<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Look&#8230; Listen&#8230; Love&#8230; Respect</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.gaypatriot.net/2006/12/04/looklistenloverespect/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.gaypatriot.net/2006/12/04/looklistenloverespect/</link>
	<description>The Internet home for American gay conservatives.</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2009 10:44:40 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Pat</title>
		<link>http://www.gaypatriot.net/2006/12/04/looklistenloverespect/#comment-60855</link>
		<dc:creator>Pat</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Dec 2006 20:37:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gaypatriot.net/?p=2271#comment-60855</guid>
		<description>NDT, I think it is a great idea for children to not have sex for a variety of reasons.  But while there is some controls (other than being told that it's bad) regarding smoking, drinking, driving, etc., there isn't much control when you have two teenagers together.  I think it is unrealistic to assume and expect all teenagers to not have sex.

I am curious though of the readers here, whether for adstinence only education or not, did wait until they were at least 18 to have sex.

I'll start.  I'm in the at least 18 category.

By the way, my point is not to expose hypocrisy, since I could understand someone having sex at 16, but later thinking that that was a bad idea.  But to see to get an idea on how realistic abstinence only education is.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>NDT, I think it is a great idea for children to not have sex for a variety of reasons.  But while there is some controls (other than being told that it&#8217;s bad) regarding smoking, drinking, driving, etc., there isn&#8217;t much control when you have two teenagers together.  I think it is unrealistic to assume and expect all teenagers to not have sex.</p>
<p>I am curious though of the readers here, whether for adstinence only education or not, did wait until they were at least 18 to have sex.</p>
<p>I&#8217;ll start.  I&#8217;m in the at least 18 category.</p>
<p>By the way, my point is not to expose hypocrisy, since I could understand someone having sex at 16, but later thinking that that was a bad idea.  But to see to get an idea on how realistic abstinence only education is.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: North Dallas Thirty</title>
		<link>http://www.gaypatriot.net/2006/12/04/looklistenloverespect/#comment-60854</link>
		<dc:creator>North Dallas Thirty</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Dec 2006 23:30:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gaypatriot.net/?p=2271#comment-60854</guid>
		<description>Colin, I found your statement rather revealing:

&lt;i&gt;To deny &lt;b&gt;hormonal young people&lt;/b&gt; their benefit by NOT TEACHING PROPER USE and espousing the COMPLETELY UNFEASABLE abstinence approach is tantamount to criminal negligence.&lt;/i&gt;

And therefore, to deny young people the benefits of driving, alcohol use, tobacco use, medical consent, and ability to sign contracts by not teaching proper use and espousing the completely unfeasible abstinence approach is, also tatamount to criminal negligence.

If a ten-year old should be taught how to have sex and use a condom, I fail to see why they shouldn't be allowed to drive, drink, smoke, sign binding agreements, and consent to medical procedures. After all, if they're responsible and trustworthy enough to have sex and always use protection, why not any of the other?

Abstinence education is all about teaching kids the single most important thing to be learned about sex -- how to override your hormones and say "no" when the situation is not right.

But abortion clinics make no money off people who abstain or use sex responsibly; they make it off the people who are willing to pay hundreds of dollars to erase an "oops". Just as payroll loan sharks target those who have a history of making bad money decisions, abortionists and their gay leftist allies target groups who have a history of making bad decisions when it comes to sex and systematically try to encourage them to do so.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Colin, I found your statement rather revealing:</p>
<p><i>To deny <b>hormonal young people</b> their benefit by NOT TEACHING PROPER USE and espousing the COMPLETELY UNFEASABLE abstinence approach is tantamount to criminal negligence.</i></p>
<p>And therefore, to deny young people the benefits of driving, alcohol use, tobacco use, medical consent, and ability to sign contracts by not teaching proper use and espousing the completely unfeasible abstinence approach is, also tatamount to criminal negligence.</p>
<p>If a ten-year old should be taught how to have sex and use a condom, I fail to see why they shouldn&#8217;t be allowed to drive, drink, smoke, sign binding agreements, and consent to medical procedures. After all, if they&#8217;re responsible and trustworthy enough to have sex and always use protection, why not any of the other?</p>
<p>Abstinence education is all about teaching kids the single most important thing to be learned about sex &#8212; how to override your hormones and say &#8220;no&#8221; when the situation is not right.</p>
<p>But abortion clinics make no money off people who abstain or use sex responsibly; they make it off the people who are willing to pay hundreds of dollars to erase an &#8220;oops&#8221;. Just as payroll loan sharks target those who have a history of making bad money decisions, abortionists and their gay leftist allies target groups who have a history of making bad decisions when it comes to sex and systematically try to encourage them to do so.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Patrick (Gryph)</title>
		<link>http://www.gaypatriot.net/2006/12/04/looklistenloverespect/#comment-60853</link>
		<dc:creator>Patrick (Gryph)</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Dec 2006 23:11:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gaypatriot.net/?p=2271#comment-60853</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;em&gt;-- post anything at GayPatriot involving Susan Sarandon!  Ughhhhhh!&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;

Oh good grief. Get a grip GP.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p><em>&#8211; post anything at GayPatriot involving Susan Sarandon!  Ughhhhhh!</em></p></blockquote>
<p>Oh good grief. Get a grip GP.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: GayPatriotWest</title>
		<link>http://www.gaypatriot.net/2006/12/04/looklistenloverespect/#comment-60852</link>
		<dc:creator>GayPatriotWest</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Dec 2006 23:09:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gaypatriot.net/?p=2271#comment-60852</guid>
		<description>I think the evidence pretty much suggests that condoms work at preventing the spread of HIV.  I have communicated with several guys in "sero-discordant" (relationships where one partner has HIV and the other does not) where they always use condoms for intercourse and the negative partner remains negative.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think the evidence pretty much suggests that condoms work at preventing the spread of HIV.  I have communicated with several guys in &#8220;sero-discordant&#8221; (relationships where one partner has HIV and the other does not) where they always use condoms for intercourse and the negative partner remains negative.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Colin</title>
		<link>http://www.gaypatriot.net/2006/12/04/looklistenloverespect/#comment-60851</link>
		<dc:creator>Colin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Dec 2006 21:16:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gaypatriot.net/?p=2271#comment-60851</guid>
		<description>Julie, are we really going to go there?  Condoms, when properly used, are EXTREMELY effective in preventing both pregnancy and HIV transmission.  To deny hormonal young people their benefit by NOT TEACHING PROPER USE and espousing the COMPLETELY UNFEASABLE abstinence approach is tantamount to criminal negligence.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Julie, are we really going to go there?  Condoms, when properly used, are EXTREMELY effective in preventing both pregnancy and HIV transmission.  To deny hormonal young people their benefit by NOT TEACHING PROPER USE and espousing the COMPLETELY UNFEASABLE abstinence approach is tantamount to criminal negligence.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Julie the Jarhead</title>
		<link>http://www.gaypatriot.net/2006/12/04/looklistenloverespect/#comment-60850</link>
		<dc:creator>Julie the Jarhead</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Dec 2006 14:31:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gaypatriot.net/?p=2271#comment-60850</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;Despite knowing that condoms prevent HIV transmission&lt;/i&gt;

Interesting assumption. Saying condoms prevent HIV transmission is like saying that condoms prevent pregnancy. They're surprisingly ineffective in preventing either.

Julie the Jarhead
-- Who used to work in an HIV research lab.

Julie the Jarhead</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>Despite knowing that condoms prevent HIV transmission</i></p>
<p>Interesting assumption. Saying condoms prevent HIV transmission is like saying that condoms prevent pregnancy. They&#8217;re surprisingly ineffective in preventing either.</p>
<p>Julie the Jarhead<br />
&#8211; Who used to work in an HIV research lab.</p>
<p>Julie the Jarhead</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
