my take on marriage is if you get married in a church, than obviously it's between you, your partner, your pastor, and god...
BUT, constitutionally, ALL are created equal. as such all should be treated as equals...not treated like the creatures in 'animal farm', where all are equal--but some are more equal than others!! so 'civil unions' should apply to all adults. ALL of them. matter of fact, civil recognition of a religious ceremony---well, let's just say if you really believe in separation of church and state, where does that leave marriage--and explains why you must buy a marriage license, that covers the civil part of it i suppose.

no timm...laws are there to prevent chaos. obviously most laws are based on moral values--prostitution for example. but my idea of what is morally right or wrong won't jibe with yours, or many others.
is playboy porn? i don't think it is...but ask others. some will think so, while others would agree with me that it isn't. gambling is a moral issue. as is drinking. moral tells you not to drink, legal says don't drink unless over 21, and don't drive. just because you might have a drink, that doesn't lead to chaos.

i think what ticks me off more than anything regarding green party, libertarians and the like...lack of debate! it really irritates me that the 'real' candidates absolutely refuse to debate their opponents. it's ridiculous. as tho any willingness to debate would bestow legitimacy to another party and would lose them some votes. well, actually it would! lol i really think that those who provide the debates, who set them up and moderate them, should consider allowing the other opponents to have a voice as well.

Timm,
The trap is when you define "morality" for others.
Is it just as wrong to kill inoccent (co-lateral damage) children with a cruise misile in Baghdad as Amish children in an Amish school.
To me, what's wrong is wrong.
I'll take that stand.
I just won't be launching any "air strikes" to make that point.

Danzig,
I agree with your statement. Unfortunately, the greens and Libertarians aren't invited to the "big show" debates.

Well,Ziggie maybe you can explain our present state of chaos...where men/women basically hook up with anything that moves,gangs, indiscriminate "recreational" drug use, medical companies putting out drugs that not only dont work,but kill. Not to mention the escalating violence on children,by adults and their peers alike. And then there's the people that deface works of art and any new car they can't afford,car-jackings....the whole "I want this and I'm gonna have it no matter what" I could go on...

my god man, where do you live??

Here in NY, marriages don't have to happen in a church. A Justice of the Peace can unite a "couple"...man and woman.
There are some things I really don't understand that the government decides...like why do I have to buy a license for my dog, but not my cat?
Does the government really make money off the dog owners but provide special favor to cat owners?
And why is there sales tax on potato chips but not potatoes? (here in NY)
Crazy stuff!

Beautiful Southern California

you know exactly what I'm talking about,but you wish to politicize the problem. This country was founded with societal morals and they've slid a long way. I dont call the new morality where everything goes is morality at all...it's chaos.

Timm,
I agree with you that there's plenty of chaos going on.
Do you think it originated with the "breakdown of the traditional family", with about 50% of marriages ending in divorce? Or was the model for "morality" set by more powerful forces that bring their sense of "morality" to others through e-mails to pages, or rewriting the Geneva Conventions, or imposing their concept of "democracy" on others through "shock and awe"?
Chaos, indeed!

"Everything doesn't go." If you don't speak against it, the chaos will continue.

timm-- i think it's an issue that one way or another has to become politicized. this whole ted haggard and mark foley thing is hilarious because they're the people doing the very same they've built their lives around condemning.

it gets political when people vote against abortion and for a war. they say that abortion is wrong because the 'child has no voice' but the childern in iraq who are blown to smithereens in the name of democracy don't have much of a say either, yet they support doing anything we have to in order to get what we want in Iraq. It's a potent example.

i do get what you're saying about politicizing the conversation, but this is one of those issues that sort of necessarily has to be politicized. these people who want to legislate morality so that we do not live in a chaotic "anything goes" society -- they are well served to make sure they aren't doing the same things they are denouncing, ya know?

I've never even thought about the govt. being the model for morality. How long are you gonna chew that bone,man? Election's over..all the bad guys go home....now its on the No Policy Dems to straighten out all the messes....I wish them Luck and Godspeed!!

Timm,
This isn't about elections anymore, though I really do think people cast their votes based on what they thought was the "right" thing to do.
The way out of the chaos, seems to me, is to find "consistancy".
Yes, consistancy in one's "moral" beliefs and "moral" actions, whether it be the individual or the government that represents the society (of individuals) from which it gains its power to govern.
My point is that if isn't happening in one place, how is it possible for it to exist in any other?

It's the WRONG example,Brian! OK..so these 2 Bums get caught..so that makes the message bad too? I don't think it does. You can check your States' Preamble to its' Constitution to see what was set down by our leaders. It might surprise you. The breakdown of this society is a result of family breakdown and that society became lawless and unwilling to follow its leaders. The recalcitrant child imposing its' will....

DTS: It won't happen in Congress if it doesn't happen at Home and work first!

absolutely does not make the message necessarily bad-- that's another debate we've had ;)

however, the big point of what I was saying is gentlemen like these two are the main reason that people are very uncomfortable when talking about fixing the moral breakdown in this country. how do we fix it? we listen to our role models...our pastors and congressmen? and then they betray us by being hypocrites.

these examples of people who can't practice what they preach make people uneasy about ANYONE with a moral agenda.

morality starts at home and it is parents who need to instill a moral upbringing in their children. we can disagree over how to define that morality, but i know we can all agree on most of the things (ie we don't teach our kids to have sex at age 12, we don't teach them to get drunk and high in 8th grade, we teach them that killing people and stealing is wrong...things like that). it's depressing, it almost seems like there is no way to fix it. how do we start to fix it when the family is the core teacher of morality and values, but the family is breaking down at unprecedented rates and our families are outsourcing their parenting to day care centers so that we can go to work to keep up in the rat race of debt we're in and not get evicted from the house that the family spends a total of one hour a day together in?

i agree that it all starts at home. problem comes in when too many parents are too 'busy' to take care of their kids..want to be the kids best friend, rather than a parent and do their job. don't wanna make your kids follow rules (and children are very much creatures of habit and routine--whether they follow a good or bad routine) and set limits, don't want to be the bad guy? don't have kids. kids can make plenty of friends at school, they only get one set of parents.

Timm,
As you know, I've spent a good portion of my life trying to "educate" children.
Some of my toughest ones have been from completely dysfuntional families.
Small triumphs, some failures. Every victory is a winner to me.
Whether those home settings were the cause or the effect of something from a higher societal level is difficult for me to determine.
IMHO, one won't be fixed without fixing other, maybe simultaneously.
Where to start? Your guess is probably as good as mine.
The key is that consistancy must exist at all levels.

I can see that the problems are becoming clearer to you also. And yet the school system proposes to give 11-12 yr old girls a shot to lessen the chance of STD's or pregnancy. Doesn't that sound like they are subliminally promoting a lifestyle?

DTS: In a perfect world we could expect to achieve this,but we live in a fallen world. We must have moral standards to get us through the times that test our character,while still attempting to take care of family.

Timm,
As you well know, I'm no quitter.
If it's a "fallen world" that needs fixing, just do your best, as will I, to make it better in a way that is consistant with your "moral" view on what is right.
What other purpose for our mutual existances could be better?
DTS

ps...sometimes I attempt to do it with "humor"...thanks for tolerating that.

i wasn't suggesting in any way that there should be no moral standards--the problem comes in when the govt tries to enforce their idea of morals...i raise my kids to do right, to know right from wrong, and to treat others with dignity and respect, as well as to have self-respect and exert self-control.

None higher! as my signature attests! Yeah...you're funny,err,mostly!

Timm, the shot to which you are referring is to help prevent cervical cancer, which can result from genital warts. You're saying better to promote morality by keeping a cancer vaccine from women? "Don't have sex, girls! You might get cancer!" Dear God.

I think schools should give kids complete, thorough sex ed (and the HPV vaccine, while they're at it) because it's a health issue. Condoms are a matter of public health, as are contraceptives of all kinds (kids need to know the pill prevents pregnancy, not VD, for one). It's up to the parents to talk to their kids about the moral ramifications of sex, and they should. But it's not the government's place to teach "morality" by concealing information. Kids should not be denied a life-saving shot or clinical information. It's not going to encourage promiscuity; it's going to encourage teenagers who are going to have sex anyway to use protection. About half of all kids who make abstinence pledges break them within a year, and the majority of those kids don't use any sort of birth control, because they already believe they're doing something "bad" so why be intelligent about it?

Plus, once they are out in the world, how are we again going to have the same opportunity to educate young Americans about their own bodies? How much sex ed did you get in a classroom setting once you were out of high school? (Sorry, in the field experience doesn't count, unless you were sleeping with your sex ed teacher) I got a grand total of 15 minutes-- freshman year of college, a teacher's aide came into Writing Workshop I and showed us how to put on a condom. And that was because I went to college. Where again are we going to be able to educate people about what is, all said and done, a health issue?

HPV vaccines and comprehensive sex ed for all public school students, say I. And then the kids can go home and talk to their parents about what they learned. Now there's a concept... parents talking to their kids about sex...

What about the kids who aren't doing that? What does that teach them? That it's "ok" to engage in sexual interaction at such a young age? I agree with you on this being a parent issue. Parents aren't talking to their kids...

For the record, we learned about the "birds and the bees" in elementary school. :D All kids should be taught about it... it's life.

If the parents don't teach them, Mark Foley will.
No condoms needed.

GR: A friend of mines' sister had surgery for cervical cancer at the age of 20! This was brought on by a very active sexual lifestyle(I'm not makin this up). I don't know all about STD's or Warts. I wouldn't want young girls to get them, but I draw the line at the people routinely making these kinds of decisions for our kids. I believe that these plans Do give implicit consent for young people to feel free to experience/experiment with things they're not ready for physically or emotionally. But I will read up on this and add to this thread if I find anything interesting! P.S. I checked on WebMD and genital warts are considered an STD,passed on by sexual activity. So when you have the warts, if they're not treated, then they can become potentially cancerous. It did not mention what percentage of girls/women would be at risk(for the warts to become cancerous) So...the whole 11 year old girls having sex thing? Why would we even be having this issue if Parents(not the school system) dealt with 1)the 'birds/bees' and 2)Authorities and school system taught this as a prerequisite for graduation from(I'll give you a break)8th grade. No one is concealing any info, and by the way, all the stuff you need to know is in BOOKS. I went to private school, so I read books. In the 60's, nobody was forthcoming about sex....there's nothing 'prurient' about biology! Routine exams for young girls would be common sense, not giving them a shot or a pill so that "they can all they can be"!

But Timm, NOT giving them a shot that would protect them against cervical cancer caused by genital warts is using a fear tactic. Which is morally reprehensible, as far as I'm concerned. And since your 20-year-old acquaintance still had the surgery, it clearly didn't work in her case- the fear tactic, that is. So are you glad she had cancer surgery because that taught her a lesson?

Timm, you also went to school some time ago-- have you checked into Bush's abstinence only sex ed recently? And have you checked the success rates on it? Google and you'll find some interesting stuff on what a colossal waste of money it's been. Kids aren't getting the sex ed you and I got.

Speaking as a woman who was going to the gyno long before I had sex (my mom died of breast cancer when she was 35 so my dad started sending me to the gyno at age 13), cervical exams are fracking painful if you still have a hymen (I still remember my first exam after I'd become sexually active and it was a truly beautiful moment not to leave the office in tears from the pain). It's pretty abusive to suggest giving girls routine cervical exams rather than a shot, don't you think?

Timm, one still has to contend with, oh, herpes, AIDS, chlamydia, gonorreha, crabs, etc. if one has unprotected sex. And of course, the big P. (pregnancy) To say giving girls a shot that might save their lives due to one virus will promote promiscuity is a wee bit extremist, don't you think?

If the vaccine is offered to your kids' kids, will you tell your kids not to let their daughters get it?

You also, I assume from your line about drawing the line about other people making these kinds of decisions for kids, are opposed to measles, mumps, rubella and tetanus vaccinations? Kids are required to get those to go to school. Did you kids get them?

Speaking as someone who saw her mom die of cancer, it sucks. Anything as simple as a vaccine for at least one kind of cancer is a good thing and should be available to all girls. Period.

Genuine, I'm so sorry to hear about your Mom. :(

Everyone on the female side of my family (mom excluded, thank God) has died of cancer. I too have been seeing the gyno since a young age, and you're right, it stinks.

I'm sorry about your family medical history, too! Ugh. My mom was the only one on that side to die of breast cancer, but my grandfather died the year after she died and my grandmother the year after that. As awful as it was for me, as an adult I feel worst for my aunt, my mom's sister, who lost her entire immediate family in three years. She never married, so she has no immediate family of her own. Fortunately, my dad's side of the family scooped her right up and she spends holidays, etc., with my dad and stepmom and my dad's sister and brother's families. She sat with the family at my paternal grandfather's funeral, too-- I think most of my dad's side have forgotten she's not from their side to begin with. :)

Family is so important... I think that in this day and age, Americans across the board (in all parties) tend to forget that family is what it's all about. I'm sorry to hear about the deaths in your family. I miss my grandparents... I've got none left and I wish I would have spent more time with them as a kid. :(

GR: Boy,give you a nickel and.... Seriously though,this girls' surgery was 20yrs ago and it was a big dark secret(her parents were Christian Science) Having one go through surgery to teach a lesson is Draconian! But I dont see this as fear tactic. The preponderance of drugs(ill and legal)is overwhelming, and as we're finding out,some of these drugs don't live up to the hype. I'm all for the regular shots and immunization,but giving a shot to a girl who may or may not become sexually active as a stopgap to possibly treating a cancerous wart is bad medicine,as far as I'm concerned! As far as STD's...I'm so glad I'm out of the dating pool(some stats say 25-30% of women have some type of communicable disease) My Mom died from lung cancer when I was 37,brother 3yrs ago-heart,Dad 2yr ago-reckless driver...so I'm pretty well acquainted with the process. As far as gyno exams, I know from my wifes' history,it pays to have a gentle Doctor who warms the instruments, and still its' not one of her faves to schedule. My daughter is 29 and I've been worried that she has never been to gyno...I'd rather deal with it than have it sneak up on us. That's my story..and I'm stickin to it! Best Timm