"Why Monogamy Matters"

[printdust]

No Bitter, my kids were in first grade back then and didn't see it.

 

[zagoshe]

For those of you who are so offended that religion could be the motivation to do (or not do) something that, most would agree, is the right thing to do, if you had a child who came to you and said they were abstaining from sex because of religion, would you be upset? Would you sit them down and explain to them that such a reason is not sufficient for doing good? How would you explain what the acceptable reasons are for doing a good or right thing?

The only argument I made was that religion shouldn't be the basis for government policy.

Neither should atheism

 

[printdust]

And in the middle

For those of you who are so offended that religion could be the motivation to do (or not do) something that, most would agree, is the right thing to do, if you had a child who came to you and said they were abstaining from sex because of religion, would you be upset? Would you sit them down and explain to them that such a reason is not sufficient for doing good? How would you explain what the acceptable reasons are for doing a good or right thing?

The only argument I made was that religion shouldn't be the basis for government policy.

Neither should atheism

And in the middle, common sense fails because of our pettiness and blindness.

 

[printdust]

We don't want anything to do with religion, even if it is common sense.
We don't want anything to do with agnostic thinking, even if it is common sense.
Shoo fly, don't bother me. I want to watch my country go to hell in a handbasket....even if the agnostics don't think there's such a place.

 

[Big Circus]

"Religion shouldn't guide policy decisions" does not mean that common ideals can't be found in both religion AND policy.

This. It's not anti-religion to say that there needs to be a better basis for a law than "the Bible says so."

 

[printdust]

"Religion shouldn't guide policy decisions" does not mean that common ideals can't be found in both religion AND policy.

Tell that to people who really matter.

 

[printdust]

"Religion shouldn't guide policy decisions" does not mean that common ideals can't be found in both religion AND policy.

This. It's not anti-religion to say that there needs to be a better basis for a law than "the Bible says so."

But as soon as you hint that the Bible is in agreement, the petty party begins.

 

[outofplace]

Nobody's having less "sex." They're having less vaginal sex. More oral, more anal. I'm sure Ross Douthat is too polite to mention it. Otherwise, why the epidemic of teen STDs? Abstinence instruction does nothing but leave American kids ignorant about sex and infection and condoms.

http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/health_med_fit/article_96d0ee57-e3dc-59d7-a5ec-e5cbc5b71ffc.html


One in four teenage girls in the U.S. has an STD, according to the Centers for Disease Control. In Wisconsin, the rate of four of the most commonly reported STDs among teens jumped 53 percent between 1997 and 2007. Females and minorities, especially African-Americans, have been hit hard. And these are numbers that have been reported; actual cases may be much higher. But it remains a hidden epidemic, not just because many STDs have no symptoms, but because of the stigma and politics that complicate efforts to fight them.


http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/50917596-78/utah-health-sex-teens.html.csp

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/08/teen-std-rates-higher-now_n_384291.html

You think abstinence education leads to a uptick in oral and anal sex? That would require proving that abstinence education primarily promotes abstinence to prevent pregnancy. Which, in my experience, it does not.

I'd argue that culture - TV, magazines, the Internet, movies - has overwhelmed <i>any</i> gains that <i>any</i> form of education could make on kids having unprotected sex in, um, <i>any</i> orifice with <i>any</i> person. A small handful of network head and TV/Movie/Reality Shows writers have decided that kids will have sex no matter what, that hormones rule, and the depicting it in as many ways as possible is the best way of being truthful.

What if your child told you they were going to have sex and you said no. But then your child said "but you let me watch 12 shows where kids have sex all the time!" What would be a parent's answer to that?

Yes, teaching abstinence while refusing to allow for proper sex education will absolutely lead to an uptick in oral and anal sex.

Prove it. And here's the key: You have create a corollary between telling kids <i>not</i> to have sex, that the emphasis is solely on preventing pregnancy and so, as a result, kids don't have the kind of sex that would lead to pregnancy, but do have the kind of sex that leads to STDs.

And then you'll have to show me the sex education program in high schools that address the appropriate way to have oral and anal sex.

Beyond that, do you realize how astonishing your position is? Imagine being in a court of law, and a father being on trial for accessory to murder.

The lawyer asks him: "So what did you tell your son when he relayed how angry he was at his friend."

The father says: "I told him to set his emotions aside and not give in to his impulses."

The lawyer responds: "So you actually told him to kill his friend?"

Father: "No. I told him not to do anything violent."

Lawyer: "But didn't you understand that by telling him not to do something, you were actually pushing him to do it?"

It's utter nonsense.

If I told you not to touch a pot because it was hot, and you touched it anyway, would you honestly say "it's your fault for not telling to use a potholder. Bah!" Would you? Do you think a 15-year-old boy doesn't know what a condom is? He has to be told to put it on? One of the reasons schools began giving them out is because they knew kids were too embarrassed to buy them; I'm sorry, but handing out condoms in junior high and high school is essentially arguing for kids to circumnavigate an honest dialogue about sex with their parents or, well, anyone. I don't think handing out the cheapest possible condoms on the market to kids so they don't have to manage the stigma of buying the damn things says or does anything useful for the conversation.

Beyond that...my goodness, we sit here and rail on schools to no end, and we actually think some 45-year-old sex ed teacher is going to reach these kids on this matter with a mid-line argument of "indulge your uncontrollable desires, but, please do it within reason?" I don't think schools should be involved at all, but the smartest play is an abstinence-only position; it's the most efficient, the least confusing and the least vulnerable to liability. We ask schools to do so much as it is; now we're asking them (again) to begin divining, often independently of parents the best way to hypothetically keep kids safe in a manner that measures up to your "the hidden pratfalls of reverse psychology" argument.

Nice rant. Now actually go back and read what I posted and try to understand it this time.

I said that preaching abstinence as the ONLY safe approach is the problem. But you ignored that part.

Do better, Alma. It would be a nice change of pace.

 

[Dick Whitman]

"Religion shouldn't guide policy decisions" does not mean that common ideals can't be found in both religion AND policy.

That's what I've been trying to say.

I don't care if Mike Huckabee's ideas about marriage are secretly influenced by Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Budhism, Hare Krishna, Paganism, or Hindu.

I only care if he can articulate a non-religion-based reason that happens to be scientifically supportable.

 

[king cranium maximus IV]

I gave away my V card in high school. So did my wife. We're currently in a stable and happy marriage.

Douthat, though? Dude has problems. Do a Google search for "Chunky Reese Witherspoon" if you want to know whether or not you deserve to be lectured by this scold.

 

[printdust]

"Religion shouldn't guide policy decisions" does not mean that common ideals can't be found in both religion AND policy.

That's what I've been trying to say.

I don't care if Mike Huckabee's ideas about marriage are secretly influenced by Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Budhism, Hare Krishna, Paganism, or Hindu.

I only care if he can articulate a non-religion-based reason that happens to be scientifically supportable.

Then as long as its an agnostic reason, you're happy, right? See, here we go again. One speaks from his experience of life lessons, which may happen to make common sense, I don't care who brings it...an athiest whose daughter didn't want to overpopulate the earth or a Christian who believes in abstinence as being a biblical teaching. I don't care either way.

 

[printdust]

We need to quit fearing the other side and work together on common ground or we're headed nowhere good.

 

[Dick Whitman]

"Religion shouldn't guide policy decisions" does not mean that common ideals can't be found in both religion AND policy.

That's what I've been trying to say.

I don't care if Mike Huckabee's ideas about marriage are secretly influenced by Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Budhism, Hare Krishna, Paganism, or Hindu.

I only care if he can articulate a non-religion-based reason that happens to be scientifically supportable.

Then as long as its an agnostic reason, you're happy, right? See, here we go again. One speaks from his experience of life lessons, which may happen to make common sense, I don't care who brings it...an athiest whose daughter didn't want to overpopulate the earth or a Christian who believes in abstinence as being a biblical teaching. I don't care either way.

Huh?

 

[printdust]

"Religion shouldn't guide policy decisions" does not mean that common ideals can't be found in both religion AND policy.

That's what I've been trying to say.

I don't care if Mike Huckabee's ideas about marriage are secretly influenced by Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Budhism, Hare Krishna, Paganism, or Hindu.

I only care if he can articulate a non-religion-based reason that happens to be scientifically supportable.

Then as long as its an agnostic reason, you're happy, right? See, here we go again. One speaks from his experience of life lessons, which may happen to make common sense, I don't care who brings it...an athiest whose daughter didn't want to overpopulate the earth or a Christian who believes in abstinence as being a biblical teaching. I don't care either way.

Huh?

You don't want to buy any argument or position that someone bases on religion, right? Then if it's agnostic - one that keeps religion out of the equation, then it just continues the divide. I said I don't care who brings the idea if it's a good idea no matter whether he is agnostic, athiest, Muslim or Christian, as long as it makes good common sense. Your comment sweeps any speckle of religion laced or based ideas out..throwing the baby out with the bathwater. That's how I took your post.

 

[Dick Whitman]

"Religion shouldn't guide policy decisions" does not mean that common ideals can't be found in both religion AND policy.

That's what I've been trying to say.

I don't care if Mike Huckabee's ideas about marriage are secretly influenced by Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Budhism, Hare Krishna, Paganism, or Hindu.

I only care if he can articulate a non-religion-based reason that happens to be scientifically supportable.

Then as long as its an agnostic reason, you're happy, right? See, here we go again. One speaks from his experience of life lessons, which may happen to make common sense, I don't care who brings it...an athiest whose daughter didn't want to overpopulate the earth or a Christian who believes in abstinence as being a biblical teaching. I don't care either way.

Huh?

You don't want to buy any argument or position that someone bases on religion, right? Then if it's agnostic - one that keeps religion out of the equation, then it just continues the divide. I said I don't care who brings the idea if it's a good idea no matter whether he is agnostic, athiest, Muslim or Christian, as long as it makes good common sense. Your comment sweeps any speckle of religion laced or based ideas out..throwing the baby out with the bathwater. That's how I took your post.

If it's a good idea, there will be proof to be found of that other than the pages of a 2,000-year-old work of creative nonfiction.

I'm not understanding your objection.

 

[printdust]

If a person supports abstinence on the notion of his faith, yet abstinence for sake of procreation is good, then what's wrong with him basing his support in that way?

 

[outofplace]

If a person supports abstinence on the notion of his faith, yet abstinence for sake of procreation is good, then what's wrong with him basing his support in that way?

Because then he is pushing his faith on others, which is a no-no in this country, as it should be.

 

[Dick Whitman]

If a person supports abstinence on the notion of his faith, yet abstinence for sake of procreation is good, then what's wrong with him basing his support in that way?

I don't care what he bases it on. But the Constitution does. If it's "good," then there should be real world evidence outside of religion to support that. Isn't the whole point of morality that following it leads to socially beneficial real-world results?

 

[printdust]

If a person supports abstinence on the notion of his faith, yet abstinence for sake of procreation is good, then what's wrong with him basing his support in that way?

I don't care what he bases it on. But the Constitution does. If it's "good," then there should be real world evidence outside of religion to support that. Isn't the whole point of morality that following it leads to socially beneficial real-world results?

I'm talking about your motivation for supporting something.

Murder. The Bible is against it.
Whoa! We can't have it!

OK, that's too obvious.

Abortion? The Bible is against it.
Whoa, we can't have that!
Wait, there's some evidence that women who have abortions suffer post-traumatic stress or depression or heavy guilt.

Or how about..
Congressional emphasis on diet.

The Bible shows that where Daniel ate vegetables instead of the King's menu, he and his men were healthier.
Oh, we can't have that!
Even if it limits our freedom of choice, healthy diets make sense.

Or maybe...
Women should wear head coverings in public because the Bible says so.
Oh wait, we can't have that!
You're probably right. Silly law.
But then Islam says you're discriminating against them and suddenly, all bets are off because after all, we can't rule against minority rights of any kind.

 

[Dick Whitman]

If a person supports abstinence on the notion of his faith, yet abstinence for sake of procreation is good, then what's wrong with him basing his support in that way?

I don't care what he bases it on. But the Constitution does. If it's "good," then there should be real world evidence outside of religion to support that. Isn't the whole point of morality that following it leads to socially beneficial real-world results?

I'm talking about your motivation for supporting something.

Murder. The Bible is against it.
Whoa! We can't have it!

OK, that's too obvious.

Abortion? The Bible is against it.
Whoa, we can't have that!
Wait, there's some evidence that women who have abortions suffer post-traumatic stress or depression or heavy guilt.

Thank you for proving my point.