every era.
And two hundreds (or 250 years ago), the consensus was that masturbation led to severe deseases; obviously they (who?) didnt not want young people to experiment with their bodies and therefore scared them. Even today, some people feel bad about their sexuality.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-25-2009, 04:28 PM
 
4,529 posts, read 4,738,204 times
Reputation: 730
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omaha Rocks View Post
Well gee Wally, really?
Usual level of intellect we've come to expect.

Thanks for not suprising us with an intelligent reply.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-25-2009, 04:30 PM
 
4,529 posts, read 4,738,204 times
Reputation: 730
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pamky View Post
I read a book about the science of love, sexuality and relationships. I do not have the authors name of that book, but Bas Kast`s "Die Liebe" uses the same sources and studies. The first book started every chapter with some historic background about love and sex during every era.
And two hundreds (or 250 years ago), the consensus was that masturbation led to severe deseases; obviously they (who?) didnt not want young people to experiment with their bodies and therefore scared them. Even today, some people feel bad about their sexuality.
Ms. Pamky, don't bother.

The other poster is a simple troll, who've I've added to my ignore list.

I suggest everyone do the same.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-25-2009, 04:31 PM
 
Location: I think my user name clarifies that.
8,293 posts, read 22,453,494 times
Reputation: 3868
Quote:
Originally Posted by AxisMundi View Post
Usual level of intellect we've come to expect.

Thanks for not suprising us with an intelligent reply.
And thanks for writing something so incredibly stupid that nothing other than that was warranted.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-25-2009, 05:20 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
7,091 posts, read 10,486,058 times
Reputation: 4104
I see no problem with people being who they are. People like to get up in arms about how much they want to save other people from what they learned as being bad for them in some way. Let people do what they want if they only would harm themselves, if some one believes that way, they are adults enough to accept the consequences of their actions.

My own thoughts is that it is never a problem to be who one is, and for a religion that is based on gods love to hate people and treat them horribly because you don't agree with their lifestyle kind of goes against the central tenets.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-25-2009, 05:21 PM
 
Location: I think my user name clarifies that.
8,293 posts, read 22,453,494 times
Reputation: 3868
Quote:
Originally Posted by subsound View Post
I see no problem with people being who they are. People like to get up in arms about how much they want to save other people from what they learned as being bad for them in some way. Let people do what they want if they only would harm themselves, if some one believes that way, they are adults enough to accept the consequences of their actions.

My own thoughts is that it is never a problem to be who one is, and for a religion that is based on gods love to hate people and treat them horribly because you don't agree with their lifestyle kind of goes against the central tenets.
So then you'd have no problem with homosexuals wanting to leave that lifestyle and embrace heterosexuality?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-25-2009, 06:59 PM
 
Location: 30-40N 90-100W
13,856 posts, read 22,232,709 times
Reputation: 6657
Quote:
Originally Posted by AxisMundi View Post
I beg to differ, the Religious Right (sic, as they are neither) HAS been quashing SSM. Prop 8 is a perfect example. They are also still quite active, and have representatives in both the Republican and Democratic parties.

theocracywatch.org would prove quite enlightening for you.

Example? Most of Bush43 replacement appointees to the Judicial graduated from Robertson's Regents Law School. Pat is, of course, a student of the deceased Rushdooney, and forwards the Christian Reconstructionist's theodemocratic agenda.

Keeping that in mind, take a peek at Regents' stated goals.

Again, sir, and without malice or insult, you labor under misconceptions stemming from the plain fact that you cannot bring yourself to consider that people of your own religion are out to systematically dismantle this Nation's Principles, and that they have slowly crept into positions of power, from Mayors to Congressmen.

They are indeed quite sneaky, as it is a concerted effort, however one can still see hiccups in their facade, such as the recent, and now largely dead, effort to pass legislation calling for the death penalty for child rapists.

Just like a gentle stream will erode away bedrock over time, so to these people are a danger to the US.
First "Christian Reconstructionists" are Calvinists, they're not of my religion at all. They're a group of fringe heretics from my perspective and of debatable real importance.

Second - Looking it up it is true that he hired 150 from Regents, more than anyone before had done. However I haven't seen evidence that this is "most" or most significant. Alito and Roberts certainly weren't from Regents. I have not checked the following thoroughly, but perhaps you can find the Regents graduates among them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_..._controversies

Homosexuals even in California still have most of the rights they ever had. Even there it was a popular reversal of a court decision, not a long-established right. You want to believe something so badly that I feel you take a selective and highly biased view of the facts. By any logical or meaningful assessment gays are freer than they were in 1979 or 1988. Certainly more than in 1909, the year before the term "fundamentalist" began. Likewise individuals wanting greater public religiosity go back to some of the Founders, like Benjamin Rush. So I don't think you have much real to stand on.

Last edited by Thomas R.; 08-25-2009 at 07:13 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-25-2009, 08:25 PM
 
1,779 posts, read 2,037,221 times
Reputation: 616
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omaha Rocks View Post
So then you'd have no problem with homosexuals wanting to leave that lifestyle and embrace heterosexuality?
I have to ask? Why are you so fixed on this question? Why would anyone care what they do? I would say that if a homosexual changed who they are because of outside influence like pressure from parents or religion, I would be disappointed in the parents and the religious people. But if the person decided to do so on their own accord then I am fine with that.

As it is most homosexuals are forced to deny who they want to be because they are afraid. I have known several people that where gay but didnt want anyone to know. They where scared of what might happen, to me that is sad. To think that someone has to be scared of who they are or want to be...I say shame on those that are against anyone choosing a life of happiness.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top