So I’ve shot down your HIV confusion, I’ve shot down your abstinence claim…

Did you actually read the entire article that you posted?

I must admit when I saw…
…a congressional staff analysis has found”
…in your quote it made me think “well perhaps he’s right”. Then I continued to read and discovered that this “congressional staff” they’re talking about was “Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), a critic of the administration who has long argued for comprehensive sex education”. and HIS staff, of course.
Big surprise. A critic of the Administration. Of course, if Bush were against abstinence we’d be seeing Washington Post articles with “findings” from Waxman FOR abstinence.
I like the way the article explains it’s findings too…
One curriculum, called “Me, My World, My Future,” teaches that women who have an abortion “are more prone to suicide” and that as many as 10 percent of them become sterile. This contradicts the 2001 edition of a standard obstetrics textbook that says fertility is not affected by elective abortion, the Waxman report said.
Ok. That gives another side to the fertility claim but what about the “more prone to suicide” issue? Is that not important?

Then the article says…
“Joe. S. McIlhaney Jr., who runs the Medical Institute for Sexual Health, which developed much of the material that was surveyed, said he is “saddened” that Waxman chose to “blast” well-intentioned abstinence educators when there is much the two sides could agree on.
Yes there is much both sides could agree on if both sides are willing. I only see one side (McIlhaney) able to admit it’s willingness to agree with points the other side makes.
Then it says
Waxman and other liberal sex-education proponents..
blah blah blah… Gimme a break.

…the danger of abstinence education lies in the omission of useful medical information.
Now that I can agree with. So let’s make sure that doesn’t happen, and if it is, let’s put a stop to it.

Some course materials cited in Waxman’s report present as scientific fact notions about a man’s need for “admiration” and “sexual fulfillment” compared with a woman’s need for “financial support.”
LOL LOL Are you serious? How sexist is that?

That article shows squat.

…I could thoroughly demolish every other concrete claim you have made.

Really….

Now you sound like Bush in the way that you refer to 230-year-old-goings-on…after all, it’s just a piece of paper.

If you want to debate issues here, then do so in a civil manner, your vile attacks and rhetoric are unwarranted and serve no purpose.

Supporting the position that gays should be free of maltreatment by Bible-thumpers like you is ANTI-STRAIGHT!

I didn’t say that but that’s ok. And I’m far from a bible thumper but I DO value the morals of Christianity and most other religions as well.

And gays are always trying to convert straight Christians to queers. You are BRILLIANT!

I didn’t say that either, though you calling them “queers” shows you’re compassion.

Kids in these programs have been told that you can get AIDS from a toilet seat, that masturbation makes you gay, and worse.

I don’t think you could be more ignorant.

NO, medical man, I meant HPV, human papillomavirus, the causative agent of cervical CANCER!

I never claimed to be a doctor, so you got me there. I should’ve known that HPV is a common term used when talking about incurable viruses and for that I was wrong.

That doesn’t change your obvious ignorance towards what Christianity stands for. It’s funny how everytime the subject of homosexuals is argued between Christians and non-Christians, people like you bring up the Evangelicals that are gay, and act like the rest of us just agree with it. You’re wrong.

Stop worrying, we’re not trying to make you live our way. We just want people like you to let us live in the religious freedom our forefathers died for.

So you’ll still be able to be as nasty and perverted as you wish, just don’t shove it down our kids’ throats(figure of speech). Freedom OF religion not freedom FROM religion.

Tell me, if thes country wasn’t founded on Christian principles…then what was it founded on?

Let’s see….The Constitution, modeled after English Common Law…modeled after the New Testament, not the Quran and not the Talmud.

The Declaration of Independence of the United States of America acknowledges faith towards a supreme GOD who created mankind. The Declaration also acknowledges by all who signed it, the laws of GOD, the providence of GOD, and the judgment of GOD.

BTW – You’re insults and name calling refelects what you really are.

And Jay, thanks for moderating the profanity.