the sexual revolution is the only reason women have even close to the same opportunities that men have. if it wasn't for the sexual revolution and birth control, women would still be stuck in the home with very little social/career mobility. but i guess that's what some people want - for us to go back to the "good old days" where women weren't much more than vessels for childbearing. i see your position, twhy, and i understand your point of view due to your religion, but i strongly disagree with it. see? what good would it do to argue? fundamental differences of opinion. here's an excerpt from the book "letter to a christian nation" by sam harris.
As a parent, you want to teach your kids to make good choices, not to just follow what you say. So sex education is a good thing. It helps kids understand what good choices and bad choices are. However, I don't have any problem with part of a sex education class being abstinence. Not necessarily the whole thing, but I would think that not having sex is a good way to not get pregnant/get a girl pregnant. But I think there has to be education on disease prevention also, since kids are naive and easily succumb to that temptation. and whoever Sam Harris is, he should probably back away from the broad generalizations of "religious" people. The guy who started the Christian "religion" ( I think people called him Jesus) was most certainly concerned about the suffering sex caused, not just the act of sex. He should do a little research.
Harris makes it clear at the beginning of his letter that he's addressing American conservative Christians, who by and large subscribe to the views he's talking about. I was remiss in neglecting to note that. As far as those types of Christians not being very much like Jesus...well, I think a lot of people feel that way in the first place. Beck: Do you think Jesus would be opposed to teaching the sub-Saharan African people about condoms and safe sexual practices?
I guess...just saying, as a Christian, his pre-conceived notion of who I am is incorrect, and is incorrect for most people I know. I know he's speaking to the "religious right", but I think he turns off a lot of Christian people who aren't in that group. (edit...he's not even talking to me, so why do I care. The "religious right" sucks, I agree) Honestly, I think Jesus would be more concerned about the suffering caused by it. He generally tended to heal people first, then preach to them. I can't say for sure what Jesus would teach, but his lesson would certainly not be...don't have sex, and if you do and you get AIDS, screw you. My message to sub-Saharan Africa would certainly by safe sex and condoms to reduce the suffering. I think that's a no-brainer. My thoughts are: when I first learned how to use a gun, the first lesson I was taught was that guns are very dangerous, they can kill people, and anything that you point the gun at is a target, so be careful where you point your gun, and don't handle a gun if you don't need to. Then I learned about how to safely shoot a gun, load a gun, clean a gun. Sex Ed should be kind of like that...if you put your "gun" somewhere, it can get the girl pregnant and/or get you a disease. So, the easiest way not to get a girl pregnant/catch an STD is to not have sex. But, if you have sex, when you have sex, you can use protection to reduce the chance, but it doesn't eliminate the chance. I can see why people are against "abstinence only" education but I think abstinence has an important place in sex ed. Kids should not be taught that condoms and birth control pills make sex safe; they just reduce the risk of STDs and pregnancy.
I know Jesus would tell them not to do it. Since those kind of contraceptives didnt exist back then, I can only speculate about safe sex practices. Then again, they also didn't have teen pregnancy issues. I know what the minister who married my wife and I told us in our meetings before we were married. He would say hold off until marriage, but if it all goes awry, be sure to use some safety net to limit unwarranted pregnancy. I can't think of any reasonable person who wouldn't find that good advice. I think a major problem for some Christians is the implicit "OKing" of sex by having condoms given freely at schools or whatever. Sex between minors is certainly not something I am prepared to advocate. Consenting adults is another thing. You have to ask yourself if having the contraceptives readily available will increase overall sexual activity. I think you would have more overall sex but an infinitely smaller number of diseases/pregnancy spread. For some, kids having more sex but less teen pregnancy is a bad thing. On the other hand, less overall sex between minors but more disease spread/pregnancy is I guess more palatable to others. Of course, you also get into the individual parent thinking "not my kid" when people bring up that "just say no" doesn't work. There is a huge difference between a person and people. Just say no might work on a person, but won't work on people.
I thought the whole point of a good sex ed program was to teach both abstinence AND contraceptive use as well as the risks?? At least that's what happened when I was in high school. I think it worked great considering well....almost everyone had sex but I only recall two girls dropping out in 4 years because of becoming pregnant.
The problem is that some abstinence only programs are laced with unneccessary moral and religious subtext, pledges against nature and weapons-grade nonsense about condoms not working.
