A roommate-finding site cannot require users to disclose their sexual orientation, a U.S. appeals court ruled on Thursday, in the latest skirmish over whether anti-discrimination rules apply to the Web.
The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said Roommates.com, can not require users to list their sexual orientation.
Ok. So logically, you’d have to assume from this that sexuality is a minor issue which does not rule us. Gays can live with straight no problem.
However, then you have the same secularists arguing against abstinence only education because sex can’t be stopped. “Young people are going to have sex.” How many times have we heard this? Even when faced with the issue that 26 percent of girls aged 19-24 have contracted an STD. They then argue that “See, it can’t be stopped.”
So is sexuality an unstoppable force or is it a minor issue? They have to choose one.
April 4, 2008 at 4:10 pm
U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
That tells you all you need to know.
April 4, 2008 at 4:14 pm
I agree but their lunacy is not limited to them.
April 4, 2008 at 4:39 pm
My minor issue is an unstoppable force thank you very much!
April 4, 2008 at 6:10 pm
“They have to choose one.”
Well, Matt, “they” don’t seem to be in any hurry. What’s more, “they” are two different entities. One is a bunch of overpriced law school graduates legislating from the bench. The other is a bunch of overpriced educators moralizing from the ivory tower. It’s not like they all meet in a single smoke-filled room and decide on how to mess with our heads.
Unless the Clintons are involved. Then I wouldn’t put it past them.
April 4, 2008 at 6:59 pm
Do you even notice your own illogic. During the time that we have been investing all this money in abstinence education, 26% of girls in the 19-24 age group have STDs. What does that tell you about the effectiveness of abstinence eduacation? Its uselessness is by the way confirmed by every fair minded study ever done. If the STD rate is this high then maybe its time to rethink the approach of deliberately witholding information.
April 4, 2008 at 7:09 pm
“Do you even notice your own illogic.”
Nah, not when it’s more fun to watch yours.
What’s your basis for comparison here, Bill? Would the percentage have been more or less had it not been for abstinence ed? And even if you’re right (and the jury’s still out on that one), does that mean I should tell my little Johnny, oh sure, here’s a box of condoms, you kids have a good time tonight?
April 4, 2008 at 7:59 pm
Bill:
Perhaps you would like to see how the “Almighty Condom” has fared in Africa concerning HIV rates… there is only one nation in Africa that has HIV rates on the decrease and they are not stressing rubber.
Also, unless the pop media starts stressing abstinence, young people will always look to have “safe sex” first.
April 4, 2008 at 8:24 pm
Can anyone in their right mind actually argue that condoms aren’t accesible enough?
April 4, 2008 at 8:59 pm
Hey Bill,
Welcome back. Haven’t heard from you in a while.
“During the time that we have been investing all this money in abstinence education, 26% of girls in the 19-24 age group have STDs.”
In the spirit of logic, what was the investment in condoms during the same period? Everyone knows that the investment in the promotion of condoms dwarfs the minuscule investment in abstinence education. So in fairness, the rise in STDs is much more and indictment of condom promotion. N’est pas?
April 5, 2008 at 1:31 pm
I doubt the STD rate among adolescent females has much to do with the effectiveness or lack thereof of school-based programs of any sort, abstinence or otherwise. It really comes down to: “Where are the parents?” Even the most liberal research institutes, such as the Alan Guttmacher Institute and the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, recognize that the most important factors influencing adolescents to postpone the onset of sexual activity are a close relationship with parents and religious practice (notice: not simply faith, but practice). School-based programs aren’t even on the radar. Over the last few decades, parents and churches have been taken out of or have removed themselves from the equation, and I don’t see any shift among the cultural or academic elites to recognize their importance and exploit it for the health and well-being of teens.
Bob Hunt
April 5, 2008 at 2:25 pm
That’s partly because you have too many single parents. And that is partly due to random casual sex. See, I’m bringing it around full circle.