If What Goes on in People' Bedroom is None of My Business...

[natty dread]

why is a child not capable of giving consent for sex? what horrible trap of death awaits the child who consents to sex?

Omg, I knew you were a douche but I did not expect you to go there.

[PLAYER57832]

No dice. That "movement" has less in common with most of liberal thinking

Why do you put movement in scare quotes? Do you have something against sex-positivity?

etc than you will find liberals who think that kids should be having sex).

...OMG player, get your facts straight. Sex-positivity is NOT about "kids having sex". Consent is paramount to sex-positivity, and children are not capable of consent.

I would have expected that kind of clueless slander from the right-wing bigots, not from you.

Actually, it is very much a real movement. (aka "sex before 8 or its too late", etc.) Might have different name in your locale.

BUT.. my point is that the comparison is stupid, not to debate the ethics of sexuality.

[PLAYER57832]

Copied this answer from another thread (without permission) Ironically, Germany is often cited as being fairly liberal. Is THIS what we really want here?

If you're a member of the catholic or evangelic church in Germany a part of your salary is automatically deducted and sent to aforementioned churches. If you leave the church you have to get that registered. Hospitals, kindergartens and schools can be financed to 90% or more by the state and still be considered "church-run", which means if you're the wrong religion you're extremely unlikely to get hired, you can be fired for criticising the church even in your free time, and if it's catholic-run don't even think about divorcing or living in a same-sex relationship with someone else. Yes, if you work for a church-run institution they exert control over your private life and force you to live according to the doctrines by threatening to fire you if you don't comply, they're legally allowed to do that. Even in state-run schools the churches get to determine whether a teacher is allowed to teach religious education classes (which are divided into catholic and evangelic respectively), you may hold doctorates in theology and pedagogy, but if the church says no for any or no reason whatsoever you're not allowed to teach RE classes.


16th century England doesn't seem that different all of a sudden.

[natty dread]

Actually, it is very much a real movement. (aka "sex before 8 or its too late", etc.) Might have different name in your locale.

Whatever pedophiliac movement you're describing has nothing to do with sex-positivity though, and sex-positivity was what was being discussed here. I wish you would at least admit your error in that.

BUT.. my point is that the comparison is stupid, not to debate the ethics of sexuality.

No argument there, I already mentioned that not all liberals (or people who consider themselves liberal) are sex-positive, not even in the actual meaning of the word.

[Night Strike]

You must not understand the 1st Amendment. It clearly states that the government can not pass a law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

EXACTLY. and prohibiting employers from using their personal beliefs to exclude employees from insurance coverage the employees want is to allow those employers to discriminate against employees who do not share their faith.. or who just disagree on this point. That is illegal

You're confusing personal beliefs with the fact that the organization was specifically established as one with religious foundations. A boss cannot discriminate against employees who he does not have the same religion as him, but a religious organization CAN run their non-profit organization on their religious principles. At least until this administration got involved.

Forcing a religious business or organization to purchase a product that goes against their beliefs is blatantly prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

I see, so conscientious objectors should not have to pay taxes for the millitary? Vegetarians should not have to support subsidies to the cattle industry.. or even help pay for BLM lands where cattle graze? Why should an avowed liberal have to pay to have their kids learn about conservative political ideas? Why should an avowed KKK member have to pay for schools that teach tolerance?

I know you believe the government should make all the choices for us since they know better than us (they especially know what is best for those idiot conservatives), but why are you equating taxes with personal/business purchases? I know you'd rather live in a society where we give all our wages to the government and they give us the things we need (or they think we need), but thankfully we don't. This mandate has exactly nothing to do with taxes and exactly everything to do with how private groups spend their own money.

This focus on money is just another way of saying that people in power have the RIGHT to bully those with less. In this case, it goes well beyond that because the FACT is that birth control is a big part of women's health. There are far more reasons for women to take birth control pills that have nothing to do with not getting pregnant OR that have to do with preventing a pregnancy that would be truly harmful.

Yet again, what this REALLY gets down to is a few people using whatever method and arguments they can to take away things that other people want and need.. becuase that is what those few people want. It is not about freedom, it is about denying employees the right to make even basic medical decisions on their own.

And yet, when birth control is prescribed for actual medical reasons and not for preventing pregnancy, even religious organizations have to provide it as part of their covered prescriptions. This mandate has exactly zero do with legitimate medical issues because those are already covered.

And you've never answered why this has to be provided for FREE. All other medicines require copays, yet this one is special?

[Baron Von PWN]

To be fair to night strike there is a school of thought called "sex positive" which says sex is a positive thing which shouldn't be stigmatized but instead encouraged, in a fully open manner.

But not all liberals are sex-positives (although personally I think they should be). And I really doubt that Night Strike was thinking about the ideals of sex-positivity when he asserted that "liberals just want everyone to have carefree sex".

Also, to clarify a bit, sex-positivity doesn't really say that sex should "always be encouraged"... despite the name it doesn't really assert that sex is an inherently good thing in all situations. Rather, it's more about seeing sex as an overall positive thing, provided that both/all parties consent. Consent is a huge part of sex-positivity. Also, that no one should be shamed or ostracized based on their sexual preferences.

I agree 100%. all I meant was that Night strike has taken a peice of liberal thought(certainly not universal) and is as usual twisting it and applying it to all liberal thought.

The "to be fair" part was in response to allot of people going "lol wut? liberalism has nothing to do with that!". While in reality Sex positivism is a legit idea which I would certainly consider part of liberal ideals.

However saying all liberals are in agreement with it would be similar to saying all conservatives are anti-choice or were pro Iraq.

[natty dread]

Well, I can see your point. I just thought it needed some clarification.

[PLAYER57832]

You must not understand the 1st Amendment. It clearly states that the government can not pass a law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

EXACTLY. and prohibiting employers from using their personal beliefs to exclude employees from insurance coverage the employees want is to allow those employers to discriminate against employees who do not share their faith.. or who just disagree on this point. That is illegal

You're confusing personal beliefs with the fact that the organization was specifically established as one with religious foundations. A boss cannot discriminate against employees who he does not have the same religion as him, but a religious organization CAN run their non-profit organization on their religious principles. At least until this administration got involved.

the CHURCH is not being dictated to. It is only when they move from being a church to an employer that the rules apply.

And, no Roman Catholic hospital today is truly a private, Catholic only institution. Even most Schools are semi public.

Forcing a religious business or organization to purchase a product that goes against their beliefs is blatantly prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

I see, so conscientious objectors should not have to pay taxes for the millitary? Vegetarians should not have to support subsidies to the cattle industry.. or even help pay for BLM lands where cattle graze? Why should an avowed liberal have to pay to have their kids learn about conservative political ideas? Why should an avowed KKK member have to pay for schools that teach tolerance?

I know you believe the government should make all the choices for us since they know better than us (they especially know what is best for those idiot conservatives), but why are you equating taxes with personal/business purchases?

Its our money.

I know you'd rather live in a society where we give all our wages to the government and they give us the things we need (or they think we need), but thankfully we don't. This mandate has exactly nothing to do with taxes and exactly everything to do with how private groups spend their own money.

NO, becuase if people get to decide, then people get to decide. If you don't see this as a step in a continuum.. and if you don't recognize that the exact same arguments have been voiced by the Roman Catholic church in regards to Medicaid, etc.. then you are naive.

This focus on money is just another way of saying that people in power have the RIGHT to bully those with less. In this case, it goes well beyond that because the FACT is that birth control is a big part of women's health. There are far more reasons for women to take birth control pills that have nothing to do with not getting pregnant OR that have to do with preventing a pregnancy that would be truly harmful.

Yet again, what this REALLY gets down to is a few people using whatever method and arguments they can to take away things that other people want and need.. becuase that is what those few people want. It is not about freedom, it is about denying employees the right to make even basic medical decisions on their own.

And yet, when birth control is prescribed for actual medical reasons and not for preventing pregnancy, even religious organizations have to provide it as part of their covered prescriptions.

No, they do not.

This mandate has exactly zero do with legitimate medical issues because those are already covered.

You are misinformed. And, I will repeat this. It is precisely because of this namby-pamby LACK of understanding that I was treated abysmally during the worst times in my life. See, this idea you have of what medical definitions mean is just wrong. Birth control is limited because it is birth control. There is no "but if the doctor thinks.." exception. If there were, how long do you think it would be before those exceptions (as you call them.. though they actually represent a high percentage of use)
are used for everyone? AND... that doesn't even get into the FACT that the Roman Catholic church does not want to acknowledge many of the exceptions. In some parishes, even women who have been told that to have another child would put their life at risk are being told not to use birth control. And plenty just ignore their parish priest or Bishop's dictates.

And you've never answered why this has to be provided for FREE. All other medicines require copays, yet this one is special?

That is a different question, nothing to do with this. This rule is about even having to provide the coverage at all. The no co-pay bit was established earlier That said, I did look up and provide you with some of the answer earlier. Mostly, it is because providing it free was deemed very cost-effective (by the insurance industry) and because not providing it was deemed a kind of gender discrimination. You can look up the debates on that for yourself, though. My point here is that you are mistaken in including that in this. It was something established a long time ago. The Roman Catholic Objection is to being part of paying for the insurance at all. It was nothing to do with the cost (which is very minimal.. in fact its MUCH cheaper to provide birth control than to not do so).

[Woodruff]

You must not understand the 1st Amendment. It clearly states that the government can not pass a law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

EXACTLY. and prohibiting employers from using their personal beliefs to exclude employees from insurance coverage the employees want is to allow those employers to discriminate against employees who do not share their faith.. or who just disagree on this point. That is illegal

You're confusing personal beliefs with the fact that the organization was specifically established as one with religious foundations.

Which is irrelevant to "separation of church and state" because, as I've pointed out previously, the presence of that organization (be it a school or a hospital) is not a requirement of that religion.

[Night Strike]

You must not understand the 1st Amendment. It clearly states that the government can not pass a law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

EXACTLY. and prohibiting employers from using their personal beliefs to exclude employees from insurance coverage the employees want is to allow those employers to discriminate against employees who do not share their faith.. or who just disagree on this point. That is illegal

You're confusing personal beliefs with the fact that the organization was specifically established as one with religious foundations.

Which is irrelevant to "separation of church and state" because, as I've pointed out previously, the presence of that organization (be it a school or a hospital) is not a requirement of that religion.

Separation of church and state is not a doctrine found in our Constitution. And even if it were, it would mean that the government cannot infringe on the actions of the church (just like how the proponents try to use that phrase to keep Christians out of the government). And organizations can be founded on any belief that they want to be founded on. Just because they are a religious one doesn't meant their rights can also be trampled upon. These organizations are registered as non-profit organizations and most of them will be labeled as having a religious affiliation. That means the state can't just come in and tell the religious organization how to operate on their beliefs.

[Woodruff]

You must not understand the 1st Amendment. It clearly states that the government can not pass a law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

EXACTLY. and prohibiting employers from using their personal beliefs to exclude employees from insurance coverage the employees want is to allow those employers to discriminate against employees who do not share their faith.. or who just disagree on this point. That is illegal

You're confusing personal beliefs with the fact that the organization was specifically established as one with religious foundations.

Which is irrelevant to "separation of church and state" because, as I've pointed out previously, the presence of that organization (be it a school or a hospital) is not a requirement of that religion.

Separation of church and state is not a doctrine found in our Constitution. And even if it were, it would mean that the government cannot infringe on the actions of the church

No, that is NOT SOLELY what it means. Good Lord.

(just like how the proponents try to use that phrase to keep Christians out of the government).

What? The proponents of what? And the idea that anyone is trying to keep Christians out of the government these days may very well be the stupidest thing you've ever said here. Which is impressive.

And organizations can be founded on any belief that they want to be founded on. Just because they are a religious one doesn't meant their rights can also be trampled upon.

What right is being trampled on, Night Strike?

These organizations are registered as non-profit organizations and most of them will be labeled as having a religious affiliation. That means the state can't just come in and tell the religious organization how to operate on their beliefs.

This is absolutely wrong, first of all...the government absolutely can do so, if it feels that it is necessary. Secondly, having a school or a hospital IS NOT A REQUIREMENT OF THE RELIGION, so the religion is not being "trampled on".

[the carpet man]

relax. have a beer. lay with your wife.

life is good.

[Lootifer]

relax. have a beer. lay with your wife.

life is good.

/chur (kiwi for cheers)

[PLAYER57832]

You must not understand the 1st Amendment. It clearly states that the government can not pass a law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

EXACTLY. and prohibiting employers from using their personal beliefs to exclude employees from insurance coverage the employees want is to allow those employers to discriminate against employees who do not share their faith.. or who just disagree on this point. That is illegal

You're confusing personal beliefs with the fact that the organization was specifically established as one with religious foundations.

Which is irrelevant to "separation of church and state" because, as I've pointed out previously, the presence of that organization (be it a school or a hospital) is not a requirement of that religion.

Separation of church and state is not a doctrine found in our Constitution. And even if it were, it would mean that the government cannot infringe on the actions of the church (just like how the proponents try to use that phrase to keep Christians out of the government). And organizations can be founded on any belief that they want to be founded on. Just because they are a religious one doesn't meant their rights can also be trampled upon. These organizations are registered as non-profit organizations and most of them will be labeled as having a religious affiliation. That means the state can't just come in and tell the religious organization how to operate on their beliefs.

I see, so MY rights, MY religion are irrelevant, if my EMPLOYER does not agree, then I have to follow his rules.. and MY freedom of religion just does not apply. He can deny me coverage to health care he just does not happen to like. Under what universe does taking a job as a nurse or a janitor mean you should have to give up your own religious beliefs?

Further, your last sentances get into exactly why this rule is needed. Just because a group wants to claim a religious belief does not mean they are truly a church. You can get a pastor's license on the internet.. and many people do just to get the tax benefits.

The Roman Catholic Church is taking this stance because they have failed in their teachings to convince the majority of people that their beliefs in this are valid. Even most Roman Catholics don't pay attention to the no birth control bit. Yet, by making access as inconvenient as possible, they can accomplish with birth control what they have already done with abortion.

[the carpet man]

chur to you too Lootifer

[Night Strike]

I see, so MY rights, MY religion are irrelevant, if my EMPLOYER does not agree, then I have to follow his rules.. and MY freedom of religion just does not apply. He can deny me coverage to health care he just does not happen to like. Under what universe does taking a job as a nurse or a janitor mean you should have to give up your own religious beliefs?

If your employer is a religious organization, then yes, you are expected to conform to their beliefs if you work for them. No one is forcing you to work for them. When I worked for a Christian University, I had to sign a statement that I would adhere to their rules of employment, most of which were founded within Christian doctrine. That doesn't mean my religious rights were infringed upon because I could find a different place of employment if I didn't like those rules.

[natty dread]

If your employer is a religious organization, then yes, you are expected to conform to their beliefs if you work for them.

The f*ck you are. That's just absurd.

[Night Strike]

If your employer is a religious organization, then yes, you are expected to conform to their beliefs if you work for them.

The f*ck you are. That's just absurd.

You don't have to believe the exact same things they do, but you typically have to at minimum not espouse beliefs that oppose theirs. For example, at a Christian University, you may not have to be the exact same denomination as the school, but you still have to sign a statement that you are a professing Christian.

[Lootifer]

If your employer is a religious organization, then yes, you are expected to conform to their beliefs if you work for them.

The f*ck you are. That's just absurd.

You don't have to believe the exact same things they do, but you typically have to at minimum not espouse beliefs that oppose theirs. For example, at a Christian University, you may not have to be the exact same denomination as the school, but you still have to sign a statement that you are a professing Christian.

That's only if you sign something.

If I work for, say, St. Johns here in NZ then (and I know this because im friends with someone who does work for them) I am under no obligation to in any way align with the fundamental religious views of the org.

Sure if I come out hating on christans to every injured and sick person I help out then they may caution me, but that's because im being a twat, not because im specifically hating on christans.

[Maugena]

Night Strike -
Welfare unconstitutional? Let's let the poor wither and die off because we don't need them, the backbone-labelled underbelly-of society. They get walked over so you get good deals.
Also: Where do you draw the line with religion? I could start a religion that literally declares itself its own sovereign state and you would tell me that it's well within my power to do so?

Religion is not a separate entity from the state that can just straight up go unchecked because of the first amendment. I get the feeling that you're saying: Let religion do as it pleases because there are no boundaries according to the first amendment!

[Woodruff]

I see, so MY rights, MY religion are irrelevant, if my EMPLOYER does not agree, then I have to follow his rules.. and MY freedom of religion just does not apply. He can deny me coverage to health care he just does not happen to like. Under what universe does taking a job as a nurse or a janitor mean you should have to give up your own religious beliefs?

If your employer is a religious organization, then yes, you are expected to conform to their beliefs if you work for them. No one is forcing you to work for them.

No one is forcing a religious organization to run a hospital or school, nor is it a requirement of the religion. I'm glad to see you agree with me that this does not at all infringe on religion...it's about time you finally realized it.

[Woodruff]

Night Strike -
Welfare unconstitutional? Let's let the poor wither and die off because we don't need them, the backbone-labelled underbelly-of society. They get walked over so you get good deals.
Also: Where do you draw the line with religion? I could start a religion that literally declares itself its own sovereign state and you would tell me that it's well within my power to do so?

Religion is not a separate entity from the state that can just straight up go unchecked because of the first amendment. I get the feeling that you're saying: Let religion do as it pleases because there are no boundaries according to the first amendment!

No, you have it wrong...only religions that he likes.

[Night Strike]

I see, so MY rights, MY religion are irrelevant, if my EMPLOYER does not agree, then I have to follow his rules.. and MY freedom of religion just does not apply. He can deny me coverage to health care he just does not happen to like. Under what universe does taking a job as a nurse or a janitor mean you should have to give up your own religious beliefs?

If your employer is a religious organization, then yes, you are expected to conform to their beliefs if you work for them. No one is forcing you to work for them.

No one is forcing a religious organization to run a hospital or school, nor is it a requirement of the religion. I'm glad to see you agree with me that this does not at all infringe on religion...it's about time you finally realized it.

So religions don't have the power to open up other organizations? So we have to close ALL religious schools and hospitals? Religions have the freedom to run their own organizations as they choose to run them. And if the organization wants to be run on a doctrine that teaches that birth control is not allowed, then they shouldn't be coerced by the government to provide it anyway.

[Woodruff]

I see, so MY rights, MY religion are irrelevant, if my EMPLOYER does not agree, then I have to follow his rules.. and MY freedom of religion just does not apply. He can deny me coverage to health care he just does not happen to like. Under what universe does taking a job as a nurse or a janitor mean you should have to give up your own religious beliefs?

If your employer is a religious organization, then yes, you are expected to conform to their beliefs if you work for them. No one is forcing you to work for them.

No one is forcing a religious organization to run a hospital or school, nor is it a requirement of the religion. I'm glad to see you agree with me that this does not at all infringe on religion...it's about time you finally realized it.

So religions don't have the power to open up other organizations?

Of course they have the power to do so, IF THEY ARE WILLING TO FOLLOW THE RULES. Again, this is not a requirement of their religion.

So we have to close ALL religious schools and hospitals?

I would think that's up to the individual religion.

Religions have the freedom to run their own organizations as they choose to run them. And if the organization wants to be run on a doctrine that teaches that birth control is not allowed, then they shouldn't be coerced by the government to provide it anyway.

Religions do NOT have the freedom to DO WHATEVER THE HELL THEY WANT TO. If a religion is doing something that is OUTSIDE OF THE ACTUAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE RELIGION (which schools and hospitals are), then they should be required to abide by the rules that apply. It's not at all anti-religion, no matter how much you want to try to spin it that way, Night Strike.

[Ray Rider]

Look man, I don't have anything against condoms, but why should any organization be required by law to provide them? It's an unnecessary service (not life and death, except for the fertilized egg perhaps) which anyone can easily access anywhere anyway. When it comes to more controversial forms of contraceptives, it's even more ridiculous for the government to attempt to force a religious organization to provide it when doing so is in direct opposition to that religion's theology and teaching. Yes it is quite definitely anti-religion.