thepossiblepolice wrote:

Maybe not, but creepers are out there no matter what, and a kid in a bathing suit is probably MORE attractive to them than a nude child, because I think many of them are turned on by innocence. Parent's have the job of protecting their children no matter where they are. I don't think that kids are being molested at nude beaches any more than they are being molested at home, or at their relatives houses.

I don't think it's wise to chance their preferences. IMO, it's just an unnecessary environment. There's a good reason for these things being largely adult venues.

Forgiveness_Man wrote:

thepossiblepolice wrote:

Maybe not, but creepers are out there no matter what, and a kid in a bathing suit is probably MORE attractive to them than a nude child, because I think many of them are turned on by innocence. Parent's have the job of protecting their children no matter where they are. I don't think that kids are being molested at nude beaches any more than they are being molested at home, or at their relatives houses.

I don't think it's wise to chance their preferences. IMO, it's just an unnecessary environment. There's a good reason for these things being largely adult venues.

I honestly don't know much about nude beaches, but I do know that nudist retreats are not "adult" only, there are definitely family nudist camps/colonies and I don't think that kids there are at any more risk than they would be any where else.

They are not for me, but I don't believe that the lifestyle should be equated with sex and pedophiles either.

OT but are you a LOST fan? I just noticed your quote at the bottom of your posts...I heart LOST

thepossiblepolice wrote:

I honestly don't know much about nude beaches, but I do know that nudist retreats are not "adult" only, there are definitely family nudist camps/colonies and I don't think that kids there are at any more risk than they would be any where else.

They are not for me, but I don't believe that the lifestyle should be equated with sex and pedophiles either.

OT but are you a LOST fan? I just noticed your quote at the bottom of your posts...I heart LOST

I am sure the camps/colonies are probably less risk. I imagine beaches are a bit of a different story.

Neither do I. The question is specifically about beaches. I believe that a family has a right to be nudists if they want. And if they have a private beach, it's different. There are just some environments I feel are for adults only.

Random question for a thread about children and nude beaches. But yeah, I'm a huge Lost fan. I flove my island mystery. Television as a whole is a lot more boring w/o Lost, especially ABC. Without Lost, I found myself switching to CBS for the first time in years. (Which I don't mind cause I got hooked on another show)

Forgiveness_Man wrote:

thepossiblepolice wrote:

I honestly don't know much about nude beaches, but I do know that nudist retreats are not "adult" only, there are definitely family nudist camps/colonies and I don't think that kids there are at any more risk than they would be any where else.

They are not for me, but I don't believe that the lifestyle should be equated with sex and pedophiles either.

OT but are you a LOST fan? I just noticed your quote at the bottom of your posts...I heart LOST

I am sure the camps/colonies are probably less risk. I imagine beaches are a bit of a different story.

Neither do I. The question is specifically about beaches. I believe that a family has a right to be nudists if they want. And if they have a private beach, it's different. There are just some environments I feel are for adults only.

Random question for a thread about children and nude beaches. But yeah, I'm a huge Lost fan. I flove my island mystery. Television as a whole is a lot more boring w/o Lost, especially ABC. Without Lost, I found myself switching to CBS for the first time in years. (Which I don't mind cause I got hooked on another show)

So if there are family friendly nude beaches would you feel differently about it?

I know it's random but I like that we have something in common even though we seem to disagree about a lot of other things One of my children is named Shepherd and one of my twins is named Desmond Jack

thepossiblepolice wrote:

So if there are family friendly nude beaches would you feel differently about it?

I know it's random but I like that we have something in common even though we seem to disagree about a lot of other things One of my children is named Shepherd and one of my twins is named Desmond Jack

Well I never supported legislation to stop kids from going anyway. It was more a question of SHOULD they go rather than should parents be allowed to take them. I fully support a parent's right to go to a nude beach with their child and have them wear nothing but their birthday suit if the beach allows kids. I just don't think they should exercise that right.

As for a family friendly nude beach, if they limited their clientele, I'd be more supportive of it. Although I am really not "supportive" of the nudist movement to begin with. lol I am just not wanting legal action taken to squash it. It's one of those things I call Class B Opposition, although it's more a soft B rather than a hard B. (Don't try to figure out my system )

Nice! I have stuff in common with lots of folk. I am not the freakazoid some like to think. I was a Lost junkie and supported every twist and turn. I didn't get turned off cause things got a little complicated. I watched faithfully every episode for 6 full years, Day 1 to The End!

Forgiveness_Man wrote:

thepossiblepolice wrote:

So if there are family friendly nude beaches would you feel differently about it?

I know it's random but I like that we have something in common even though we seem to disagree about a lot of other things One of my children is named Shepherd and one of my twins is named Desmond Jack

Well I never supported legislation to stop kids from going anyway. It was more a question of SHOULD they go rather than should parents be allowed to take them. I fully support a parent's right to go to a nude beach with their child and have them wear nothing but their birthday suit if the beach allows kids. I just don't think they should exercise that right.

As for a family friendly nude beach, if they limited their clientele, I'd be more supportive of it. Although I am really not "supportive" of the nudist movement to begin with. lol I am just not wanting legal action taken to squash it. It's one of those things I call Class B Opposition, although it's more a soft B rather than a hard B. (Don't try to figure out my system )

Nice! I have stuff in common with lots of folk. I was a Lost junkie and supported every twist and turn. I didn't get turned off cause things got a little complicated. I watched faithfully every episode for 6 full years, Day 1 to The End!

I understand...There are things that *I* personally wouldn't choose to do because I don't think that they are "right" but I wouldn't want a law banning them because I don't feel it's the place of the govt to be so involved in our private lives.

^^^^Well I totally agree with that. I don't support big government either. I was merely speaking from a "should they go" POV instead of a "should they be ALLOWED to go." ( I do, however, fully support a beach's right to make it adults only. )

In an ideal world, I'd love to say they SHOULD go too, but alas, this ain't an ideal world.

Forgiveness_Man wrote:

^^^^Well I totally agree with that. I don't support big government either. I was merely speaking from a "should they go" POV instead of a "should they be ALLOWED to go." ( I do, however, fully support a beach's right to make it adults only. )

In an ideal world, I'd love to say they SHOULD go too, but alas, this ain't an ideal world.

I agree, but I wish it were

You wish it were an ideal world? Don't we all. We could save a lot on clothes if it were.

Shale wrote:

RobbieFTW wrote:

... But no I dont think kids should be allowed there or anywhere where adults are naked.

Why not?

Because in my opinion there are some places where adults go to enjoy the company and surroundings of other adults, I think nudist places are one of them. Kids really don't need to be there.

Don't think kids in general are mature enough to handle the atmosphere and I imagine they would possibly react to it in ways that would make the adults uncomfortable.
....and on a paranoid parental level, I wouldn't want my kids to possibly see some dude with a random hard-on. Fuck it....I don't want my kids seeing any mans penis period.

Marc™ wrote:

Don't think kids in general are mature enough to handle the atmosphere and I imagine they would possibly react to it in ways that would make the adults uncomfortable.
....and on a paranoid parental level, I wouldn't want my kids to possibly see some dude with a random hard-on. Fuck it....I don't want my kids seeing any mans penis period.

"My tie is in the bathroom and I can't go in because Uncle Frank is taking a shower. He says that if I walked in there and saw him naked I'd grow up never feeling like a real man. Whatever that means." - KEvin McCalister

I agree with that point to a point. Although my inner rebel has it's issues but ah well, not gonna listen to him right now.

I happen to feel their is balance in life between pretending that some parts don't exist and going around naked all day. Never did get why it has to be all of this here, or all of that there.

I think I would be sort of okay with a couple bringing their baby with them to a nude beach since most babies and toddlers run around naked and carefree anyway. By the time they get to be the age of being told "these are your privates, and no one is allowed to touch them!", it's best they go to a suited beach. I don't think 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 year olds should be out in public with no clothes on, mixing it up with each other naked kids their age or with naked adults. I think my mind is as realistic as it is dirty.

It's only flesh! Never been to a nude beach or nudist resort but I imagine theyre not like brothels or Turkish bathhouses. My parents sent me to summer camp when I was 11, where the kids and adult counselors stripped down totally naked to take showers during shower time and I don't remember there being any woodies or touching.

Forgiveness_Man wrote:

Young conservative / old liberal, ah labels! We could both go on all day about ages and people we know that "are exactly like you." Color me uninterested in that discussion.

Since you've avoided the question of how old you are twice, I won't bother asking the different places you've lived in or even been to. Your lack of an answer tells me almost as much about you as any given answer would. You don't have to give details about yourself if you don't want to. But when you make certain statements and take certain positions, then go on to say how you should not be classified into a specific demographic, but refuse to describe yoursef, it's almost a concession in any argument you make. You are not interested in being put into a category or being labelled (most people aren't). But you are interested in expressing your religious and political ideologies. Of course you have every right to do so and be a cryptic as you want. But avoiding discussions which might illustrate the flaws in your argument (discussions which you know will expose those flaws) is nothing more than a shield!

I leave no secrets to the imagination when I argue a point. People will generally know everything they need to know about me to draw a conclusion as to why I believe the way that I do. I Usually give my opinion about something, then explain how I came to that opinion, defend it and IF there are flaws in my position that someone can expose (flaws which I may not have considered), I'll change my mind. If you don't want to explain yourself I'm okay with that. As long as you don't take it personally when people make assumptions about you based soley on the things that you DO say. And almost everything that you've said (on those issues) is consistent with the ideology of a young, right-wing, conservative. You don't want to say that you are (for obvious reasons), but you haven't denied it either. That being the case, everyone is going to assume that this is true until you directly deny it.

Forgiveness_Man wrote:

I admire your attempt to profile me(psychology student?) but I honestly think you're making it much more than it is. lol But as a writer, I admire the good dramatizing of the insignificant.

Maybe I am making it more than it is. Maybe I'm baiting you into saying something that you don't want to say, or confirming something that everyone on here already believes. Maybe I'm "playing" with you because that's the best way to break through someone's defenses when you are psychoanalyzing them. Or maybe I'm just bored and enjoy a good challenge. I am a psychology student by the way, lol. Good call! The fact is, I can't hear the tone of your voice, see your facial expressions or judge your body language through internet text, so my analysis is limited to text only evaluation (which is far from perfect).

Forgiveness_Man wrote:

You act like I want to convince you. I doubt either of us care what the other thinks. lol My experiences as a tyke are proof that I didn't have some uptight upbringing about nudity; IDK where you see the inconsistency.

Actually it's not. Not necessarily! I'm not suggesting that you had an uptight "upbringing about nudity" at all. I'm simply suggesting that you had an upbringing that is typical of the average American in our socity and our general views about modesty. Nothing wrong with that. And the reality is, I might actually feel the same way about it as you do (because I was also raised with modesty concerning nudity). The point I was making is that parents are not always consistent when it comes to how they influence their children. Being nude obviously made you uncomfortable and that response came from somewhere. If you were forced to be nude in public it would be traumatic in the sense that you'd have strong feelings about similar situations later in life. It's not a surprise that you would find nudism "creepy" at all. I simply contend that had you been raised in a nudist colony all your life, you probably wouldn't find it creepy. You'd consider it normal!

Forgiveness_Man wrote:

As for my atypical beliefs, what is the "typical" I am comparing against? ( Of course, now we're off topic. ) IDK what it is you're trying to prove here. Maybe you just like hanging out with me, hence the long quotes.

I'm not trying to prove anything. I'm just trying to figure you out that's all. Correction, I'm trying to figure out whether or not you are actually "different" from what I've assumed you to be. The "typical" would be typical right wing, republican and Christian values that define most self described "conseratives" in the US. In previous posts you've indicated that you are a Catholic and you've taken right wing stances on...well just about everything. You don't really believe there should be a seperation of church and state. You believe that "minorities" should vote Republican. You've defended Sarah Palin. You attacked President Obama. You think Intellegent Design should be taught in schools. You believe in capital punishment. You indirectly, yet often take an anti-gay stance (while insisting that you are NOT homophobic) and as far as I can tell, you are the only person on this board who actually defended FOX News, TWICE. The suggestion that you could be anything but a TYPICAL right wing conservative Republican is almost laughable at this point and the fact that you haven't denied it seems to confirm that pretty blatent observation.

But if you're really wondering, the reason I respond to you so often is because I enjoy debate (especially on positions that I am totally in disagreement about) and thus I enjoy debating with you. Nothing more, nothing less. :biggrin:

^^^^Gosh, you talk a lot. You must like me. In case you're wondering, I like brevity where possible, hence why I tend to ignore broken up quotes with long text blocks!

Ignoring flaws in my argument? I think you focus so much on my personal argument that you don't even seem to know what you're arguing against anymore. lol I am half waiting for you to try and argue I'm repressing abuse next. Kids and nude beaches turns into FM grew up in a repressed environment?

Wow, you are a psychology student? So was I! I guess I profiled something correctly.

I think my feelings came from my natural personality to be honest. Sure, I probably wouldn't care if I grew up in a nudist colony(cause I would have to accept it ), but I don't think my rents shaped my fears. lol If I was like my Dad at least, I'd be totally okay with it. Besides, it's less the nudity I find creepy and more the co-existing of agegroups naked in a single facility. That isn't due to my modesty views but rather just being somebody who's seen the news and always hearing about child molestation. In terms of adults only, or kids only(ie school showers), I don't find it nearly as "creepy." (Even if I personally, am not exactly keen on it)

I believe there should be a separation of church and state. I just disagree with you about what that means. I don't feel "minorities" should vote "Republican" as much as I feel they need to quit a blind allegiance to the Democratic party. I defended Sarah Palin cause I do not like seeing the hatred of her. And newsflash, even the left is starting to attack President Obama. I do believe capital punishment needs to be on the table but I believe it should be rarer than some do. I am not "anti-gay" at all. And defending Fox News is merely because people single it out. I try to avoid watching Fox as much as I can; same goes for Limbaugh. I'll defend them but you won't find me turning them on willfully most of the time. (Atypical right there) And how are you guys not all "typical" left-wing anti-Christian Democrats? I admit that I am not the complete opposite of everything but who is? That doesn't make me some stereotype. And the fact that you're spending so much time trying to prove I fit a stereotype is starting to speak more about you. If you like debate, why not debate on the actual topic instead of contriving personal issues about me to debate? This topic is about kids on nude beaches, not FM!

Forgiveness_Man wrote:

^^^^Gosh, you talk a lot. You must like me. In case you're wondering, I like brevity where possible, hence why I tend to ignore broken up quotes with long text blocks!

Noted for future reference (although I can't garauntee that I'll comply. It's a habit! And I do like you. But I wasn't trying to say that you're repressed (anymore than any other typical American who would give a similar response. Don't take things so personally, it's just a generalization.

Forgiveness_Man wrote:

Wow, you are a psychology student? So was I! I guess I profiled something correctly.

Yep.

Forgiveness_Man wrote:

Besides, it's less the nudity I find creepy and more the co-existing of agegroups naked in a single facility. That isn't due to my modesty views but rather just being somebody who's seen the news and always hearing about child molestation.

I understand this completely. But I also think that people succumb to irrational fears and expectations when they hear of relatively isolated incidents like that which are sensationalized by the media. Contrary to popular belief, most adults are not child molestors and a child molestor is probably less likely to get away with such a thing in a close knit group like individuals of a nudist colony or family. It's like saying there should be no co-ed dorms in colleges because girls are more likely to be raped by boys since they live in the same facility. That's an irrational argument by all means, but also completely understandable how people could draw such conclusions and have that standpoint. I'l respond to the rest in a seperate post (for your convenience, )

You like me? You really, really, like me? Given past altercations, you'll have to excuse my uncertainty.

Hmmm, guess my psychology class wasn't 100% worthless afterall.

I get what you're saying. It's like with the whole priest scandal and now suddenly every priest is a pedophile because less than 1% of priests was. I agree it's probably less likely to be gotten away with in a family or colony. I was speaking more to public places where people are naked together, like beaches or showers/changing rooms. It'd be a lot easier for predator to show up there than a private facility. Hence, it's creepy to me. In an ideal world, I'd have no intrinsic problem with it.

Forgiveness_Man wrote:

You like me? You really, really, like me? Given past altercations, you'll have to excuse my uncertainty.

Admittedly I didn't at first because I thought you were going to be "immature" in most of your responses based on some of the positions you were taking. But the more I spar with you, the more I start to like you. Or more precisely, I should say that I admire your ability to stand up for what you believe in and not run away like a coward when challenged. Even if I don't agree with you on a lot of issues, I respect that you at least make an effort to back up your positions (most of the time anyway). If I come off as "abrasive" sometimes, forgive me. It's a habit I've developed from dealing with morons on message boards like this. When people say things that I consider "idiotic", I can't resist calling them out.

Forgiveness_Man wrote:

Hmmm, guess my psychology class wasn't 100% worthless afterall.

I've learned more in psychology class than I ever have in any other class I've taken in my adult life. Probably because it interests me.

Forgiveness_Man wrote:

I get what you're saying. It's like with the whole priest scandal and now suddenly every priest is a pedophile because less than 1% of priests was.

EXACTLY. I don't think that most priests are pedophiles or even a large minority of priests. But I do think that being a priest (per the sexual repression rules of the Catholic Church) does lend itself to unnatural behavior for the weak minded. That being said, I think priests would be more likely to turn to molestation than say a rabbi or a protestant minister (although many of them have been caught up in sex scandals too). I guess what I'm trying to say that one pedophile priest every now and again isn't too much of a shock for me. The biggest mistake of the Catholic chuch is when they've tried to cover up those types of things. That's why it became so sensationalized by the media and why people stereotype priets for being pedophiles. they are wrong of course, but the church seriously miscalculated and now has to clean up it's image based on those miscalculations.

Forgiveness_Man wrote:

I agree it's probably less likely to be gotten away with in a family or colony. I was speaking more to public places where people are naked together, like beaches or showers/changing rooms. It'd be a lot easier for predator to show up there than a private facility. Hence, it's creepy to me. In an ideal world, I'd have no intrinsic problem with it.

Agreed!

Forgiveness_Man wrote:

I believe there should be a separation of church and state. I just disagree with you about what that means. I don't feel "minorities" should vote "Republican" as much as I feel they need to quit a blind allegiance to the Democratic party. I defended Sarah Palin cause I do not like seeing the hatred of her. And newsflash, even the left is starting to attack President Obama. I do believe capital punishment needs to be on the table but I believe it should be rarer than some do. I am not "anti-gay" at all. And defending Fox News is merely because people single it out. I try to avoid watching Fox as much as I can; same goes for Limbaugh. I'll defend them but you won't find me turning them on willfully most of the time. (Atypical right there) And how are you guys not all "typical" left-wing anti-Christian Democrats? I admit that I am not the complete opposite of everything but who is? That doesn't make me some stereotype. And the fact that you're spending so much time trying to prove I fit a stereotype is starting to speak more about you.

Okay first thing is first, you say you believe in seperation of churh and state, but you also believe that the govnerment should favor the establishment of Christianity over other religions (or non religion). That is made clear by your positions on what should and shouldn't be taught in public schools as well as how you feel about the Pledge of Allegience. Once the government starts endorsing religious principles we are no longer a secular society, and the more it does that the more dangerous it becomes. The citizens of religiously run societies do not prosper! The founding fathers (despite many of them being Christians themselves) understood this which is why they put the establishment clause in the first ammendment!

Why do you assume that minorities have "blind" allegiance to the democratic party? What do you base that on? Every minority I know who's is a democrate has very specific reasons and arguments for why they vote the way they do, and I know many who can be quite vocal about it. I'd hardly call that blind allegiance (particularly when most of the grievances are directed towards the other party). I don't believe that most voters have "blind allegance". I think that most people who are conscious enough to actually go out there and vote on something is usually voting from the heart. And the fact is, black people vote democrat more often than not because they don't believe that a republican candidate is going to make policies on things that benefit them. Historically speaking (to a certain point in history anyway) that is true.

I agree with you 100% on capital punishment. On the issue of gays, I think that you "believe" you are not anti gay, while simultaneously taking many anti gay positions (perhaps without even realizing it). It's like when racists say that they are not racist because they have black friends. That doesn't mean they are not a racist, just that they are more tolorant than most other racists. Fox News is singled out more because it's A) the most popular cable news network and B) because it singles itself out. It claims to be "fair and balanced" when it is so obviously biased and unbalanced. Nobody thinks that MSNBC is fair and balanced either but that network doesn't make that claim. FOX News does, therefore they deserve more scrutiny because everyone can see that they are lying! By the way, I DO watch FOX News (including Bill O'Reilly) on a semiregular basis. I also watch CNN on a regular basis and very rarily if ever tune into MSNBC.

Democrats attack Obama because they think he is too soft, too willing to compromise with republicans and not "liberal" enough. Republicans attack him because he is a "liberal" and they disagree with him on things like his economic policy and healthcare. But they also attack him for things like "where he was really born", "what his true religion is", "whether or not he is a racist", and all kinds of other ridiculous and nasty things that are clearly a smear campaign unrelated to any of his policies. Bush was attacked because of his policies. Obama is attacked because he is a the first black man in the office and some people will never be able to get over that or accept that he should be allowed to be the President. They have to find some reason that disqualifies him from the job outside of his own policies. Democrats attack Sarah Palin for reasons unrelated to her policies too, but the difference is she brings it on herself. She loves the spotlight and the attention. She puts her children in the spotlight and uses them them as part of her political strategy. Her daughter was on dancing with the stars! Then she cries that the media attacks her family. What the hell does she expect? That's with the media does to politicians who expose themselves freely to the media! She has a friggin reality show for chrissake. Obama didn't bring his religion, or his children or his citizenship into the spotlight, Fox NEWS does! In any case, the issue isn't to debate Sarah Palin or President Obama, but merely to point out that Palin supporters are strictly right wing individuals. I have yet to meet anyone who wasn't a republican (and more specifically not in the tea party) who supports her and believes in the things that she does.

^^^^Well the same goes for me. I've dealt with my share of morons on boards to. I don't run away from discussions as much as determine when further discussion with said person is futile. At that point, I just decide to move on and not waste my time arguing with a brick wall. I thought this talk was heading there but you're starting to redeem yourself a little.

Can't say it was that useful. lol But I liked my teacher. We'll see what Sociology has next.

Would you believe that Protestant ministers have a higher percentage rate or molestations than the Catholics? The insurance companies paid attention. The media didn't because who cares what Pastor Charlie of The Third Reformed Baptist Church of Hogden County(random name) did? The Catholic Church is the BIG target. It's easier to go after them than some small denomination, and thus they did. Priests have no greater percentage of molesters than any other denoms; they just get the most negative press. And as for the rules of the Church, I just don't understand how having a wife would counter the urge of a priest to molest little boys. If THAT is what he's doing, methinks it is not cause he wants a woman.

Agreed? Wow! lol How about we change the topic up a bit? You believe or don't believe kids should go to nude beaches. Would you take your kids to one if you do? Would you let them go without you as teenagers? Would you feel comfortable with your young child undressing in a public place(shower, locker room, etc.) in front of adult strangers, especially if you are not there? (I guess the latter is more an issue for sons rather than daughters) We've heard what we think about other people's kids in this area. What about our own?





I don't believe citizens in a totally secular state prosper either. Not saying the Church should run the country; just saying that the extreme opposite is just as dangerous.

Maybe it's just people I know; have witnessed. They seem to vote for a candidate because they have a D, and that is all. "Republicans are all racists," to me, doesn't pass as a free thinking allegiance.(Just unproven bias) I say blind because of what I witness and observe.

I don't feel I take any anti-gay positions. I don't single them out for anything. I do feel Fox News is fair and balanced compared to every other network out there. And think about it, hypothetically, if Fox WAS fair and balanced, that would make it to the right of everything else, and thus it'd still be labeled a right wing fringe job. So I obviously can't take the claims seriously that it is not fair and balanced anymore. I don't watch much news programs period. Too much negativity for the blood pressure.

I never saw Sarah politicize her children. I saw the media bring them into the spotlight. As for Bristol going on Dancing, the media also made that more newsworthy than it otherwise would've been. Her reality show was a nature show. I don't feel she brings it on herself as much as the media is just obsessed with her. When I see Yahoo practically reporting every time she uses a public restroom, nobody is convincing ME that she brings it on herself. I also do not see Fox News focusing on Obama's kids at all. I haven't heard much of them period. Yes, Sarah has largely right wing support, just as Obama has only left now. (Any right support he had, I imagine, has long sinced disappeared)

Forgiveness_Man wrote:

^^^^Well the same goes for me. I've dealt with my share of morons on boards to. I don't run away from discussions as much as determine when further discussion with said person is futile. At that point, I just decide to move on and not waste my time arguing with a brick wall. I thought this talk was heading there but you're starting to redeem yourself a little.

Can't say it was that useful. lol But I liked my teacher. We'll see what Sociology has next.

Would you believe that Protestant ministers have a higher percentage rate or molestations than the Catholics? The insurance companies paid attention. The media didn't because who cares what Pastor Charlie of The Third Reformed Baptist Church of Hogden County(random name) did? The Catholic Church is the BIG target. It's easier to go after them than some small denomination, and thus they did. Priests have no greater percentage of molesters than any other denoms; they just get the most negative press. And as for the rules of the Church, I just don't understand how having a wife would counter the urge of a priest to molest little boys. If THAT is what he's doing, methinks it is not cause he wants a woman.

Agreed? Wow! lol How about we change the topic up a bit? You believe or don't believe kids should go to nude beaches. Would you take your kids to one if you do? Would you let them go without you as teenagers? Would you feel comfortable with your young child undressing in a public place(shower, locker room, etc.) in front of adult strangers, especially if you are not there? (I guess the latter is more an issue for sons rather than daughters) We've heard what we think about other people's kids in this area. What about our own?





I don't believe citizens in a totally secular state prosper either. Not saying the Church should run the country; just saying that the extreme opposite is just as dangerous.

Maybe it's just people I know; have witnessed. They seem to vote for a candidate because they have a D, and that is all. "Republicans are racists," to me, doesn't pass as a free thinking allegiance. I say blind because of what I witness and observe.

I don't feel I take any anti-gay positions. I don't single them out for anything. I do feel Fox News is fair and balanced compared to every other network out there. And think about it, hypothetically, if Fox WAS fair and balanced, that would make it to the right of everything else, and thus it'd still be labeled a right wing fringe job. So I obviously can't take the claims seriously that it is not fair and balanced anymore. I don't watch much news programs period. Too much negativity for the blood pressure.

I never saw Sarah politicize her children. I saw the media bring them into the spotlight. As for Bristol going on Dancing, the media also made that more newsworthy than it otherwise would've been. Her reality show was a nature show. I don't feel she brings it on herself as much as the media is just obsessed with her. When I see Yahoo practically reporting every time she uses a public restroom, nobody is convincing ME that she brings it on herself. I also do not see Fox News focusing on Obama's kids at all. I haven't heard much of them period. Yes, Sarah has largely right wing support, just as Obama has only left now. (Any right support he had, I imagine, has long sinced disappeared)

^^^^^What part of the quote was that for?