TIM RICHARDSON -> ED HULETT wrote:
 TR> On 05-21-09, ED HULETT said to TIM RICHARDSON:


 TR>> The girl had her baby, and thats probably even worse! They've been
 TR> raging
 TR>> about it ever since.


 EH>> Yes, they try to use her pregnancy as evidence that abstinence doesn't
 EH>> work. Of course, they have to ignore the fact that she obviously didn't
 EH>> abstain. She ended up giving in to her scum of a boyfriend.


 TR> I try not to make judgements about other people's sexual activity.

I really don't either. My judgment of Bristol Palin's boyfriend is that he
left her after making the baby. I don't think men should be exempt from
taking responsibility for their actions either.


 TR> I don't care one way or the other who is having sex with whom. As
long as what they
 TR> are doing is legal, and doesn't have consequences that embarass the
 TR> public, I don't care what they do.

Same here.

 EH>> Yeah, his very words have been "Ask Bristol Palin how
abstinence only
 EH>> works." Since she didn't use ANY option to prevent her
pregnancy, she
 EH>> isn't a very good source other than abstinence would have definitely
 EH>> prevented it. And her mother and conservatives have never advocated
 EH>> "abstinence only."


 TR> But I'm sort of forced to take a stand when people are waving it around in
 TR> public. The same-sex marraige is a good example of that.

Exactly.

 TR> People don't realize that it isn't about equal rights for same-sex couples at
 TR> all. Its about adding yet anOTHer special group of people to the monetary
 TR> entitlement trough.

Bingo.

 TR> By `legalizing' the state of marraige between two people of the same sex, we
 TR> now have an entirely new group of people to add to the `survivors benefits'
 TR> trough, the `medicare' coverage trough, the Social Security on the spouses
 TR> account....etc etc.

Exactly right. They claim it is about love, but in reality it is about entitlement.

 TR> It has nothing whatever to do with `equal rights'. Its about MONEY!

It always comes down to money.

 TR> Teenage pregnancy is the responsibility of the girl's parents. Parents of a
 TR> teenage girl should have her on some sort of birth control pill
from about age
 TR> 12 or 13. It should be a pill that the girl takes along with daily vitamins,
 TR> in the morning before she leaves the house.

That should be up to the parents.

 TR> The prudish, repressive attitudes of the 19th century are unacceptable in a
 TR> modern, progressive world. People's sexuality isn't the business of
any priest
 TR> or minister of religion. And, insofar as it isn't involving adults on minors,
 TR> it isn't the business of any juvenile `case workers' or `councelors',
 TR> either.

It should be the responsibility of the girls parents. Morality is the
business of the church.

 EH>> Apparently the thought of teens having sex excites him.


 TR> He is particularly excited by stories of child molestation. That really
 TR> heats him up!

It certainly seems that way.

 TR>> But when Sarah Palin got on the national ticket, and Otto found out her
 TR>> daughter was pregnant out of wedlock......he was immediately accusatory
 TR>> over it, and has denounced the girl and her mother ever since.


 EH>> If it would have been a teen daughter of Joe Biden, Sauer wouldn't have
 EH>> said a thing.


 TR> It would have been considered an `immaculate' conception!

Of course. And if is had been the teen daughter of Obama, it would have
been even more so.

Ed

-- 
"The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is
to fill the world with fools." --Herbert Spencer

"The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under
the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale."
 --Thomas Jefferson

Linux User# 416016
Linux Machine# 379711

--- Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20090105)