If little boys could get pregnant..

kallend · February 17, 2012

Quote
Quote
Quote
And in the end the States is now crossing the church and state line. This fact can not be argued

Do you think laws against polygamy are also crossing the church and state line? Or laws prohibiting sex with minor children? Or laws probiting the beating of a wife?

Laws set *minimum* standards for society. Religions are free to impose more restrictive requirements on their adherents if they choose, but they don't have the authority to buck any law otherwise deemed good for society. In this case, the government threw churches a bone by exempting them from the requirement, they just didn't extend that exemption to anyone and everyone. Personally, I feel the correct choice would be to withdraw the exemption from the churces. If they don't like it, they can cancel their insurance plans. Come to think of it, why do they need health insurance anyhow, when they have prayer?

Blues,
Dave

Are those in the constitution?

Did you know that 82% of catholic hospitals are self insured?

If a church does not wish to comply with society's standards for running a hospital, it shouldn't run a hospital. Ditto for a church wishing to run a college or university. Meet the standards or get out of the business.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

popsjumper · February 17, 2012

Quote

Can we take it, then, that you are also opposed to a presidential candidate who says he will speak out as president to tell us all that "Contraception is not OK"?

Just to be clear. Are you implying that contraception is only a religious issue?

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

popsjumper · February 17, 2012

Quote

If a church does not wish to comply with society's standards for running a hospital, it shouldn't run a hospital. Ditto for a church wishing to run a college or university. Meet the standards or get out of the business.

Would you agree then, by extension, that a professor who does not meet society's minimum standards for teaching students should also get out of the business?

I assume you have tenure or whatever politically correct label for it applies today?

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

kallend · February 17, 2012

Quote
Quote

If a church does not wish to comply with society's standards for running a hospital, it shouldn't run a hospital. Ditto for a church wishing to run a college or university. Meet the standards or get out of the business.

Would you agree then, by extension, that a professor who does not meet society's minimum standards for teaching students should also get out of the business?

Yes.

Quote

I assume you have tenure or whatever politically correct label for it applies today?

I assume from your ignorant post that you don't really know what "tenure" implies at all. It doesn't mean that you can't be fired for incompetence.

However, that is a topic for a different thread. This one is about a church trying to impose its anti-female dogma on a non-church organization.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

billvon · February 17, 2012

>Would you agree then, by extension, that a professor who does not meet society's
>minimum standards for teaching students should also get out of the business?

Definitely! A geography teacher that taught the world was flat, or a physics teacher who taught that rockets need something to push against, or a biology teacher who taught that evolution doesn't exist should definitely get out of the business, and leave it to better educated people.

Coreece · February 17, 2012

Quote
In fairness to the catholic church, I think they would. To my understanding (as a former Catholic) the argument is based on "natural law", and goes like this:
1. God created humans.
2. In the form in which humans were created, sex is directly related to, and necessary for, reproduction. Since we were created by God, this connection must represent God's design and intent.
3. Separating sex from reproduction is a violation of God's intent.
4. Violating God's intent is a sin.

It may be based on natural law, but I think things would be less complicated if they would just base it on scripture.

The catholic church is notorious for usurping biblical authority and interjaculating it's own self serving rule.

It's highly unlikely that they can use biblical reference to condemn the use of contraception...it's just not there.

There are references however that could be used to support the idea of sexual pleasure without the intent of reproduction:

Proverbs 5:18-19
Let your fountain be blessed, and rejoice in the wife of your youth, a lovely deer, a graceful doe.
Let her breasts fill you at all times with delight; be intoxicated always in her love.

Song of Solomon 1:2,4,13
Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth: for thy love is better than wine....Draw me, we will run after thee: the king hath brought me into his chambers... A bundle of myrrh is my well-beloved unto me; he shall lie all night betwixt my breasts.

1 Corinthians 7:8-9
To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

1 Corinthians 7:3
The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband.

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

mnealtx · February 17, 2012

Quote
It's funny how the righties get their panties in a wad about separation of church and state on this issue, but deny any such thing when it comes to prayers in public schools, references to "God" on the currency, crosses on public land, dispays of the 10 Commandments in courthouses, etc.

Turn it upside down and add ignoring the prayers that open every session of Congress and the existence of Congressional chaplains and you have the lefties and a telling example of their hypocrisy when it comes to the 'separation of church and state' that they howl over, otherwise. The reason why you don't see the 'righties' talking about the other stuff you listed is because, as usual, the left has completely misinterpreted the meaning of the amendment.

From the Library of Congress:

Quote
According to The Congressional Register Madison, on June 8, moved that "the civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext infringed."

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Butters · February 17, 2012

Quote
Are those in the constitution?

From your posts you appear to be for the Patriot Act, the National Defense Authorization Act, and drug enforcement? Things that are against the constitution ... pick and choose, pick and choose.

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

rushmc · February 17, 2012

Quote
Quote
Are those in the constitution?

From your posts you appear to be for the Patriot Act, the National Defense Authorization Act, and drug enforcement? Things that are against the constitution ... pick and choose, pick and choose.

Fail again
There are parts of the Patriot act that I think are unlawful
National defense? ditto

You really need to get your mind reading machine fixed dude

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Butters · February 17, 2012

Quote
Quote
Quote
Are those in the constitution?

From your posts you appear to be for the Patriot Act, the National Defense Authorization Act, and drug enforcement? Things that are against the constitution ... pick and choose, pick and choose.

Fail again
There are parts of the Patriot act that I think are unlawful
National defense? ditto

You really need to get your mind reading machine fixed dude

I don't read minds, I read posts.

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

rushmc · February 17, 2012

Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Are those in the constitution?

From your posts you appear to be for the Patriot Act, the National Defense Authorization Act, and drug enforcement? Things that are against the constitution ... pick and choose, pick and choose.

Fail again
There are parts of the Patriot act that I think are unlawful
National defense? ditto

You really need to get your mind reading machine fixed dude

I don't read minds, I read posts.

Well there you go

Now I will wait for you to provide links to posts that show exactly what you claim

Should be easy right

(only if you cherry pick)

Just a note

In general I did support the Patriot act
I also stated that it should not be made law because of provisions in it and it should be fixed first.

But I can wait for your links

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

GeorgiaDon · February 17, 2012

Quote
Quote
In fairness to the catholic church, I think they would. To my understanding (as a former Catholic) the argument is based on "natural law", and goes like this:
1. God created humans.
2. In the form in which humans were created, sex is directly related to, and necessary for, reproduction. Since we were created by God, this connection must represent God's design and intent.
3. Separating sex from reproduction is a violation of God's intent.
4. Violating God's intent is a sin.

It may be based on natural law, but I think things would be less complicated if they would just base it on scripture.

The catholic church is notorious for usurping biblical authority and interjaculating it's own self serving rule.

It's highly unlikely that they can use biblical reference to condemn the use of contraception...it's just not there.

There are references however that could be used to support the idea of sexual pleasure without the intent of reproduction:

Proverbs 5:18-19
Let your fountain be blessed, and rejoice in the wife of your youth, a lovely deer, a graceful doe.
Let her breasts fill you at all times with delight; be intoxicated always in her love.

Song of Solomon 1:2,4,13
Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth: for thy love is better than wine....Draw me, we will run after thee: the king hath brought me into his chambers... A bundle of myrrh is my well-beloved unto me; he shall lie all night betwixt my breasts.

1 Corinthians 7:8-9
To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

1 Corinthians 7:3
The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband.

For once, I agree with you. Hallelujah!

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

rushmc · February 17, 2012

Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
And in the end the States is now crossing the church and state line. This fact can not be argued

Do you think laws against polygamy are also crossing the church and state line? Or laws prohibiting sex with minor children? Or laws probiting the beating of a wife?

Laws set *minimum* standards for society. Religions are free to impose more restrictive requirements on their adherents if they choose, but they don't have the authority to buck any law otherwise deemed good for society. In this case, the government threw churches a bone by exempting them from the requirement, they just didn't extend that exemption to anyone and everyone. Personally, I feel the correct choice would be to withdraw the exemption from the churces. If they don't like it, they can cancel their insurance plans. Come to think of it, why do they need health insurance anyhow, when they have prayer?

Blues,
Dave

Are those in the constitution?

Did you know that 82% of catholic hospitals are self insured?

If a church does not wish to comply with society's standards for running a hospital, it shouldn't run a hospital. Ditto for a church wishing to run a college or university. Meet the standards or get out of the business.

then the question becomes who sets the standards.

You support liberal nutters setting the standards

I and many others, don't

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

kallend · February 17, 2012

Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
And in the end the States is now crossing the church and state line. This fact can not be argued

Do you think laws against polygamy are also crossing the church and state line? Or laws prohibiting sex with minor children? Or laws probiting the beating of a wife?

Laws set *minimum* standards for society. Religions are free to impose more restrictive requirements on their adherents if they choose, but they don't have the authority to buck any law otherwise deemed good for society. In this case, the government threw churches a bone by exempting them from the requirement, they just didn't extend that exemption to anyone and everyone. Personally, I feel the correct choice would be to withdraw the exemption from the churces. If they don't like it, they can cancel their insurance plans. Come to think of it, why do they need health insurance anyhow, when they have prayer?

Blues,
Dave

Are those in the constitution?

Did you know that 82% of catholic hospitals are self insured?

If a church does not wish to comply with society's standards for running a hospital, it shouldn't run a hospital. Ditto for a church wishing to run a college or university. Meet the standards or get out of the business.

then the question becomes who sets the standards.

You support liberal nutters setting the standards

I and many others, don't

Maybe you'd like this guy setting the standards for women.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

rushmc · February 17, 2012

Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
And in the end the States is now crossing the church and state line. This fact can not be argued

Do you think laws against polygamy are also crossing the church and state line? Or laws prohibiting sex with minor children? Or laws probiting the beating of a wife?

Laws set *minimum* standards for society. Religions are free to impose more restrictive requirements on their adherents if they choose, but they don't have the authority to buck any law otherwise deemed good for society. In this case, the government threw churches a bone by exempting them from the requirement, they just didn't extend that exemption to anyone and everyone. Personally, I feel the correct choice would be to withdraw the exemption from the churces. If they don't like it, they can cancel their insurance plans. Come to think of it, why do they need health insurance anyhow, when they have prayer?

Blues,
Dave

Are those in the constitution?

Did you know that 82% of catholic hospitals are self insured?

If a church does not wish to comply with society's standards for running a hospital, it shouldn't run a hospital. Ditto for a church wishing to run a college or university. Meet the standards or get out of the business.

then the question becomes who sets the standards.

You support liberal nutters setting the standards

I and many others, don't

Maybe you'd like this guy setting the standards for women.

In the end it boils down to people who do not wish to have consequences for decisions or actions, so they want something for free to try and help them avoid those consequences

A true entitlement mentality

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

kallend · February 17, 2012

Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
And in the end the States is now crossing the church and state line. This fact can not be argued

Do you think laws against polygamy are also crossing the church and state line? Or laws prohibiting sex with minor children? Or laws probiting the beating of a wife?

Laws set *minimum* standards for society. Religions are free to impose more restrictive requirements on their adherents if they choose, but they don't have the authority to buck any law otherwise deemed good for society. In this case, the government threw churches a bone by exempting them from the requirement, they just didn't extend that exemption to anyone and everyone. Personally, I feel the correct choice would be to withdraw the exemption from the churces. If they don't like it, they can cancel their insurance plans. Come to think of it, why do they need health insurance anyhow, when they have prayer?

Blues,
Dave

Are those in the constitution?

Did you know that 82% of catholic hospitals are self insured?

If a church does not wish to comply with society's standards for running a hospital, it shouldn't run a hospital. Ditto for a church wishing to run a college or university. Meet the standards or get out of the business.

then the question becomes who sets the standards.

You support liberal nutters setting the standards

I and many others, don't

Maybe you'd like this guy setting the standards for women.

In the end it boils down to people who do not wish to have consequences for decisions or actions, so they want something for free to try and help them avoid those consequences

A true entitlement mentality

Finally you reveal your true misogynist nature.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Butters · February 17, 2012

Quote
In the end it boils down to people the church who do not wish to have consequences including birth control in health insurance plans for decisions or actions, so they want something for free an exemption to try and help them avoid those consequences including birth control in health insurance plans

A true entitlement mentality

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

rushmc · February 17, 2012

Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
And in the end the States is now crossing the church and state line. This fact can not be argued

Do you think laws against polygamy are also crossing the church and state line? Or laws prohibiting sex with minor children? Or laws probiting the beating of a wife?

Laws set *minimum* standards for society. Religions are free to impose more restrictive requirements on their adherents if they choose, but they don't have the authority to buck any law otherwise deemed good for society. In this case, the government threw churches a bone by exempting them from the requirement, they just didn't extend that exemption to anyone and everyone. Personally, I feel the correct choice would be to withdraw the exemption from the churces. If they don't like it, they can cancel their insurance plans. Come to think of it, why do they need health insurance anyhow, when they have prayer?

Blues,
Dave

Are those in the constitution?

Did you know that 82% of catholic hospitals are self insured?

If a church does not wish to comply with society's standards for running a hospital, it shouldn't run a hospital. Ditto for a church wishing to run a college or university. Meet the standards or get out of the business.

then the question becomes who sets the standards.

You support liberal nutters setting the standards

I and many others, don't

Maybe you'd like this guy setting the standards for women.

In the end it boils down to people who do not wish to have consequences for decisions or actions, so they want something for free to try and help them avoid those consequences

A true entitlement mentality

Finally you reveal your true misogynist nature.

Another emotional response

You should try thinking sometime

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

rushmc · February 17, 2012

Quote
Quote
In the end it boils down to people the church who do not wish to have consequences including birth control in health insurance plans for decisions or actions, so they want something for free an exemption to try and help them avoid those consequences including birth control in health insurance plans

A true entitlement mentality

Free compared to what?

You lack of understanding of this topic adds to posts like this that make no sense

It is not about money

It is about freedoms, the constitition and religion

Tell me this

If this is allowed to stand, what coverage do you think the gov should mandate next in your entitlement world?

What mandate would be out of bounds?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

pirana · February 17, 2012

Since my shop has a group policy my wifes insurance has pregnancy covered with a higher premium eventhough my wife cannot get pregnant nor can I get her pregnant. these are some of the things in insurance that really piss me off because the pregnancy coverage is espensive but I don't want to pay for it. I am made to pay about $100 a month for something I don't want and cannot use. All this stuff in the health care bill adds to the list of things you pay for but don't use or want.

marks2065 · February 17, 2012

Quote
Since my shop has a group policy my wifes insurance has pregnancy covered with a higher premium eventhough my wife cannot get pregnant nor can I get her pregnant. these are some of the things in insurance that really piss me off because the pregnancy coverage is espensive but I don't want to pay for it. I am made to pay about $100 a month for something I don't want and cannot use. All this stuff in the health care bill adds to the list of things you pay for but don't use or want.

Expecting not to have to pay premiums for specific conditions is not reasonable. It would be like young people asking to have their premium reduced by whatever premiums amounts are reflective of Alzheimer's and other diseases of old age. In a way, plans that have rating bands based on age already do that, but it reflects general utilization by age, not by excluding benefits for specific conditions. It's not really insurance if each person gets to pick the specifics they want to cover or not. It really needs to be an all in or fold thing or the cherry-picking becomes destructive to the pool.

Butters · February 17, 2012

Quote
You ~~lack of understanding~~ hyprocirsy of this topic adds to posts like this that make no sense

It is not about money

It is about freedoms, ~~the constitition and religion~~

Tell me this

If this is isn't allowed to stand, ~~what coverage do you think the gov should mandate next in your entitlement world?~~ then why do you think the gov should have drug prohibition in your free world?

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

rushmc · February 17, 2012

Quote
Quote
You ~~lack of understanding~~ hyprocirsy of this topic adds to posts like this that make no sense

It is not about money

It is about freedoms, ~~the constitition and religion~~

Tell me this

If this is isn't allowed to stand, ~~what coverage do you think the gov should mandate next in your entitlement world?~~ then why do you think the gov should have drug prohibition in your free world?

Answer mine and I will answer yours

But your lack of understanding is obvious

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Butters · February 17, 2012

Okay, I believe that private and public business should both be subject to certain basic restrictions, conditions, etc... and that public businesses could also be subject to other restrictions, conditions, etc.. These basic restrictions, conditions, etc.. should be constitutional and limited to protecting (based on scientific documentation) the employer, employees, consumers, public, environment, and other business. Considering the documented relationship between work and health I believe a health care plan should be applied to public businesses.

I consider churches (of the larger religions) to be public business and thus subject to restrictions, conditions, etc.. that should include a health care plan. I don't believe the separation of church (in regards to the larger religions) and state exists. Thus, until churches (of the larger religions) separate themselves from the state I do not consider the entanglement to be problematic.

Your turn ... why do you consider drug prohibition (without a constitutional amendment) to be constitutional?

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

rushmc · February 17, 2012

Quote
Okay, I believe that private and public business should both be subject to certain basic restrictions, conditions, etc... and that public businesses could also be subject to other restrictions, conditions, etc.. These basic restrictions, conditions, etc.. should be constitutional and limited to protecting (based on scientific documentation) the employer, employees, consumers, public, environment, and other business. Considering the documented relationship between work and health I believe a health care plan should be applied to public businesses.

I consider churches (of the larger religions) to be public business and thus subject to restrictions, conditions, etc.. that should include a health care plan. I don't believe the separation of church (in regards to the larger religions) and state exists. Thus, until churches (of the larger religions) separate themselves from the state I do not consider the entanglement to be problematic.

Your turn ... why do you consider drug prohibition (without a constitutional amendment) to be constitutional?

Yes
I do not think it is a constititional issue

I agree with basic regulations (a better word than restrictions)

I do not see HC as any business of the gov in any manner but, I do see states regulating HC insurance companies at a basic level

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Sign In

Sign In

If little boys could get pregnant..

Recommended Posts

kallend 2,027

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

popsjumper 2

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

popsjumper 2

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

kallend 2,027

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

billvon 2,991

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Coreece 190

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

mnealtx 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Butters 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

rushmc 23

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Butters 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

rushmc 23

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

GeorgiaDon 362

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

rushmc 23

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

kallend 2,027

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

rushmc 23

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

kallend 2,027

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Butters 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

rushmc 23

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

rushmc 23

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites