DISQUS

Conservative One · 2 months ago

You advocate that we raise our children as lil animals, approving them mastrubating like sick dogs as the alternative to f*cking like ones.

Your argument is pathetic and doesn't address the bigger issue - how do we as a race of people (the human race) save ourselves from becoming/remaining morally perverted?

g · 2 months ago

Moral uncertainty always leads to behavioral absurdity, and prescriptions that are value-free always prove finally to be so costly. Yet absurdity about immorality is achieving a certain momentum today.

We spend billions for the rightful rehabilitation of victims of plagues, but only comparative pennies to preach prevention. Jeers even greet those who advocate healthy abstention from various self-destructive acts.

Sexual immorality is not only wrong itself, but, as few things do, it nurtures the deadly virus of selfishness.

The old mountains of individual morality have been worn down. This erosion has left mankind in a sand-dune society, in a desert of disbelief, where there are no landmarks, no north, no east, no west, and no south. There is only the windblown dust of despair.

Those so drained by sensuality do, in fact, seek to compensate for their loneliness by sensations. However, in the arithmetic of appetite, anything multiplied by zero still totals zero.

Lgo · 2 months ago

Let me address some of the concerns in the article before I respond to the comments below it.
The success of abstinence only education is spotty at best, non existent in nearly most instances: http://americanaffairs.suite101.com/article.cfm...
Across the board the programs do not change views about sex or influence sexual behavior. It is the educational equivalent of flushing money down the toilet. It also does little to change the teen pregnancy rate, and again, only succeeds in encouraging teen pregnancy and abortions.

The US has twice as many teenagers pregnant than any other developed nation: http://www.overpopulation.org/teenpreg.html
Conversely, the countries with the lowest teen pregnancy rates happen to have the best sex education courses. As the graph shows, the abortion rate per 1000 teens in France is 7.9. The rate in the US is 17. In France, schools are expected to teach 30 to 40 hours of sex education, and has been a part of their curriculum since the 70s. We can see the result. The US government continues to fund abstinence only education despite its failure to lower teen pregnancy and abortion rates.
Studies today nearly unanimously praise sex education as a leading factor in reducing sexually transmitted diseases, abortions, rape, and unplanned pregnancy. And there is no evidence to suggest it contributes to promiscuity: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/08...
Now, on to the comments:
Sexuality is a tenuous concept, and sexual immorality and even looser one. A study of history shows that attitudes about sex have changed and adapted according to social norms. According to some cultures, it is moral perversion for a woman to show her hair. Even the Christian religion has adapted. Earlier Christians saw dancing as a sign of moral bankruptcy. Women enjoying sex was an indication she was a follower of Satan (see any studies on Medieval witches).
The aim of this simple discussion is humble: namely, we can't judge, condone or approve of governmental policy based on morals alone. Rather, policy should look at results and aim at crafting programs that bring down disease, pregnancy, and rape.
The claim that the article is "approving them mastrubating like sick dogs as the alternative to f*cking like ones" is an opinion. I won't argue with it. Rather, we need to ask, would we rather have people explore actions that don't aid in harming one's self, other lives, and the potential unborn? Certainly. Unlike churches and moral teachings, the job of legislation is not to change minds. It is to recognize problems and create solutions that end or reduce those problems. Sex education has proven to aid in reducing all the issues associated with premarital sex.
The other claim here that "moral uncertainty always leads to behavioral absurdity, and prescriptions that are value-free always prove finally to be so costly" is not supported by the data on sex education. Sex education makes no claims as to whether a person should or should not engage in sex--this is where Christians and other believers can tell tell their children about their own beliefs, once the child has full knowledge of sex and its potential hazards. Sex ed only giving people the facts. I won't get into how education is the leading cause of both economic, social and moral growth in a society, but it serves its purpose in making the public aware of the dangers and benefits of something like sex.
The claim "only comparative pennies to preach prevention" doesn't address the fact that prevention is the aim of sex ed. Abstinence only, in and of itself, is one mode of prevention (and certainly, if one adheres to it, the most effective). Preaching abstinence is a part of all sex ed programs. It is one form of prevention. Another obvious form of prevention is contraceptives. Again, you may personally and morally object to contraceptives, but it is impossible to deny they have been proven to prevent unplanned pregnancies.
A disclaimer: I sympathize with those who feel that American culture has codified a culture where sex is rampant and essentially undefinable. It has led to many problems, both at home and for the country as a whole. Appreciation of the boundaries of safe sex between loving married couples is nonexistent. Media encourages the idea that sex does not have consequences. When in fact sex really does have a consequence: babies. With this said, its a shame to see a genuine concern for moral well being mixed in with the negativity and foolhardy position that "abstinence only is the solution". While your cares are legitimate, the current position you hold will only lead to more abortions, more unplanned pregnancies, more STDs, and more pain. Not less.

C · 2 months ago

"Unlike churches and moral teachings, the job of legislation is not to change minds. It is to recognize problems and create solutions that end or reduce those problems. Sex education has proven to aid in reducing all the issues associated with premarital sex."

Well, there are many people (libertarians, conservatives, moderates and liberals alike) who would disagree with you on the role of government. You're very bold to make such a claim without explaining and justifying your political theory

That said, you're main assumption is the ends justify the means. Yet sir, I doubt that you are willing to live by such a philosophy (much like the atheists who are unable to live within the bounds of their no-god philosophy).

Kill all blacks and you decrease crime in America. Imprison the Japs and you ensure the safety of our country. Bomb a country and others will end their support of terrorism. In all of these cases our country has already come to the consensus that the ends do not justify the means. Why would they in the case of sexuality?

I make a bold game, and one in which I am willing live by. Namely, that our American people should place a high priority on our virtue. As a result, our focus should be how we may better ourselves morally. For if we do that sir then we will have solved the problems of birth control, racism, murder, rape, war, famine, etc. Until then we are just putting bandages on an open sore that will one day lose too much blood, and the body will die as every other nation has done before it.

There are many arguments that may built upon this foundation, but that is the gist of it.

Lgo · 2 months ago

I believe my view of the aims of legislation are broadly recognized; by this I refer more to the passage of simple laws like speed limits, laws against criminal activity, discrimination, etc. We view laws enacted as means of addressing or trying to reduce problems while making sure that those same laws do not create additional problems.Of course there are vastly differing positions on the role government has in the lives of individuals, how it regulates business and trade, and what affect it has on individual liberty.
I only mention legislation's (basic) aim because I believe it addresses some fundamental concerns and as a means of continuing a discussion on the aim of this particular law mentioned in the article.

As far as ends justifying the means, a couple of points. I don't believe the ends justify the means, but I can see where this could be gleamed from my argument. All countries, indeed, all functioning governments, have some varying degree of ends justifying the means. A most recent example is the Bush doctrine of preventative war. The US invaded Iraq based on the threat of WMDs, with the goal being the preservation of more lives at the cost of both US soldiers and Iraqi civilians. Another case is the death penalty, which says that the death of a dangerous criminal is preferable to the threat they pose by their continued existence. And another still (as far as the federal government is concerned) is abortion, where a person decides that allowing the child to be carried to term creates more problems.

I'm not going to agree or disagree with any of these claims, but merely to show that the country has on many cases decided in some way that the ends justify the means. The examples you give are rather extreme (particularly the eradication of blacks to bring down the crime rate). You can't compare mass murder to education. I will accept another comparison closer to moral education (like the acceptance of gay marriage as recognized by the state). We should try to find a comparable legislative methodology to make the comparison.

Teaching children that there are many dangers to having premarital, and that there are many ways to protect one's self from harm when engaging in these activities is not advocating the behavior. I accept how one may view this as such but there is a difference between "Have sex wear a condom" and what sex education preaches: "You shouldn't have sex, but if you do, wear a condom".

As for "American people should place a high priority on our virtue. As a result, our focus should be how we may better ourselves morally", I fully, 100% agree with you. I think we probably only part ways on how to, at times, achieve this goal. We can learn about sex and preventative sexual measures and still be moral and teach morality. I don't want to give personal examples (because they are rather weak) but I can attest to many couples who have been only with each other (for 10+ years) and who received sexual education.

I'm sure that you live by your beliefs, and that if you have children you teach them the same. Given that many people were never educated in a great many areas (moral, sexual, behavioral), legislation must look at the body as a whole and treat the sore. It will not cure it. Outlawing murder does not end it. What I believe would best serve America is a combination of both: a factual analysis and education of the threats we face and a deeper moral understanding to both combat these problems and as a way to make ourselves and the world better.


.