The difference is that one set of morals (yours) has been proven to result in epidemics of unwanted pregnancies, more abortions and the spread of STD's. Not to mention a hell of a lot of pedophile priests. Abstinence only doesn't work. Wishing doesn't make it so. That is a fact, not a "belief." Of course, I don't expect you to agree. You are in the most extreme fringe imaginable on this issue: opposed not only to sex out of marriage but even to masturbation. To someone with such an extremist position, facts are worthless.
Because you agree with a Pope who condemns people for using modern advances in medicine to prevent themselves from having unwanted pregnancies or deathly diseases while at the same time turns a blind eye to the rampant pedophilia that plagues your Preisthood because of your archaic, idiotic views on sex. In short, hypocrisy at its finest.
because we're comparing apples and oranges. you believe in the sacredness of male gametes, even in the face of unspeakable suffering caused by the spread of AIDS, violence toward women, and overpopulation in the third world. we have a very, very, fundamental, intrinsic difference of opinion that can't be reconciled, so it's not really worth it to argue.
My point is many of those values were once held as conservative traditional values in this country. If you lived in those country, you would be a socialist liberal without views. Things progress in time, nothing statys the same.
The horrible irony is that twhy's position results in more abortions, more orphans, more rape, more child molestation, more disease and more suffering generally. Not very Christian if you ask me.
Batman to save the day with another post throwing the Church and traditional morality under the bus with specious reasoning in his trusty tool belt! Listen, I already know where this conversation is going to go, I'm going to waste a lot of time reposting everything I already posted from the previous argument with glynch that you completely ignored or just didn't like because they proved you wrong, you're going to find some Andrew Sullivan piece defending your view with "facts" from Vatican outsiders and how the church is systematically covering up abuses from all over, I'll post another article with the teaching on celibacy and the complete lack of a relevant connection with pedophilia, you'll argue for women priests because women never do anything wrong, you'll blow your top and go ape **** on your computer and making personal attacks against me and the fact I think masturbation is a sin, we'll fight it out over 3 or 4 pages, I'll post one last article showing that the pope is actually being proven right on condoms and Africa, we'll agree to disagree and you'll go right back to posting in your passive aggressive holier than thou attitude that spits on anything dealing with morals. So we can either go through with it or not, but just let me know so I can tell my wife and my professors I'm going to have to clear some time this weekend to win an argument on the internet with a guy who's too lazy to look into what's actually happening with the church, and educate him on the actual facts. And wasn't this a sex ed thread? Oh yeah, I guess it was.
I'll take it a step further. They should stop teaching sex-ed period. Ban the word 'sex' in schools. Don't mention abstinence because they'll have to mention what exactly they are abstaining from. That way kids never know what sex is. And they won't do it! Right? Right?
I'll argue with you because your nice but I really don't feel like getting in to it again with Batman. There is a strong correlation with the rise of the sexual revolution and the introduction of the pill and the # of unwanted pregnancies. Makes sense right, you have more sex, you get more pregnancies, even if you are taking precautions. For the record, I never said anything about WI's sex ed policy. My concern is with the opt-out provision for religious beliefs, including mine, which are under fire in this thread and in relation to the recent (well the 90's) scandal involving pedophilia and the priesthood. Once again, celibacy or the church's teachings on sex are not the reason for the pedophilia scandals You can run down the numerous and ample data I provided in the previous argument with glynch found here: http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=184309&page=4 I will quote again from Weigel: "Hofstra University professor Charol Shakeshaft reports that 6-10 percent of public school students have been molested in recent years—some 290,000 between 1991 and 2000. According to other recent studies, 2 percent of sex abuse offenders were Catholic priests—a phenomenon that spiked between the mid-1960s and the mid-1980s but seems to have virtually disappeared (six credible cases of clerical sexual abuse in 2009 were reported in the U.S. bishops’ annual audit, in a Church of some 65,000,000 members)." And from Raymond Arroyo: http://www.ewtn.com/news/blog.asp?blogposts_ID=942&blog_ID=2 "On Tuesday, the American bishops released their annual national audit of all charges in the last year. It reports that there were 398 new allegations in the entire United States last year. Six of them were from current minors; the rest were older incidents only now being reported. Over 70% of alleged offenders are already deceased, suspended from ministry, or dismissed from the priesthood. In a Church of some 60 million Catholics, aggressive action has seen the problem reduced to six cases of alleged current abuse. That did not make the news." That right there shows that the numerous changes Benedict has imposed are starting to work, to drive out this element that weaved it's way into the church and priesthood. Will it ever fully go away? As Catholics we believe man will never be free from sin save in Jesus Christ. That said we can do things to get the instances down to a minimum, and I'd say 6 cases in 2009 isn't perfect, but it's pretty good in relation to the rest of society. To the cover up or purported cover up. With the WI Fr. Murphy case, it seems as if the Times story is completely lack in the truth. Sources here: http://corner.nationalreview.com/po...2UyOWIzNDVkNDM= Includes a detailed timeline of how the Times article was incorrect in it's allegations with all of the relevant facts. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/opinion/28allen.html This is from a liberal reporter for the National Catholic Reporter: For details on the German case, including 80 cites showing how the Times and Christopher Hitchens are just wrong on their claims that Benedict was covering anything up, go here: http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0329.htm Look at all the evidence before you believe the Times' story and treat Catholics unfairly. Batman, you are welcome to read this post as well.
just so I am clear we can show a direct correlation between a lack of sex ed and Child molestation and rape? Rocket River
You obviously don't understand the position, it's not about a sacredness of male gametes, it's about teaching the church's understanding of the truth about sex marriage and society. You are making false a false dichotomy. It's not about a choice between spread of Aids, violence towards women, and overpopulation (myth) in the 3rd world. To the church it's always about the truth, not about enslaving the Africans, etc. I'm just saying, church pedophilia, regular pedophilia, teen pregnancies; there was a whole lot less of that before the sexual revolution.
You're such a baby. I'm all for dealing with morals. My opposition to your position is entirely grounded in morals. I care more about preventing unwanted pregnancies, the spread of disease, suicides that are caused by religious people telling gay youth that they are sick and wrong, and molestation that occurs in part because of repressive and unrealistic celibacy rules and is then covered up and therefore allowed to continue by people who pretend moral superiority; you care more about pretending such things don't exist. Let's talk about morals if you want to -- that's a debate I'd love to have. As for your ludicrous assertion that these things are the fault of the sexual revolution, it's not sex crimes, suicides and unwanted pregnancies that have increased; it's the reporting of them that has. That's a good thing, not a bad one. Human beings are sexual creatures. That is a function of nature. Pretending it isn't, pretending it's sinful and repressing natural human instincts leads to nothing but bad things. The function of sex education is not to increase or endorse sexual behavior; it's public safety. When you deny this, when you argue against it or even argue for your right to keep it from your children, you become complicit in all sorts of horrors -- ones that are not just possible or probably but that are literally inevitable. This is a proven fact. Your incredibly radical position here is not just wrong; it's immoral. Thank goodness you represent a tiny, shrinking minority.
And yet, unsurprisingly, you seem to be incapable of arguing any of them to the contrary. I guess this is another one of those cases where faith and reason just don't get along.
I think it boils down to the word mentioned earlier, appropriate. As a Christian father, I have no problem with sex education being taught in schools. I remember taking that during health class in the 9th grade. And the teacher was the drill team instructor. Basically if any mention of the act or what can come of it is too "inappropriate" to be taught in a high school class for you, then there is no point in taking the argument further. You should have the right to not have your child sit in that class, but don't get upset when that child and or you get ridiculed and poked fun at. My parents are Christians as well, and had no issue with me or my sister sitting through that class.
Me too. It was one year after I attended Catholic school for eighth grade, having transfered from public school. I was amazed by how sexually active the Catholic kids were. They certainly corrupted me. At public school back then, sexual intercourse was unthinkable at that age. At Catholic school (where abstinence-only was the rule), all the 13 year old kids were doing it. Which is exactly in keeping with all the findings of every recent abstinence-only education program, twhy's fantasies not withstanding.
I love how our country demonizes sex. If both parties want it, then it is going to happen no matter what prevention programs are in place... Sex ed goes a long way in teaching how to prevent problems knowing that sex is inevitable in most cases.
Ok, I promised myself I wouldn't get in a big internet argument again with you again because I'm in law school and don't really have time for this crap. You seem to care though, you really do, and I actually do appreciate that even though I have strong disagreements with you. But we've been through this 900 times it seems like. I'll humor you again, but please realize we've reached an impasse to which the onus is on you to explain. I'm going to try and help you flesh out your philosophy, because your reasoning above has some rather large gaps in it that need to be filled. You first need to define your moral scheme if you are arguing in morals. Apparently yours is something like, preventing unwanted pregnancies, spread of disease, suicides caused by religious people, etc. What's the underlying basis in your moral scheme? It seems to be somewhere along the lines of don't hurt others. Fine, that's a common modern jurisprudential/philosophical scheme, instituted by folks like John Austin and GladitoRowdy (nee andymoon). The question becomes what is the basis for this moral distinction? You have to deal with Hume's is/ought distinction, and why your definition of morals should be the expression of society in the law. Is the role of government really to just keep people from hurting each other? That seems to be an extreme libertarian view. Is this consistent with the rest of your world view? Based on your posts here I'd say probably not. Is this moral system, therefore (in case you've forgot it's don't hurt others) consistent with your view on the role of government and society? Why? That's the moral question you have to ask yourself. I'm not disagreeing with you that unwanted pregnancies should be prevented. I'm not disagreeing with you that a society can enact laws it feels will help reduce pregnancies, including teachings about contraception. We differ in that I think a society can also enact abstinence education. I think it's stupid to leave abstinence out of the equation. I think it's stupid to encourage kids to start having sex, and to think that there is some idealistic standard that can be achieved in which more education will overcome the human ability to just mess up, especially with respect to taking contraceptions regularly and the advent of the hook-up. Furthermore, while you think letting kids go at it with contraceptives encourages healthy attitudes towards sex, I'd argue the opposite, a casual approach towards sex encourages men and women to not treat each other with as much respect as they deserve. If you really want to engage in a conversation with me, you will need to at least read wikipedia's entry on JP II's the theology of the body found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theology_of_the_Body The funny thing is, while you and Moes maintain that I am arguing for something archaic, it's actually you that are really just rehashing old arguments about sexuality from the Greeks. The theology of the body is actually something quite new with respect to John Paul II's teachings. If you would like full access to the Pope's reflections on the Theology of the Body, you can find them here: http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2TBIND.HTM Really all you've done with these examples is set up false dichotomies wherein if you don't agree with one, you must be for the other. But this is based off of your belief that humans can't control their passions, especially teenagers. I don't share this belief, although it is harder. But like I said, if a legislature decided to teach sex education with contraceptives, fine. I'd like the ability to opt my kids out, that's all, and personally I think legislating for the lowest common denominator in mind is questionably prudent with marginal benefits over abstinence education that are not supported with enough quantifiable data. But this is where we get into morals discussion again and what the proper function of law is. As long as a law is not infringing on certain fundamental rights, a society can enact legislation intended to raise the lowest common denominator in a society. That has nothing to do with sex education in schools or the law. You really tend to over simplify homosexual issues. I could just as easily go and commit suicide because Moe's told me my views on sex were archaic. Does that mean Moe's should not be able to hold his view? Moving on. See above post to Moe or whoever. You're simply wrong on this one and need to concede the point. That's the last I'll say on it. Every other point I've acknowledged the margin for reasonable disagreement between our positions. On this one you are simply talking out of your ass. Yes that's exactly what I'm doing. Yeah, people were having plenty of undocumented sexual revolutions prior to the pill and abortion becoming legal. You really need some data to make a statement like this. There's no reason sex crimes wouldn't be reported prior to the advent of the sexual revolution. The onus is on you to produce data on this one, as your argument is far less plausible. Wow, I just saw a story on ESPN about USA swimming and molestations of children and how the swim program moved coaches around to hide them. Must be all of those celibacy rules USA Swimming imposes on the 36 coaches who have been accused of abuse. http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/otl/news/story?id=5071820 See Theology of the body: The dumbed down version by Christopher West can be found here and offers a good introduction to the philosophy. I absolutely refuse to debate you further until you acknowledge your oversimplification of Catholic sexual teachings is just wrong. I await your redaction with bated breath. http://www.tobinstitute.org/ http://www.theologyofthebody.net/ http://www.christopherwest.com/ for ABC's heavily edited video on West go here, it still gives an ok introduction: http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Sex/Story?id=7527380&page=1/ And this is where you go drama queen. But it's ok, go right ahead and argue against the Supreme Court. I don't think I even have to put up an argument against this one. It's quite clear this is just more Batman fake righteous indignation. "Literally inevitable" My wife was subject to sex education from her parents and I was subject to Texas' abstinence only education. Holy crap the horrors of waiting until marriage to have sex were literally inevitable. Spare me. Go write a play about it or something more constructive. Good luck with the attendance on that one.
When I was a teen, my parents were the LAST people I would have wanted to teach me about how to put on a condom. I found that reading the directions worked very well. Maybe we should teach kids how to read.
I know. I really did not mean that nearly as combatively as it comes across. I just think this entire debate is silly.
