# Abstinence Education Immoral?



## bushidomartialarts

So here's what rattled around in my head during a deeply sleep deprived drive back from the coast this weekend.

Many people on these boards agree to some extent with the stament "Pacifism is immoral".  Though I'm not that extreme, I certainly understand and support the sentiments leading to that conclusion.  Pacifism can be construed as the willful abandonment of some basic responsibilities (defense of innocents, defense of loved ones, for example).

A short way to sum up the concept is that Pacifism teaches to avoid using a tool that can be used to improve quality of life.  Therefore it contributes to suffering and is evil.

Abstinence education does much of the same thing.  By teaching only about abstinence, it robs students of several important tools for improving their quality of life.  Not just that one, ya pervs.  Some studeies suggest that abstinence education, by not teaching about safe sex, actually increases instances of pregnancy and disease.

In short, Abstinence education censors out tools that can be used to improve quality of life.  Therefore it contributes to suffering and is evil.

Thought I'd kick it out to y'all and let us chew on it for a while.


----------



## michaeledward

Yes, but not for the reasons you cite.

Recent studies have shown that abstinence education is ineffective. Students receiving abstinence only education were just as likely to have sexual relationships as those who received no sexual education at all.

I believe our educators have responsibility to present appropriate and effective data to students. To patronize a technique that has been shown to be ineffective certainly is immoral to me.


----------



## Kacey

Well, first I'm going to disagree with your definition of pacifism; pacifism is 





> *1* *:* opposition to war or violence as a means of settling disputes; _specifically_ *:* refusal to bear arms on moral or religious grounds
> *2* *:* an attitude or policy of nonresistance


 it is not "the willful abandonment of some basic responsibilities"

Second, I'm going to agree with ME here - studies have shown repeatedly that abstinence education does not work, and that programs that rely on abstinence pledges are highly ineffective.  Based on those studies, I don't know that I would call abstinence education "immoral" so much as irresponsible.


----------



## bushidomartialarts

Fair point.  I should revise to 'extreme pacifism', which I suspect is intended by most people who make that argument.

Do you draw a distinction between irresponsible and immoral?  Seems to me that's a point of degree, not of nature.


----------



## Ray

michaeledward said:


> Recent studies have shown that abstinence education is ineffective. Students receiving abstinence only education were just as likely to have sexual relationships as those who received no sexual education at all.
> 
> I believe our educators have responsibility to present appropriate and effective data to students. To patronize a technique that has been shown to be ineffective certainly is immoral to me.


Certainly sex education should present the facts.  To prevent pregnancy, stds, etc when sexually active should be an important part of that.

According to what I read today, the latest report shows that abstinece was as effective as other forms of sex education in that the number of teens having sex was, percentage wise, the same for either form of education.  Therefore, to be honest: "abstinence is the safest and most effective means of preventing all kinds of undesirable things; but if you can't abstain then here are the things you'll need" should probably be the message.


----------



## Kacey

Ray said:


> Certainly sex education should present the facts.  To prevent pregnancy, stds, etc when sexually active should be an important part of that.
> 
> According to what I read today, the latest report shows that abstinece was as effective as other forms of sex education in that the number of teens having sex was, percentage wise, the same for either form of education.



That's kind of the problem - just as many teens who are taught abstinence only are having sex... but the rates of pregnancy, STDs, etc. are much higher, because they have very little real information about anything _but_ abstinence.



Ray said:


> Therefore, to be honest: "abstinence is the safest and most effective means of preventing all kinds of undesirable things; but if you can't abstain then here are the things you'll need" should probably be the message.


I agree with this completely.


----------



## bushidomartialarts

Kacey said:


> That's kind of the problem - just as many teens who are taught abstinence only are having sex... but the rates of pregnancy, STDs, etc. are much higher, because they have very little real information about anything _but_ abstinence.



To make matters worse, a few of the studies showed that certain aggressive abstinence programs had another unintended side effect.  Students who participated in a 'vow of abstinence' campaign had less 'regular' sex, but engaged in sodomy far more frequently than peers who hadn't taken the vow.


----------



## Andrew Green

Yes, because of two reasons:

1) Study after study shows that it doesn't work.  It's Millions of dollars flushed down the toilet to make older people feel good and younger ones guilty.

2) Sex is one of our strongest natural instincts.  With out it humans as a species would not exist.  Teaching people that there natural instincts are bad is messing with nature.  Again leading to nothing but people feeling guilty, even if they don't do it, they are "supposed" to feel guilty for wanting too.  That's like saying food is evil IMO.


----------



## donald

I think that if we teach material with out moral boundaries. That need to include moral boundaries. We are going to continue to fail. Some of us can remember when sex was a sin outside of marriage. That it could cost more than an itch etc.. Kids today don't really hear this. They are bombarded with so much garbage, and very little good stuff. Abstinence should be taught continually. Not just because you may get pregnant, or you may catch a terrible illness. Because outside of marriage it is wrong. I was amazed to find out from my kids pedetrician. That a girl can contract a std simply because her body is not ready for sex! I had never heard this before. There truly is" a time, and a season for everything". I pray that the kids of our nation will be awakened. That by The Lord Jesus' grace. They may not only hear about what is right, and wrong, but learn it. 
1stJohn1:9


----------



## Kacey

donald said:


> I think that if we teach material with out moral boundaries. That need to include moral boundaries. We are going to continue to fail. Some of us can remember when sex was a sin outside of marriage. That it could cost more than an itch etc.. Kids today don't really hear this. They are bombarded with so much garbage, and very little good stuff. Abstinence should be taught continually. Not just because you may get pregnant, or you may catch a terrible illness. Because outside of marriage it is wrong. I was amazed to find out from my kids pedetrician. That a girl can contract a std simply because her body is not ready for sex! I had never heard this before. There truly is" a time, and a season for everything". I pray that the kids of our nation will be awakened. That by The Lord Jesus' grace. They may not only hear about what is right, and wrong, but learn it.
> 1stJohn1:9



Certainly, I feel that engaging in sexual activity, or not, is a moral decision that should be taught by the parents - but the problem with programs that lean heavily on "Don't, it's evil", is that kids will resist for a while... but once they start - even once - they figure their damned anyway, and end up with a higher rate of sexual activity than their peers.  Sex - like any other bodily function - is natural, but has been driven into the closet by people who feel that their beliefs must be right for everyone.  

I don't mean to denigrate your religious beliefs - but I don't agree with them.  The only part of your statement that would have affected me as a teen is that youths who are unready for sex physically are more prone to STDs - but the reality is, adolescence is a construct of the last 100 years or so - before that, sex outside of marriage was much less common because a) people got married much younger, leaving less time for "adolescent fooling around"; b) improved nutrition has lowered the age of puberty in both sexes, but most notably in girls - leading to a longer period of sexual readiness (as determined by physical maturity) before marriage - which, added to the greater age at marriage, leaves youths physically able to engage in sex 10-15 years before they could reasonably be expected to marry; c) birth control that works (the Pill, and its successors) has had a massive effect on sexuality in both genders, because before that there was always the risk that pregnancy would occur - no matter how careful you were - with that risk greatly reduced, other issues, specifically STDs, have come to the fore.

Teens need to be taught about sexuality, drug and alcohol abuse, and many other behaviors affected by both law and morality *by their parents*, and such education needs to begin early.  We have the situation we have today in part because too many parents are leaving such education - and in many cases, the raising of their kids entirely - to the schools and the public media... and then complaining when their kids don't act the way they want, despite their lack of involvement.


----------



## bushidomartialarts

I think (and bear in mind I'm saying _think _here, this is something I've been working on lately and it isn't fully formed) that making a moral issue out sex education it is a mistake.

Morality is easy to disagree with, even inside the family.  There's no real proof (sort of like faith that way) of the rightness or wrongness of the assertion 'premarital sex is bad'.  Too many opportunities to disagree, too many examples of honorable people choosing a different path.

On the other hand, making a _logical_ or _consequence-driven_ issue seems like it would work.  Consider the two options:

"Having sex before you're married is evil.  If you do it, you're a dirty, bad person.  See here on page 271 of this holy book?  If you do that you might go to hell."

vs.

"Having sex casually exposes to you a lot of risks.  Unwanted pregnancy, HIV, HPV, herpes and crabs are all examples.  It's a good idea to take those risks with a committed partner.  And even if you don't follow that advice it's absolutely imperative that you take protective measures like using a condom and choosing your partner wisely."

Which is more likely to get a rebellious, wiseass teenager to be smart about sex?


----------



## Bigshadow

bushidomartialarts said:


> So here's what rattled around in my head during a deeply sleep deprived drive back from the coast this weekend.
> 
> Many people on these boards agree to some extent with the stament "Pacifism is immoral".  Though I'm not that extreme, I certainly understand and support the sentiments leading to that conclusion.  Pacifism can be construed as the willful abandonment of some basic responsibilities (defense of innocents, defense of loved ones, for example).
> 
> A short way to sum up the concept is that Pacifism teaches to avoid using a tool that can be used to improve quality of life.  Therefore it contributes to suffering and is evil.
> 
> Abstinence education does much of the same thing.  By teaching only about abstinence, it robs students of several important tools for improving their quality of life.  Not just that one, ya pervs.  Some studeies suggest that abstinence education, by not teaching about safe sex, actually increases instances of pregnancy and disease.
> 
> In short, Abstinence education censors out tools that can be used to improve quality of life.  Therefore it contributes to suffering and is evil.
> 
> Thought I'd kick it out to y'all and let us chew on it for a while.




It, as well as many other American perceptions of the broader subject matter is rather purtanical!     IMO of course.


----------



## Carol

bushidomartialarts said:


> "Having sex casually exposes to you a lot of risks. Unwanted pregnancy, HIV, HPV, herpes and crabs are all examples. It's a good idea to take those risks with a committed partner. And even if you don't follow that advice it's absolutely imperative that you take protective measures like using a condom and choosing your partner wisely."
> 
> Which is more likely to get a rebellious, wiseass teenager to be smart about sex?


 
I'm not a parent, personally, but the concerns that I've heard from other parents is that sex education isn't as neat as what Jason wisely wrote above.  The reason why schools are teaching sex ed is because there is an important need.  But...while I'm not a parent, I've heard other parents complain not necessarily because sex ed specifically was being taught...the concern was over HOW it was being taught, whether it was being taught seriously, responsibly, and in a way where the teacher retains control in the classroom.

I do not support many of the administrative tactics behind teaching sex ed.  

One high school told parents that sex ed would be taking place on a specific date, but when individual paents personally called the school to enquire about what was being taught, the schools refused to tell.  

There was another case (can't remember if it was the same school or not, I think it was a different school in the same community) where an announcement was made that there would be a sex ed seminar at a specific time, and attendance was optional.  Come the week of the semniar, students were notified that attendance was NOT optional and anyone who did not show up would be punished academically. 

I don't believe this gives sex ed the respect that such a serious subject deserves.  There would be absolute outrage if a school chemistry teacher taught students taught, encouraged, or even implied irresponsible use of that science....but if such irresponsibity is in the sex ed class, the outrage seems to be ignored.

I don't think that's right.


----------



## Ping898

I think one thing to note is that most of you seem to be refering to abstinence only education and that has shown to be ineffective.  I'd be interested to see what the rates of everything are for a situation where abstinance from sex is taught along with what to do if you have it.


----------



## donald

I don't believe sex ed should be taught at school. I think all this criteria should be handled at home. Maybe reinforced at school through a basic health/hygiene(sp?) class. Much like used to be taught back in the day. I just can't help, but notice. That the further we have pushed GOD out of the school. The worse the students have become. I know many anti-GOD people will initially deny this. All you have to do is take a look at our nations schools. If you examine the factual history. It just can't be denied. The last 30-35 yrs. have shown this to be true. We can't expect kids to behave morally. When morals are not enforced at school. Which is where they spend the majority of their days. We(as a nation) like Rome have cut our own throats. I apologize for going some what afield with this post. 
1stJohn1:9


----------



## Kacey

donald said:


> I don't believe sex ed should be taught at school. I think all this criteria should be handled at home. Maybe reinforced at school through a basic health/hygiene(sp?) class. Much like used to be taught back in the day. I just can't help, but notice. That the further we have pushed GOD out of the school. The worse the students have become. I know many anti-GOD people will initially deny this. All you have to do is take a look at our nations schools. If you examine the factual history. It just can't be denied. The last 30-35 yrs. have shown this to be true. We can't expect kids to behave morally. When morals are not enforced at school. Which is where they spend the majority of their days. We(as a nation) like Rome have cut our own throats. I apologize for going some what afield with this post.
> 1stJohn1:9



The problem, IMHO, with sex ed, and the other issues you raise in general, is that too many parents are *not* teaching this at home - which is how the schools got into teaching sex ed in the first place, along with anti-drug campaigns, bicycle safety, and basic courtesy, along with a host of other things.  This is not due to a lack of God, specifically, but a lack of teaching about morality at home in general - no matter how you teach it, or what terms you use to describe it.  I agree that the schools should be reinforcing what occurs at home - but when nothing occurs at home, then instead of providing reinforcement, the schools are - inappropriately in my opinion - providing primary instruction.

I don't have kids - but I did have nieces and nephews when I was married.  My ex's mother asked me to give a sex talk to his sister's oldest girl... somehow, since the sister had 3 kids, in 6 years, by 3 different fathers... had a tubal ligation that went bad because she used pot as a painkiller so she didn't notice she had an infection (somehow, she remembered the pot, but forgot the antibiotics), which led to a partial hysterectomy - and then she did it again and had to have a complete hysterectomy - with all of that, my ex's mother didn't think her oldest child would give a good sex talk.  This was a family that went to church every Sunday, said Grace before every meal - and didn't talk about sex at all, leading to the situation described.  

God is not the answer - education is the answer, and that education should come from parents - but in too many cases it doesn't.  Education from parents can include God - and if God is important in your life and your family's lives, then God should be included in the discussion.  

As a public health issue, schools teach health and hygiene; because of issues like the ones described in this thread, health and hygiene was expanded to include sex ed - which caused all sorts of moral issues that don't exist when you're telling students to brush their teeth and use deodorant.


----------



## michaeledward

The issue of morality of Abstinence Education should be addressed toward the Educators, not the students, nor the students parents. The teachers are not behaving in a moral manner if they teach information that is factually proven to be ineffective.

If I were to teach students that the integer three, raised to the third power was equal to twenty-eight, I would be not only teaching a factual error, I would not be fulfilling my responsibilities as a teacher. That is where the morality of this issue belongs. Although, I can see some questioning whether it is a 'moral' issue or not. 

As for donald's religious beliefs, he is entitled to them. But, like all dogma, they should stay the hell out of the classroom. donald, your assertion that because your god is not in the classroom there has been a negative impact on a measurable area of education is in error. You hold this belief as dogma, but, you will not be able to demonstrate any facts to support the ascertion. Please, believe what you will. Enjoy your beliefs. But keep them out of public education, and even better, keep them to yourself, and your family.


----------



## Rich Parsons

bushidomartialarts said:


> So here's what rattled around in my head during a deeply sleep deprived drive back from the coast this weekend.
> 
> Many people on these boards agree to some extent with the stament "Pacifism is immoral". Though I'm not that extreme, I certainly understand and support the sentiments leading to that conclusion. Pacifism can be construed as the willful abandonment of some basic responsibilities (defense of innocents, defense of loved ones, for example).
> 
> A short way to sum up the concept is that Pacifism teaches to avoid using a tool that can be used to improve quality of life. Therefore it contributes to suffering and is evil.
> 
> Abstinence education does much of the same thing. By teaching only about abstinence, it robs students of several important tools for improving their quality of life. Not just that one, ya pervs. Some studeies suggest that abstinence education, by not teaching about safe sex, actually increases instances of pregnancy and disease.
> 
> In short, Abstinence education censors out tools that can be used to improve quality of life. Therefore it contributes to suffering and is evil.
> 
> Thought I'd kick it out to y'all and let us chew on it for a while.



While in college I would take all the literature I could and read up on it. I would read up on at many times at work. The literature would keep on disappearing as others from work would take it to read themselves. 

Understanding what can happen be it sex, alcohol, drugs, firearms, knives, vehicles when used improperly is a very important understanding and making decisions about these topics and others in general.


----------



## Bigshadow

Kacey said:


> The problem, IMHO, with sex ed, and the other issues you raise in general, is that too many parents are *not* teaching this at home - ...





Kacey said:


> God is not the answer - education is the answer



Nice post Kacey!  I completely agree!


----------



## shesulsa

donald said:


> I was amazed to find out from my kids pedetrician. That a girl can contract a std simply because her body is not ready for sex! I had never heard this before.


Nor have I.  Exactly what disease can she catch at 13 that she can't catch at 21 with a ring around her finger?  The statement you say your doctor made makes no scientific nor medical sense ... could you be more specific please? I'd like to verify, thanks.



donald said:


> I don't believe sex ed should be taught at school. I think all this criteria should be handled at home. Maybe reinforced at school through a basic health/hygiene(sp?) class. Much like used to be taught back in the day. I just can't help, but notice. That the further we have pushed GOD out of the school. The worse the students have become. I know many anti-GOD people will initially deny this. All you have to do is take a look at our nations schools. If you examine the factual history. It just can't be denied. The last 30-35 yrs. have shown this to be true. We can't expect kids to behave morally. When morals are not enforced at school. Which is where they spend the majority of their days. We(as a nation) like Rome have cut our own throats. I apologize for going some what afield with this post.
> 1stJohn1:9



Unwed teenage girls have been getting pregnant for as long as there have been unwed teenage girls.  And the religious orphanages are full for a reason - the Bible and Sunday School are not effective means of birth control ... nor are they effective defenses against STDs and life-threatening illness.

The most DANGEROUS disease is the propogation of medical ignorance in the name of religion.  You OWE your daughter the information and tools she needs to take care of her body in the manner she so chooses.  You can preach to her 24/7/365, but in the end, she will make her own decision.

I'm sorry, but I think we're better off teaching our children that sexuality is a health/medical issue with social and moral indications.  I further believe that with correct and complete information, the onus of decision and action fall even more greatly upon the shoulders of decision-maker and action-taker.

I'm not about to let my daughter, who fully understands my thoughts on sexuality and its appropriateness, out into the world without knowing how to protect herself.


----------



## bushidomartialarts

Well said, shesulsa.


----------



## donald

[quote=michaeledward; donald, your assertion that because your god is not in the classroom there has been a negative impact on a measurable area of education is in error. 

Sir,

I obviously disagree with you on the importance of educating our children from The Gospel of Jesus Christ. Make no mistake sir. Kids were educated from GOD's Word for hundreds of years. Along with the other known studies needed. Kids had defineable perameters, and for the most part stayed within them. I challenge you to do some research(pertaining to USA) in regards to your statement above. After we(our nation) allowed GOD to be so removed from our schools. The decline has been tragic. I am not asking you to accept this by faith, but through the available facts. The gauntlet(as it were)has been thrown.
1stJohn1:9


----------



## donald

shesulsa said:


> Nor have I. Exactly what disease can she catch at 13 that she can't catch at 21 with a ring around her finger? The statement you say your doctor made makes no scientific nor medical sense ... could you be more specific please? I'd like to verify, thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> Unwed teenage girls have been getting pregnant for as long as there have been unwed teenage girls. And the religious orphanages are full for a reason - the Bible and Sunday School are not effective means of birth control ... nor are they effective defenses against STDs and life-threatening illness.
> 
> The most DANGEROUS disease is the propogation of medical ignorance in the name of religion. You OWE your daughter the information and tools she needs to take care of her body in the manner she so chooses. You can preach to her 24/7/365, but in the end, she will make her own decision.
> 
> I'm sorry, but I think we're better off teaching our children that sexuality is a health/medical issue with social and moral indications. I further believe that with correct and complete information, the onus of decision and action fall even more greatly upon the shoulders of decision-maker and action-taker.
> Mame,
> First lets understand something. I believe that medical professionals, and medicines. Are truly a gift from GOD. My faith in no way causes me to be ignorant on this subject. I too have tried to teach my children at home, but with The Gospel of Jesus Christ as a lamp. Like all other living souls on this planet. They are free before GOD to make their own personal choices. The fact is GOD's Word tells mankind that certain behaviours are unacceptable in His eyes. When this was reinforced in the school systems of our nation. The kids were better off, and so was our nation. Regarding what my kid's pediatrician said. Pertains to a young woman's body being mature enough on the inside to handle sex. If they go for it before their system is ready. They can develop some serious health issues,ie:STDs.
> I hope this answers your questions?
> 1stJohn1:9


----------



## Touch Of Death

bushidomartialarts said:


> So here's what rattled around in my head during a deeply sleep deprived drive back from the coast this weekend.
> 
> Many people on these boards agree to some extent with the stament "Pacifism is immoral". Though I'm not that extreme, I certainly understand and support the sentiments leading to that conclusion. Pacifism can be construed as the willful abandonment of some basic responsibilities (defense of innocents, defense of loved ones, for example).
> 
> A short way to sum up the concept is that Pacifism teaches to avoid using a tool that can be used to improve quality of life. Therefore it contributes to suffering and is evil.
> 
> Abstinence education does much of the same thing. By teaching only about abstinence, it robs students of several important tools for improving their quality of life. Not just that one, ya pervs. Some studeies suggest that abstinence education, by not teaching about safe sex, actually increases instances of pregnancy and disease.
> 
> In short, Abstinence education censors out tools that can be used to improve quality of life. Therefore it contributes to suffering and is evil.
> 
> Thought I'd kick it out to y'all and let us chew on it for a while.


I don't know; if enough people choose to be pacifists, then its a bonnified political action in the face of immorality. And abstinance education is not the problem. Parental apathy is the problem.
Sean


----------



## Kacey

donald said:


> I obviously disagree with you on the importance of educating our children from The Gospel of Jesus Christ. Make no mistake sir. Kids were educated from GOD's Word for hundreds of years. Along with the other known studies needed. Kids had defineable perameters, and for the most part stayed within them. I challenge you to do some research(pertaining to USA) in regards to your statement above. After we(our nation) allowed GOD to be so removed from our schools. The decline has been tragic. I am not asking you to accept this by faith, but through the available facts. The gauntlet(as it were)has been thrown.
> 1stJohn1:9



Donald, while I don't disagree that morality can be taught through religion, as a member of a religious minority (I'm Jewish) who had Christianity rammed down my throat all through my schooling, with the occasional nod to "Karen, can you tell us about [insert holiday name]" because some teacher noticed it on the calendar, and also as a teacher of students who range from Catholic to Buddhist to Jewish to 7th Day Adventists to families who practice no religion and everything in between, I have to object to your statement that the removal of God from the schools is the source of the behavior problems seen today.  There are plenty of kids who behave appropriately in school - you just never hear about them - and quite a few of them are from families that don't practice a religion, or whose religion does not personify God the way some religions do.  The problem is not the presence or absence of God in the schools - the problem is what theses students are - or, more frequently, are *not* taught about morality *at home*. 

Between the ages of 5 and 18, the average child spends 13% of his/her waking time in school.  As a teacher, responsible for the content of a curriculum, I am more than willing - and indeed, feel that it is part of my job - to demonstrate appropriate behavior to my students.  It is not, however, my job to *raise* those students - to teach them morality, religion, basic hygiene, manners, bicycle safety, not to use drugs, how to be responsible for their own sex life, and many other issues that are now seen as the responsibility of the schools.  *These issues should be taught at home - the schools should - if anything - be reinforcing what is taught at home.*  It is not my job to raise your kids - my job is to teach reading and mathematics.   Nor, in the 13% of their waking time that kids are in school, do the schools have the time to teach all of the things we are now expected to teach - especially as the quantity of curricular material continues to rise - where are the parents and the community during the remaining 87% of these kids' lives?

The concerns raised in this thread about teaching sex ed, about morality, about behavior - these are _*societal issues*_ that go way beyond the schools, and society needs to deal with them with fairness to all - not by putting religion back in the schools so that those of us who are not members of the religion being taught have someone else's belief system stuffed down our throats so the majority can say "See, we're fixing the kids by teaching religion in the schools".

I invite you to go to your nearby school, introduce yourself as a concerned parent, and ask for permission to wander through the school and observe classrooms and behavior.  You will discover that the majority of students are polite, attentive, and trying to learn - but they are prevented by a small minority who were not raise properly - and the schools are hamstrung by laws that protect students who are disruptive far more than they do students who are not disruptive.  Ask your local district for statistics on youth offenders in the schools, and compare it to statistics for youthful offenders in the community.  Talk to an adminstrator, and ask how many times (as happens here all the time) s/he comes in on Monday, to be confronted with a list of things one student at the school did to another over the weekend and away from the school, and an irate parent who wants to know what the school is going to do about it - after all, since they both go to school here, the school must be responsible.  Then tell us again that the only possible and appropriate answer is to put God back into the schools.


----------



## JBrainard

shesulsa said:


> Nor have I. Exactly what disease can she catch at 13 that she can't catch at 21 with a ring around her finger? The statement you say your doctor made makes no scientific nor medical sense ... could you be more specific please? I'd like to verify, thanks.


 
I am not a doctor, but I would suspect that the reason for this would be: If a girl who's sexual organs are not fully developed engages in intercourse, there is more chance of tearing, thus there is a higher chance that an std (if present) would be transmitted.


----------



## bushidomartialarts

Touch Of Death said:


> I don't know; if enough people choose to be pacifists, then its a bonnified political action in the face of immorality.



Probably, but that's not really the point of this thread.  I was establishing a metaphor.  Perhaps this would be a fun debate for another thread.



Touch Of Death said:


> And abstinance education is not the problem. Parental apathy is the problem.
> Sean



I think I'd rather have parental apathy than parental interference on this one.

I agree strongly that deep, tangible parental involvement in childrens' lives and in the education system would cure a lot of ills.  I'm one hundred percent with you on that.

But let me pose two situations:

1.  (Universal Parental Apathy)  The school system has a sex education program run like a math program.  There are facts, presented as facts by a teacher who knows what she's talking about.  The students absorb the information, use it in life when appropriate.  Parents ignore the program's existence aside from occasionally peering over their child's shoulder and saying 'wow, that's taught a lot different from when I was in school'.

2.  (Parental Interference)  The school system develops a strong sex education program that studies show will reduce pregnancy and STDs, but a group of parents _who will refuse to teach it at home_ shut the program down because they're afraid of their children knowing about sex.  Nobody gets the skills and instead are left unprepared for the realities of adult decisions about sex and relationships.

Option 2 is what seems to happen a lot right now.  Again, I agree that optino 3 (Enlightened Parental Involvement) is best.  But I'd go for apathy any day over the current situation.


----------



## Touch Of Death

bushidomartialarts said:


> Probably, but that's not really the point of this thread. I was establishing a metaphor. Perhaps this would be a fun debate for another thread.
> 
> 
> 
> I think I'd rather have parental apathy than parental interference on this one.
> 
> I agree strongly that deep, tangible parental involvement in childrens' lives and in the education system would cure a lot of ills. I'm one hundred percent with you on that.
> 
> But let me pose two situations:
> 
> 1. (Universal Parental Apathy) The school system has a sex education program run like a math program. There are facts, presented as facts by a teacher who knows what she's talking about. The students absorb the information, use it in life when appropriate. Parents ignore the program's existence aside from occasionally peering over their child's shoulder and saying 'wow, that's taught a lot different from when I was in school'.
> 
> 2. (Parental Interference) The school system develops a strong sex education program that studies show will reduce pregnancy and STDs, but a group of parents _who will refuse to teach it at home_ shut the program down because they're afraid of their children knowing about sex. Nobody gets the skills and instead are left unprepared for the realities of adult decisions about sex and relationships.
> 
> Option 2 is what seems to happen a lot right now. Again, I agree that optino 3 (Enlightened Parental Involvement) is best. But I'd go for apathy any day over the current situation.


I attack weak metaphores sorry, secondly, it was not oo long ago that parents chaparoned thier daughters on dates. The blind trust they have that everything is going to be OK; because, he seems like such a nice boy, is folly. Even church youth outings are a great place to get pregnant. Society is there to draw your daughter into the world, ready or not.
Sean


----------



## shesulsa

donald said:


> Mame,
> First lets understand something. I believe that medical professionals, and medicines. Are truly a gift from GOD. My faith in no way causes me to be ignorant on this subject. I too have tried to teach my children at home, but with The Gospel of Jesus Christ as a lamp. Like all other living souls on this planet. They are free before GOD to make their own personal choices. The fact is GOD's Word tells mankind that certain behaviours are unacceptable in His eyes. When this was reinforced in the school systems of our nation. The kids were better off, and so was our nation. Regarding what my kid's pediatrician said. Pertains to a young woman's body being mature enough on the inside to handle sex. If they go for it before their system is ready. They can develop some serious health issues,ie:STDs.
> I hope this answers your questions?
> 1stJohn1:9



No it doesn't answer my question.

Your previous statement was this:


> I was amazed to find out from my kids pedetrician. That *a girl can contract a std simply because her body is not ready for sex*! I had never heard this before.


And I'd like to know which disease(s) is/are a girl likely to contract simply because she's not ready for sex?

And you need to understand the fact that God states certain behaviors are unacceptable according to the Bible, one of the most argued text in it's very nature and origins, likely than any other text in the world.  Where some of its text originates is speculative.  Further, the implication from the teachings of the Master, Jesus the Christ, is that if you are truly sorry in your heart for your sins and truly repent and accept the Christ consciousness into your heart that you will be absolved of all sin - forgiven and allowed to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

So speculatively speaking, of course, one could sin (and most of us do, it's just that some of us are more honest about it) to his/her dying day, but if, in the end, one is truly repentent, all sins are absolved as though they never happened.

But if you put your bible down for a moment, you surely are intelligent enough to realize that the impact of the behavior we Christians call "sinful" has a much, much *greater* effect upon the soul of the earth, the universe, the all-that-is, the one-mind, one-god, Christ Consciousness, Holy Spirit entity which entwines, binds us all!  One person's actions will affect others.

Let me type that again:  One person's actions will affect others.

That means that the sins of one person WILL affect the livelihood and godliness of another.

So, if one means to keep one's daughter in the shadow of ignorance because of the incomplete belief in spiritual sanctity, one is actually committing MORE sin upon others - one's daughter's out-of-wedlock child, for instance ... and taxpayers who must pay to help her when she's on welfare ... and the gentleman she may someday wed who must care for a child who is not his own - and the child who will ever be mindful of this and who will most likely attach him/herself to the world unhealthfully and will wreak greater havoc upon our world exponentially.

Back to my question:

Which STD is it, SPECIFICALLY, that a child can get just by not being ready for sex?


----------



## Touch Of Death

shesulsa said:


> No it doesn't answer my question.
> 
> Your previous statement was this:
> 
> And I'd like to know which disease(s) is/are a girl likely to contract simply because she's not ready for sex?
> 
> And you need to understand the fact that God states certain behaviors are unacceptable according to the Bible, one of the most argued text in it's very nature and origins, likely than any other text in the world. Where some of its text originates is speculative. Further, the implication from the teachings of the Master, Jesus the Christ, is that if you are truly sorry in your heart for your sins and truly repent and accept the Christ consciousness into your heart that you will be absolved of all sin - forgiven and allowed to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
> 
> So speculatively speaking, of course, one could sin (and most of us do, it's just that some of us are more honest about it) to his/her dying day, but if, in the end, one is truly repentent, all sins are absolved as though they never happened.
> 
> But if you put your bible down for a moment, you surely are intelligent enough to realize that the impact of the behavior we Christians call "sinful" has a much, much *greater* effect upon the soul of the earth, the universe, the all-that-is, the one-mind, one-god, Christ Consciousness, Holy Spirit entity which entwines, binds us all! One person's actions will affect others.
> 
> Let me type that again: One person's actions will affect others.
> 
> That means that the sins of one person WILL affect the livelihood and godliness of another.
> 
> So, if one means to keep one's daughter in the shadow of ignorance because of the incomplete belief in spiritual sanctity, one is actually committing MORE sin upon others - one's daughter's out-of-wedlock child, for instance ... and taxpayers who must pay to help her when she's on welfare ... and the gentleman she may someday wed who must care for a child who is not his own - and the child who will ever be mindful of this and who will most likely attach him/herself to the world unhealthfully and will wreak greater havoc upon our world exponentially.
> 
> Back to my question:
> 
> Which STD is it, SPECIFICALLY, that a child can get just by not being ready for sex?


Aids for one.
Sean


----------



## michaeledward

donald said:


> Sir,
> 
> I obviously disagree with you on the importance of educating our children from The Gospel of Jesus Christ. Make no mistake sir. Kids were educated from GOD's Word for hundreds of years. Along with the other known studies needed. Kids had defineable perameters, and for the most part stayed within them. I challenge you to do some research(pertaining to USA) in regards to your statement above. After we(our nation) allowed GOD to be so removed from our schools. The decline has been tragic. I am not asking you to accept this by faith, but through the available facts. The gauntlet(as it were)has been thrown.
> 1stJohn1:9


 
Please provide metrics that can be measured and verified. 

'decline' and 'tragic' is not a metric that is measurable within the education system. 

Also, I am not so certain that god was ever within our school system, which will need to be another point of reference. What schools, where, when, and whose god.

Here ... I'll provide an example

In 1950 ... Our schools began each day with the Catholic version of The Lord's Prayer and eighth grade students averaged the 95th percentile when tested with multiplication equations with 2 digit multipliers and 3 digit multiplicans. 

In 1995 ... Our schools no longer began the day with The Lord's Prayer and eight grade students averaged the 68th percentile when tested with equations of the same difficulty. 

These two statistics would then lead us to ask 'What impact does 'The Lord's Prayer' have on students being able to competently multiply 47 times 723?​
My guess, is that verifiable results would show NO causation. 

But, I guess, I don't read that part of the Bible.


----------



## Bigshadow

Touch Of Death said:


> Even church youth outings are a great place to get pregnant.




Most of the "preacher's" kids I have ever known, and I have know quite a few as a kid, are the sneakiest and often wildest bunch I have ever met.  They weren't the innocent kids you see in church on Sunday morning.


----------



## Touch Of Death

Bigshadow said:


> Most of the "preacher's" kids I have ever known, and I have know quite a few as a kid, are the sneakiest and often wildest bunch I have ever met. They weren't the innocent kids you see in church on Sunday morning.


I had a friend with some wild stories about youth group outings. Both boys and girls slept in the same cabin. Without going in to detail, I wanted to be in that church youth group.:angel: LOL
Sean


----------



## Bigshadow

Touch Of Death said:


> I had a friend with some wild stories about youth group outings. Both boys and girls slept in the same cabin. Without going in to detail, I wanted to be in that church youth group.:angel: LOL
> Sean



I *was* in a youth group that had it's own stories!    Let me just say, I was a good kid.  It was some of others, including the preacher's kids, that were the source of those controversies!


----------



## shesulsa

Touch Of Death said:


> Aids for one.
> Sean


I think you missed the point of my question.


----------



## Carol

If religious values are to be taught, then religious communities need step up to the plate and take responsibility for teaching them.  

On the exact opposite extreme, not even the name of the Sikh faith or its people is taught in the Massachusetts public schools, even though it is the 5th largest religion in the world (behind Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, and Buddhism) and has been involved in many substantial contributions to world events.

Despite this, there are multiple Sikh houses of worship in Massachusetts.  Every single one of them has a full parking lot every Sunday morning.  

Every single Islamic Centre in Massachusetts also has a full parking lot at the time of their services.

If other faiths want their values to be taught...they *MUST* take the responsibilty of filling their houses of worship and teaching them.  That is how religious values are taught.  It is done through personal efforts and personal responsibility - not by finger-pointing and excuse-making.


----------



## michaeledward

Bigshadow said:


> I *was* in a youth group that had it's own stories!  Let me just say, I was a good kid. It was some of others, including the preacher's kids, that were the source of those controversies!


 
Wow ... adolescents acting like adolescents. Young homo sapiens' bodies growing to the point of sexual maturity and those young people acting on those physical urges. 

I wonder if might be able to observe this behavior anywhere else on the planet .... hmm?


----------



## Bigshadow

michaeledward said:


> and those young people acting on those physical urges.
> 
> I wonder if might be able to observe this behavior anywhere else on the planet .... hmm?




Ya think?


----------



## shesulsa

michaeledward said:


> Wow ... adolescents acting like adolescents. Young homo sapiens' bodies growing to the point of sexual maturity and those young people acting on those physical urges.
> 
> I wonder if might be able to observe this behavior anywhere else on the planet .... hmm?



You know, we could expand on your point about bodies reaching the point of sexual maturity.  Earlier in our history, Christianity was abounding everywhere you turned, as donald pointed out, and our societal norms were a little more "moral" ... at least, according to some people and those furvent trips south of the border, to the inner city, and to the poorhouses notwithstanding.  But I digress ... at that time in our nation's history, many women were married and settled by the time they were college graduate age or far beyond. 

The world for women has changed quite a bit, and rather than shuffle teen girls and women under the carpet as we used to (you know, hiding dirty little family secrets is a tenet of good morals  ) or ship them off to their Aunties far, far away for a "rest," we've changed to face the truth and keep these teen girls in high school and college until they can graduate and better provide for their children, and in some cases welcome children into the workplace so they can have a better life and leave less of a negative ripple effect.

*gasp* (please forgive the run-on sentence) *pant*


----------



## Bigshadow

shesulsa said:


> and in some cases welcome children into the workplace so they can have a better life and leave less of a negative ripple effect.



I have always thought that was a great idea!  Maybe not for the same reasons, but I bring my son to work often during the summer.


----------



## michaeledward

shesulsa, although I may be preaching to the choir (if I can use that pun in this discussion), but I think a sociologist might fing one of the reasons that human groups tend to organize around religous principles, is to enforce some 'higher authority' structure on the exercise of biological urges in their respective groups. 

Or, as an Athiest might put it, Man creates God in his own image. And does so to create socially acceptable limits on behavior. (e.g. Don't have sex before marriage because God Said So). 



Lastly, one of my dear friends, way back in high school, found out that her "sister" was really her "mother". Grandmother raised my friend as a daughter. When the truth became known, I witnessed first hand the emotional reckoning. It was a difficult and painful thing for all involved. And while the choice made may have been made with the best intentions; the fullness of time proved that intentions unequal to the emotional struggles.


----------



## donald

To Shesulsa,Michaeledward;et al,

Good morning all. I hope everyone is rested?  Regarding what my kid's ped., said. I have already said what I remember her saying. I am not a Dr., or any type of Health Care Pro.. For me to go beyond what I have already stated. I just can't do.  Its painfully obvious to me. That you, and medward, are not interested in debate,(at least with a Christian) but in arguing. I may be incorrect, and if I am I apologize. I have presented what I understand, and am willing to defend my position. It just seems to me that denegrating GOD's Word, and my ability to be a sensible parent. Is'nt really in the scope of our post. As I already stated in another post. We all have a free will, and by GOD's grace. We who live in the USA have the ability to express that. Whether it is to do wrong, or right. We as a nation once chose to use GOD's Word in the class room. I believe that was to our benefit, as a nation. We as a nation some decades ago chose to remove GOD's Word from our classrooms. I believe that was, and is to our detrement as a nation. This is not religious rambling. I believe that if the evidence available is honestly examined. This can be plainly seen. Thank you for your time, and consideration.
1stJohn1:9


----------



## shesulsa

donald said:


> To Shesulsa,Michaeledward;et al,
> 
> Good morning all. I hope everyone is rested?  Regarding what my kid's ped., said. I have already said what I remember her saying. I am not a Dr., or any type of Health Care Pro.. For me to go beyond what I have already stated. I just can't do.  Its painfully obvious to me. That you, and medward, are not interested in debate,(at least with a Christian) but in arguing. I may be incorrect, and if I am I apologize. I have presented what I understand, and am willing to defend my position. It just seems to me that denegrating GOD's Word, and my ability to be a sensible parent. Is'nt really in the scope of our post. As I already stated in another post. We all have a free will, and by GOD's grace. We who live in the USA have the ability to express that. Whether it is to do wrong, or right. We as a nation once chose to use GOD's Word in the class room. I believe that was to our benefit, as a nation. We as a nation some decades ago chose to remove GOD's Word from our classrooms. I believe that was, and is to our detrement as a nation. This is not religious rambling. I believe that if the evidence available is honestly examined. This can be plainly seen. Thank you for your time, and consideration.
> 1stJohn1:9


Arguments are part of debate.

Your posts are hard to read, Donald.  Could you please post in full sentences?  It's hard. To read. A post. Like this.  Thanks!

I wonder why it can't be that parents can be responsible for religious education of children and public schools can be responsible for health-related sex education?  Do you not think that withholding potentially life-saving information from our children is a sin?


----------



## donald

Kacey said:


> The problem, IMHO, with sex ed, and the other issues you raise in general, is that too many parents are *not* teaching this at home
> 
> 
> Thats one of the problems. Many parents have shirked their responsibilities in these areas. Does that mean common sense should go out the window? If we as a nation are going to teach sex in school. Would'nt it be prudent to teach the why s, and wherfores of abstinence? I think this should be discussed in the light of GOD's Word. If it is to be discussed at all.
> 
> 1stJohn1:9


----------



## donald

shesulsa said:


> Do you not think that withholding potentially life-saving information from our children is a sin?


 
Absolutely. Not? 

1stJohn1:9

ps:Graduate of the Wm. Shatner School of....


----------



## shesulsa

donald said:


> Absolutely. Not?
> 
> 1stJohn1:9
> 
> ps:Graduate of the Wm. Shatner School of....


I don't understand this post.


----------



## michaeledward

donald said:


> To Shesulsa,Michaeledward;et al,
> 
> Good morning all. I hope everyone is rested? Regarding what my kid's ped., said. I have already said what I remember her saying. I am not a Dr., or any type of Health Care Pro.. For me to go beyond what I have already stated. I just can't do. Its painfully obvious to me. That you, and medward, are not interested in debate,(at least with a Christian) but in arguing. I may be incorrect, and if I am I apologize. I have presented what I understand, and am willing to defend my position. It just seems to me that denegrating GOD's Word, and my ability to be a sensible parent. Is'nt really in the scope of our post. As I already stated in another post. We all have a free will, and by GOD's grace. We who live in the USA have the ability to express that. Whether it is to do wrong, or right. We as a nation once chose to use GOD's Word in the class room. I believe that was to our benefit, as a nation. We as a nation some decades ago chose to remove GOD's Word from our classrooms. I believe that was, and is to our detrement as a nation. This is not religious rambling. I believe that if the evidence available is honestly examined. This can be plainly seen. Thank you for your time, and consideration.
> 1stJohn1:9


 
I am fully willing to debate. But when you default to the position based on your interpretation of god's word, you are not engaging in debate, but ideology. 

You are unwilling to present verifiable evidence of your positions. 
A) there is such a thing as 'God's Word'. 
B) that this used to be part of the curriculum of our public schools
C) that removing this concept from the curriculum had a negative impact

You offer not debate, but that I accept your positions, based on zero substance. 



Shesulsa has asked you to back up your claims concerning disease with some evidence, and you are unwilling to do that as well. In the absence of evidence or facts ... a thoughtful debator ... would withdraw an ascertion, not just proclaim that he "may be wrong". 

I believe, donald, that you *are *wrong. 


			
				donald said:
			
		

> I was amazed to find out from my kids pedetrician. That a girl can contract a std simply because her body is not ready for sex! I had never heard this before. There truly is" a time, and a season for everything".


I believe that either, your physician is an idiot, or you did not understand what your physician said. I hope your physician did not say that. You interpreted it through the lens of your belief structure.

This is not debate - your argument is 'Believe me because god said' - and that is the poorest form of debate.


----------



## Kacey

donald said:


> Thats one of the problems. Many parents have shirked their responsibilities in these areas. Does that mean common sense should go out the window? If we as a nation are going to teach sex in school. Would'nt it be prudent to teach the why s, and wherfores of abstinence? I think this should be discussed in the light of GOD's Word. If it is to be discussed at all.
> 
> 1stJohn1:9



I disagree - it is extremely difficult, if not impossible (and I lean toward impossible) to create a curriculum including God as a moral imperative that includes all of the possible religious orientations, or lack thereof, that are present in the average school.  If you want your children to learn morality, in regards to sex ed and/or other topics, as it relates to God, that is your choice and your right, to teach them at home, or under the auspices of your particular religious facility.  It is not - nor should it be - the school's place to teach religious ideology.

An example:  I have several friends who are Orthodox Jewish, whose children attend public schools.  They also attend private religious instruction through their shul (Orthodox synagogue).  Their parents do not expect them to recieve such instruction through the public school system, nor do they expect them to be inculcated with another religion's beliefs and values, some of which they share with you and some of which they do not -  yet you are saying that _your _version of Christian ideology should be taught to _every _child, as the cure for the ills you see in the behavior of the current younger generation.

I enjoy learning about other religions, but I do not, and did not as a child and teen, enjoy being forced to recite statements based on a religion that I disagreed with simply because that was what was taught to me in school.  My parents ensured that I had the information I needed to make responsible, moral choices about sex and other activities, and the information provided by the school, which came as part of the health curriculum and centered on disease prevention and birth control, provided additional information that further supported the information I had from my parents - but it would not have had a major impact on me otherwise, and had it been couched in the religious terms that you are espousing, I would have ignored it completely, because _I am not Christian_ - and an argument based on the word of God and/or Christ is totally meaningless to me, and would be equally meaningless to a large number of students today.  No one here is saying you cannot teach your children as you like - we are saying that we do not agree with teaching other people's children as you like, simply because you say so.



donald said:


> Absolutely. Not?
> 
> 1stJohn1:9
> 
> ps:Graduate of the Wm. Shatner School of....





shesulsa said:


> I don't understand this post.



Shesulsa - an aside from the thread - William Shatner is known for his disconnected method of speech, which sounds like he is putting periods in all the wrong places, because he pauses in odd places.

Donald - I agree with Shesulsa.  No matter what your reason, your method of writing is difficult to read.  While people do not necessarily discount your opinion simply because of your typing style, it does tend to distract, and therefore detract, from whatever you're trying to say.

We now return to the topic at hand.


----------



## shesulsa

Kacey said:


> Shesulsa - an aside from the thread - William Shatner is known for his disconnected method of speech, which sounds like he is putting periods in all the wrong places, because he pauses in odd places.


Yes! I ... know. I ... was a big fan! of! The Star Trek television series which ... STARRED ....... William Shatner, however .... his METHOD! of CON-VERS-A-TION....leaves much to be desired. 





> Donald - I agree with Shesulsa.  No matter what your reason, your method of writing is difficult to read.  While people do not necessarily discount your opinion simply because of your typing style, it does tend to distract, and therefore detract, from whatever you're trying to say.
> 
> We now return to the topic at hand.


----------



## michaeledward

Kacey said:


> Shesulsa - an aside from the thread - William Shatner is known for his disconnected method of speech, which sounds like he is putting periods in all the wrong places, because he pauses in odd places.
> 
> Donald - I agree with Shesulsa. No matter what your reason, your method of writing is difficult to read. While people do not necessarily discount your opinion simply because of your typing style, it does tend to distract, and therefore detract, from whatever you're trying to say.


 
I was kind of thinking it was the amount of god he experienced during his education. Perhaps they were focusing on Ecclesiastes, instead of grammar.


----------



## Lisa

I grew up with a rather liberal mother.  One who taught me to take care of myself and to be responsible for myself.  She told me over and over for as long as I can remember "Protect yourself and remember, I would much rather hear 'mom, I am on the pill' then 'mom, I am pregnant'"  Now she wasn't condoning me going out and having unbridled sex, she was trying to be realistic about it.

Those candid conversations with my mother did me a lot of good.  I didn't end up in "trouble" and always took care of myself.  I wish the same thing could be said about my friends whose parents believed the sex ed in the school system was taboo.  I can't tell you how many of them I took down to the local clinic for pregnancy tests.  How many of them didn't finish highschool and how many of them made decisions that scarred them for life.

Don't do it, because I said so, doesn't work.  Plain and simple.


----------



## The Master

Abstinence education is no more unethical or immoral than sexual education. What is unethical and immoral is to deny people the information needed to make an informed and well thought out decision.

Fools and closed minded idiots hide behind out dated religious dogma. These are often the same morons that stand there on a house in the middle of a flood claiming "God will save me" while turning away everyone who shows up in a boat, as if some giant hand will scoop them up and drop them off at the local "gathering of the faithful". 

Donald, you believe that this should all be handled at home. I agree. The problem is, that it is often not handled at home, or when it is, it is mis-handled. How many people grow up with the hangups that sex is bad? That touch is evil? That enjoying sex is wrong? I knew a woman once who believed her "duty" as a woman was to be there soley for her husbands pleasure, that she was "forbidden by god" to enjoy it, and went to great lengths to ensure that she felt nothing during sex. She had been criminally miseducated by her ultrastrict so called god-fearing parents. It has taken her years of therapy to finally overcome that.  I heard 2 kids arguing once, about vagina teeth. Seems the ones mother in an attempt to "save him" from the "evils" of sex, insisted that vaginas had teeth and would bite him unless god approved. No idea on if he ever risked getting bit.

In any event, when someone insists that god wants X, I always have to ask, "Which  god"?  Last count there were a thousand of them out there, and no group can ever really agree on which one they are talking about.

As the great prophet, hallowed be his name, George Carlin once said:
"Do you believe in God?" "No" *BANG*
"Do you believe in God?" "Yes"
"Do you believe in My God" "No" *BANG*

We would do well to outlaw religion entirely and stop hiding behind it and start thinking for ourselves.

As to Sex-Ed and whatnot, teach it in school so it is consistant and give them the information they need to decide for themselves.

And get rid of these crack pot doctors who think that aids, and stds are some fictional superbeings wrath.


Back to the Time Streams!


----------



## OUMoose

Is abstience education immoral?  No.  Learning about a subject is not immoral, and knowledge truely is power.  As with most things in life, it's the actions influenced by said knowledge that can be immoral.

I'd go into it more, but it's been quite eloquently covered already. 

and as far as the GOD comments... yeah...  God has no place in school except perhaps a world history, mythology, or theology class.  That's it.  If that's your thing, go for it.  Leave the rest of us to the "path of the light-bringer" so we can move toward "en-light-en-ment"...


[asian]


----------



## Brian Jones

I beleive that Abstinence education can work, but its teh vehicle that is faulty.  It can't be up to teh school alone.  PArents need to do a better job of explaiing why abstinence is importnat, and not just to avoid pregnancy or STD.  Parents, church and school should talk about the emotional, physical and spiritual consequences of becoming sexually active.  

Brian Jones


----------



## Phoenix44

Go ahead, teach abstinence.  And also teach birth control and disease prevention.

In our school district, so-called "sex ed" isn't even taught as "sex ed."  It's taught as part of the usual health and biology curriculum.  In kindergarten, kids learn that covering your mouth when you cough and washing your hands prevents disease.  In high school boys AND girls learn about both the seminal vesicles AND the menstrual cycle.  I never heard of anyone of any religion complaining.


----------



## Touch Of Death

OUMoose said:


> Is abstience education immoral? No. Learning about a subject is not immoral, and knowledge truely is power. As with most things in life, it's the actions influenced by said knowledge that can be immoral.
> 
> I'd go into it more, but it's been quite eloquently covered already.
> 
> and as far as the GOD comments... yeah... God has no place in school except perhaps a world history, mythology, or theology class. That's it. If that's your thing, go for it. Leave the rest of us to the "path of the light-bringer" so we can move toward "en-light-en-ment"...
> 
> 
> [asian]


Learning about gods does help us understand the whys. Is why people do things not important?
Sean


----------



## OUMoose

Touch Of Death said:


> Learning about gods does help us understand the whys. Is why people do things not important?
> Sean



Of course, a person's reasoning behind an action is important to understand.  "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it" (George Santayana).  However, given the context of the thread, an objective study into the positives and negatives of all forms of sexual conduct including abstinence is better than a mythical sky-god shaking his (or her) finger at you from a billion miles away saying "naughty naughty!!".  

Just my opinion though.


----------



## qi-tah

Oh dear... *wipes tears from eyes* This really should be in the comedy section. Or perhaps there should be a new section for tragedy? *sigh* Kind of reminds me of my teacher trying to explain a refinement of a technique to a student who, considering how long he'd been training, should have had the basics down, but didn't. End result, frustration all round. I've leant the hard way long ago not to talk philosophy with a card-carrying god-squader.

As an aside, we had sex ed. in my high school that was very comprehensive, with one glaring (to me) omission - no mention of homosexuality. As i was in the process of coming out at the time and desperate for some kind of assurance that i wasn't a two-headed freak (the way my mum reacted to me telling her didn't help), i found this very disappointing.


----------



## qi-tah

Hey - had a bit of a think about my last post and came to the conclusion that my language could be construed as offensive to some - my sincere apols if so. So please read "card-carrying god squader" as "religious fundamentalist" instead.

Ta!


----------

