Making it even more creepy.

 

That is a very prejudiced point of view since you don't know much about them, isn't it?

True, but it's also unrealistic to expect an abstinence-only approach to work — which is on par with putting your head in the sand. A combined approach of education of abstinence and birth control methods is the only realistic way to combat teen pregnancy and STDs.

No one is proposing that birth control become illegal. However, in the exact same manner that Christian prayer should not be imposed upon public school children- as you'd agree- there is no reason that sexual education revolving around artificial birth control that violates the morality of many people should be imposed in public schools either.

 

It would be interesting to do an anthropological study on this. I often wondered if teens and sex are new or really always been here.

 

Give me a moment.

 

What was the age of marrying 50 years ago? 100 years ago?

 

My mother was married when 16. (she eloped with my dad to Indiana)

 

My grandmother was married when 17.

 

If I were to look back and see, what would the norm age of married be in the past? I've known a lot of people who tell me: 16, 17, 18.

 

Those are teen years we become aghast at they could be sexually active or ready for such.

 

Yet in the days of the ancients, a young girl at 13 and just above could be betrothed and soon married in her teens.

 

So is the problem that all of this is new or is it that our culture/society has chosen to educate young people through their early 20's and seemingly ask them to "put off married life" until after their education. Thereby sending them through the hormonal issues that used to be "settled" in our culture by early marriage ages.

 

Just curious.

:thumb: Interesting points. I'm not sure if you are implying that this changes the moral heart of the issue, but certainly interesting points worth pondering.

I can't find anything creepy about this. :lol: :lol:

 

 

Did I hear that right? The girl will ask forgiveness if she does something wrong, like kiss a boy?

 

I'm not really sure what to say or think.

It would be interesting to do an anthropological study on this. I often wondered if teens and sex are new or really always been here.

 

Give me a moment.

 

What was the age of marrying 50 years ago? 100 years ago?

 

My mother was married when 16. (she eloped with my dad to Indiana)

 

My grandmother was married when 17.

 

If I were to look back and see, what would the norm age of married be in the past? I've known a lot of people who tell me: 16, 17, 18.

 

Those are teen years we become aghast at they could be sexually active or ready for such.

 

Yet in the days of the ancients, a young girl at 13 and just above could be betrothed and soon married in her teens.

 

So is the problem that all of this is new or is it that our culture/society has chosen to educate young people through their early 20's and seemingly ask them to "put off married life" until after their education. Thereby sending them through the hormonal issues that used to be "settled" in our culture by early marriage ages.

 

Just curious.

 

Exactly what I was thinking as I read this thread & the article.

 

Times have changed - years ago, it was acceptable for a teenager to get married and, as a result, have sex with their partner.

 

Now, as education becomes more & more of a priority, the average marrying age has risen drastically.

I can't find anything creepy about this. :lol: :lol:

 

 

:lol: :lol: I couldn't help but laugh when watching that....

The worst thing about this video clip is that it is clear the boys in this community are held to a different (and lower) standard than the girls... someone even makes a comment to the effect that women exist to be loved by men (but the reverse - that men are created to be loved by women - was not said). Abstinence is the responsibility of both sexes. The person in the video is correct in saying that men and women are different, but it's dangerous to hold men and women to separate ethical standards as a result of this difference.

No one is proposing that birth control become illegal. However, in the exact same manner that Christian prayer should not be imposed upon public school children- as you'd agree- there is no reason that sexual education revolving around artificial birth control that violates the morality of many people should be imposed in public schools either.

 

Then we will continue to be plagued by abortions, teenage pregnancies and STDs, as well as overpopulation in third world countries. It's a big reason why I drifted away from the Catholic Church and have had a hard time coming back -- because of its head-in-the-sand approach to birth control.

IMHO, the more you tell teens not to do something, such as abstaining from sex, they more they'll want to do it...

Then we will continue to be plagued by abortions, teenage pregnancies and STDs, as well as overpopulation in third world countries. It's a big reason why I drifted away from the Catholic Church and have had a hard time coming back -- because of its head-in-the-sand approach to birth control.

I don't think that more birth control results in less abortions, teenage pregnancies, and STDs. Birth control has caused a mentality that there are no consequences for sex. Furthermore, despite the abundance of birth control available, I know many people who have unprotected sex. Abundant birth control (among other things) and contraceptive education (that teaches that it is completely normal for teens to have sex as much as you want with whomever you can) has fostered the mentality that sex has no consequences.

 

As for "head-in-the-sand" approach, I can assure you that the issue has been theologically and morally examined. Unless a head-in-the-sand approach refers to conclusions that you disagree with.

I don't think that more birth control results in less abortions, teenage pregnancies, and STDs. Birth control has caused a mentality that there are no consequences for sex. Furthermore, despite the abundance of birth control available, I know many people who have unprotected sex. Abundant birth control (among other things) and contraceptive education (that teaches that it is completely normal for teens to have sex as much as you want with whomever you can) has fostered the mentality that sex has no consequences.

 

As for "head-in-the-sand" approach, I can assure you that the issue has been theologically and morally examined. Unless a head-in-the-sand approach refers to conclusions that you disagree with.

cch,

 

I have a hard time following your logic here. It seems silly to not educate people about birth control methods and how to have safe sex. People are going to have sex and as you say it can be dangerous and have consequences. That isn't a reason to not tell people about the methods that are out there to limit the dangers/consequences. I have to agree with Jim that the Catholic Church has their head firmly stuck in the sand on this issue.

 

Driving a car is dangerous and has consequences but if you choose to drive one it doesn't mean you shouldn't buckle up. A seat belt isn't 100% effective but it's better than the alternative of going without one.

I don't think that more birth control results in less abortions, teenage pregnancies, and STDs. Birth control has caused a mentality that there are no consequences for sex. Furthermore, despite the abundance of birth control available, I know many people who have unprotected sex. Abundant birth control (among other things) and contraceptive education (that teaches that it is completely normal for teens to have sex as much as you want with whomever you can) has fostered the mentality that sex has no consequences.

 

I never once said there should be more birth control available. Just that there should be an integrated education approach stressing abstinence first, not abstinence only.

 

As for "head-in-the-sand" approach, I can assure you that the issue has been theologically and morally examined. Unless a head-in-the-sand approach refers to conclusions that you disagree with.

I don't think that more birth control results in less abortions, teenage pregnancies, and STDs.

 

It may not result in less abortion, pregnancies or STD's, but birth control (the pill) can do a pretty good job of preventing 2 of the 3. Condoms, the male birth control (if you will), is effective in preventing the last. They will not prevent everything but your chances are drastically less if you follow "safe sex" protocol.

 

And I'll go ahead & save someone the obvious: Of course abstinence is more effective!

 

Abundant birth control (among other things) and contraceptive education (that teaches that it is completely normal for teens to have sex as much as you want with whomever you can) has fostered the mentality that sex has no consequences.

 

Education does not give anyone the mentality. It gives you knowledge & the ability to make your own decisions. Parents give you knowledge & morals. You make your own decisions.

 

I feel that there is a difference between contraceptives & other forms of birth control, from a moral perspective.

cch,

 

I have a hard time following your logic here. It seems silly to not educate people about birth control methods and how to have safe sex. People are going to have sex and as you say it can be dangerous and have consequences. That isn't a reason to not tell people about the methods that are out there to limit the dangers/consequences. I have to agree with Jim that the Catholic Church has their head firmly stuck in the sand on this issue.

 

Driving a car is dangerous and has consequences but if you choose to drive one it doesn't mean you shouldn't buckle up. A seat belt isn't 100% effective but it's better than the alternative of going without one.

 

I never once said there should be more birth control available. Just that there should be an integrated education approach stressing abstinence first, not abstinence only.

 

It may not result in less abortion, pregnancies or STD's, but birth control (the pill) can do a pretty good job of preventing 2 of the 3. Condoms, the male birth control (if you will), is effective in preventing the last. They will not prevent everything but your chances are drastically less if you follow "safe sex" protocol.

 

And I'll go ahead & save someone the obvious: Of course abstinence is more effective!

 

 

 

Education does not give anyone the mentality. It gives you knowledge & the ability to make your own decisions. Parents give you knowledge & morals. You make your own decisions.

 

I feel that there is a difference between contraceptives & other forms of birth control, from a moral perspective.

If I don't address everything, let me know.

 

1. The mentality that "people are going to have sex" is the mentality that I am referring that is derived from an education that consistently promotes that everyone is having sex, you can't control it, and your only hope is contraceptives.

 

2. Like I said, I know plenty of people who have had sexual education and birth control all around them that still engage in unprotected sex. Perhaps if birth control was ALWAYS used it would reduce STD's and abortions, but the simple fact is this: birth control reduces sex to act of nothing but pleasure. When sex is reduced to this, the consequences are ignored. Thus, often times birth control is not used and therefore causes the problems that promiscuous sex does.

 

3. CC- there certainly is a difference between contraceptives and other forms of birth control in terms of moral weight, but the use of either is not a moral act. Any act that exists solely to prevent the pro-creation of the species- a natural function of humans- is unnatural (and therefore immoral) to me.

 

4. I still have yet to receive an answer on why the government has the right to use taxpayer money for sex education. If a parent wants to give condoms to their kid with their own money, that's fine. But in the same manner that Christian morality is not taught in public schools, neither should immorality be.

 

Once again, I am a bit distracted in class so if I miss something let me know.

If I don't address everything, let me know.

 

1. The mentality that "people are going to have sex" is the mentality that I am referring that is derived from an education that consistently promotes that everyone is having sex, you can't control it, and your only hope is contraceptives.

 

2. Like I said, I know plenty of people who have had sexual education and birth control all around them that still engage in unprotected sex. Perhaps if birth control was ALWAYS used it would reduce STD's and abortions, but the simple fact is this: birth control reduces sex to act of nothing but pleasure. When sex is reduced to this, the consequences are ignored. Thus, often times birth control is not used and therefore causes the problems that promiscuous sex does.

 

3. CC- there certainly is a difference between contraceptives and other forms of birth control in terms of moral weight, but the use of either is not a moral act. Any act that exists solely to prevent the pro-creation of the species- a natural function of humans- is unnatural (and therefore immoral) to me.

 

4. I still have yet to receive an answer on why the government has the right to use taxpayer money for sex education. If a parent wants to give condoms to their kid with their own money, that's fine. But in the same manner that Christian morality is not taught in public schools, neither should immorality be.

 

Once again, I am a bit distracted in class so if I miss something let me know.

I'll try to address the others later. But I need to get some work done.

 

2. To me the world is overpopulated as it is and I don't see the need to have sex simply for procreation. When engaged with someone you love sex should be fun and pleasurable and I have no problems with people engaging in acts that are fun and pleasurable. What I do have a problem with is when those acts can affect others. Having unprotected sex is a decision that can affect others, thus I'm all for giving people the option to use contaceptives so that they can enjoy a pleasurable act, but yet not affect others lives. Like my tax dollars to support another child in public schools.

 

4. Personally I don't beleive in state ran schools, so I don't think the government has that right. It's just my belief that if they are going to intrude, the best way is to give people the tools they need to make intelligent decisions.