abstinece-only sex education

It may be true that the attempt to keep sin to a minimum in a culture only provokes worse sins. The Law is said in scripture to provoke violations of it. Just the way things are.But I also think that can't be the concern of leaders and teachers of youth. Their job has to be to stand for what's right and teach the kids what's wrong. I realize this is a very old-fashioned view. But you know what, until the sixties it pretty much was the status quo. There was always sin, there will always be sin, but there was never sin in this country before the sixties on the scale there has been since, with popular and political support yet, and partly this is because people take a practical view of it instead of a moral view.As I've been saying on the "Falwell" thread, if our national leaders support immoral behavior the nation will be exposed to God's punishment. This is the real reason for the health problems already created by the sexual freedom of the last few decades -- it's judgment, the kind of judgment that is built into the sin in this case, to echo Dr. Frost's comments on the other thread.So regarding this as a health problem instead of a moral problem IS the problem.

yeah, do it again CK.

Oh yeah, trot out the popular PC accusations -- racism, sexism, etc. -- spawned in those very 1960s if you want to smear your opponent -- who has said nothing on the subject -- just because you don't like the opinion she DID express. Clever. Subject change + misrepresentation/straw man + character assassination. Works great. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

And there goes subbie with a typical evc ad hominem, no content, all personal smear.Lessee how far this thread is going to go sliding on this greasy stuff.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

So shocked that the ACLU found a way to create a test case in 1967 against old Southern miscegenation laws and dug up some guy who still believed in them? If most people still held to those laws you can be sure they wouldn't have won the case.

I HAVE all the facts about the Bible. You don't get to win the argument by simply declaring that my opponents' arguments are correct. That's a smear. ABE: And then putting arguments about the Bible in the same class as social statistics. Cheap stuff there.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I have no idea what the relevance is of your quotes in your post. Attitudes toward sex changed in a culture-wide way in the sixties. That is simply true. You seem to be trying to pretend it was said that nobody ever heard of sex or abuses of sex before the 60s.The OP says nothing about pregnancies, it's about STDs. Those have increased dramatically over the last four decades or so, stuff the general population never even heard of before. This is a direct result of the increase in promiscuity. Birth rates may certainly have been reduced by the pill. Says nothing about attitudes toward sex, which was "liberated" to be treated by some as a form of casual recreation with no obligations. Single mothers, unmarried couples, serial daddies, "blended" families, all that is commonplace now. Not that it never happened before -- it was always Avant Garde to live the "free" life. But now the average person tries to live it without any of the hifalutin rationalizations.

Let's get something straight about the 60s. The point is that's when the trends under discussion STARTED. They didn't impact the entire culture right away, although it did spread surprisingly rapidly. It took that generation's growing up for it to be the culture-wide phenomenon it is now.And stop reducing this to poeple "having sex." But I am certain there were more virgins, both male and female, at the ages of 18, 19, 20, in the country in the late fifties and even through the sixties than there are any more. And mostly I'm talking about the attitude toward sex as having changed. The philosophical position that it's just a recreation, and that personal obligation is just the vaporings of the old oppressive patriarchal culture. Doesn't mean EVERYBODY went that direction, but the basic philosophy certainly got itself dug in.

Your m.o. is just namecalling jar. Funny your buds don't seem to see it. You ridicule your opponent's opinion, label his views "willful ignorance" on the basis of nothing but your own personal opinion, accuse him or her of rewriting history when all you have for a rebuttal is your own personal memory of the times. Funny you get away with this stuff when some of us would be suspended for it. I forget who labeled your tactics as "poisoning the well" but how right on that guy was. Start right off with personal ridicule, poison the reader's mind against the opponent. Most of your contribution to most arguments here is of this sort.

Exactly. I'm talking about the NEW STDs, the ones never heard of before, before the term "STDs" was invented because of the proliferation of same.Syphilis and gonorrhea are oldies that were finally conquered by antibiotics.But AIDs and Chlamydia are examples of what I'm talking about, the increase in brand new STDs since the Sexual Revolution. Genital warts or HPV, which is a pre-cancerous condition is another. Genital herpes took off in the 70s as I recall, followed by AIDS in the 80s. Both HPV and herpes are incurable, being viruses. You can only keep them symptomatically controlled and have to live with them the rest of your life.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASES (STDs)Edited by Faith, : added bolds

Read the entire article linked in Message 36

Answer from article linked in #36:

quote:

---

STDs are likely to have been around for thousands of years but the most serious, AIDS, has only been recognised since 1984.

---

Followed by statement about increase in promiscuous sexual activity and lowering of age. We all knew what the term meant without having taken Latin, but we also thought of syphilis and gonorrhea as covering the field. A new clearer term was needed because of the rapid spread of the new STDs.

My answer to the "failure" of abstinence programs has already been given. It's irrelevant. In my view it's a moral problem, not a mere health problem and you won't deal with the health issues UNLESS you deal with it as a moral problem.ABE: Trying to enforce moral law always provokes more acting out against it, and especially in a time when sexual morality has been so discredited as it has been in our time. But it is a Law of God, whether we are able to appreciate it in that light or not, and you can fiddle with the health factors all you want, give out all the condoms and provide all the health services and so on, and it's only going to get worse. At least we should be trying to get across the moral factor whether it gets heard or not, and I suppose it won't get heard, but it's the crucial thing nevertheless.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Oh well, the ignorance is on your side but PC tells you different and there's no fighting PC. I lived through it, KJ, I practiced it. I know how things changed from the 50s through the 60s. I was part of it. You aren't even addressing the same subject. Rampant promiscuity regarded as normal, as status quo, is what was unleashed in the sixties, not "trial marriages," not the usual child out of wedlock that always happened in some proportion of the population. The incidence of marriage isn't even relevant since marriage didn't need formalities in many cultures.Read the article about the increase in STDs and get your self-righteous head out of the PC sand.