home
RSS
What porn did to a marriage
February 22nd, 2011
06:00 AM ET

What porn did to a marriage

The blog begins with a startling confession:

Hi, my name is John, and I was a sex addict. I’m also a believer in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and am married to an amazing and beautiful woman of God.

Church leaders have long struggled talking about sex, much less pornography. But Relevant magazine made a daring move this month when it printed a blogger’s confession about how his addiction to pornography affected his marriage.

The blogger is John Buckingham, and he is an English teacher, Relevant says. Buckingham said in the story that his addiction to pornography started when he was 12. He thought it would end after his girlfriend accepted his marriage proposal in early 2010.

Yet four months after getting married, Buckingham says he succumbed. He started watching pornography again. Burdened by guilt, Buckingham said he told his wife what he had done.

She was devastated. All the love and trust and intimacy we had worked so hard to build for the last four months was called into question and our marriage was shaken to its very core. I feared it wouldn't stand, and I wouldn't have blamed her in the least for walking out altogether. She had every right to do so.

She didn’t, and as Buckingham suggests later in his article, he didn’t give up either. He says he talked with other Christian men about their struggles but felt that they were using “softening rhetoric” (“I messed up;’ “I stumbled”) to minimize what they were doing.

He writes:

The sin of lust isn’t just a mistake, a mess-up or a problem…it is no less than an act of sin that is reprehensible to God and nothing short of honestly confessing and repenting of that sins is good enough for God.

Rachel Buckingham, John's wife, writes a follow-up blog explaining how she felt after hearing her husband's confession.

I no longer felt safe or loved. I was suddenly bombarded with lies—he doesn't find me attractive; it's my fault he strayed; I'm not beautiful; I'm not sexy; I am a horrible wife; I'm a failure; he is stuck with me; he doesn't love me ...

Buckingham writes more about his struggle. I’ll leave it to readers to decide if they think he has overcome his addiction.

But his confession left me with two questions:

Is pornography now such a pervasive problem in the church that leaders need to talk more openly about?

And can people of faith like Buckingham actually learn how to overcome their struggles while living in a sexually-charged culture where lurid images are just a mouse-click away?

- CNN Writer

Filed under: Christianity • Church • Faith • Sex • Sexuality

soundoff (1,043 Responses)
  1. ART

    Lots of judgment. Lots and lots of judgment.

    February 22, 2011 at 9:39 am |
  2. Steve

    This story doesn't really explain how John's habit of watching pron affected his marriage. An addict is someone who continues a pattern of behavior regardless of the consequences. But the only "consequence" mentioned is that his wife seems to have an issue with her husband watching pron. But to me, the act itself is irrelevant; no more harmful than watching football.

    So the real question for me is WHY does he watch it? Did this behavior have a negative affect on their intimacy with each other? Or is this just a "you're a sinner and that disgusts me" kind of thing? Furthermore, I don't see much of a link between lust and pron. It's more about watching the act, not lusting for the actors, right? If you're someone who views pron out of lust for the cast, your problem is much greater than an interest in adult entertainment. Your real problem is that you can't separate fantasy from reality.

    February 22, 2011 at 9:39 am |
    • Frogist

      @Steve: You have forgotten another consequence, he felt guilty himself. And not because of her. But because of his own ideas of morality. It is a bit unfair to place all the blame for his reluctance to watch p0rn on his wife. The issue is not just that she had a problem with him watching p0rn, but that they both had a problem watching p0rn because they were taught that p0rn is wrong by their religion.

      February 22, 2011 at 12:13 pm |
  3. Dan

    What losers!

    February 22, 2011 at 9:39 am |
  4. Dan

    Just reading the comments, you can see why are country's going down the toilet. Po-rn is toxic to relationships, period. It's self-serving, but false, to call it "mature" or a way to "better" their romantic lives. John & Rachel are commendable for taking their story public; I hope they're solid enough to "take the heat" that'll surely come with it.

    Perhaps it'll help the nay-sayers to understand that they meant what they said when they said their vows. ("Forsaking all others," for instance, includes po-rn.)

    February 22, 2011 at 9:39 am |
    • Tony Miller

      "Forsaking all others" wasn't in our vows.
      My wife and I wrote our own. No mojo in them.

      February 22, 2011 at 9:47 am |
    • Frogist

      @Dan: As others have pointed out, p0rn has been quite a positive aspect of many relationships. You ignore this important information when you claim p0rn is toxic to relationships. P0rn isn't toxic; secrecy, lies and ignoring your partner's needs are.

      February 22, 2011 at 12:07 pm |
    • pat carr

      this country is going down the tubes thanks to toxic conservative wars and hatred

      March 9, 2011 at 11:52 am |
  5. David Johnson

    The article said: "Hi, my name is John, and I was a $ex addict. I’m also a believer in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ "

    Well, we are almost on the same track. I believe in the death of Jesus Christ. It's the coming back to life that I find implausible.

    This is a further attempt, by the Christian Right / Evangelical pukes to convince the nation that p_ornography (defined by them) is destroying us.

    I have looked at adult p_ornography. I bet every man has. I am not addicted, nor did it destroy my marriage. Actually, I get bored easily. Once you've seen 1 naked person, you have pretty much seen them all.

    I bet this is true of most men.

    Any addiction, threatens the afflicted's well being.

    The housewife who finds her comfort in food, threatens her health and her marriage. Let's outlaw food!

    The religious nut, who is addicted to Jesus, is in danger of insanity and losing their spouse. Let's outlaw religion! Amen!

    Certainly alcohol, ruins more people's health and marriage than any other addiction. We tried outlawing that once. People still drank. Prohibition just fueled organized crime.

    Let's look at a list of addictions:

    •Alcoholism
    •Drug
    •Food Addiction
    •Gambling
    •Internet
    •Nicotine
    •Prescription Drugs
    •$ex-P_orn
    •Shopping
    •Work Addiction

    Would you make each of the addicting things illegal? Force everyone to do without, because some in society can't handle them? Pfui!

    From the article:
    He said: "The sin of lust isn’t just a mistake, a mess-up or a problem…it is no less than an act of sin that is reprehensible to God and nothing short of honestly confessing and repenting of that sins is good enough for God."

    Lust, is hard wired into humans. The reason we are hard-wired for lust, is to pass on our genes. It’s in Mother Nature’s interest to encourage us to create more humans.

    Note the life cycle: Birth; Growth; Reproduction; and Death. This is true of every organism. It is the Biological Imperative.

    The evolutionarily ancient limbic system, buried deep inside our brains, fires up when we are watching something we take a fancy to. Structures like the nucleus acc_umbens, involved in pleasure and craving, are at the heart of that system.
    Source: sciencefocus.com/feature/psychology/human-brain-hardwired

    Can you say EVOLUTION?

    Humans, whose brains are functioning correctly, control themselves. We should know when we are "full", of either food or $ex.

    Stop worrying about the words Bronze Age men put in the mouth of Jesus. Control yourselves and enjoy your life. It is the only one you will ever have. Self-flagellation can also be addictive.

    Love and Prayers!

    February 22, 2011 at 9:37 am |
    • Sgt.

      I love smart well rounded individuals like this with excellent writing skills. I usually just say "F off, CNN is dumb", but this guy put my thoughts into words very well. Better than F-off anyhow.

      February 22, 2011 at 9:43 am |
    • Jorge

      @David Johnson

      I really don't think you understand the Christian religion. If you want to argue that God doesn't exist, that's one thing. But don't speak falsely about a religion you clearly don't understand. When religion tries and focus on a partic*lar add*ction, the focus is too narrow. ANYTHING that mankind puts before God (ie...idolatry on some level) is wrong in Christianity. So all the add*ctions you listed above fall into the category of selfishness or idolatry and 1 and all destroy or separates man from God (the wages of sin is death). The Bible outlines specific acts that God does forbid (lust being one of them) because they are considered destructive to mankind but more importantly, they are considered unholy in the eyes of God and are selfish in nature. You say it's simply "natural" for man to lust and I would agree with you if you're taking about after the fall of Adam and Eve. According to Christianity, after the fall, we're all born sinners and you're right, it's natural for us to want to obey our sinful desires (since we're born with a sinful nature). However, God calls us to repent, be born again in Christ, and put away our sinful nature and live by his Spir*t. So, you clearly don't seem to understand Christianity or you would have know that. Please stop trying to argue from our point of view. If you want to say that God doesn't exist and we're just chemical reactions, neurons firing randomly, or mindless matter...then back up your argument that way. Stop "assuming" God only in order to make false statements about Christianity. If you're an atheist, then morality doesn't exist for you (other than what you make up for yourself). So again, if you believe in God, then feel free to weigh in on whether p_orn is right or wrong in the eyes of God. If you don't believe in God, then who cares what you have to say about the topic. Your opinion is subjective and as meaningless as my opinion if there is no God.

      February 22, 2011 at 11:18 am |
    • David Johnson

      @Jorge

      You said: " if you're taking about after the fall of Adam and Eve. According to Christianity, after the fall, we're all born sinners and you're right, it's natural for us to want to obey our sinful desires (since we're born with a sinful nature)"

      Evolution is responsible for the diversity of organisms on the planet. If this isn't true, how do you explain all the transitional fossils? Did god keep creating until He got it right?

      There is tons of evidence for evolution.

      Since humans are the product of evolution, Adam and Eve did not exist. If Adam and Eve did not exist, then there was no original sin. If there was no original sin, then there was no need of a redeemer. So why does Christianity exist?

      Cheers!

      February 22, 2011 at 11:38 am |
    • OcTears

      Even though I do not believe in religion I do think that your words were the best posted on this topic.

      February 22, 2011 at 2:54 pm |
    • Lanfear

      Bless you David Johnson 😉

      March 14, 2011 at 1:41 am |
    • JAFO

      not to nitpick, since i most assuredly agree with your statements, but it wasn't the bronze age that put words into jesus mouth. now, if we are talking about the myriad of bronze age religions and older that the bible writers picked and chose from to create their "new" religion, then yes, you could say bronze age. but jesus was definitely living in the iron age

      March 19, 2011 at 3:04 pm |
  6. Tony Miller

    Don't you love how preachers think they can solve problems when it comes to addictions? "I spent a few years in seminary school! I've never completed a psych course! I can help everybody!" What a load.

    Go see a psychiatrist or psychologist if you feel you need help dealing with an addiction. Talking to somebody that wants you to ask the invisible man to help and then tries to cure you with guilt is only doing more damage.

    February 22, 2011 at 9:37 am |
  7. Hank Rattler

    Ahhh Christians, just adorable...

    February 22, 2011 at 9:36 am |
    • OcTears

      sooooo gullible, but cute.

      February 22, 2011 at 2:50 pm |
  8. Brian

    Other then the fact that these are probally some of the most boring people on the earth that have never expierenced any sort of real problem or conflic in thier lives, I have to agree with most of the above. Completely overblown losers.

    February 22, 2011 at 9:35 am |
    • ck

      First world problems.

      February 22, 2011 at 9:51 am |
    • Dee

      It's true that people are meaner behind the anonymous computer screen!

      March 17, 2011 at 10:58 am |
  9. StevieB

    Are these people serious? I am a God loving Christian, and I don't see how watching adult movies is "straying". Maybe his wife should loosen up and indulge with her husband.

    February 22, 2011 at 9:34 am |
    • maggie

      First of all you are watching a movie that promotes fornication, aldultery and who knows what else and you are calling yourself a christian stating that it is ok. Which part it is ok. The bible will never change, we need to change to its standards.

      February 22, 2011 at 10:31 am |
    • God Fearing Christian

      The problem with p0rn is that it promotes lust, which goes directly against the teachings of Jesus. He said that if you lust (have an inappropriate sxual desire) for a woman in your heart you have already committed adultery with her. In other words, looking at p0rn is an act of fornication. It is, in the eyes of the God that you love, adultery and sin.

      February 22, 2011 at 10:52 am |
    • OcTears

      Maggie,

      Uh...the bible has changed many of times. Try reading a bible from Europe during the dark ages then read one now. Not the same.

      February 22, 2011 at 2:49 pm |
    • pat carr

      The real problem of P0rn is that it goes against the controlling, repressive, and unrealistic mindset of Christ's Insanity. If you are enjoying adult movies, you're not being repressed and controlled by your church and your cult. I'm so glad i left this moldy, rotting, sickened excuse of a cult over 10 years ago. it wasn't soon enough in my opinion

      March 9, 2011 at 11:51 am |
    • Carter

      OcTears – don't be so pretentious as to expect us believe you have read enough of ANY Bible to know the difference between a modern translation and an older version. Maybe this is something you read somewhere or heard, but yo ucan't convince me that you have read anything. It's amazing how defensive and critical non-Christians feel they have to be towrds anything about the Chritian belief system. You are so fearful and threatened.

      March 11, 2011 at 7:57 am |
    • Steve Brinkhoff

      It's that 'lusting in your heart' thing...if you have nasty thoughts, the J-man says it's the same as doing it. Remember Jimmy Carter confessing that he had committed the 'sin' of lusting in his heart?

      March 18, 2011 at 3:52 am |
  10. seanmark

    I'm with civiloutside. These people had problems long before the guy started watching p0rn in the marriage, like his repression and her insecurity. It's pretty disingenuous for these 'Christians' to blame p0rn. No, p0rnography is not the pervasive problem it's made out to be. The repression and insecurity is what needs to be addressed. Even chocolate pudding can cause problems in a marriage if you let it.

    February 22, 2011 at 9:34 am |
  11. jim

    How pathetic. it's not about some make believe god. it's about chemistry

    February 22, 2011 at 9:34 am |
    • Leroy MM

      Make believe like the big bang that caused all of this? That matter just appeared one day before the lightening strikes?

      You put your faith in what feels right to you, we'll do the same.

      February 22, 2011 at 11:21 am |
    • JamesFord

      @ Leroy MM

      So in your opinion, christianity's childish premise of a some magical superbeing creating everything, a theory you share with prehistorical cavemen who already came up with this stunning idea thousands of years ago, has more merit?

      Of course, present day scientists can't explain what created matter or the universe. They are however, most certainly closer to an explanation than the bible or any other religious book.

      February 22, 2011 at 11:59 am |
    • OcTears

      LeroyMM,

      Did you not know that the Churches do not believe in the big bang theory. Everything materialized from the garden of Eden.

      February 22, 2011 at 2:45 pm |
  12. ART

    A lot of judgment here, from people who haven't or can't walk in this couple's shoes. Did the wife over react? Maybe. But hasn't everyone realized, long after an event "Hey, maybe I over reacted"? Who here does not have their hang-ups, fears, insecurities, and doubts?

    February 22, 2011 at 9:33 am |
    • Steve

      That's not really fair, ART. We're being invited to react only to the story we're told.

      February 22, 2011 at 9:47 am |
    • ART

      What, you can't IMAGINE what sorts of things could be going through another person's mind?

      February 22, 2011 at 10:14 am |
    • OcTears

      Well Art,

      Maybe you can research it a little more clearer for us and add to the CNN article. We as readers only go off of what is in the article. Your statement would be more suited to the

      February 22, 2011 at 2:43 pm |
  13. G-ayJesus

    I've been to this guys church and spoke with him on his addiction. What the story doesn't tell you is that was g-ay p-orn.

    February 22, 2011 at 9:33 am |
    • Sure

      @g-ay...okay, yeah, sure you have.

      February 22, 2011 at 9:40 am |
  14. Puller

    He didn't "stray": he pulled his pud!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Give me a break

    February 22, 2011 at 9:32 am |
  15. Tony Miller

    "Marriage is a Christian ceremony."
    I agree. It's a Christian ceremony. We have a secular government. Time to stop using a Christina ceremony as the guide for laws and the rights of citizens. So long as the law requires I go through your silly little ceremony to take care of my wife when she is in the hospital the silly little ceremony needs to be controlled by the government, not the church.

    February 22, 2011 at 9:27 am |
    • mashmore79

      Marriage is not a Christian ceremony. Marriage has been around for thousands of years. Do you think that the Ancient Greeks didn't marry? What about Jews before Jesus was born. Weren't Mary and Joseph married? Get a clue dude!

      February 22, 2011 at 10:10 am |
    • OcTears

      According to Christians marriage was created only by them and no one else. So Jesus would not have been born legitimate according to the christians logic.

      February 22, 2011 at 2:23 pm |
    • Clae

      @octears I've literally never heard that before. You just pulled it out of your ass. Stop it. This is not a discussion.

      February 23, 2011 at 3:50 am |
  16. Holden Mirror

    Is this a joke? This is an enormous and way-out-of-proportion reaction to something that quite honestly isn't that big of a deal. In her mind, is his right hand another woman? What, he's a normal man? This is a joke. CNN , you're a joke too.

    February 22, 2011 at 9:25 am |
    • margie smith

      maybe he's a lefty? ROFL!

      February 22, 2011 at 9:33 am |
    • Thomas

      If he is ambidex, would he be poly?

      February 22, 2011 at 10:51 am |
    • KRS1

      They are ultra religious lunatics that can't handle basic problems. Pretty sure all signs point towards conservatives, margie.

      February 22, 2011 at 10:52 am |
    • Leroy MM

      If you aren't a Christian you wouldn't understand.

      If you aren't a Christian, why are you reading a "Belief Blog"?

      I'm a Christian and a Liberal. Did that just blow your simple little mind?

      February 22, 2011 at 11:28 am |
    • Frogist

      @Holden Mirror: I notice a lot of people putting a lot of blame on the woman in this situation. Except she wasn't the one who told him to stop w@nking. If you are looking to lay the blame at someone's feet for his shame and guilt, try his religion.

      February 22, 2011 at 11:44 am |
    • Superman

      Well said!!

      March 17, 2011 at 4:28 am |
  17. jack

    wow, just...wow. what a moron. this Buckingham guy 'confesses' to his wife?! that is just sad. and she is pathetic for not being mature enough to understand that just because he watches videos doesnt mean that she is a bad wife or unattractive. they are both sad, pathetic people and if their marriage can be shaken so badly by an x-rated film, then they deserve to contribute to the majority divorce rate.

    ....now where is that DVD?

    February 22, 2011 at 9:24 am |
    • Jeff

      Love it! : )

      February 22, 2011 at 9:30 am |
    • tj

      Actually, this is what religion does. They've allowed extreme religious views to screw them both up.

      February 22, 2011 at 9:40 am |
    • Leroy MM

      I don't blame you people.

      If we were all intelligent, what a boring World this would be!

      February 22, 2011 at 11:16 am |
    • Superman

      I LOVE IT AS WELL. WELL SAID! (SMILE)

      March 17, 2011 at 4:27 am |
  18. Boka, Philly, PA

    I read the second paragraph of the letter and that might be the most pathetic thing I have read.

    February 22, 2011 at 9:23 am |
  19. civiloutside

    Wow… Based on those quotes, I’d say the problem in their marriage wasn’t the fact that he looked at po-rn, but that both of them reacted in a massively overblown fashion.

    February 22, 2011 at 9:19 am |
    • civiloutside

      And does anyone else find it sadly hilarious that you can’t make a post that includes the ti-tle of the article thanks to the stupid filter on these blogs?

      February 22, 2011 at 9:22 am |
    • Sgt.

      Yep. I look at it, always pretty much have. I still have great s-ex with my wife, as long as I tend to her needs who cares? I look at it as staving off prostate cancer. Too many prudish bible bangers out there.

      February 22, 2011 at 9:38 am |
    • Glenna

      TO SGT

      Sounds like more than Bibles are being banged! YOU'RE A JACKWAGON, CREEP!

      March 14, 2011 at 3:34 am |
    • Dee

      It's not an overreaction. It depends on what your values are. Personally, I applaud them for working on their marriage.

      March 17, 2011 at 10:53 am |
  20. The Truth

    This is just yet another example of our mas-sively se-xually repressed society. Instead of fearing po-rn, couples should USE it to BETTER their s-ex lives.

    For instance, there are countless adult videos that are instructional in nature and couples could benefit from them. Then there are other videos for countless feti-shes. There are videos aimed at men and others aimed at women.

    Atheists have a lower rate of divorce than Christians and se-xual repression (or lack thereof) plays a solid role in this.

    This is just yet another case of Christians ignoring reality in favor of delusion. They pretend that abstinence works and that is why the Bible Belt has BY FAR the highest rates of teen pregnancy in the country. In this case, they pretend that men and women will be satisfied by being left in the dark knowing that po-rn and more exciting things exist, but they can't have them. Well guess what... at some point people (both men and women) will want it. When one partner won't give in, it leads to major fractures in the relationship. If instead they openly watched po-rn together, those fractures could instead lead to deeper se-xual relationships for the couples.

    S-ex also has some major health benefits for couples who engage in it.

    Now this is where the Christian hypocrisy begins... many of them will say, "S-ex is for procreation!" yet they have no problem engaging in or-al s-ex, which last time I checked doesn't produce babies.

    My longtime girlfriend and I have INCREDIBLE s-ex and we love to watch po-rn together while we do it. She has some favorite scenes and I have mine. It allows us OPEN COMMUNICATION which helps us to IMPROVE our s-ex life. We are both secure enough in ourselves and our relationship to handle this without any issues.

    Here's a reality: We are mammals. We are meant to want to have s-ex. There is NOTHING wrong with it. So couples have one of two options:

    1) Be repressed, pretend that your partner isn't interested in being more se-xually experimental and the se-xual relationship never reaches maximum potential (and one partner or both is usually left unfulfilled which could lead to infidelity to get what they want elsewhere).

    2) Be open, be experimental, try new things that your partner wants to do and have a great s-ex life together.

    Hmmm... tough choice.

    Peace!

    February 22, 2011 at 6:40 am |
    • Reality

      Truth,

      Ditto those comments but with an added note of caution: Practice safe s-ex as per the following observations:

      It is obvious that inte-rcourse and other se-xual activities are not practiced safely with over one million abortions and 19 million cases of S-TDs per year in the USA alone.

      from the CDC-2006

      "Se-xually transmitted diseases (S-TDs) remain a major public health challenge in the United States. While substantial progress has been made in preventing, diagnosing, and treating certain S-TDs in recent years, CDC estimates that approximately 19 million new infections occur each year, almost half of them among young people ages 15 to 24.1 In addition to the physical and psychological consequences of S-TDs, these diseases also exact a tremendous economic toll. Direct medical costs as-sociated with S-TDs in the United States are estimated at up to $14.7 billion annually in 2006 dollars."

      More evidence:

      http://pagingdrgupta.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/20/yes-oral-se-x-is-se-x-and-it-can-boost-cancer-risk/?npt=NP1

      "Yes, oral se-x is se-x, and it can boost cancer risk-

      Here's a crucial message for teens: Or-al se-x carries many of the same risks as va-ginal s-ex, including human pap-illoma virus, or HPV. And HPV may now be overtaking tobacco as the leading cause of or-al cancers in America in people under age 50.

      "Adolescents don’t think or-al se-x is something to worry about," said Bonnie Halpern-Felsher professor of pediatrics at the University of California, San Francisco. "They view it as a way to have intimacy without having 'se-x.'"

      February 22, 2011 at 7:28 am |
    • Jeb

      moronic comment...I can't get this 30 seconds of my life back, dang it!

      February 22, 2011 at 9:36 am |
    • Naiomi

      I agree!!!!!

      February 22, 2011 at 9:39 am |
    • The Don

      The pulpit is so reluctant to talk about s-ex may sometimes expose the weakness of the man giving the speech. S-ex is turly taboo to talk about in church yet christian couple are falling apart. When people are open about it in chruch they are removed and silenced. Christian women don't see s-ex as christian men do when a higher s-ex drive for men kick in. Men want a lovely women in the public but a hoe in bed and with christian women being taught in church it will never happen.

      February 22, 2011 at 9:59 am |
    • Doesn't Matter

      @ Truth

      >Atheists have a lower rate of divorce than Christians and se-xual repression (or lack thereof) plays a solid role in this.

      I'd like to know where this statistic came from, because it seems to me that you pulled it out of the clear blue sky. How about listing a source to at least attempt to add credibilty to your obvious bias against the idea of christian marriage.

      Secondly,

      >This is just yet another case of Christians ignoring reality in favor of delusion. They pretend that abstinence works and that is why the Bible Belt has BY FAR the highest rates of teen pregnancy in the country. In this case, they pretend that men and women will be satisfied by being left in the dark knowing that po-rn and more exciting things exist, but they can't have them. Well guess what... at some point people (both men and women) will want it. When one partner won't give in, it leads to major fractures in the relationship. If instead they openly watched po-rn together, those fractures could instead lead to deeper se-xual relationships for the couples.

      So abstinence doesn't work? I agree that on the surface it would appear that you are right, however you are ignoring the fact that yes people like s-ex, but they can with self-control say no to s-ex. Let me put it to you this way: If by your rationale it is ridiculous to expect young adults to abstain from s-exaul activity, why do we expect them to abstain from drugs. We tell our kids to say no to drugs and we find it inconceivable that they could say no to s-ex. You say it's unrealistic to expect young adults or anyone for that matter to abstain from s-ex. Let me put this another way so maybe you can see my point more clearly: if children started to play in traffic, would we assign someone to teach them how to dodge traffic effectively or would we tell them to stay out of the street? Based on what your saying it would be unrealistic to expect them to stay off the road, so we would have to teach them how to better dodge traffic. Now I know what your thinking: that I've over-simplified the argument and that young adults don't posess the urge to dodge traffic like they do to engage in s-ex. What I'm saying is that if we expect that people are able to overcome their biological needs with regards to drugs and just not acting on every urge we have, why is it unrealistic to expect people to abstain from s-ex? Like I said earlier in the traffic analogy, we tell them to stay off the street! So tell them to wait until they are ready both physically and more importantly mentally and emotionally.

      February 22, 2011 at 10:11 am |
    • dalri

      Check this out for some healing: http://www.marshillchurch.org/media/the-peasant-princess

      February 22, 2011 at 10:15 am |
    • dalri

      If you check out Song of Songs, the metaphorical language used to describe intimacy expressed through s-ex acts within the confines of a loving Christian marriage will wipe that self-righteous, pseudo-intellectual smirk right off yer mug.

      February 22, 2011 at 10:18 am |
    • D

      Where do you get your statistics? I would like to read them for myself.

      February 22, 2011 at 11:55 am |
    • Marvin

      100% correct.

      February 22, 2011 at 12:32 pm |
    • Matt

      A survey conducted by Barna Reseach Group appears to support The Truths claims. It appears that religious groups have a divorce rate of between 21%-34%, while Atheist/Agnostic couples have a divorce of 21%- the lower end of the spectrum.

      Just google this survey for yourself.

      February 22, 2011 at 2:57 pm |
    • The Truth

      *** @ Reality who writes: "Ditto those comments but with an added note of caution: Practice safe s-ex as per the following observations" ***

      Thank you. We are for all intents and purposes married without some piece of paper saying so. So we practice s-ex only with one another.

      However, those are great tips for others who are engaging with new or multiple partners to engage in.

      Cheers!

      February 22, 2011 at 6:32 pm |
    • The Truth

      *** @ Jeb: "moronic comment...I can't get this 30 seconds of my life back, dang it!"***

      Very Christian of you brother... can you point to the part of the Bible where Jesus says it is OK to call other people names? Yep, that's what I thought.

      The only thing that is moronic here was that you selected the handle "Jeb." You had better run along... your sister, I mean wife, has that roadkill, I mean dinner, waiting for on the table. lol

      February 22, 2011 at 6:32 pm |
    • The Truth

      *** @ The Don "The pulpit is so reluctant to talk about s-ex may sometimes expose the weakness of the man giving the speech."***

      True. Adding on to that is the fact that in some faiths (e.g. Catholicism) the person behind the pulpit may not have ever even had s-ex. Though the reality is that a huge number of Catholic priests don't remain celibate after they have become priests. And no, I'm not talking about child ab-use because we all know that happens, but rather then having s-ex with other grown men and women. This is right in line with what I was saying earlier about delusion... they "pretend" these men will remain celibate when the reality is that they will not.

      ***S-ex is truly taboo to talk about in church yet christian couples are falling apart. When people are open about it in church they are removed and silenced.****

      lol.... yep wouldn't want to talk about s-ex which how all of them came into existence in the first place. Heck, you can't even say "s-ex" here without using a hyphen which is pathetic.

      *** Christian women don't see s-ex as christian men do when a higher s-ex drive for men kick in. Men want a lovely women in the public but a hoe in bed and with christian women being taught in church it will never happen. ***

      I couldn't have said it better myself... kudos!
      🙂

      February 22, 2011 at 6:35 pm |
    • The Truth

      ***@ Doesn't Matter ***>Atheists have a lower rate of divorce than Christians and se-xual repression (or lack thereof) plays a solid role in this.

      I'd like to know where this statistic came from, because it seems to me that you pulled it out of the clear blue sky. How about listing a source to at least attempt to add credibilty to your obvious bias against the idea of christian marriage.***

      LOL... I know using Google must be a difficult thing for you to do, so I pulled out two of the fairest sites I could find for you. No one will ever agree on a neutral religious based site, but both of these go out of their way to try and be fair and equal to people of all religions or lack thereof. They have people on their staffs from all different religious backgrounds as well.

      Moreover, the most famous study is done by George Barna... let's look at George for a second... he was raised a Catholic and is now an Evangelical Christian (including having been a pastor himself). He has a BA AND a minor from Boston College, TWO masters degrees from Rutgers and a PhD from Dallas Baptist University. And guess what he found? He found that Atheists had lower rates of divorce than even the Mormons! LOL

      Here are the Divorce Rate numbers:

      Jews: 30%
      Born Again Christians: 27%
      Other Christians: 24%
      Atheists/Agnostics: 21%

      Wow... God is really helping his chosen people stayed married. Oh wait... it gets better... guess where the highest rate of divorce is in this country? What... the Bible Belt???? Yep.

      The Associated Press followed up on this and found that Massachusetts (you know, the "evil" state filled with liberals and who allow gay marriage) has the LOWEST rate of divorce at 2.4 for every 1,000. Meanwhile, religious loving (living in a time warp) Texas had the HIGHEST rate at 4.1 for every 1,000... so nearly DOUBLE.

      Here are the sites for you to examine (and come up with ridiculous "justifications" and "excuses" to soothe your mental schema and to continue to trick yourself into believing God is helping out religious marriages:

      http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm

      http://www.adherents.com/largecom/baptist_divorce.html

      >
      >
      >

      ***"So abstinence doesn't work?"***

      Well let's see... abstinence is preached/taught mostly in the Bible Belt and the Bible Belt has BY FAR the highest rates of teen pregnancy in the country (while the liberal NorthEast... see Massachusetts above has the lowest rates of teen pregnancy). Doesn't take a rocket scientist to connect the dots.

      ***"I agree that on the surface it would appear that you are right, however you are ignoring the fact that yes people like s-ex, but they can with self-control say no to s-ex."***

      Of course they "can," it is just not practical. American's CAN also choose not to eat as much as they do and they know eating too much is bad for them, yet our country is massively obese.

      ***"Let me put it to you this way: If by your rationale it is ridiculous to expect young adults to abstain from s-exaul activity, why do we expect them to abstain from drugs"***

      LOL... they DON'T abstain from drugs!!! I'll tell you what... I can go to 99% of high schools in this country right now and find the hardest core drugs (I'm not talking about mild stuff like pot either) with relative ease. This is yet another delusion. Where I grew up, we had two major high schools... one was an elite Catholic School where the cost to attend was more than going to UCLA or UC Berkeley and the other high school was for all intents and purposes run by gangs. And guess where the best drugs could be found at? Yep... the Catholic school because they were the ones with the money to buy them.

      None of this even begins to mention that the two biggest abused drugs in our society are alcohol and cigarettes. Go and find out what percentage of people have had one of those two things while in high school. I'll bet there is a high probability that you tried one of those items in high school and if you didn't, I know that you would have known someone who did. Heck, churches even give wine to underage kids (albeit in tiny amounts).

      ****We tell our kids to say no to drugs and we find it inconceivable that they could say no to s-ex.***

      On top of what I just stated above, the major difference between drugs and s-ex is that one of the two in innate. We were born with the desire to have s-ex and reproduce our lineage. We weren't born craving drugs (well unless someone was a crack baby).

      ***You say it's unrealistic to expect young adults or anyone for that matter to abstain from s-ex. Let me put this another way so maybe you can see my point more clearly: if children started to play in traffic, would we assign someone to teach them how to dodge traffic effectively or would we tell them to stay out of the street? Based on what your saying it would be unrealistic to expect them to stay off the road, so we would have to teach them how to better dodge traffic.****

      The difference here is two fold: First, we are born with an innate drive to want to have s-ex... if we didn't our species might not exist today... we aren't born with an innate drive to play in traffic. Secondly, the reason why kids don't play in traffic is because we beat that concept into them over and over and over again. Parents say, "look both ways before you cross the street." Teachers say the same thing. Cities provide crossing guards to help kids cross the street. Schools provide students working as crossing guards as well. Parents hold their hands while crossing the street. Etc, etc, etc... Yet parents won't be there holding their hand while they are having s-ex (unless it is in the deep south...lol... just kidding). Schools don't teach about proper s-ex education. Schools don't all give out free co-ndoms and birth control. Instead of EDUCATING our youth about it like we do crossing the street, we sweep it under the rug and pretend it doesn't exist. If we pretended that traffic didn't exist and never educated our kids about that, then kids would be getting run over by vehicles at a far greater rate.

      ***Now I know what your thinking: that I've over-simplified the argument and that young adults don't posess the urge to dodge traffic like they do to engage in s-ex. What I'm saying is that if we expect that people are able to overcome their biological needs with regards to drugs and just not acting on every urge we have, why is it unrealistic to expect people to abstain from s-ex? Like I said earlier in the traffic analogy, we tell them to stay off the street!***

      Once again: First, s-ex is a biological need, drugs aren't. We are born with an innate sense to reproduce, not to snort items through straws. Secondly, we can tell kids not to have s-ex, but it is abundantly clear that doesn't always work.

      I was raised in a Catholic household. When my parents caught me having s-ex around 14 with my girlfriend who was raised in a born-again Christian household, they lectured me about this, that and the other thing. And they told me not to do it again. And what did that mean to me? Not a whole lot because it wasn't like her and I were going to stop having s-ex. Her parents went off on her as well and said basically the same thing. Neither set of parents offered to get us birth control, etc. And when you are 14, co-ndoms are expensive. Luckily for me, I was educated enough to know that we needed protection and so I started calling around in phone books finding out more about proper precautions from third party organizations. I was able to get contraception for both me and her through Planned Parenthood. It was because of my own education that I was able to do this on my own with no help from my school, my parents nor her parents. Had I not been educated and savvy enough, she probably would have gotten pregnant and my life would be A LOT different right now.

      Now in that same scenario, say that I was born in the middle of Kansas in a small town where places like Planned Parenthood were hard to find. What would I do then? I could go into the local drugstore and purchase contraception and then the owner of the drugstore likely calls my parents and informs them that I'm buying contraception which means I can't do that because then I'll have to listen to the wrath of my religious-driven parents who can't understand reality. Thus, we likely end up trying the rhythm method and she likely ends up getting pregnant. That's just reality.

      Now, compare that to parents being open and honest with their kids and when the time comes, they SUPPORT their kids by EDUCATING them as to available contraceptives. It's no comparison.

      *** So tell them to wait until they are ready both physically and more importantly mentally and emotionally.***

      I'm all for telling kids they should wait to have s-ex. Preach abstinence all you want, just as long as you teach and provide contraception as well. The message should be something like: S-ex is a wonderful thing that is special between two people. You should wait until you are married (or really love someone to agnostics/atheists), but in the event that you ever decide not to wait, don't EVER do it without contraception. If that time comes, please go to your parents, your school, your church and ask for contraception where it will be provided to you no questions asked (there is no need to ask questions if they've already been properly educated as to "why not" already). This will PREVENT unwanted teen pregnancies, this will PREVENT HIV, this will PREVENT cervical cancer, this will PREVENT STD's, this will PREVENT abortion, etc, etc, etc.

      It is the difference between reality and delusion. The reality is that kids will have s-ex and the delusion is that if you tell them not to, they won't.

      Peace!

      February 22, 2011 at 6:36 pm |
    • The Truth

      ***@ dalri Check this out for some healing: http://www.marshillchurch.org/media/the-peasant-princess***

      Hey cool... a site devoted to children. How apropos considering that the afore-mentioned George Barna in a separate study found that "children are the most important population segment to minister to because of their spiritual vulnerability."

      The demographic which believes in God the most are grade school children... you know, the same ones that believe in Santa, the Easter Bunny, the Boogeyman and the Tooth Fairy.

      So your site is just another place trying to brainwash them from an early age. Sweet!

      ***"If you check out Song of Songs, the metaphorical language used to describe intimacy expressed through s-ex acts within the confines of a loving Christian marriage will wipe that self-righteous, pseudo-intellectual smirk right off yer mug."***

      VERY Christian response. Talk about self-righteous. Classic.

      February 22, 2011 at 6:37 pm |
    • The Truth

      ***@ Leroy MM "You suck at life. Stop wasting everyone's time and end yourself." ****

      Wow... another VERY Christian response. You should perhaps get back to reading your Bible and try to get the overall message of it down better. Please find me where Jesus tells other people that they suck and report back to me. I'll be waiting. Thanks.

      February 22, 2011 at 6:38 pm |
    • The Truth

      **** @ D "Where do you get your statistics? I would like to read them for myself." ***

      Hi D.... I provided the links in an earlier response above. 🙂

      February 22, 2011 at 6:39 pm |
    • The Truth

      @ Matt: "A survey conducted by Barna Reseach Group appears to support The Truths claims. It appears that religious groups have a divorce rate of between 21%-34%, while Atheist/Agnostic couples have a divorce of 21%- the lower end of the spectrum.
      Just google this survey for yourself."

      Hey... someone who knows how to use Google! 🙂 Thanks Matt!

      Cheers!

      February 22, 2011 at 6:40 pm |
    • Doesn't Matter

      @ Truth

      I was quite impressed with your response to my post, it was well worded and very well thought out and you presented it perfectly. I agree with your assessment that we realistically should expect young people to want to have se-x regardless of what we tell them, however I think that as long as we make s-ex more accessible to them via education and contraception, we incite them to more actively engage in it. I have no problem with education but what I am saying is there is a difference between telling a young adult the facts about s-ex, and telling them that it is okay to have s-ex, and I see an awful lot of the latter going on in place of the former. The biggest problem I have with this whole issue is that we have taken away absolute truth from society (The Bible), and the problem we run into when we do this is if we don't stand for something we will fall for anything. Now some people will object to me saying that the Bible is absolute truth, but the United States and Canada were founded by people who believed that the Bible was a foundation that one could base their ideals on, most of are laws are taken from it. I find it telling that in the past fifty or sixty years as we have drifted farther away from biblical principles our society has gotten significantly worse. We have taken God out of our classrooms and out of our courtrooms and almost completely out of our society, we are a society of tolerance now, except for christians who are labeled as bigoted or haters if they speak out against something that is a sin in the eyes of God. Is everyone who says they are a christian really following God's laws, probably not, but for the most part I would say they are at least attempting to live their lives according to God's principles. Once again not everyone who say they are a christian is legit, the church is riddled with hypocrisy and phony christians. But should we really judge all christians based on the actions of some who are clearly not following the mandates of God? We do not call all muslims terrorists, so why should everyone who says they are a christian be maligned and smeared with the label of being a bigot or being a judgmental hypocrite? I kind of drifted off target here but I feel that it is important to help our young people to understand that s-ex is not okay until they are ready for it, and no amount of education or free contraceptives are going to change that. We are the adults, we need to stand for something, or this world and society we all live in is only going to get worse.

      February 23, 2011 at 1:45 pm |
    • The Truth

      testing please ignore

      @ Doesn't matter:

      *** I was quite impressed with your response to my post, it was well worded and very well thought out and you presented it perfectly.***

      Thank you. I also feel that I owe you a small apology since I don't feel the tone of my post was what I intended. If I respond to someone, I cut and paste and answer their post as I read along (which is what I'm doing now). I was really tired that night and could have been somewhat less sarcastic, so my apologies.

      ***I agree with your assessment that we realistically should expect young people to want to have se-x regardless of what we tell them, however I think that as long as we make s-ex more accessible to them via education and contraception, we incite them to more actively engage in it.***

      I hear what you are saying and I agree and disagree. Obviously, we don't want to be handing them contraception like candy, but at the same time it is a Catch-22. Thus, it comes down to the lesser of two evils so to speak. Which is better:

      Option 1: No access to contraceptives, more unwanted pregnancies, more abortions, more STD's, more HIV, more unfit teen parents, etc.

      Option 2: A tiny fractional increase in the number of teens having s-ex, but it is safe s-ex.

      I see it as Option #2 by a landslide.

      ***I have no problem with education but what I am saying is there is a difference between telling a young adult the facts about s-ex, and telling them that it is okay to have s-ex, and I see an awful lot of the latter going on in place of the former.***

      A really good analogy here would be alcohol. In Germany, kids start drinking alcohol at a very early age. Here in the US, we don't do that. When German kids go to high school and college, alcohol isn't a big deal to them because they have been "trained" so to speak by their parents for many years beforehand. Here, kids go crazy in high school and college because it is something they never had access to. Our youth here tend to get into far bigger problems with alcohol as a result.

      So while no one should be saying, "Go out and have s-ex little Johnny and Jane" at the same time, they need to be taught in DETAIL about all of their options.

      I am personally pro-life (meaning I would never be in favor of aborting one of my own kids), but politically I am pro-choice because it isn't up to me to make that decision for others. Moreover, making abortion illegal would actually cause more mothers to die as they'd go in back alleys to get it done. Making things illegal doesn't necessarily make things better.

      Now with that said, if we want to reduce the number of abortions, we could do so easily in many ways. If we just educated EVERY single American about how Plan B contraception works (not an abortion pill), we would prevent countless abortions. If we just educated EVERY single American on how to properly use birth control, we would save countless abortions. And so on and so forth.

      *** The biggest problem I have with this whole issue is that we have taken away absolute truth from society (The Bible) ***

      When you say "absolute truth," you do realize that the Bible is riddled with errors. Long story, but I had created a blog here due to character restrictions on posts on a different site and some of the content still remains. If you scroll down on the link below, you'll see a big list of contradictions, errors and false prophecies. In fact, it is literally impossible for Jesus to have been born based on the accounts of Matthew and Luke because they conflict with each other.

      http://uscatholic.yuku.com/topic/51/Re-Please-Explain-To-Me

      *** and the problem we run into when we do this is if we don't stand for something we will fall for anything. ***

      I am all for standing up for principle. I'd be more upset if someone intentionally cheated me out of a nickel than if someone accidentally cheated me out of a $20 bill just out of principle.

      Yet at some point in time, reality needs to trump principle. In principle, no one should ever steal in the US... the reality is though that they will and so we need police as a result.

      ***Now some people will object to me saying that the Bible is absolute truth***

      LOL... see... I read as I go along. 😉

      *** but the United States and Canada were founded by people who believed that the Bible was a foundation that one could base their ideals on, most of are laws are taken from it.****

      For the record, I hold dual US and Canadian citizenship. Leaving the Great White North aside, I'll say that the US was NOT founded on that. The Founding Fathers wanted FREEDOM to choose as they saw fit. The framers wanted the Const-itution to be a living doc-ument.

      If you have seen the movie "With Honors" there is a great scene in there where Joe Pesci (Simon) has a debate with a Harvard professor about the Consti-tution. It goes like this:

      > Simon: The genius of the const-itution is that it can always be changed. The genius of the const-itution is that it makes no permanent rule other than its faith in the wisdom of ordinary people to govern themselves.

      > Mr. Picannon: The faith in the wisdom of ordinary people is exactly what makes the Consti-tution imcomplete and crude.

      >Simon: Crude? No, sir. Our founding parents were pompous middle-aged white farmers, but they were also gret men, ebcause they knew one thing that all great men should know: that they didn’t know everything. They knew they were going to make mistakes, but they made sure to leave a way to correct them. They didn’t think of themselves as leaders. They wasted a government of citizens, not royalty. A government of listeners, not lecturers. A government that could change, not stand still.

      With that in mind, it is up to our Supreme Court to interpret the Const-itution. Regarding the Const-itution, you can interpret the words any way that you want to. However, your and my opinion are not the ones that are important. The Founding Fathers built our government with three distinct branches to provide a series of checks and balances. The Judicial Branch and specifically the Supreme Court has the job of interpreting what those words mean. Moreover, the Supreme Court doesn't only look at those specific words, but can reference other docu-ments of the time to gain insight as to the intentions of the Founding Fathers which they have done in the concept of the separation of Church and State.

      There have been both liberal and conservative benches of the Supreme Court throughout the years and the separation concept has remained intact. This is precisely why items such as " Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" are mainstays when it comes to interpreting the Const-itution despite them not actually being included in the Consti-tution. It is overtly obvious that the Framers wanted there to be separation of Church and State as they valued freedom... it is the act of protecting those types of freedoms that makes our country so great today where people of ALL religions (or lack thereof) can come to the US and work to make it the best country on Earth without fear of being persecuted for their beliefs.

      f 99% of this country was X religion, then the other 1% that belonged to Y religion would and should have the EXACT same rights as the majority. This is precisely what makes this country so great that the "little guy" has the same rights as the "big guy." The issue here is that Christians are the majority and want to ignore the little guy. Yet they fail to understand that the separation laws protect THEM as well since we are protecting everyone's religious beliefs equally across the board. To illustrate this, if one day this country (or certain parts of the country) become a majority of a different religion (such as Utah is almost all Mormon), then their beliefs can't be forced upon you nor your children in state owned properties.

      If your child lived in Utah and there was no separation of Church and State, then how would you feel having your child be forced to pray to Joseph Smith in school? I'm betting you wouldn't be too happy about it.

      You should check out the Qur'an that Congressman Ellison got sworn into office with several years ago... it was owned by the great Thomas Jefferson himself because the Founding Fathers believed in religious freedom.

      As for the basis of our laws, much of that goes back to the Magna Carta. For instance, the hot topic now of anchor babies. The following is a debate I had elsewhere with someone else:

      >>>Anchor babies were granted citizenship in the United States long before the 14th Amendment was ever put into place. The United States Const-itution and our laws are based largely on English law (what a shocker, huh). In fact, many parts of our Const-itution have its roots in the Magna Carta. Thus, some of our laws have their roots dating back to the 13th century.

      This is important because the concept of being a natural citizen by birth dates all the way back to the beginning of the 17th century when the last Tudor monarch died and a Scotsman was elevated to the English throne. From there, questions arose as to citizenship. It was decided that place of birth was a factor for citizenship.

      In the early 19th century, BEFORE the 14 Amendment, the Supreme Court of the United States stated: "Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children, even of aliens, born in a country, while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government... are subjects by birth." In this case, all of the Justices decided that the English law of citizenship by birth was also the law for the Colonies in America.

      Also BEFORE the 14th Amendment, in a different case, the Supreme Court stated: "All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution."

      Then AFTER the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court stated, (post 1980): "Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States" and that "no plausible distinction with respect to 14th Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful."

      Furthermore, if you understood the concepts behind how the Supreme Court functions and how precedents are set by them, you would realize that there has been no "misinterpretation." It is their JOB to interpret our laws and they have done so. <<<<

      ****I find it telling that in the past fifty or sixty years as we have drifted farther away from biblical principles our society has gotten significantly worse. ***

      There is a great sequence in Empire Strikes Back when ObiWan was talking to Luke (who was upset about being lied to) about his father (whom ObiWan had previously told Luke was dead). ObiWan said: “Your father... was seduced by the Dark Side of the Force. He ceased to be Anakin Skywalker and became Darth Vader. When that happened, the good man who was your father was destroyed. So what I told you was true... from a certain point of view.” Luke then screams out, “A certain point of view!!!” To which ObiWan replies, “Luke, you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.”

      While it is just a movie, the premise holds some solid wisdom. Is the glass half empty or half full? While you say it is getting worse, I say it is getting BETTER. I don't have to worry about my kids getting Polio. I get to use indoor plumbing. The Internet allows me to work from home to spend more time with my family. We are living longer. We are able to communicate so much better with loved ones around the planet. The ability for anyone to self educate themselves regardless of demographic now exists thanks to the Internet. I can watch every single NFL game on one weekend via Directv. I can now use GPS to get around instead of maps. We are beginning to move toward alternative clean energy sources. I can travel all around the world for far less money. Etc, etc, etc..

      We have the highest standard of living in the history of the planet. Silicon Valley is the Mesopotamia of the modern world as it has changed everything. Etc, etc, etc.

      *** We have taken God out of our classrooms and out of our courtrooms and almost completely out of our society, we are a society of tolerance now, except for christians who are labeled as bigoted or haters if they speak out against something that is a sin in the eyes of God. Is everyone who says they are a christian really following God's laws, probably not, but for the most part I would say they are at least attempting to live their lives according to God's principles.***

      Our country is roughly 80% Christian. It is PRECISELY that majority who is responsible for electing our politicians who have created all of those items that you dislike. So if you ask who is to blame, there you have it.

      ***Once again not everyone who say they are a christian is legit, the church is riddled with hypocrisy and phony christians. But should we really judge all christians based on the actions of some who are clearly not following the mandates of God? ***

      Absolutely not.

      ***We do not call all muslims terrorists, so why should everyone who says they are a christian be maligned and smeared with the label of being a bigot or being a judgmental hypocrite?***

      They shouldn't and neither should the Muslims nor the Mormons nor the Buddhists nor the Hindus nor the Atheists nor the Jews, etc.

      ***I kind of drifted off target here but I feel that it is important to help our young people to understand that s-ex is not okay until they are ready for it,***

      It is equally important to realize that age is merely a number. There are some extremely mature 14 year olds that are more ready for s-ex than some immature 21 year olds. If I wanted to make a Biblical reference, I could say that Mary was likely very young when she had Jesus (perhaps 11-16 years old).

      *** and no amount of education or free contraceptives are going to change that. ***

      Be cognizant that what is "wrong" to you isn't for others. In many cultures, kids get married earlier than our kids have s-ex and it is perfectly fine with them. In fact, the Christians hate the fact of kids not being married with children that there are numerous states with ridiculous "marriage ages." The lowest in the US is only 12 years old. IMHO, having kids get married at 12 is absurd.

      *** We are the adults, we need to stand for something, or this world and society we all live in is only going to get worse. ***

      It really comes down to education. Our society has become backward about SO many things due mainly to "moral fears." For instance, the pathetic fact that we have more people in prison in this country both in aggregate and per capita of any country on the planet (and then pretend we are a nation of freedom). We spend trillions on a drug war that we can NEVER win (or even put a big dent into) while our children get substandard educations and facilities.

      Stop and think about the dichotomy between getting a driver's license and having a baby. How many hours of written tests, driving tests, driving practice with parents, driving practice with a licensed instructor, eye exams, etc it takes to get a license, then stop and think about how many hours it takes a 16 year old girl to become "qualified" to have a baby... it's like 100 to 0. Our society is so se-xually repressed that we can't even educate our children on how to be good parents. We deem it more important to teach our children about King Louis the XVIXLCXIVMLCIIV than we do preparing them for REALITY. It's mindboggling.

      Best wishes!
      Cheers.

      February 24, 2011 at 6:32 am |
    • The Truth

      @Doesn't Matter: Please ignore the "testing please ignore" as I had to test it elsewhere to find out which word CNN didn't like. Besides "Const-itution," I forgot about not being able to say "Docu-ment."

      The fact that CNN made it's billions in profit off of the concept of free speech and then censors free speech on their site reeks of irony. This is another prime example of not facing reality as their censor didn't stop me from posting it. 😉

      February 24, 2011 at 6:38 am |
    • josef

      @ Reality and Truth – It's too bad no one explained the concept of "opinion" to either of you. You should look up the definition, maybe you would be able to put your own into perspective.

      March 11, 2011 at 2:39 am |
    • BADGUY

      Hey gang.....just kiddin! (but the comment about Singapore banning Playboy because of the political content is true)

      March 17, 2011 at 9:29 am |
    • Truthaddict

      Great post. It is indeed true that the bible belt has a much higher divorce rate, alcoholism rate, and child abuse rate as well as being in red states which drain resources from blue states. Oddly enough, these people are trying to tell US how to conduct OUR lives.

      Religion is a cancer on society.

      March 17, 2011 at 7:02 pm |
    • Frankenblog

      Well said, The Truth. Well said.

      March 20, 2011 at 7:37 pm |
    • BlackCalvinist

      Actually, the Barna survey is very broad as to what it calls 'Christian'. It includes virtually anyone who comes to church at least once a month and makes a nominal profession. That doesn't mean the person is a Christian. It's theological requirements are so broad that even Jehovah's Witnesses, Catholics and Mormons can be included. When you add in factors like weekly church attendance, Sunday school and/or small group, understanding of historic Christian doctrine, those divorce numbers in the 'Christian community' go WAAAAY down.

      March 21, 2011 at 12:38 am |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.