Pure in heart abstinence only education

Gordon

AerynSun wrote: »

Dear Gordon,

I am in love. Will you marry me?

[I won't even demand evidence of the size of things that should not be made jokes of in front of JC].

:P :pac: :cool:

Haha, I'm afraid I'm already married to my man crush, Sarky.

AerynSun

Gordon wrote: »

Haha, I'm afraid I'm already married to my man crush, Sarky.

Ahw... should've known: the good ones are always taken. And Sarky is some man for one man, can't compete with that now

J C

gaynorvader wrote: »

I think J C is correct in his assertion that sex education needs to be comprehensive and I do think abstinence should be dealt with too. However, I disagree that it should be pushed as the best method. It is certainly the best way of avoiding STDs and unwanted pregnancies, but only in the same way not leaving your house is the best way of ensuring you don't get hit by a car.

I don't think any solution should be put forward as the best.

Abstinence shouldn't be 'rubbished' which is how this tread started off.
I think that a comprehensive sex education should present all methods of avoiding STDs and their advantages/disadvantages ... strengths/weaknesses.
At present condoms are 'pushed' as the 'best' method using the incorrect idea that they provide 'safe' sex ... when 'safer' sex is the best that they can actually provide.
... and, depending on the STD, they don't even do that.

Sarky

J C wrote: »

Abstinence shouldn't be 'rubbished' which is how this tread started off.

The thread was rubbishing abstinence only education, which as others have shown you several times doesn't work. You're lying again.

endacl

Sarky wrote: »

The thread was rubbishing abstinence only education, which as others have shown you several times doesn't work. You're lying again.

Ah here now! Selectively interpreting is not the same thing as lying!!

PopePalpatine

You'd have to be some serious masochist if you want to trawl through 200 of J C's posts. :eek:

Sarky

Besides which, anyone who believes in Jesus must by definition admit that abstinence isn't 100% effective either.

AerynSun

Sarky wrote: »

Besides which, anyone who believes in Jesus must by definition admit that abstinence isn't 100% effective either.

I think you mean "anyone who believes in the virgin birth".

J C

Sarky wrote: »

The thread was rubbishing abstinence only education, which as others have shown you several times doesn't work. You're lying again.

There certainly wasn't any distinction made between abstinence only education and a comprehensive sex education, including abstinence.
Anyway, if this thead is anything to judge by ... Secularists have a long learning curve before their ideas on sex ed can be left anywhere near our children.
The first thing they need to attend is a 'respecting diversity' course ... and then they need to attend a course on how logic can be applied to evaluating the various options to ensure 'safer' sex.:)

I guess we'll just have to leave the 90% of our schools under Christian control for the 90% Christians in our communities.

The Secularists on this thread, don't give anybody any reason to trust their children to their dangerous idea that promiscuity is OK ... once you use a condom as a 'figleaf' to prevent STD transmission!!!

... and the contiuous scoffing at Christians and Christian ideas that work in relation to sex ed on this thread (and others) ... isn't very wise (or indeed respectful) for 90% of the population of this country ... especially when you guys want to educate all of their children in your 'ways' ... if anybody is foolish enough to let ye!!!

Bad Public Relations ... guys ... to say the least!!!

AerynSun

J C wrote: »

... Secularists have a long learning curve before their ideas on sex ed can be left anywhere near our children.

Ah and you were doing so well JC. When you say 'our children', whose children do you mean, exactly? Religious people's children? Everybody's children?

The first thing they need to attend is a 'respecting diversity' course ... and then they need to attend a course on how logic can be applied to evaluating the various options to ensure 'safer' sex.:)

There are a LOT of religious people that I know who would also benefit enormously from the training you describe.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

There certainly wasn't any distinction made between abstinence only education and a comprehensive sex education, including abstinence.
Anyway, if this thead is anything to judge by ... Secularists have a long learning curve before their ideas on sex ed can be left anywhere near our children.
The first thing they need to attend is a 'respecting diversity' course ... and then they need to attend a course on how logic can be applied to evaluating the various options to ensure 'safer' sex.:)

Everyone has stated support for a comprehensive sex education course instead of an abstinence only lesson plan. You agree with everyone but have a preference to abstinence until marriage. I don't understand why you feel the need to misrepresent what people have suggested/complained about.

J C

AerynSun wrote: »

I think you mean "anyone who believes in the virgin birth".

Abstinence is indeed 100% effective ... barring the direct intervention of God ... and He did that just once ... and once only!!!!:)

AerynSun

J C wrote: »

The Secularists on this thread, don't give anybody any reason to trust their children to their dangerous idea that promiscuity is OK ... once you use a condom as a 'figleaf' to prevent STD transmission!!!

I have never heard anyone (on this thread, or elsewhere) who encourages young people to be promiscuous. I think you're being unfair now, in all fairness. It's an untenable position to claim that promoting the use of condoms is the same thing as promoting promiscuity, because it's NOT.

Sulla Felix

AerynSun wrote: »

I think you mean "anyone who believes in the virgin birth".

Isn't the first a subset of the second?

Delirium

J C wrote: »

Abstinence is indeed 100% effective ... barring the direct intervention of God ... and He did that just once ... and once only!!!!:)

Then it's not 100% effective. If it was then even intervention by a deity wouldn't work.

AerynSun

Sulla Felix wrote: »

Isn't the first a subset of the second?

It can be, but it isn't necessarily so. Depends on whether one takes the text literally, or whether one is more inclined to admit literary devices to one's exegesis of scripture.

AerynSun

J C wrote: »

... and the contiuous scoffing at Christians and Christian ideas that work in relation to sex ed on this thread (and others) ... isn't very wise (or indeed respectful) for 90% of the population of this country ... especially when you guys want to educate all of their children in your 'ways' ... if anybody is foolish enough to let ye!!!

Bad Public Relations ... guys ... to say the least!!!

JC would you PLEASE stop editing your posts. Makes it really difficult to answer comprehensively. I think I've answered you, only to discover that you've changed what you've said about four times between then and now. Can't you post your new thoughts in follow-up pieces?

J C

AerynSun wrote: »

Ah and you were doing so well JC. When you say 'our children', whose children do you mean, exactly? Religious people's children? Everybody's children?

The 90% of children in this country who are Christians ... and most of the other 10% as well.

AerynSun wrote: »

There are a LOT of religious people that I know who would also benefit enormously from the training you describe.

Most Christians that I know (including myself) are tolerant of diversity.
Indeed, I have total respect for diversity of belief, including Atheism ... but I have to say that my respect has never been returned on this thread with a respect for me and my beliefs.

J C

koth wrote: »

Then it's not 100% effective. If it was then even intervention by a deity wouldn't work.

It's 100% effective for Human Beings ... and that is good enough for me ... especially when compared with the disasterous 15% failure rate for condoms !!!

Delirium

J C wrote: »

The 90% of children in this country who are Christians ... and most of the other 10% as well.

Most Christians that I know (including myself) are tolerant of diversity.
Indeed, I have total respect for diversity of belief, including Atheism ... but I have to say that my respect has never been returned on this thread with a respect for me and my beliefs.

Ironic that you complain about that considering how you're misrepresenting what has been posted on this thread.

AerynSun

J C wrote: »

The 90% of children in this country who are Christians ... and most of the other 10% as well.

For the 90% of the children who are Christians, are you sure they're all Christians? Or are they Christian by default because their parents have chosen to raise them Christian?

In terms of the other 10% - why would you think you're entitled to any say in who guides that 10% in matters of sex and sexuality?

Most Christians that I know (including myself) are tolerant of diversity. Indeed, I have total respect for diversity of belief, including Atheism ... but I have to say that my respect has never been returned on this thread with a respect for me and my beliefs.

With all due love and respect now JC, and in total sincerity: I think this is an unfair comment. You say you respect diversity yet you will not hear opinions that differ from yours, you keep coming back with the same argument when someone has made it clear that they disagree with your point of view. It's like you feel compelled to keep making your case until everyone here agrees with your point of view - and some of the people here are not going to agree with you no matter how many times you state your view.

In my opinion, the people on this board are very open to engage in dialogue and debate. You're still ON this forum, nobody has silenced you or kicked you off... you get to sit here and post away to your heart's content, and why do you think that is?

I think you've overstepped the mark now, saying that people here have never shown you any respect, because in my opinion they have. If it takes people here to agree with your opinions before you feel you've been respected, then I guess you're not going to feel respected here - but that won't be because people here don't respect your right to have and express views that are different from theirs.

J C

AerynSun wrote: »

I have never heard anyone (on this thread, or elsewhere) who encourages young people to be promiscuous. I think you're being unfair now, in all fairness. It's an untenable position to claim that promoting the use of condoms is the same thing as promoting promiscuity, because it's NOT.

The alternative to promoting promiscuity is promoting abstinence ... and I haven't seen much support ... and a lot of scoffing, for abstinence on this thread.

... so it is indeed a fair summary that ye are promoting promiscuity ... while wearing a 'figleaf' of a condom that 'lets you down' 15% of the time ... and calling the whole package 'safe sex'!!!!

Sarky

J C wrote: »

Indeed, I have total respect for diversity of belief, including Atheism ... but I have to say that my respect has never been returned on this thread with a respect for me and my beliefs.

Respect is drawing parallels between anyone who disagrees with you and Nazi Germany, is it? Never mind the little pile of digs you've transparently tried to take at all secularist movements in this very thread.

Stop playing the victim. You're terrible at it.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

It's 100% effective for Human Beings ... and that is good enough for me ... especially when compared with the disasterous 15% failure rate for condoms !!!

No it's not if humans end up pregnant. A deity could impregnate all virgin women tomorrow and abstinence wouldn't matter a jot.

The 15% failure is down to improper use of condoms, which could be explained by inadequate sex education in classes. You're shooting yourself in the foot by bringing it up repeatedly.

Also, abstinence isn't the opposite of promiscuous, it's the opposite of engaging in any sexual act. Be it in a monogamous relationship or otherwise. You're once again misrepresenting what posters have suggested on this thread.

J C

AerynSun wrote: »

For the 90% of the children who are Christians, are you sure they're all Christians? Or are they Christian by default because their parents have chosen to raise them Christian?

I accept whatever they themselves say they are ... and 90% of them are self-professed Christians.
... and I'd respectfully suggest that you guys need to seriously take this on board if ye wish to ever have any input into the moral formation of Christian children.

AerynSun wrote: »

In terms of the other 10% - why would you think you're entitled to any say in who guides that 10% in matters of sex and sexuality?

Most of them are the children of other Theists and liberal Agnostics ... many of whom just as apalled as I am at the scoffing that is engaged in against all theists on these threads.
... and they are equally concerned about the sexual safety of their children and the moral formation that they receive in school and elsewhere.

AerynSun wrote: »

With all due love and respect now JC, and in total sincerity: I think this is an unfair comment. You say you respect diversity yet you will not hear opinions that differ from yours, you keep coming back with the same argument when someone has made it clear that they disagree with your point of view. It's like you feel compelled to keep making your case until everyone here agrees with your point of view - and some of the people here are not going to agree with you no matter how many times you state your view.

Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean that I should disrespect you ... and that equally applies in the opposite direction.
I have no problem with people who question the existence of God ... and indeed the many (questionable) tenets of various religions ... I can see where they are coming from ... and indeed some of what they say makes eminent sense.

AerynSun wrote: »

In my opinion, the people on this board are very open to engage in dialogue and debate. You're still ON this forum, nobody has silenced you or kicked you off... you get to sit here and post away to your heart's content, and why do you think that is?

I think you've overstepped the mark now, saying that people here have never shown you any respect, because in my opinion they have. If it takes people here to agree with your opinions before you feel you've been respected, then I guess you're not going to feel respected here - but that won't be because people here don't respect your right to have and express views that are different from theirs.

Time will tell.

Liberal Atheism has a proud record of thinking about the 'deeper things' in life as well as making significant contribution to the sciences ... and indeed promoting equality. However, Theists have also a proud record in these areas as well.

You guys have given me plenty of 'food for thought' ... and have deeply challenged many of my ideas ... and for this I thank you.

However, scoffing at an idea, like Abstenence, without critically evaluating it's merits ... and the weakneses of its alternatives isn't something that I would expect from liberal Secularists ... whose philosophy is one of respect for diversity and questioning of the 'status quo'.

AerynSun

J C wrote: »

The alternative to promoting promiscuity is promoting abstinence

I disagree with your point of view. Perhaps we have very different understandings of 'promiscuity'? So let me ask you, for clarification: is your understanding that ANY sexual activity that takes place outside of a solemnised Catholic marriage between a man and a woman what you would call 'promiscuous'?

In my view, promiscuity is about indiscriminate, haphazard, casual and irregular sexual activity that takes place outside of a committed, loving relationship between two people who take it into their heads and hearts to honour and love each other and be exclusive in their relationship.

I do recognise that others would disagree with my view and say that my 'exclusive' requirement is unnecessary, and that people can love more than one person at a time and engage in sexual activity with more than one partner, as long as all of the partners involved agree to the arrangement, without any of them feeling that they are being promiscuous - and that's fine for other people, but I'm honestly too insecure to be that open and free with whoever I love: I want that person to be with me only. But that's my issue - and it doesn't have to dictate how other people live and love.

How do other people on this thread feel about the definition of 'promiscuous'? What constitutes promiscuity?

AerynSun

J C wrote: »

I accept whatever they themselves say they are ... and 90% of them are self-professed Christians.
... and I'd respectfully suggest that you guys need to seriously take this on board if ye wish to ever have any input into the moral formation of Christian children.

And where do you find the published data of what the children themselves have said about their beliefs, or non-beliefs? Please do point me in the direction of unbiased evidence for that 90% statistic.

How do you know whether I - or any of the other posters here - haven't 'taken on board' the fact that some young people are self-professed Christians? I do know a good number of young people, and I do listen to them when they speak. Still, I think your 90% is a little off the mark.

Most of them are the children of other Theists and liberal Agnostics ... many of whom just as apalled as I am at the scoffing that is engaged in against all theists on these threads.
... and they are equally concerned about the sexual safety of their children and the moral formation that they receive in school and elsewhere.

Perhaps you'd like to invite those other theists and liberal agnostics to come in here and tell us themselves how appalled they are. I'm not sure how it is that you get to be their spokesperson? Your arguments would be so much more persuasive (for me, at least) if you stuck to making your own case, without trying to make your case sound like 100 people back your argument. If your point of view is valid, it's valid - even if there's only the 1 of you.

The tone of these most recent posts makes me feel like 'I've been told', and that doesn't help me to stay open hearted and uncritical, able to hear and consider your point of view. I'd much prefer if our exchanges here made me feel like we were having an amiable one-on-one chat. As it stands, I'm not sure whether I'm Deep Blue or Gary Kasparov...

Sarky

Oh, get used to that. J C demands evidence, ignores evidence, then claims victory. He's been doing it for years.

J C

Sarky wrote: »

Respect is drawing parallels between anyone who disagrees with you and Nazi Germany, is it? Never mind the little pile of digs you've transparently tried to take at all secularist movements in this very thread.

Stop playing the victim. You're terrible at it.

I was only pointing out what Ben Stein has said.

... and I'm not playing the victim ... I'm just asking that we look at each others ideas with respect ... and who knows ... we will all probably learn something from the experience.

Sarky

Perhaps you could start by not arguing against things nobody said? If you have to misrepresent everyone in order to feel like you have a point to make, there's something wrong with your point.