Comments

1. Rayburne F. says on Jul 6, 2010 @ 08:35 AM:

   It just goes to confirm what I expressed previously on the topic "Christians Arrested at Arab Festival" regarding the unfavourable perception of humanistic, pluralistic secular society in general and the media and courts in particular regarding evangelical Christians who share their faith with others, only this time we are not merely dealing with religious expression and discrimination, but discrimination across the board as to the type of expression (economic, political, social, religious, etc.). Someone has said he can't see Christianity going anywhere. But I (and many others) can't see America going anywhere, except moral, political and economic chaos and disaster on their present course--and believe me, they are all related.
   

2. Rayburne F. says on Jul 6, 2010 @ 08:48 AM:

   Of course, Christianity is growing considerably in China and third world countries where there is severe persecution. That is something for our political and judicial leaders in society to seriously consider.

3. antybu86 says on Jul 6, 2010 @ 08:01 PM:

   I'm shocked that Craig disagrees with Justice Stevens. Does Craig seriously believe that the law school also must subsidize and support groups who discriminate against black people, women, etc.?

4. Mike says on Jul 7, 2010 @ 01:03 AM:

   The whole point of forming a group/club IS to discriminate! It's just meaningless to give a name to a subsection of the student body that has no distinction whatsoever.

   Plus it's simple to turn the question around and ask Justice Stevens if he thinks white people should be able to join the Asian, Black, Indian, etc. students' clubs. Should we force them to allow anyone to join? Does anyone care that they discriminate based on ethnicity? No! - the club is ABOUT ethnicity!

   This is actually just a perfect example of how political correctness leads to absurdity. Why don't we start a club for ethnic and religious tolerance and invite all the bigots to join?

5. antybu86 says on Jul 7, 2010 @ 01:59 AM:

   @Mike

   The school's policy seems completely reasonable to me. Why should students' money fund clubs which bar them from joining based on certain genetic pre-dispositions?

   Do you think the law school should also subsidize the KKK club?

   And yes, a white person should be allowed to join an Asian club. Why not? The club isn't about genetics, it's about culture.

6. Rayburne says on Jul 7, 2010 @ 06:23 AM:

   Mike is right about this being a perfect example of how political correctness leads to absurdity. The whole point of forming a club is to discriminate, as Mike said. Now I understand what Dr. Craig meant when he stated to the effect that you wouldn't believe the "reasoning" of some people who comment on this blog.

   Of course, Dr. Craig doesn't believe that the law school also must subsidize and support groups who discriminate against black people, women, etc.? Stick to the facts. We are not dealing with a racial or ethnic issue here. We are not dealing with some notorious racist and militant group such as the KKK, noted for spreading violence and hatred. We ARE dealing with freedom of religious expression (no hatred or homophobia here, so spare us the overtones of political correctness) regarding a certain lifestyle and disposition that many believe is not genetically fixed or predetermined and that Christians here, as well as many Muslims and Jews find offensive, versus political correctness. That is all. Dr. Craig's point that you can form a club that discriminates socially,culturally, politically, etc. but not religiously is well taken.

7. Rayburne F. says on Jul 7, 2010 @ 07:43 AM:

   Moreover, the Supreme Court' decision in this case rests entirely on a different principle of free-speech jurisprudence than the cherished and protected right to express the thoughts that we take, even though others may vehemently disagree with them. Rather, it rests on a principle that permits no freedom for expression that offends prevailing standards of political correctness. This is clearly substantiated by the fact stated in Justice Alito's strong dissent (backed by Justices Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas) that Hastings College of Law, a state institution that has more than 60 registered groups in all its history, has denied registration to exactly one--the Christian Legal Society.
   

8. KStret says on Jul 7, 2010 @ 05:53 PM:

   One of the main problems is the early progressive movement unpegged law schools from the constitution. Instead of studying the constitution, they started only studying case law. What matters is what the constitution says not judges decide. This gives progressives carte blanche to legislate from the bench and give their opinion instead of what the constitution says.
   This is where notion of the separation of church and state came from. Unfortunately, many people think that phrase is actually in the constitution. They took phrase from Jefferson who was assuring someone that the United States would not be setting up a Church of the United States. They flipped the first amendment on it's head to mean a freedom from religion. However, the founders meant the opposite and the fist amendment clearly states the freedom of religious expression. They wrote it to protect the churches from the government.
   It is from that mentality that progressives think about religion. If you add a dose of political correctness to that notion you get the prism that progressives see the world through. It is fine to built a mosque for Muslims on college grounds and at the same time ban a christian student group. However, it's easy to point of the hypocrisy of their views and that is why they aren't big fans of free speech.
   Justice Stevens notion that free speech doesn't count for divisive issues is appalling. Isn't that the whole point of free speech? You can say and hold opinions that might be divisive. The opinions of our founders were divisive to England.
   If you look at how they word their decisions, they make their decisions based on the law they want to passed or overturn and then cherry pick the rationale. They don't base their decision on the constitution.
   For example, the recent 5-4 decision that overturned the hand gun ban they used the rationale of states rights. By their own rationale, a state would then have the right to ban any part of the constitution that they wanted. Certain states could ban television shows and radio shows that they didn't like. That's the whole point of the constitution. It limits the power of the government.
   The supreme court is the end of the line. If it ends up at 5-4 liberal justices this country is done. If any one caught the highlights of supreme court nominee Elena Kagan there were a few frightening moments. She was asked if the government had the power to ban books and if the government could force you to eat thee servings of fruits and vegetables each day. Anyone with half a brain in their head would answer that the government does not have that power. Kagan would not answer the question.
   I would like to believe that this decision is an aberration. However, I believe this is how they will ultimately destroy christian churches. By passing a hate speech law, they can go after Christians for their position on homosexuality and the view that the only way to God is by Jesus. That opinion is divisive.....

9. KStret says on Jul 7, 2010 @ 06:07 PM:

   antybu86,
   The whole point of freedom of speech is it applies to all speech. That includes opinions that we may find repulsive. While I don't agree with the KKK or Nazis, they have the right to say what they want and to assemble as long as they aren't breaking the law. There is no provision in the constitution that is a freedom not to be offended.
   It's funny you bring up groups like the KKK. There is a student Muslim group that David Horowitz recently had appalling exchange with. Horowitz asked one of their members if they agreed with the statement that Hamas made about hoping all the Jews go back to Israel so they don't have to hunt them down around the globe. The member agreed with the statement. In other words, they are for the genocide of the Jewish people, yet they still have a student group. There are also communist and Marxist groups as well. Communism and Marxism is responsible for hundred of millions of murders. Unfortunately, the majority of college professors have opinions that are more consistent with Marx than the founders of this country.

10. Andrew says on Jul 7, 2010 @ 08:22 PM:

    @antybu86

    You clearly don't understand what Dr. Craig has said. Put it this way, if you are part of a group designed to prevent discrimination then surely you wouldn't want a leader who was a blatant bigot!

    But this is in essence what you're supporting!

    ...it pays to think

11. humphreys says on Jul 9, 2010 @ 03:34 AM:

    "Why should students' money fund clubs which bar them from joining based on certain genetic pre-dispositions?"

    But the club in question isn't banning people because of their genetic predispositions but their beliefs - or am I missing something?

12. Rayburne F. says on Jul 9, 2010 @ 11:31 AM:

    That is right, Humphreys. It is because of their religious beliefs that the Christian Legal Society has this code of conduct, not the other way around. This is not rocket science. You can form an environmental club that excludes those who do not believe in global warming, an animal rights club that excludes those who believe it is okay to experiment on animals, a pro-abortion club that excludes those who believe abortion is murder, etc. but not a Christian Legal Society club that believes the gay lifestyle is morally wrong and offensive. The requirements for membership that excludes some in each case is primarily because of the belief in question, nothing else--and therefore it is a blatant violation of freedom of speech or expression (in this case religious freedom of speech or belief) for Hastings College of Law, a state institution,
    to grant registration to more than 60 registered groups in all its history, but deny same to exactly one--the Christian Legal Society.

13. robaylesbury says on Jul 9, 2010 @ 08:51 PM:

    Why would anybody wish to discriminate over an individuals sexual orientation?

14. Tim says on Jul 10, 2010 @ 01:47 PM:

    Hi robaylesbury,
    It is not a case of discrimination. It is a case of sinfulness. That is not to say that we aren't all sinful and requiring of God's forgiveness through the death and resurrection of Jesus, it is simply that to engage in a homosexual relationship is not repenting from that sin.

    From the biblical perspective you can see it from Genesis 1 onwards -27 So God created man in his own image,
    in the image of God he created him;
    rmale and female he created them.
    28 And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” God intended for a relationship between men and women and in outlines the sinfulness (Disobedience of God) concerning sexuality in Leviticus 18. Romans 1:18-32 puts it in perspective.

    In essence it is not so much the act as the continuous act without repentance. But the same could be said of other types of sin as well EG: Marital unfaithfulness, greed, idolatry (Putting anything before God); We're all guilty and in need of forgiveness and justification.
    Shalom

15. robaylesbury says on Jul 10, 2010 @ 06:13 PM:

    Here's what PZ Myers has to say about a recent example of theistic lunacy over sexuality. I have cut and pasted directly.

    "Kenneth Howell was an adjunct professor at the University of Illinois. He is not being rehired at the end of his contract, apparently because he has been accused of hate speech against gays by a student. He had written an email to his students defending the Catholic position on homosexuality, and a friend of one of the students wrote to the university and the media accusing the professor of "hate speech", of "indoctrinating students", and "limiting the marketplace of ideas".

    I hate to say it, but I think the student was wrong. I read the professor's email, and I don't think it is hate speech at all.

    It's stupid speech.

    A letter that condemned students, that threatened students if they didn't agree with his views, that discriminated against a segment of society, or that denied people full participation in the culture for their views or background or private practices…that would be hate speech. This letter, though, is a pedantic and polite explanation of the views of the professor and of the Catholic church and of his interpretation of utilitarianism, and in fact is careful to say that he isn't condemning any individuals. We can't endorse using this kind of discussion as an excuse to expel people from academia — we want professors and students to be able to communicate freely with one another, without fear of retaliation. I see no sign that the professor was discussing the matter in a way that disrespects any of his students.

    And the student complaining was doing so poorly. The professor's ideas made him uncomfortable. He disliked what he said. He thought the professor was insensitive.

    Those are not good reasons. If a student is never made uncomfortable, that student is not getting an education.

    Bad reasons are given, but I still think UI made the right decision in not renewing this guy's contract. Kenneth Howell is in ignorant fool who mistakes his religious dogma and his personal prejudices for knowledge.

    Here's an example. Keep in mind that this fellow is a professor, supposedly teaching college students something about philosophy. Here he's trying to explain why homosexuality is wrong.

    But the more significant problem has to do with the fact that the consent criterion is not related in any way to the NATURE of the act itself. This is where Natural Moral Law (NML) objects. NML says that Morality must be a response to REALITY. In other words, sexual acts are only appropriate for people who are complementary, not the same. How do we know this? By looking at REALITY. Men and women are complementary in their anatomy, physiology, and psychology. Men and women are not interchangeable. So, a moral sexual act has to be between persons that are fitted for that act. Consent is important but there is more than consent needed.

    One example applicable to homosexual acts illustrates the problem. To the best of my knowledge, in a sexual relationship between two men, one of them tends to act as the "woman" while the other acts as the "man." In this scenario, homosexual men have been known to engage in certain types of actions for which their bodies are not fitted. I don't want to be too graphic so I won't go into details but a physician has told me that these acts are deleterious to the health of one or possibly both of the men. Yet, if the morality of the act is judged only by mutual consent, then there are clearly homosexual acts which are injurious to their health but which are consented to. Why are they injurious? Because they violate the meaning, structure, and (sometimes) health of the human body.

    REALITY, huh?

    Here's reality. A penis fits nicely in the hand, and a hand is usually better at stimulating the clitoris than a penis in the vagina, and our anatomy is such that our arms are of the right length to comfortably reach our genitals. Therefore, masturbation is a moral sexual act. We can extend this to point out that a man's hand can stimulate a clitoris and a woman's hand can stimulate a penis, and therefore, mutual masturbation, as is being practiced by tens of thousands of teenagers on this Friday night, is also a rightful act. There is no practical difference in anatomy or physiology between mutual masturbation between a heterosexual couple and a homosexual couple, so these acts are also entirely natural.

    This reasoning can be extended to a great many sexual acts: oral and anal sex, frottage of various kinds, fantasy play, sadomasochism, etc. There are more aspects of male and female anatomy in which they are alike than in which they differ, and in fact the only act which can be uniquely performed by a male and female couple is penile-vaginal intercourse. So this one act out of many is all that this professor can point to in order to justify heterosexuality as the only proper interaction, but this requires ignoring the majority of human sexual behaviors. I have to wonder if all Catholic teaching permits in the bedroom is genital-genital contact. How sad for them.

    Complementarity is also an invalid requirement. Men have lips and a tongue; women have lips and a tongue. It seems to me that a lot of heterosexual couples acquire a great deal of pleasure from kissing, despite the fact that the anatomy of that portion of their bodies is largely interchangeable (in an abstract sense, of course). Is this wrongful? Or are we forced to agree that the equivalent kissing between two men or two women cannot be judged by the nature of the act to be in violation of natural moral law?

    I would entirely agree with Howell on one point: complementarity of the psychology of the two sexual partners is an important part of healthy sex. Unfortunately for his premise, psychology is not so strictly sorted with the genitalia; just as there are many women and even more men with whom I would be miserable and stressed to share a bed, there are people who have a great deal of difficulty finding the necessary complementarity of desire in partners of a different sex. This should be the most important criterion in a sexual partner, whether you can find joy together, and it's often independent of all that meat below the neck. Although that stuff helps. And the brain often finds arousal in surprising places.

    Howell's ideas about homosexual practices are embarrassingly ignorant. He doesn't know, so why does he profess to know? This myth that homosexuality involves taking the roles of man and woman is one of the oldest and silliest claims around — it's not usually true (although it can be, since sex seems to throw out all our rules and expectations). Gay men are attracted to men, lesbians are attracted to women, not to clumsy impersonations of the sex they are less interested in.

    Homosexuals and heterosexuals do not engage in actions for which their bodies are not fitted. If they don't fit, they can't do them. I mean, really.

    The health argument is completely wrong. Many homosexuals will engage only in the kinds of activities that heterosexuals would call heavy petting — this obviously isn't a problem. That good Christian homosexual, George Rekers, reportedly achieved arousal and orgasm from massage and a "long stroke" which did not involve extensive genital contact at all. And most of the sexual activities carried out by gay men are also carried out by heterosexual men with their female partners. You just can't isolate gay practices as unnatural without also condemning a great many heterosexual practices.

    Also, if we're going to judge the rightness of a sex act by its health consequences, then lesbians are the most natural and moral of us all. They have the least risk of transmission of sexual diseases, do the least physical damage to each other's delicate tissues, and are not going to get each other pregnant, which has incredibly deleterious effects on a woman's health. In fact, the worst thing you can do to a woman sexually in terms of her health is for a man to put his penis in her vagina. Talk about violating the structure and health of a human body!

    Of course, later in his silly letter Howell tries to claim that sexual reality is all tied up in procreation and cusses out that great Catholic evil, contraception. Again, he has a blinkered view of sex: some of the best reasons to have it are love and fun. But then, Catholics always seem to forget those.

    I think it entirely reasonable to boot Kenneth Howell out of UI because he's not very bright and doesn't meet the intellectual standards I expect of UI professors. Of course, part of the reason for his weird shortcomings is the fact that he's a professor of religion who is spitting up Catholic dogma, and one big problem is that a respected major university is offering courses in Catholicism taught by its adherents as serious philosophy, rather than teaching it as cultural anthropology by someone who can maintain a little distance from its weird precepts. Kick Howell out, but send the Catholic theologians packing right after him."

    Now let's move on, people.

16. robaylesbury says on Jul 10, 2010 @ 06:21 PM:

    For what it is worth, I'm a heterosexual male married to a beautiful wife with two staggeringly beautiful daughters.

17. J.C. says on Jul 10, 2010 @ 08:04 PM:

    @robaylesbury
    I don't know all the facts, but it's more than likely that the Christian Legal Society was excluding practicing homosexuals, and not those of homosexual orientation. IMO, that's a biblical approach for a Christian club to exclude on the bases of homosexuality, given that having a homosexual orientation is not sinful, while homosexual acts are.

18. robaylesbury says on Jul 10, 2010 @ 08:51 PM:

    What do you mean by homosexual act?

19. Rayburne F. says on Jul 11, 2010 @ 12:40 PM:

    Rob.. ask the question: "Why would anybody wish to discriminate over an individuals sexual orientation?" From what was said previously in regard to the Christian Legal Sooiety case, this is obviously the wrong question. What he should have asked is: "Why would anybody believe that some sexual "orientation" ( "disorientation is more accurate since many believe gay behaviour is not geneticall fixed or predetermined) is morally wrong and offensive?

    To enlarge on Tim's answer (which was good) we sin habitually or naturally commit acts of sin (whether it be sins of homosexual behaviour, adultery, insest, drunkeness, stealing, lieing, etc.) because we are sinners by nature and by choice according to God's Word. It is not a question of the degree or seriousness of the act of sin. All sin separates us from God and His righteousnes according to scripture-3:22-23)-which is why we all need to repent or turn away from sin in faith to Jesus Christ Who, by His grace and mercy and the free gift of His Spirit and righteousness in the new (spiritual) birth (John 3:3; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Ephesians 2:1)can give us the moral and spiritual power or ability to overcome the corrupting power and bondage of sin (not its presence) to live a victorious Christian life in the power of the indwelling Spirit.

    If there is genuine repentance and faith (one can make a false profession, which is nothing more than intellectual assent) there will definitely be hearfelt continual repentance and confession when we do sin.

    Nature itself, not just scripture, tells us that to use the body's waste system as a form of sexual desire and expression is not only detrimental to personal health and hygine, but also morally wrong and offensive--therefore spare us all the details.

20. robaylesbury says on Jul 11, 2010 @ 01:01 PM:

    Ray, I do not feel that Christian morality has anything to bring to the table when it comes to guidance on sexual morality.

21. J.C. says on Jul 11, 2010 @ 01:17 PM:

    @ robaylesbury:

    A homosexual act would be where erotic relations are done with one (or more) of the same sex. Erotic relations would be things like four play (kissing, sexually touching/rubbing, and etc) masturbating the other partner, and having intercourse. IMO, though this could be more controversial, I'd even argue things without physical contact such as phone sex and 'dirty' talk with one of the same sex would fall into homosexual acts.

    The homosexual act would be sin and not homosexual orientation. Scripture only teaches the acts of homosexuality are sinful. To say homosexual orientation in Jewish and Greek antiquity would be anachronistic, for in that time they only discerned homosexuality with the acts people would engage in.

22. J.C. says on Jul 11, 2010 @ 01:25 PM:

    *shakes head* Typo, it should be 'forplay.'

23. J.C. says on Jul 11, 2010 @ 01:29 PM:

    *shakes head even more in embarrassment* Typo, for the typo, should be 'foreplay.' LOL Finally, got it right.

24. KStret says on Jul 11, 2010 @ 01:48 PM:

    Rob,
    "I hate to say it, but I think the student was wrong. I read the professor's email, and I don't think it is hate speech at all."

    So if it was "Hate speech" that isn't constitutionally protected? Who gets to determine what is hate speech and what isn't?

    "Bad reasons are given, but I still think UI made the right decision in not renewing this guy's contract. Kenneth Howell is in ignorant fool who mistakes his religious dogma and his personal prejudices for knowledge."

    That still sends the same message. If you say something that isn't politically correct, your fired.

    On your Homosexual comments you are missing the point I made in our other discussion for a naturalistic point of view. As I pointed out to you before, to survive, a species needs eat and reproduce. Homosexuals have lost the ability to reproduce. They are only attracted to the same sex. Therefore, from a naturalistic point of view, homosexuality has to be abnormal. That could could be due to metal problems or a genetic abnormality.

    "do the least physical damage to each other's delicate tissues, and are not going to get each other pregnant, which has incredibly deleterious effects on a woman's health. In fact, Talk about violating the structure and health of a human body"

    So what you are saying is that it's unnatural for a woman to get pregnant? Is there another way a woman should get pregnant? Let's play your logic chain out: It is harmful for Woman to get pregnant. Ok, so if women don't get pregnant, where will humans be on the planet in 100 years? Gone. Let's try another logic chain. What would happen if the whole world turned gay? Where will humans be on the planet in 100 years? Gone. It's probably safe to say that it is unnatural for women not to get pregnant and not to have babies. What about when the planet turns gay? From a naturalistic prospective that would be unnatural too.

    
    The second problem is you are ignoring the aveage life expectancy of a homosexual male. At one point the age was about 35 years old. It's probably a bit higher now due to more knowledge about the AIDS disease. However, You still run into the problem of a incredibly high rates of suicide, partner on partner violence, STDs, and drug abuse. Despite the political arm of the homosexual movement's PR campaign to convince people that homosexuals are the same as straight people, the statistics prove otherwise. From a naturalistic prospective homosexuality isn't a healthy life style.

    For example, if you look at the average rate of sexual partners a homosexual has, it's almost unbelievable. The amount of sex they have amounts to a full time job. You are going to accuse me of hate speech or buying to anti homosexual propaganda. I didn't believe the number at first. I was taking a journalism class when the teacher mentioned the same thing and she was a big liberal. The number was so large that she didn't believe it either but got conformation from several sources.

    Then there is the naturalistic problem with the type of sex they have. Christopher Hitchens in one of his debates pointed out cannibalism violates natural law. Cultures that engage in Cannibalism all tend to get a certain disease or illness. In other words, there is a naturalistic reason not to engage in cannibalism. There is a certain sex act that you are guaranteed to get a disease from, that most homosexuals engage in. Despite arguing that not all homosexuals engage in this act, the large amount of deaths and high disease rate proves that contention wrong.

    That is ignoring the irrational case they make for same sex marriage, taking away parents right to teach their own kids what they want about homosexuality, violating the law and constitution by passing same sex marriage and forcing people to accept them whether they like it or not.

    You are again singling out religion and ignoring the naturalistic problems with homosexuality.

25. robaylesbury says on Jul 11, 2010 @ 01:52 PM:

    The sexual choices of consenting adults is not a concern to me unless these result in the non consensual harm of other creatures.

    If you wish to hold an alternative view then I've no objection. As an aside, I work for the Police and one of my job functions is as a crime recorder. I can confirm that amongst consenting adults none of the practices you refer to are illegal.

    These are life choices. That these may offend the religious sensibilities of a diminishing subset of society is neither here nor there.

26. KStret says on Jul 11, 2010 @ 01:58 PM:

    JC
    "Scripture only teaches the acts of homosexuality are sinful."

    I believe it isn't just a sin, scripture calls it an abomination.

27. KStret says on Jul 11, 2010 @ 02:06 PM:

    Rob,
    "The sexual choices of consenting adults is not a concern to me unless these result in the non consensual harm of other creatures"

    Obviously by your previous comments, that isn't true. You are also ignoring the mental harm that sex can have on people. If you addressed this response to my comments, you ignored everything I said.

28. robaylesbury says on Jul 11, 2010 @ 02:23 PM:

    Kstret,

    I see no good reason to respond to your bigotry. I am content to let it speak for itself.

29. J.C. says on Jul 11, 2010 @ 02:36 PM:

    @ robaylesbury

    The libertarian in me says if you wish to engage in those acts than that's your prerogative (though, as a Christian, I think such acts should be discouraged), however that doesn't mean I can't believe those acts are still wrong, even with those acts being legal. Becoming a drunk and being sexually promiscuous are both legal, but that doesn't mean I think those things are not sinful.

    @ KStret

    You need to be careful about homosexuality and it being naturally (in context of naturalism) abnormal. There are possible studies that could show certain species have homosexuals in the gene pool and these homosexuals will help fulfill parental duties with other members in the gene pool, thereby passing on it's traits that way. Though, this is speculative and I don't know if anyone has been able to prove this with humans. It would be a big leap to say since some insects do this, that means humans do it as well. If this were true the naturalistic abnormality you allude to with regards to homosexuality would become the is/ought fallacy, I think.

    @KStret

    Yes, Scripture does say it's [homosexual acts] an abomination. However, for the purposes of my writing noting that it is sin was enough to make a point.

30. robaylesbury says on Jul 11, 2010 @ 04:36 PM:

    I would just like to comment on the nonsense argument concerning what is natural and what is not.

    Is celibacy natural?
    Is contraception natural?

    Just two examples, but they serve to make the wider point.

    And as I have stated before, the Bible is a miserable guide to sexual ethics, and morality in general.

31. robaylesbury says on Jul 11, 2010 @ 05:16 PM:

    And as for the "mental harm" issue I am troubled that any theist dares to use this argument, all the more so in light of the effects that the repression of healthy sexuality has had on the Catholic Church. Combine this with the demonisation of perfectly natural sexual desires in teens and adults such as masturbation then is it any wonder Christianity so successfully churns out an elite army of sexually disfunctional adults year on year?

32. J.C. says on Jul 11, 2010 @ 06:09 PM:

    @ robaylesbury

    We're getting quite sidetracked from the original point of this blog post, in that the Christian Legal Society is having to accept people who don't accept basic Christian tenets, in that homosexual acts are sinful.

    I'm not exactly sure about why you brought forth contraceptives for their are a large number of Christians, e.g. Catholics, who disprove of contraceptives. However...

    Is loving your enemies natural?
    Is turning the other cheek natural?
    Is caring for the widows and orphans natural?

    These are a few examples that show the Bible is not a miserable guide to morality. With regards to sexual morality, the Bible says, as I'm sure you know, sexual relations is meant for the marriage covenant. Biblically speaking within a marriage there should be no infidelity... "Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure." With regards to the acts that can be engaged by a husband and wife, that will be up to the husband and wife to decide.

33. robaylesbury says on Jul 11, 2010 @ 06:40 PM:

    J.C

    The golden rule predates Christianity by several hundred years. The three examples you cite come neatly under its umbrella.

    I absolutely agree that we've strayed from the original point of the blog post, though.

34. Rayburne F. says on Jul 11, 2010 @ 07:05 PM:

    Rob says:"Ray, I do not feel that Christian morality has anything to bring to the table when it comes to guidance on sexual morality."

    Rob..it would largely depend upon whether abuse of Christian morality (as taught in God's Word) was, in fact, committed by Christians, wouldn't it? Many would contend that the terrible abuse and sexual scandal committed by priests (i.e. both in Canada's Northern Native schools and the Catholic Church) were,in fact, committed by those who were complete strangers to God's grace and power to deliver from the corrupting power of sin. The same could be said in the case of scandals in some protestant churches. That, of course, is not to imply that Christians cannot fall into sexual sin, but let's not generalize that all such behaviour is "Christian" simply because these people call themselves "Christian" and identify with a "Christian" church.

    JC says:"Scripture only teaches the acts of homosexuality are sinful." Really? Read all of 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. In this context, it is clear that scripture does not separate the act from the person committing the act. "Adulters are included among the unrighteous who shall not inherit the kingdom of God because they commit (practice habitually) adultery. Idolaters because they commit idolatry,thieves because they steal, drunkards because they get drunk. The reason for this condemnation has to do with what the person is, not just what he/she does (by nature a sinner). We sin because we are sinners (we commit adultery, idolatry, thiefts because we are adulters, idolaters, thieves at heart, etc. You see, from God's point of view of the natural unregenerate sinner (James 2:10-12; Ist John 3:8) if you have told a lie, than you are a liar; if you have committed adultery, than you are an adulterer: "For whoever shall keep the whole law (the moral law of God or ten Commandments) and yet offend in one point (that is to say, break one of these commandments) he is guilty of all" (James 2:10-12). "Little children, let no man deceive you: he that practices righteousness (habitually) is righteous." (1 John 3:7).

    "Bigotry" is not determined by whether or not one believes the Bible no more than the the abuse of the Bible's teachings on morality determines whether or not it is true. When it comes to morality, I would much prefer (and so would millions of others) that my children chose to conform (we are all conforming to something) to the biblical standard of morality than that of society and the world at large. I hope that doesn't make mus all bigots, but if it does , so be it. Personally, I would rather endure the scorn and contempt of the world than God's righteous anger and judgment upon sin.

35. robaylesbury says on Jul 11, 2010 @ 07:27 PM:

    I hear what you say, Ray, and recognise your right to practice a morality of your choosing. I ask only that you extend that freedom of choice to others and refrain from seeking to impose a value system that many regard as insufficently robust to address the complex issues facing society today.

36. J.C. says on Jul 11, 2010 @ 08:19 PM:

    @ robaylesbury

    The thing is I wasn't arguing if it came before Christianity, though in this case the golden rule and the like are found in the Torah as well. What I argued is that the Bible does have morality in it. It was you who said the Bible was a "miserable guide" to morality in general. There are several examples throughout the Bible that shows how we should live our life pleasing to God. More examples would be not showing favoritism, not persecuting aliens, tending to the poor, giving generously, not coveting, and etc.

    However, we've digressed a little too much, and we can leave it on this note.

37. Rayburne F. says on Jul 12, 2010 @ 05:03 AM:

    I think it was very clear that I am not trying to force my morality on anyone. That is a common canard that skeptics and unbelievers have about Christians. I once made a long comment on how the Bible and Christians have contributed to society in general and the world at large. I'm sure you don't want to hear it again.The world may change and be complex, but sinful human nature, Rob..has not changed. The Bible was a trustworthy guide for morality and hope of the life to come for our forefathers--and millions today from all ethnic and religious backgrounds have discovered this for themselves. Take care.

38. robaylesbury says on Jul 14, 2010 @ 03:06 AM:

    And billions more have discovered they can live fruitful, positive, enriching lives without the need for religion at all.

39. KStret says on Jul 14, 2010 @ 04:27 PM:

    Rob,
    "I see no good reason to respond to your bigotry. I am content to let it speak for itself."

    Here is typical liberal debate tactic 101. When you can't respond to the substance of someones argument; name call. Bigotry means disagreeing with you, pointing out facts and the flaws in your argument.

    "And as for the "mental harm" issue I am troubled that any theist dares to use this argument, all the more so in light of the effects that the repression of healthy sexuality "

    What is healthy sexuality? If repression is bad what about the opposite end of the spectrum of hyper sexuality? Is that healthy?
    For example, do you think someone who go to an orgy comes out of it feeling good about themselves? No they don't.That harms them mentally regardless of your sexual orientation. Often times, the people who are the most promiscuous have really screwed up childhoods and they have issues that they are not dealing with. That tends to goes against the "if no one gets hurt and it feels good do it" argument. Where did the "if no one gets hurt" argument come from? Are sexual injuries common? How often are you in the emergency room and run into someone tearing their ACL ligament having sex? Are there Doctors who specialize in sexual injuries? That is such a bad argument. It totally ignores the mental aspect of the person.

40. KStret says on Jul 14, 2010 @ 04:32 PM:

    J.C,
    "The libertarian in me says if you wish to engage"

    I tend to have of a libertarian view on homosexuality as well. That means if you want to live a certain way, be my guest. The problem is the homosexual political movement want to force people to accept them. You have a right to live a certain way but you don't have the right to force people to accept you or deem your behavior as normal. We are designed a certain way, if you want to live contrary to that way, it is common sense to see that 98% of the population do not live the way that you do.
    Then there is the issue of attempting to brainwash young children by teaching it in school. They are teaching it to kids who are literally in kindergarten and it gets more and more graphic as they progress in the school system.
    The way they are implementing same sex marriage in most cases is anti constitutional. I also have a problem with the flawed logic that goes along with support for same sex marriage. Redefining marriage is a right. However, it's only a right for homosexuals. Point out these things as Rob previously pointed out is homophobic bigotry.

    
    "You need to be careful about homosexuality and it being naturally (in context of naturalism) abnormal. There are possible studies that could show certain species have homosexuals in the gene pool and these homosexuals"

    Another problem I have is much like many of the political issues today homosexuality is discussed in a one dimensional way. For example, it occurs in nature when the opposite sex of the species is non existent and also as a sign of dominance. When species are reintroduced to the opposite sex they go back to normal. Animals that use it to dominate are not exclusively gay.

41. robaylesbury says on Jul 14, 2010 @ 05:34 PM:

    It is clearly important to ensure that we offer informed, balanced sexual education to young adults. I am sometimes concerned that sexual education starts too soon. it saddens me when I see the premature sexualisation of our kids. Those childhood years are precious.

    However, when adolescence is reached, we must educate with honesty, clarity, and in such a way that does not marginalise young adults whom may be battling to come to terms with their fledgling sexuality. There must always be an open door of communication, and above all we must never be afraid to listen. To be sure, there would appear to be a balance to strike between excessive promiscuity and the terrible, destructive repression that religion, at it's worst, can instil in young minds.

    Perhaps through dialogue, empathy, attentiveness, and a willingness to engage we can help adolescents travel what can be a difficult road to informed, reasoned adulthood.

42. KStret says on Jul 14, 2010 @ 05:59 PM:

    Rob,
    "Perhaps through dialogue, empathy, attentiveness, and a willingness to engage we can help adolescents travel what can be a difficult road to informed, reasoned adulthood."

    There are many flaws with this line of reasoning.
    1. It assumes teens are little adults and reasonable. You are dealing with the mentality of being grounded on Friday night is the worst thing in the world that can happen. They are giant toddlers not adults. They are not responsible for themselves and in many case can't be responsible enough to take out the trash. If they are not responsible for themselves and being grounded amounts to the apocalypse , they shouldn't be having sex
    2. You are taking away a parents right to teach thier own kids about sex. It is not up to the schools. It's an elitist mentality. I know better than the children's parents.

43. robaylesbury says on Jul 15, 2010 @ 01:31 AM:

    Sweeping generalisations.

44. Miles says on Jul 15, 2010 @ 07:28 AM:

    So William Lane Craig believes that discrimination is a good thing, or only when it applies to Christianity? Discrimination is never a good thing and the University in question has every right to refuse funding to a group which discriminates against people NOT on their ability to function in the group and their skills etc but on something as inane as their sexuality which really is very barbaric; I like to think that Christianity as a whole has moved forward. The church of England over here is more excepting of all peoples than they use to be but William Lane Craig's supporting of the rights of religion to discriminate against peoples whom no other person could discriminate against legally simply because it is a religion makes me wonder how William Lane Craig gained all this respect when he is clearly setting back the moving forward of the Churches to becoming more accepting.

45. KStret says on Jul 15, 2010 @ 04:29 PM:

    Rob,
    "Sweeping generalisations"

    In other words, you don't have a rebuttal. I would add

    3. There is absolutely no reason to have sex ed. The reasoning they give to force secular progressive values on our children is fallacious.They use the predictable emergency argument to force their values on our kids. There is an AIDS epidemic. The problem is despite the scare tactics, AIDs never hit the straight community as it did the gay community. Then there is an emergency because of teen pregnancy. However, despite teaching kids to experiment and have as much sex as you can as long as they are taught to put a condoms on a banana, it has not done a thing. Why? When do kids have sex? When they are drunk. As I pointed out in my previous post, teens are giant toddlers. They have poor impulse control. That coupled with alcohol make their impulse control even worse. If teens have the opportunity to have sex and they don't have a condom, they are going to have sex anyway, despite what they teach in sex ed.
    Here is another example, In Gloucester Massachusetts about 20 girls all decided they wanted to get pregnant. Why? So their kids can all grow up together. Despite having the secular progressive sex ed classes, they decided to get pregnant anyway. This is how teens think.
    What a great idea it would be to have all their friends pregnant at the same time. They have an instant gratification mentality but they are unable to see how their life will change.
    They don't realize that they can't sleep 15 hours a day anymore or when all their friends are going out to a party, they have to stay home. The girls think the guy that got them pregnant is going to stick around. In most cases, it doesn't work out. They don't understand the effect that a broken home has on a child's psyche. They don't have the mental capacity of adults. Sex is not the equivalent of shaking someones hand. Whether you want to admit it or not, having sex with no strings attached or emotional connection is harmful to someones mental state. To couple that with the undeveloped mental state of teens is even more harmful.

46. KStret says on Jul 15, 2010 @ 04:31 PM:

    Miles,
    "So William Lane Craig believes that discrimination is a good thing, or only when it applies to Christianity?"

    So if there is a college homosexual group they should not be allowed to discriminate against Christians who believe homosexuality is a sin? An African American group should be forced to let the KKK attend their meetings as well. Likewise, a global warming group should include people who think global warming is a fraud. Republicans should let democrats attend and vise versa.
    Also, Why is it that Christian groups are targeted but not Muslim groups?

47. robaylesbury says on Jul 16, 2010 @ 08:38 AM:

    No sex education!!

    Keep talking, Kstret. You're doing all my work for me.

    Incidentally, abstinence programs delay intercourse by only a few months, or has that research gone under the radar?

    You appear to underestimate everyone besides yourself. It must be great being you.

48. robaylesbury says on Jul 16, 2010 @ 09:33 AM:

    The article below contains some empirical data that may be of interest to those whom have an interest how our young should be educated. The Dutch, as research has shown time and time again, appear to have developed a positive, sensible, reasoned strategy.

    "The teenage pregnancy rate in Holland is only one-fifth as high as that of the UK – only five births per 1,000 teenagers compared to the UK's 27. Its abortion rate per teenage head of the population is also one of the lowest in Europe. The approach to sex education, though, in a country where pupils are as likely as not to walk through an authorised red-light district on their way to school is very different. Yes, children can discuss sex during their primary school years but it is discussed in an atmosphere of talking about relationships and caring and respect for others.

    As Siebe Heutzepeter, headteacher of De Burght school in Amsterdam, puts it: "The English are embarrassed to talk about sex. They are too squeamish. Here adults and children are better educated. It would be unthinkable for a Dutch parent to withdraw their child from sex education. I have only had one Muslim mother who left halfway through a parents' talk on sex." He added: "There is no point in telling children just to say 'no' – this is a liberal country: you need to tell them why they are saying 'no' and when to say 'yes'.

    The whole article can be perused by pasting the following link into he address bar.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/extras/big-question/the-big-question-why-are-teenage-pregnancy-rates-so-high-and-what-can-be-done-about-it-1623828.html

49. falco says on Jul 16, 2010 @ 07:38 PM:

    Interesting will read more.

50. KStret says on Jul 16, 2010 @ 09:27 PM:

    Students Allegedly Ordered to Stop Praying Outside Supreme Court Building
    By Todd Starnes

    Published July 15, 2010
    | FoxNews.com

    Print Email Share Comments (580) Text Size

    AP

    
    A group of Christian students was allegedly ordered to stop praying outside the U.S. Supreme Court building on May 5 because a court police officer told them it was against the law.

    The students were part of a junior high school American History class at Wickenburg Christian Academy in Arizona. After taking pictures on the steps of the Supreme Court building, their teacher gathered them to a side location where they formed a circle and began to pray.

    According to Nate Kellum, senior counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund, a police officer “abruptly” interrupted the prayer and ordered the group to cease and desist.

    “They were told to stop praying because they were violating the law and they had to take their prayer elsewhere,” Kellum told FOX News Radio.

    A spokesperson for the Court said the Marshal of the Court will look into the events alleged by the ADF.

    “The Court does not have a policy prohibiting prayer,” said public information officer Kathy Arberg in an email to FOX News Radio.

    So the group of 15 students and seven adults left the Supreme Court and relocated to a sidewalk – where Rigo said the children stood in a gutter – and continued their prayer.

51. KStret says on Jul 16, 2010 @ 10:16 PM:

    Rob,
    "Keep talking, Kstret. You're doing all my work for me."

    In other words, you do not have a rebuttal. You are using the same type of emergency hyperbolic arguments. The sky will fall if we don't teach sex ed. We can't let parents teach their own kids about sex...we know better than they do and it takes a village. By taking a village, they mean taking away a parents rights.

    It's also kind odd that when the sex-ed policy fails, the next step is to hand out condoms, give girls as young as 11 years old birth control hormones, and pregnancy tests with out their parents knowledge.

    A child has to get a parent's signature to take an aspirin in school but a parent doesn't need to know that their daughter is taking a hormone that they gave her? If someones child is caught drinking, doing drugs, getting a failing grade, or skipping school, the parents are notified but the parents do not need to know that their kid is attempting to or having sex?

    Do you remember the example I gave with the teen pregnancy pact in Gloucester Massachusetts? They were down at the school nurse many times taking pregnancy tests but their parents were not notified. What would have happened if the parents were notified? Most likely, there would have been very few pregnancies. Why? because teenagers aren't little adults and the teenage girls wouldn't have been let out of their houses. It's called being grounded or being pulled out of the school.
    
    Now you are on to selective study posting. You can make a study show what ever you want, especially when it the subject isn't particularly scientific but a social science (which is an oxymoron). I can a post a study that refutes your study. Then you can post another study that refutes mine and we can do that until the end of the world.

    Look at the comments they are making in your study. They clearly are biased, have an agenda, and are not strictly going by the study. They are interpreting it and giving their own opinion and commentary.

    "The approach to sex education, though, in a country where pupils are as likely as not to walk through an authorised red-light district on their way to school is very different. Yes, children can discuss sex during their primary school years but it is discussed in an atmosphere of talking about relationships and caring and respect for others. As Siebe Heutzepeter, headteacher of De Burght school in Amsterdam, puts it: "The English are embarrassed to talk about sex. They are too squeamish. Here adults and children are better educated."

    I could post a study showing the same thing with an abstinence only policy. If they were making comments with the exact opposite opinion with the same type of biased comments, you would dismiss it. Yet, it ok for you to post studies that agree with your position. I am sorry but study posting doesn't prove a thing. All you are doing is attempting deflect posting a rebuttal to my points by posting a study that agrees with you.

    Here is a problem for your side. They have been aggressively pushing these kind of policies in Africa. The people that support them have admitted it isn't working.

    The problem isn't people are too uptight. The problem is we are teaching kids sex has no consequences and is the equivalent of shaking someones hand.

52. robaylesbury says on Jul 16, 2010 @ 10:59 PM:

    The Netherlands has the lowest teenage pregnancy rate. Do you dispute this?

    The Netherlands ascribes this success to the methods of education they employ. Do you dispute this?

    As always, I encourage others to study the GOVERNMENT data that has been accumulated on this issue.

53. robaylesbury says on Jul 16, 2010 @ 11:12 PM:

    http://www.unesco.org/courier/2000_07/uk/apprend2.htm

    And here's how the Dutch model works, and why. It would also be worth reading up on why GOVERNMENTS from around the world are paying a good deal of attention to the Netherlands, sending teams out and listening carefully to what they have to say.

    I shall leave it to others to decide whether I am providing biased data or not.

54. robaylesbury says on Jul 17, 2010 @ 12:11 AM:

    I should add that I have no objection to the teaching of abstinence as an additional strategy. It's another tool to deploy alongside the others.

55. robaylesbury says on Jul 18, 2010 @ 03:08 AM:

    And yet more Dutch brilliance. . .

    "Teenage pregnancy is a stubborn problem in many countries, both developed and developing. The Netherlands is not one of these, however. This small country boasts of the lowest teenage pregnancy and abortion rates in the world -- lower even than those in Sweden, another success story.[13] Rik H. W. Van Lunsen[14] of the University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands, shared his explanation for this stellar record in the final presentation of the first session on contraception.

    Counseling is the key. This leitmotif echoed throughout Dr. Van Lunsen's presentation: education, not medical interventions, had made the difference. He attributed the success in The Netherlands to 4 principal factors: liberal sexual attitudes, excellent sex education, free supplies of contraceptives, and legal abortion. He noted that the first factor was especially important for healthcare providers.

    Dr. Van Lunsen emphasized the need to de-medicalize the traditional approach to contraception for teenagers. He reported on survey data from his country, pointing out that fear of a pelvic examination was an important deterrent for young women in need of contraception. Hence, Dutch physicians clearly advise young women that they will not have a pelvic examination on the first visit; it will be exclusively devoted to counseling and provision of contraceptives. He noted that the pelvic examination is medically unnecessary.

    Surveys of adolescent women found 3 considerations to be important: nonjudgmental attitudes on the part of providers, confidentiality, and de-medicalization of the encounter. In response, the Dutch approach is to make the first visit for contraception only for counseling. Second, no mandatory follow-up is built in. Third, teenagers have easy access to services at no cost.[15]

    The Dutch have a reputation for pragmatism. This certainly applies to their approach to the touchy issue of adolescent sexuality and contraception. In many societies, the approach to adolescent sexuality is schizoid: teenagers are immersed in sexual imagery yet straight talk about sex is scarce. The United States is an example of such a society, and its teenage pregnancy rates, though falling, remain higher than those in other industrialized nations. By contrast, teenagers in Sweden have coitus earlier and more often than do US teenagers, but with 1 important difference: they seldom get pregnant.[13]

    The forthright Dutch approach accepts that adolescents are sexual beings and provides them with both information and services in a nonthreatening way.[15] When treated as adults, teenagers respond appropriately. Other nations have much to learn from the Dutch approach: it is hard to fight success. The take-home message for clinicians is that the pelvic examination is not only medically unnecessary before beginning hormonal contraception but also deters some young women from adopting safe, effective contraception. Thus, the traditional requirement of a pelvic examination indirectly leads to unwanted pregnancies and induced abortions. Young women deserve better.

    Taken from the Medscap website.

56. KStret says on Jul 18, 2010 @ 12:13 PM:

    Rob
    "I should add that I have no objection to the teaching of abstinence as an additional strategy. It's another tool to deploy alongside the others"

    That approach at best is sending a mixed message and at worst sending the same 'if it feels go do it' message. Telling a kid don't have sex...... but if you do here is how you put a condom on a banana is telling them to have sex.

    Your studies are not strictly looking at statistics. They are interpreting them with a biased view point. Everyone is too uptight but the Dutch are not? That is scientific.

    For example, in Michael Moore's propaganda film Sicko, gave the statistic that Cubans have a higher mortality rate that America. His conclusion was it was because Cuba has socialized medicine and America did not. However, the mortality rate can give a similar statistic between two American states that share a boarder. There are other factors than health care that play a role. Americans drive much more than Cubans and it is much bigger. Deaths from car accidents could be a factor. Cubans not driving as much means they walk much more than Americans do. There isn't five fast food restaurants in every corner and communist counties tend to ration food. While you can jump to the conclusion that the statistic has to do with health care, there are other factors that are more responsible than the agenda that Moore has. The same is true with the studies you are posting.

    As I said before, all you are doing is posting studies that agree with your position. I could post several studies that agree with my position and we could have 500 posts of studies.You have not addressed any of the points that I made and posting studies isn't addressing my points either. All you are doing to attempting to change the subject to Dutch sex studies.

    What is the message that is being conveyed here? Have as much sex as you want as long as you don't get pregnant. That is framing this issue in a one dimensional way. Is pregnancy the only factor in this issue? No. It is totally ignoring the mental component of a developing teenage mind. They aren't adults. Simply having sex can inherently harm them mentally.

    For example, girls are brought up with Disney princess stories. They are going to meet prince charming and live happily ever after. They take that mentality into their adolescents. A 14 year girl starts dating a guy she thinks is the one. If she doesn't have sex with him, she could lose him. She has sex with him; lets give the best case scenario and they date for a year. After that, price charming can't be tied down and wants to hang out with his friends and or date other girls.

    She thought they were going to be together and live happily ever after. What effect is that going to have on her? It will be devastating. The fairy tale she believed in was a lie. Often times, as a way of dealing with the harm, they act out. They go out and instead of being in a relationship, they sleep around. This starts a cycle of self victimization.

    If sex is the equivalent of a hand shake why is it that the people that come from dysfunctional backgrounds are the most promiscuous? You can't answer that question and posting a Dutch sex study doesn't answer the question either.

57. KStret says on Jul 18, 2010 @ 12:46 PM:

    I forgot to add that the most inherent problem with Sicko was the statistic given on Cuba. He failed to mention that Cuba gives the stats to the UN and they don't confirm them. In other words, Cuba is cooking the books. My guess is the Dutch are doing something similar.

58. robaylesbury says on Jul 18, 2010 @ 03:55 PM:

    What part of Government statistics are you having difficulty with?

    Once again, the Dutch have the lowest teenage pregnancy rate. Do you dispute this?

    Once again, the Dutch ascribe this success to the educational methods they employ. Do you dispute this?

    Once again, other countries are actively seeking to understand and integrate the Dutch model into their own sexual educate programs. Do you dispute this?

    Once again, I invite all readers of this thread to actively interrogate the data I have presented.

59. robaylesbury says on Jul 18, 2010 @ 04:22 PM:

    I would also be interested in any evidence you have to support your "guess" that the Dutch are cooking the books.

60. KStret says on Jul 21, 2010 @ 03:44 PM:

    Rob,
    1. A study shows X.
    2. You agree with X
    3. Therefore, X is true
    
    That is flawed reasoning.
    
    One inherent problem with the comparing statistics is if both sides don't collect the statistics the same way, you will have an invalid comparison. The criticism of the Dutch pregnancy rate statistics are
    1.The Dutch include everyone under the age of 20 years old and they include elementary school children. That is enough to skew the results right there. In America they only include the ages of about 14-19.
    2. The Dutch do not include early abortions in there statistics. That would give you another skewed result.
    3. It is common for girls to be put on the pill.
    4. They teach delaying sexual activity. The age that teens first have sex is older than many counties. This is contradictory to the 'everyone is just too uptight but the dutch' argument.
    5. Culturally unwed teen mothers are frowned on and they are not subsidized by welfare. In the example I gave you of the teens in Gloucester Ma, the high school has a day care that students can use if they have a child.
    6. The Dutch teach fetal development in schools. Planned parenthood would have nightmare about that if it became a wide spread practice.
    
    Once again you have ignored everything I said and changed the subject to Dutch sex studies. Is pregnancy the only issue? If it is why not make it mandatory that all girls are put on the pill at age 14 regardless of what the parents want? Clearly, the collective trumps the individual....wait that never really works out too well when put into practice...
    
    Let's forget about the irrationality of the secular progressive sex ed mentality. It's much easier just to label your opposition as uptight, old fashioned and out of touch. Let me get this straight: Teenagers can't drink, vote, drive, see rated R moves until they are 17 because they are not mature enough but they are mature enough to have sex?
    
    There is also the problem of when teaching kids the 'go have sex but just wear a condom' policy goes wrong, they need to take even more power. It's not that they are teaching the wrong message, it's they can't hand out condoms and put girls on birth control pills with out parents knowledge. That will solve the problem.
    
    Then they incrementally move the curriculum to the desired agenda.
    1. They only taught kids about changes that their body were going through.
    2. Next came actually disusing sex.
    3. They started to include STDs
    4. Then they added birth control and abortion
    4. Then they start talking about sex more graphically
    5. Then they added brainwashing kids about homosexuality
    6. They become the kids parents and teach kids the secular progressive values about sex.
    
    For example, a school in Montana wants to implement a k-12 sex ed curriculum. At first they teach kindergartners about body parts and by 12th grade they teach them about sexual positions. I wonder if they require kids to have lab partners in that class?
    
    That is the fundamental problem with their philosophy. Teaching values is a parents job. The educrats are not the parents but they think they know better.

61. robaylesbury says on Jul 21, 2010 @ 04:34 PM:

    The Dutch model has resulted in the lowest teen pregnancy rates in the developed world. They have better educated young adults, whom have sex later, with healthy attitudes towards sexuality, and a good understanding of the options available to them. The additional bonus has been lower abortion rates and STD infections. The education system, itself formed on the spine of healthy cultural attitudes toward sexuality offers a nurturing, non judgemental environment in which young adults can learn.

    Other developed nations now consider that much can be learned from this outstanding success story.

62. KStret says on Jul 21, 2010 @ 05:40 PM:

    Rob,
    "The Dutch model has resulted in the lowest teen pregnancy rates"

    Yes based on rigged statistics and ignoring certain aspects of their sex education system that doesn't fit into the progressive lexicon. If they are including elementary school children in with ages 14-19 that will give them a demonstrably lower pregnancy rate. If they don't include early abortions that will give them a much lower abortion rate.
    The people who are promoting the Dutch as the prefect model for sex ed are ignoring the older age they are having sex and the teaching of fetal development. Why? because it goes against the if it feels good do it message that they want to teach. If teaching them to have sex at a older age works, it would seem logical to ask if teaching abstinence would work better?
    Surprisingly, you didn't address any of my points or the criticism of the statistics. You argument amounts to you like the idea so it must be true. By that same rationale, I should be able to post a flawed abstinence only study and it is automatically true because I agree with it.If pregnancy is the only concern here, why not make taking a birth control pill mandatory at age 14?

63. KStret says on Jul 21, 2010 @ 05:59 PM:

    In other words, every point the educrat makes when it comes to sex ed, amounts to arguing they need to push the envelope. The Dutch have a low pregnancy rate we should push the envelope. If you disagree you are just too uptight. The devil is in the details.

64. robaylesbury says on Jul 22, 2010 @ 01:40 AM:

    Well educated young adults are better equipped to make sensible life choices. Combine this with a culturally sensible attitude towards sexuality and we have a good foundation.

    Calm. Balanced. Reasoned.

65. Anonymous says on Jul 22, 2010 @ 10:48 AM:

    I find myself in agreement with the conclusions shown below, taken from http://www.pregnancy-info.net/teen_pregnancy_statistics.html

    "Preventing Teen Pregnancy.

    It has been found that teens who have a good relationship with their parents are less likely to experience a pregnancy. Good communication between parents and their children is the key to ensuring children make the right decisions when it comes to their sexual activity.

    Education is also vitally important in helping youth know about their options when it comes to sex. Teaching teens about using contraception each and every time they have sex is imperative to healthy sexual relationships.

    Abstinence should also be taught along with contraception so that youth understand they have the right to choose. Teaching teens that it is okay to say "no" to sex until they are ready will help to curb the numbers of teen pregnancies."

    Perfect. There is no mixed message here. Good parenting, good education, and a healthy balanced approach to what is a troubling social issue.

66. robaylesbury says on Jul 22, 2010 @ 12:02 PM:

    Last comment was mine.

67. KStret says on Jul 22, 2010 @ 04:58 PM:

    Rob,
    With all due respect, you are dodging every point I have made. What about the rigged statistics in the Dutch sex pregnancy study? No response. What about the Dutch statistics being misrepresented for pushing the envelope and certain aspects of it being swept under the carpet? No response. What about the mental harm that can occur when a teenager has sex? No response. What about the parental rights aspect of the issue? No response. What about illogical position that teens are not mature enough to vote in a election but are mature enough to have sex? No response. What they are teaching in sex ed is actually causing the problem. No response.

    You think the educrat philosophy of sex-ed is a great idea, therefore it is. That is you argument. You can't defend your position.

    "Well educated young adults are better equipped to make sensible life choices."

    That point is predicated on the false assumption that teen are adults. They are not. Their brains are not fully developed.As I said before, to a teen the apocalypses equates to being grounded for the weekend. That isn't indicative of a mature individual. That aren't mature enough to get into a r rate movie but they are mature enough to be in a sexual relationship?

    
    "Calm. Balanced. Reasoned"

    If that is the case why aren't you addressing any of my points?

    "It has been found that teens who have a good relationship with their parents are less likely to experience a pregnancy"

    Really? Do you realize that statement contradicts your own position? The schools should teach kids values and educate them about sex. The sky will fall if we got rid of sex education but kids with good parents are less likely to have sex? Also, that doesn't mean the parents equate to an adult friend. That means parents are being parents and setting rules and telling them No.

    "Abstinence should also be taught along with contraception so that youth understand they have the right to choose. Teaching teens that it is okay to say "no" to sex until they are ready will help to curb the numbers of teen pregnancies."

    You should not have sex at all but if you do take the pill or learn to put a condom on. That is a contradiction.

    Meth is an epidemic in this country. I am not going to be old fashioned and out dated and pretend that kids are not taking meth. It is dangerous to make meth. If kids don't know how to properly make meth, they might blow them selves up. Don't do drugs at all kids. Never take drugs but if you are going to use meth, here is the correct way to make it. That isn't contradictory either. Never do X but if you do....

    
    "Combine this with a culturally sensible attitude towards sexuality and we have a good foundation."

    Who gets to define what is culturally sensible Rob? Why does your opinion trump anyone who disagrees with you? Because you know better? That is the definition of elitism.

    "Calm. Balanced. Reasoned."

    Is teaching fisting in sex-ed reasoned? How about teaching sexual positions? How about encouraging kids to try homosexuality to see if they like it? How about encouraging kids to try wearing clothes of the opposite sex to see if they like that? How about adult homosexual groups handing out pamphlets for adult gay bars to kids in school? How about putting girls as young as 11 years old on potentially harmful hormones without their parents knowledge or consent? Is that calm, balanced and reasonable?

    Where do you draw the line? When does it become abusive to children? They keep lowering the bar. It's ok for an 18 year old to have sex, then 16, then 14, and then what? When asked this question in the context of putting 11 year old on the pill, I saw a sex educrat say she doesn't draw the line at all. At some point it will be ok for 10 year old. After that, it will be ok for a nine year old?

    You are not going to address any of my points and you are going to repeat your same argument. You like the idea so the idea is automatically true. What about points X,Y, and Z? Your response is your position is rational, calm, and reasonable. You didn't answer the question. You will repeat that you like the idea so the idea is automatically true and your position is rational, calm, and reasonable. Rob, you ignored everything I said..... repeat that you like the idea so the idea is automatically true and your position is rational

68. robaylesbury says on Jul 23, 2010 @ 09:23 AM:

    I believe the site www.pregnancy-info.net is of US origin and produced by concerned parents.

    Concerning the term "rigged", I am frankly bemused that you use such antagonistic rhetoric? Why would the Dutch be seeking to "rig" anything?
    
    Teen pregnancy is a concern to many people throughout the world. Many efforts have been made to educate youth about sexual activity and birth control. The slowly falling teen pregnancy rates in the western industrialized world have shown that these efforts have been of some use, although the numbers are far from perfect.

    And no Kstret, there is no contradiction when I suggest that it is the role of both parents and the education system to facilitate in the growth of healthy young adults.

69. robaylesbury says on Jul 23, 2010 @ 09:49 AM:

    I was encouraged by these figures, released in Feb 2010.

    "The number of teenage pregnancies in England and Wales has fallen by 4%, according to figures released by the Office for National Statistics (ONS).
    
    Since 2002 the number of teenage girls falling pregnant in England and Wales has been steadily falling, despite a slight rise in 2007.

    The ONS figures for conceptions cover those that result in a live or still birth or are terminated by abortion; they do not include miscarriages or illegal abortions.

    The government allocated £260m to reducing teenage pregnancy and, in 2009, ministers announced an extra £20.5m funding package for contraception resources.
    
    Children's Minister Dawn Primarolo welcomed the ONS figures, saying teenage pregnancy was no longer a rising problem.

    Teenage Pregnancy Independent Advisory Group, said it also welcomed the teenage pregnancy strategy being back on its long term downward trend.

    "Nationally, statutory Sex and Relationships Education will give an extra benefit and government must also ensure all young people have access to contraceptive and sexual health services," she said.

    Simon Blake, national director of the sex and relationships advisory group Brook said: "It is good news that the teenage pregnancy rates have decreased and we now need to continue doing what we know works - improving access to sexual health services, good quality sex and relationships education in school and the community and supporting parents to talk to their children about relationships."

70. KStret says on Jul 24, 2010 @ 10:56 PM:

    Rob,
    "Concerning the term "rigged", I am frankly bemused that you use such antagonistic rhetoric? Why would the Dutch be seeking to "rig" anything?"

    You have ignored the fundamental issues with your study. If the Dutch are including elementary school children in with their pregnancy statistics that is going to yield a inaccurate barometer of what their pregnancy rates really are. The last time I checked elementary school children are not having sex. The same goes for abortions. This throws a monkey wrench into your theory that the Dutch sex ed programs are the best in the world, which is precisely why you will not address this issue.

    "Teen pregnancy is a concern to many people throughout the world. Many efforts have been made to educate youth about sexual activity and birth control."

    Since you have ignored every point that I have brought up, and teen pregnancy is such a important issue and the only issue, I have the perfect solution. Global forced depo shots for all teens starting at 14. That will stop all teen pregnancy and be serving the greater good for the whole world. Then they can have all the sex they want without any consequences, which is what they are being taught in sex ed.

    "there is no contradiction when I suggest that it is the role of both parents and the education system to facilitate in the growth of healthy young adults"

    When you phrase it like that ofcoarse there is no contradiction. However, there is a contradiction of saying don't have sex at all but if you decide to, use a condom.

    What if the parents don't like what is being taught to their children? What if the parents and educational system clash and have fundamental different ideas? The schools know better than the uneducated, uptight,old fashioned peasants?

    Rob's response:
    Dodge, weave,ignore, and post studies that agree with your position.

71. KStret says on Jul 24, 2010 @ 11:53 PM:

    'Lose Christianity or face expulsion'
    Georgia student told to read 'gay' lit, attend 'pride parade,' change beliefs

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Posted: July 22, 2010
    10:25 pm Eastern

    
    By Bob Unruh
    © 2010 WorldNetDaily

    Jen Keeton
    A lawsuit against Augusta State University in Georgia alleges school officials essentially gave a graduate student in counseling the choice of giving up her Christian beliefs or being expelled from the graduate program.

    School officials Mary Jane Anderson-Wiley, Paulette Schenck and Richard Deaner demanded student Jen Keeton, 24, go through a "remediation" program after she asserted homosexuality is a behavioral choice, not a "state of being" as a professor said, according to the complaint.

    Also named as defendants in the case that developed in May and June are other administrators and the university system's board of regents.

    The remediation program was to include "sensitivity training" on homosexual issues, additional outside study on literature promoting homosexuality and the plan that she attend a "gay pride parade" and report on it.

    Where has higher education in America gone? Find out in "Freefall of the American University"

    The lawsuit, filed by attorneys working with the Alliance Defense Fund, asserted the school cannot violate the Constitution by demanding that a person's beliefs be changed.

    (Story continues below)

    
    "ASU faculty have promised to expel Miss Keeton from the graduate Counselor Education program, not because of poor academic showing or demonstrated deficiencies in clinical performance, but simply because she has communicated both inside and outside the classroom that she holds to Christian ethical convictions on matters of human sexuality and gender identity," the law firm explained.

    School spokeswoman Kathy Schose today declined to address the allegations in the case but agreed to discuss the counselor teaching program in general.

    She cited the American Counseling Association's code of ethics and said students would be required to adopt its provisions.

    "There is a code of ethics that govern counselors," she said. "They have to abide by the code of the profession."

    Ethics codes generally govern behavior, and Schose denied the school was attempting to alter any student's beliefs or moral values.

    But the lawsuit specifically charges the faculty members targeted Keeton's biblically based belief system and values, not her behavior regarding the treatment of any clients, which had not yet happened.

    "Schenck told Miss Keeton that it was unethical for her to believe that her convictions should also be shared by other persons. … Schenck explained that while Miss Keeton was free to have points of view about how she personally should conduct and define herself, she may not believe that others should adopt the standards she personally is convinced are true," the lawsuit said.
    Left to right: Richard Deaner, Paulette Schenck, Mary Jane Anderson-Wiley

    "Anderson-Wiley confirmed that Miss Keeton will not be able to successfully complete the remediation plan and thus complete the ASU counseling program unless she commits to affirming the propriety of gay and lesbian relationships if such an opportunity arises in her future professional efforts," it continued.

    ADF Senior Counsel David French contended a public university student "shouldn't be threatened with expulsion for being a Christian and refusing to publicly renounce her faith, but that's exactly what's happening here."

    "Simply put, the university is imposing thought reform," he said. "Abandoning one's own religious beliefs should not be a precondition at a public university for obtaining a degree. This type of leftist zero-tolerance policy is in place at far too many universities, and it must stop. Jennifer's only crime was to have the beliefs that she does."

    Keeton's own e-mail response to the faculty members who allegedly were pressuring her to adopt a pro-homosexual belief system defines the dispute.

    "At times you said that I must alter my beliefs because they are unethical. … other times you said that I can keep my beliefs so long as they are only personal and I don't believe that anyone else should believe like me. But that is just another way of saying that I must alter my beliefs, because my beliefs are about absolute truth. ….. in order to finish the counseling program you are requiring me to alter my objective beliefs and also to commit now that if I ever may have a client who wants me to affirm their decision to have an abortion or engage in gay, lesbian, or transgender behavior, I will do that. I can't alter my biblical beliefs, and I will not affirm the morality of those behaviors in a counseling situation," she wrote.

    Faculty members had demanded she "attend at least three workshops … which emphasize … diversity training sensitive toward working with GLBTQ populations." They also wanted her to "develop" her knowledge of homosexuality by reading 10 articles and increasing her exposure to homosexuals and lesbians by attending "the Gay Pride Parade."

    According to the complaint documentation, which also seeks a preliminary injunction in the case, Keeton asked Anderson-Wiley how her Christian convictions are any less acceptable than those of a Buddhist or Muslim student. Anderson-Wiley responded, "Christians see this population as sinners."

    The complaint alleges Anderson-Wiley specifically told Keeton she was being asked to alter some of her beliefs. The "remediation" program included a statement that Keeton would be dismissed from the program if she chose not to comply, the lawsuit said.

    "Unless and until defendant's unconstitutional speech-regulating policies and threatened … actions against Miss Keeton are enjoined, Miss Keeton will suffer and continue to suffer irreparable injury to her constitutional rights," the lawsuit said.

    Among the alleged violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments are viewpoint discrimination, compelled speech, equal protection and freedom of speech, it said.

    "By conditioning Miss Keeton's continued enrollment in the ASU school counselor masters degree program on her waiver of rights to speech and free exercise of religion … by requiring that she alter her beliefs and speech, and that she … commit to affirm in a hypothetical future context the ethical propriety of transgender and homosexual identification and behavior by others, as well as other values and behaviors she now disapproves, and which violate her religion convictions, defendants have imposed an unconstitutional condition on Miss Keeton," the complaint alleges.

    "The First Amendment never permits the government to penalize beliefs in this manner," the complaint said.

    The ADF said it also is litigating a case involving a Georgia counselor fired by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention because she would not agree to affirm homosexual behavior. While an earlier similar case at Missouri State has been resolved, there is another in which Eastern Michigan University is defendant on similar allegations.

    In the Missouri State case, a social work professor, Frank Kauffman, eventually was placed on leave as part of a settlement of the lawsuit brought on behalf of student Emily Brooker. The student had refused his assignment to lobby on behalf of homosexual adoptions because it violated her religious beliefs. She then was brought up on ethics charges in the school.

    The settlement also included monetary damages and the removal of the charges against her from her record. The school's own commissioned conclusion in the case found "many students and faculty stated a fear of voicing differing opinions. … In fact, 'bullying' was used by both students and faculty to characterize specific faculty."

    
    Julea Ward

    In the still-pending case involving Eastern Michigan, lawmakers there considered calling top school officials on the carpet after they expelled from a counseling program a Christian student who refused to argue in support of the homosexual lifestyle.

    As WND reported, trouble began for master's program student Julea Ward when she refused to accept a client whose issue concerned a homosexual relationship.

    The school expelled her from the counseling program March 12, 2009, for refusing to abrogate her own personal religious beliefs and support the homosexual lifestyle.

    Since then, Ward has brought a lawsuit through the Alliance Defense Fund Center for Academic Freedom.

    Members of the Michigan Senate shortly later approved legislation that includes a provision calling on university counseling programs to evaluate and affirm how they can accommodate the religious beliefs of students.

    State Rep. Tom McMillin told WND at the time the case was "extremely alarming," and there was growing support for an effort to penalize universities that don't accommodate religious beliefs.

    "This is a state-taxpayer-supported university," he said. "She's got a court case. Hopefully that will be resolved."

    In the case, the judge refused to dismiss the complaint, determining there were "genuine issues of material fact" about the school's "true motivations" for dismissing Ward from the program. Further, the judge concluded, the student's actions to avoid in advance a counseling session for which she had reservations probably followed professional ethical guidelines.

72. robaylesbury says on Jul 25, 2010 @ 02:45 AM:

    And you consistently ignore the established link between good education, good parenting, and access to information.

    And incidentally, verbosity is no barometer of veracity.

73. robaylesbury says on Jul 25, 2010 @ 03:11 AM:

    I have read your second post. I find ALL discrimination distasteful, be it from the Christian right or the far left, or any point on the spectrum between.

    As Sam Harris has observed, no society ever destroyed itself for being too reasonable.

74. robaylesbury says on Jul 25, 2010 @ 06:00 AM:

    http://www.solutionsforamerica.org/healthyfam/teenage-pregnancy.html

    Good to see this, too. Searingly honest and non dogmatic. Acknowledges that there are no simple solutions; advocating a multi pronged approach in which parents and educators, and vitally, teens themselves are fully involved.

    There is a recurring theme here that screams out for acknowledgement, a consistent strategy that permeates all global studies that have reported success.

    Parental guidance, educational programs, access to healthcare.

    But no, says Kstret. Abstinence only. Only this will do. No compromise.

    With such people there is no dialogue to be had. Happily, we have nothing to learn from them either.

75. KStret says on Jul 25, 2010 @ 11:31 PM:

    Rob,
    "And you consistently ignore the established link between good education, good parenting, and access to information."
    
    No I did not. Your entire argument amounts to you think something is a good idea therefore it is. You posted a dutch sex-ed study as evidence that your position is the correct one. The Dutch sex has major statistical flaws in it. They included elementary school children in with teenagers. This will obviously yield results that are not indicative of the actual pregnancy rate. They did the same thing with abortion statistics. Your entire argument is based on the Dutch study. If the Dutch study falls, so does your argument. This is precisely the reason that you have refused to address the statistical problems with your study.
    
    You are also making the naive assumption that the schools and the parents are going to agree all the time. What if they don't? What if the parents don't like what the school is teaching to their child? Do the parents opinions trump the schools or is it the other way around? You have refused to answer that question. Why? My guess is because you think that the schools opinion trumps the parents but you don't want to state this.

    "access to healthcare"
    
    What does that mean Rob? Does it mean that a 14 year old girl can be given an abortion without her parents knowledge? Does it mean a 14 year old girl can be put on the pill without her parents knowledge? Does it mean a school can know a 14 year old girl is having sex but her parents can't? The logical conclusion here is the school becomes the girls parents.Why is it her parents are notified if the same 14 year old skipped school, was drunk, or received a failing grade but if she is having sex that is none of her parents business? That is logically incoherent, which is why you can not address the issue.
    
    If pregnancy is the most important issue and you are going to replace the schools opinion over parents and their right to teach their own child what they want, why stop there? After all, many teens get the information about safe sex and disregard it. Why not inoculate teens from pregnancy with a forced.... I mean mandatory depo shot? Then you would eradicate teen pregnancy. If you are going to replace the parents opinion with the schools and you believe in the collective over the individual, the greater good will be served by removing teen pregnancy as an option.
    
    "But no, says Kstret. Abstinence only. Only this will do. No compromise"
    
    My position is not abstinence only. My position is no sexual education at all. I may disagree with it but if a parent wants to teach their kids to have sex but use a condom, that is their right. However, it is not their right to teach that to my kids.
    
    My point with teaching abstinence only was by using the same rationale as you do, abstinence only is equally as perfect. If I posted a study that shows abstinence was 100% effective but the study only used the grades k-6, that should be perfectly fine with you. When you point out that the study is flawed because of the age ranges, my response is that I am more reasonable and I ignore your point. If you apply the rules to me that you use yourself, abstinence is even better that the Dutch studies.
    
    You have four responses
    1. Ignore
    2. post a study
    3. You like an idea so that makes it true
    4. you play the reason and logic card. You are more reasonable than I am.
    
    Notice none of your four responses are addressing the litany of issues, points I have made, or logical inconstancies of your positions.
    
    "As Sam Harris has observed, no society ever destroyed itself for being too reasonable."

    Sam Harris has several flaws, with his logic and reason argument.

    1. Who get to define what is reasonable and logical? The answer is Sam Harris does. Sam has appointed himself as the dictator of logic and reason. It's a great way to get out of addressing an issue or answering a question as well. Why should they? They are more reasonable and you are not. It's an elitist position and a dangerous one.

    2. It assumes reason and logic is objective. He uses this when addressing morals frequently. There is no objective moral law but reason is objective. If that is the case why is it the four horsemen of atheism can't agree on an objective reasonable answer for abortion?

    
    "I have read your second post. I find ALL discrimination distasteful, be it from the Christian right or the far left, or any point on the spectrum between."

    That wasn't addressed to you Rob. I came across the story and it pertains to the original topic of this blog.

76. robaylesbury says on Jul 26, 2010 @ 11:48 AM:

    1. The Dutch Study is not flawed. Even allowing a margin to account for the age range the teen pregnancy rates would be nowhere near those of the US. The manner of measurement would also have no bearing on the fact that Dutch teens have sex later, nor would it impact on my argument that well informed young adults are better prepared young adults.

    2. Schools and parents are free to disagree. They invariably will. However, I feel that on the whole when parents and educators can work together the benefits, as meta analysis shows, are considerable.

    3. I am mildly, but not mortally offended that you suggest I would leave the education of my children solely to the education system. That's close enough to an add hominem for me to ignore it.

    4. I am reluctant to comment on your general attitude on sexual education, other than to express relief that it remains a minority position, albeit one prevalent amidst a subset of Theists.

    5. You consistently berate me for banging the same drum, namely advocating good parenting combined with good education supplemented by access to healthcare. You are correct; I am unashamedly banging that drum. If you dislike the noise cover your ears.

    6. You haven't read much Sam Harris, have you?

77. robaylesbury says on Jul 27, 2010 @ 04:38 AM:

    Here is Sam Harris articulating his own position, so nobody has to 2nd guess him. Actually, this whole conference and series of videos is cerebral, and I commend it anyone whom has an honest interest in questions of morality.

    http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/morality10/morality10_index.html

78. KStret says on Jul 27, 2010 @ 08:22 AM:

    Rob,
    "The Dutch Study is not flawed."

    If you have the age ranges of 9 to 19 in one group and 14-19 in another, which group is going to have the lower pregnancy rate? Comparing the two statistics will yield an invalid comparison and by including an age range that are not sexually active, you get a skewed result. If you don't count early abortions in your abortion statistics, that will also give you an artificially lower abortion statistic. Both statistics are artificial low because of the way they counted their statistics. Even if you ignore the way they collect the data(which you have), you still have the problem of comparing to sets of statistics that were collected in two different ways.If you apply the same rules to me as you do to yourself, abstinence only is even better.

    "Schools and parents are free to disagree."

    That wasn't my question Rob. When schools and parents disagree, who's gets to decide what is taught?

    "I am mildly, but not mortally offended that you suggest I would leave the education of my children solely to the education system. That's close enough to an add hominem for me to ignore it."

    I am offended by your offense. Especially since I did not say that. You are making a strawman argument.

    "namely advocating good parenting combined with good education supplemented by access to healthcare. You are correct; I am unashamedly banging that drum. If you dislike the noise cover your ears."

    Notice once again you did not answer any of my questions, address any of my points, or deal with the problems of your own position. You did not clarify what you mean by healthcare nor did you address the issue of whether a parents rights trumps the schools or vise versa.

    If you have the schools putting girls on the pill, handing out condoms, giving pregnancy tests, teaching values, and helping to provide abortions with out the parents knowledge, you don't have a partnership. You have a dictatorship with the school taking over as the parent.

    "You haven't read much Sam Harris, have you"

    You did not address the issue. Who gets to define what is rational and reasonable? If the four horsemen are the czars of reason, why don't they agree on abortion? Who is more reasonable Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins?

79. robaylesbury says on Jul 27, 2010 @ 12:54 PM:

    Kstret says -

    "Notice once again you did not answer any of my questions, address any of my points, or deal with the problems of your own position"

    To Paraphrase -

    "Nothing you say is going to influence my intellectual attribution bias"

    There. Fixed.

80. robaylesbury says on Jul 27, 2010 @ 01:15 PM:

    This is a post for all persons not named Kstret.

    If you, like I, feel that we have taken this discourse as far as it can go, I enourage you to read further into this issue. Meta analysis is normally a reliable yardstick, and listen to the testimony of those working on the ground. I once again commend http://www.solutionsforamerica.org/healthyfam/teenage-pregnancy.html, as they have posted a comprehensive strategy that appears to recognise both the scale of the challenge and the reality of 21st century society.

    As always, don't take my word for it. As always, ensure the data is extracted from multiple sources prior to review.

    Thankfully, we can be encouraged by the hard work and compassion of the concerned parents, teachers, and healthcare workers who are doing something to alleviate real suffering. I'm thankful they place the desire to do this above dogma.

    More than that, how about we treat young adults with some respect? It's never been tougher to grow up, and there are so many that want to underestimate, belittle, and mock. We have to ask ourselves do we want to raise informed, educated, and well balanced adults? Do we want the next generation and those that follow to have a good self image, a genuine compassion for those whom differ, and the resources to enable them to become well informed members of society?

    I know I do. How about you?

81. Rayburne F. says on Jul 27, 2010 @ 03:33 PM:

    I (and many others) would like to see a post for all persons not named Robaylesbury . I (and other concerned parents) have been invited to Public School Board meetings enough to know that young people who have their own school representatives on issues of sexuality and sexual conduct are so vocal and respected by adults, especially those on the school board, that parents who are against putting their children on the pill,handling out condoms,giving pregancy tests, teaching the school's values (not necessarily the parents) and helping to provide abortions without parent's knowledge and consent can hardly be heard. And please, no ad hominem attacks, especially about my Christian faith. If I could afford to send my child to a good private school or Christian school, I would. So would many others.

82. KStret says on Jul 27, 2010 @ 09:48 PM:

    Rob,
    ""Nothing you say is going to influence my intellectual attribution bias"

    You are equivocating and not addressing any of the issues. Here is one simple question, that I predict you will not answer.

    Do the schools have the right to put teenage girls on the pill, give pregnancy test, hand out condoms, teach graphic sexual acts, and provide abortion information or abortion services without parental knowledge or consent?

    Here is a bonus question.

    Since the four horsemen are the most reasonable people on the planet but do not agree on abortion, I would like to know who is more reasonable, Harris and Hitchens or Dawkins and Dennett?

83. robaylesbury says on Jul 28, 2010 @ 01:24 AM:

    I would hope that I had a good enough relationship with my daughters for them to approach me first. I would also want the school to be resourced to offer support to them.

    Good parenting, good education, and access to healthcare resources. We also need to cultivate a culture of openness and honesty whereby doors are open.

    The Four Horsemen disagree on many things. Why shouldn't they? They do of course agree that religion is no longer qualified to speak with authority.

    On anything.
    Very nice of you to refer to them as the most reasoned people on the planet, though.

    And hello Ray. Good to see you posting. How is your eye? It was playing up the last time we spoke?

84. robaylesbury says on Jul 28, 2010 @ 01:42 AM:

    By the way, an extremely high percentage of pregnancy's self terminate before the mother becomes aware they are with child. It would appear that God is rather partial to a bit of abortion, and the sooner the better.

    Oh, let me guess? The fall?

    Nothing more evil than scrumping.

85. robaylesbury says on Jul 28, 2010 @ 04:48 AM:

    Have just finished the meta analysis for teen pregnancy across the globe for the age range 15-19 years. The Netherlands scores the lowest, with 7.7 per 1000, whilst the States is up around 55.

    The abortion rates show the Netherlands equally effective in keeping numbers down. Clearly the Dutch are doing something wrong and will likely incur the wrath of abortion loving Yahweh.

    I blame Spinoza.

86. KStret says on Jul 28, 2010 @ 03:05 PM:

    Rob,
    Do the schools have the right to put teenage girls on the pill, give pregnancy test, hand out condoms, teach graphic sexual acts, and provide abortion information or abortion services without parental knowledge or consent?

    It's either a two letter or three letter response. Reasonable people avoid answering simple questions?

87. Rayburne F. says on Jul 28, 2010 @ 03:36 PM:

    Thanks Rob... My eye is about the same. I can't give up posting altogether. I'm sure you understand.I've enjoyed reading the comments. Still, playing devil's advocate, it would appear. Take care.

88. robaylesbury says on Jul 28, 2010 @ 03:40 PM:

    You want a simple answer? You want to reduce one of the most pressing concerns of our time to a simple yes or no?

    There are no simple answers.

    Does the daughter of a child abuser, raped for the umpteenth time by her father seek his council prior to going to her school for guidance?. Does the allter boy, buggered by the Catholic priest and then sworn to silence, seek out the parents whom have known that same priest for years and whom would accept his word above the child? Or the tortured teenage male battling with his sexuality? Does he go to his fundamentalist parents knowing that all he will receive are warnings of Hell and eternal torture? Or does he seek outside help from those whom do not seek to judge and condemn.

    And you want a simple answer. Worse, you demand a simple answer.

    Shame on you.

89. KStret says on Jul 28, 2010 @ 05:53 PM:

    Rob,
    "And you want a simple answer"

    It's a simple question. You are evading answering it and putting up more strawman arguments.

    What you don't seem to realise, is by not answering a simple question about your own position, you are answering the question. The reason you refuse to answer it is because if you answer yes, your argument collapses on it's own weight.

    If the schools trump parental rights, you can not have a partnership and the schools know better than the child's own parents. The schools are taking over as the child's parents. If the state knows better and they are appointing themselves as parents; if pregnancy is a problem, the logical end result to your position is to give all teenage girls birth control shots because some teens might not listen to their sex-ed teachers.

    Why do parents get notified when their children are failing a class but not when they are having sex? That doesn't make sense if the school is the parent.

    As for you strawman arguments, they are ridiculous. You are conflating child abuse and the schools taking over as parents. They are two different issues. Either your logic chain is

    1. Parents abuse children, therefore the schools have the right to give girls birth control pills without their parental consent or knowledge.

    That is a logical incoherent statement.

    or

    2. Parents abuse children and you are bringing that up to avoid answering the question.

    "Does the daughter of a child abuser, raped for the umpteenth time by her father seek his council prior to going to her school for guidance"

    That is illegal Rob. Her father will or should be put in prison. How does incest equate to a school giving a 14 year girl birth control pills or an abortion without her parents knowledge?

    "Does the allter boy, buggered by the Catholic priest and then sworn to silence, seek out the parents whom have known that same priest for years and whom would accept his word above the child"

    You are assuming that the parents wouldn't listen to their own child. After all the cases of priest sexually abusing children, I doubt they would dismiss it. Even if what you said is true that has nothing to do with a school giving a 14 year girl birth control pills or an abortion without her parents knowledge.

    "Or the tortured teenage male battling with his sexuality? Does he go to his fundamentalist parents knowing that all he will receive are warnings of Hell and eternal torture? Or does he seek outside help from those whom do not seek to judge and condemn."

    Here is a crazy idea; parents are responsible for their own kids. Not the state. The state only takes over, when the parents are being abusive or putting the child in danger. That means a parent has the right to teach their own children what they want, regardless if you agree with it or not.

    I might not like how you are raising your own kids. That doesn't give me the right to come into your house and take over as the parent just because I disagree with you.

    Do I have the right to make you teach your own kids abstinence? No I don't and if that was my position you would vehemently disagree with it. Yet, your position is that you are forcing your values on to my kids. Why? When stripped away of all the equivocating, dodging, and diversions, your argument amounts to you know better than I do.

    That also means there are going to be really crappy parents and unless they are being abusive there is nothing you can do about it. In a free society there are going to be bad parents.

    Do the schools have the right to put teenage girls on the pill, give pregnancy test, hand out condoms, teach graphic sexual acts, and provide abortion information or abortion services without parental knowledge or consent?

    No, they do not. That wasn't hard to answer at all.

    Here is another question:
    Why is it we have two different court systems? There is one for adults and one for juveniles. The reason is teens are still regarded as children and they are not fully mentally developed yet. So when a teenager commits a crime, it's different from an adult doing the same thing because their mental capacities are different.

    That is why certain movies have age restrictions on them. A adult and teen can watch a movie and the teenager might be disturbed by the movie, where the adult wouldn't be. If that is the case, you can not put teenagers on the same level as adults. Yet, you do, even though culturally we universally recognise that teens are not adults.

    So teenagers can't get into certain movies, if they commit a crime they are put into a different criminal system but they are mature enough to have sex?

90. robaylesbury says on Jul 29, 2010 @ 02:30 AM:

    Kstret, I feel that there is no more to be ventured. I have answered your questions, provided meta analysis, and encouraged others to do research. If I have not made a case for myself now I expect I never shall. I have been completely consistent in my line of reasoning and empirically demonstrated why certain forms of parenting and education work well in conjunction with one another.

    I wish you well as you raise your own children and hope that you can see beyond our differences and wish me well as I raise mine. The world is changing faster than ever before, and as parents we need to be more aware than ever that there are no glib answers.

    To others, you probably feel that I have I indulged Kstret more than most do. I am of course aware that his style of discourse grates on many, and that many are perplexed by his chain of logic on many issues. For my part, I'd much rather he vented his spleen here where he can do no harm. The Internet is a brim with oblique individuals, shrouded behind a veil on anonymity. Let them speak.

91. robaylesbury says on Jul 29, 2010 @ 06:24 AM:

    This is my last post for the immediate future. Am away for a while. As always, thank you for exchanging ideas.

92. KStret says on Jul 29, 2010 @ 04:17 PM:

    Rob,
    "I have answered your questions, provided meta analysis, and encouraged others to do research. If I have not made a case for myself now I expect I never shall. I have been completely consistent in my line of reasoning and empirically demonstrated why certain forms of parenting and education work well in conjunction with one another."

    No Rob, you have not. I have asked you several times if a school has a right to give a girl birth control without parental consent. You refused to answer the question. After refusing to answer a yes or no question many times over, you conflated child abuse with whether or not a school can side step parental consent, which is still not answering the question. You refused to address the mental harm that sex can cause to a teenager and a myriad of other issues.

    "I am of course aware that his style of discourse grates on many, and that many are perplexed by his chain of logic on many issues."

    If my logic is faulty on many issues, you should have no problem pointing out where I am wrong. If I am just a dumb , bigoted, homophobic, jingoistic, xenophobic, fundamentalist Christian, you should be able to destroy my arguments. Yet, you can't answer one simple question about your own position. Getting you to the point of conflating child abuse with schools rights vs parental rights instead answering a question was the equivalent of nailing jello to a wall.

    "For my part, I'd much rather he vented his spleen here where he can do no harm."

    I sorry, did I threaten you? Can you point out any where that I said something that could even be remotely construed as me being dangerous? If you can not, what you are saying is disagreeing with you means that I am dangerous. What harm am I going to do Rob? Seeing that you can predict the future and read my mind, can you give me the winning lottery numbers for tomorrow?

    "To others, you probably feel that I have I indulged Kstret more than most do.The Internet is a brim with oblique individuals, shrouded behind a veil on anonymity. Let them speak"

    Has it occurred to you that there might be even a small possibility that someone other than me might disagree with you? Let's stipulate that everyone agrees with you, does that mean you are automatically right? No it doesn't. Everyone believed the earth was flat, was it?

    That statement sums up your entire argument. You are more reasonable and you know better. Therefore, your opinions trump mine and everyone that disagrees you.Yet, you can't answer one question but you claim that you did.

    Does Rob believe that a school can give a girl birth control pills without parental consent? I have no idea and no one else does either. I can only guess why you refuse to answer that question.

93. Rayburne F. says on Jul 29, 2010 @ 07:27 PM:

    I understand your frustration in not getting a straight answer from Rob, Kstret. I'm not agreeing with you just to be agreeable, but guys like Rob.., by refusing to give a simple "Yes" or "No" to the the question: "Do school boards have the right to hand out birth control pills to teenagers without parental consent?" have already given you their answer--and cases of parents abusing their children have no more to do with it than cases of children abusing their parents (and grandparents). I have debated Rob.. enough to know that he has his own form of logic when running out of ad hominem attacks, strawman arguments, etc., especially when striving with those who take the teachings of the Bible seriously (you know, those awful "funnymentalist" Christians). Nevertheless, I must admit I hope Rob.. will enjoy his break (and I truly mean that). Take care.

94. KStret says on Jul 30, 2010 @ 06:18 AM:

    Rayburne,
    I knew he wasn't going to answer the question. However, I was surprised that he accused me of being dangerous.He apparently works for that Minority report organization that stops future crimes before they occur.

    I have debated him before as well. He seems to personalize his arguments, so when you disagree with him, he thinks you are attacking him and not his arguments. He tends to want to stick his fingers in his ears and close his eyes when he is backed into a corner. Yet, for some reason when his arguments fail, he can't see it. He will repeat the same argument again. I don't mean that as a insult at all but just an observation.

    He doesn't strike me as the type of atheist or agnostic, that hangs around because he must stamp out all Christian speech. I know he said he used to be a Christian but lost his faith. Maybe he is looking for an idea that will bring him back to faith. Although, I doubt he would consciously realize this.

95. Rayburne F. says on Jul 30, 2010 @ 10:49 AM:

    I sense Rob..has some bitterness and anger towards Christians, maybe because of the way he has been treated by some Christians in the past. I have encountered Christians myself whose faith was highly legalistic, and as long as you lived up to the standard of morality they imposed on everyone else, you were accepted and approved. But, although salvation is not a licence to sin and do what you will (Romans 6:1-2), it is not a list of rules or do's and don'ts either. Those of us whose lives have been transformed by the power of the Holy Spirit through repentance and faith in Christ know we have been set free from the power or bondage and corruption of sin (Ephesians 2:1-5), so that we now enjoy the liberty that is found in a saving relationship with Christ--not to serve sin in the flesh but to serve Christ (our new Master) in the liberty and power of the indwelling Holy Spirit. I tried to share this truth with Rob.. in the past, even once gave him my testimony, yet, he seemed to think I was just trying to impose my own standard of morality on him--which makes me wonder if he really understands what salvation is and, like many, have seen just enough religion, to turn him away from the truth in Christ (John 14:6)--who is our truth (John 14:6), our peace (Rom. 5:1; Eph. 2:14)), our certain hope for the future and eternity (Titus 2:13; Col. 1:27), and our wisdom, righteousnes, sanctification and redemption (1 Corinthians 1:30; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Romans 8:4).

    We make no claim to perfection--but that as sinners saved by God's grace through repentance and faith in Christ, our vicarious Substitute and Sacrifice for sin, we have received forgiveness of all our sins, been clothed with the gift of God's righteousness in Jesus Christ (Romans 3:21-22; Romans 8:4), have been adopted as His own beloved sons and daughters into His beloved family (Ephesians 1:5), been indwelt by the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 2: 10-12; 3:16),given an inheritance with Christ for all eternity, for which our relationship with Christ in this eartly life is just a downpayment (Ephesians 1:13-14; Rev. 21), and have the awesome privelege of coming directly to His throne of grace, through the indwelling Spirit of Christ, when we sin and struggle in the faith (1 John 1:9), secure in the certain hope and knowledge that He (Christ) will never leave us nor forsake us (Hebrew 13:5; John 6:37; Romans 8: 28-39). "For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through Him might be saved." (John 3:17). Christ exhortation is to all who will believe to come unto Him: "Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest" (Matthew 11:28) "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whsoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (John 3:16).

96. robaylesbury says on Jul 31, 2010 @ 08:08 AM:

    Hello guys. Remote access.

    Ray. I've no bad experience of Christians. Generally lovely people, for the most part. I am also married to a fantastic Christian lady.

    I simply do not believe the truth claims.

    Kstret, to answer your outstanding question "does a school have a right to give a girl birth control without parental consent", I would say that generally it is better for parents and children to address the matter internally. In circumstance where the family situation is so bad that this is impossible then the school, and I hope social services would be there as an additional support.

    It is not an absolute answer. We do not live in an absolute world.
    
    I suppose that makes my answer "Yes" and "No", or to put it plainer, sometimes.

    As to why do I frequent this site? It is the easiest thing in the world to hang out with those whom I only agree with. I feel this is dangerous. I fear that doing so can result in the intellectual attribution bias so prevalant around us.

97. Rayburne F. says on Jul 31, 2010 @ 08:54 AM:

    I'm glad you had no bad experiences with Christians in the past and are married to a fanastic Christian lady, also that you have Christian friends.
    I will answer Kstret's question, as it should be stated: "Does the school board have the right to give our children birth control pills without parental consent? "No!plain and simple!"--and the fact we do not live in an absolute world has nothing to do with it.

98. robaylesbury says on Jul 31, 2010 @ 09:23 AM:

    I disagree. And the fact that we do not live in an absolute world has EVERYTHING to do with it.

99. robaylesbury says on Jul 31, 2010 @ 09:53 AM:

    Are we done now guys? Or are you just going to wait for me to turn my back again?

100. Rayburne F. says on Jul 31, 2010 @ 02:00 PM:

     I recall you did more than your share of talking about me (about what Ray believes because I know him, remember?)on other topics on this blog when my back was turned. At least, I did not misrepresent what you believe to the readers. But then, I'm not surprised that you end this topic with accusing others of doing what you do yourself. You are so predictable.

     Yes, I am done. And have a great summer.

101. robaylesbury says on Jul 31, 2010 @ 03:32 PM:

     Thank goodness.

102. KStret says on Aug 1, 2010 @ 12:01 AM:

     Rob,
     "to answer your outstanding question "does a school have a right to give a girl birth control without parental consent", I would say that generally it is better for parents and children to address the matter internally. In circumstance where the family situation is so bad that this is impossible then the school, and I hope social services would be there as an additional support.It is not an absolute answer. We do not live in an absolute world.I suppose that makes my answer "Yes" and "No", or to put it plainer, sometimes.

     The answer is yes Rob. You are equivocating, your are still conflating child abuse and parental rights, and you making more strawman arguments.

     A teenager in an abusive home has nothing to do with taking away parental rights and giving it to schools. If a teenager is in a screwed up home the last thing they need to be doing is having sex. That is like throwing gasoline on a fire.

     Look at the presupposition you are making by continually making that argument; good parents will talk to their kids about sex. They won't judge and if they decide to have sex, that is fine. Bad or abusive parents tell their teens no, they can't have sex. If the parents say no, it's ok to go to the school nurse and get the pill behind the parents back.

     If the parents agree with you, that's fine but if they don't they must be abusive christian fundamentalists. The underlying opinion in that view point, is the permissive parents opinion trumps the evil fundamentalist opinion and the evil fundamentalist do not have the right to tell their own children 'no.' They know better. The ramifications of applying that logic chain to a myriad of subjects including this one is frightening,

     What if the family structure is fine and a teenage girl tells her parents that she wants to have sex and her parents say No? Should she be able to walk into the school nurse's office and get birth control pills with out her parents knowledge? The answer is NO. Since you feel that that is ok, you have the school taking over as the parents and your entire position falls apart.

     "As to why do I frequent this site? It is the easiest thing in the world to hang out with those whom I only agree with. I feel this is dangerous. I fear that doing so can result in the intellectual attribution bias so prevalant around us."

     Rob, I mean you no disrespect when I say this; you can not tell when your arguments are fallacious. You say X,it is refuted by Y, and you make the same argument again. If you can not tell the difference between them and hold on to easily refutable arguments, what's the point? You are suffering from the same "intellectual attribution bias" that you seek to avoid.

     As to why do you hang around here, what I meant is that in my experience atheists or agnostics who frequent message boards usually have an activist mentality that needs to stamp out any Christian voice.

     You don't strike me as one of those activists. If I was an atheist I wouldn't waste my time arguing about something that I don't believe exists.

     My sense is ( and I am sure you will reject this) that you are looking for a argument in favor of the existence of God that will strike a chord with you. However, you will never be able to do that if you can not differentiate between good and bad arguments.

     I would ask you again how you know that I am dangerous but maybe you could just give me the winning lottery numbers or tell me how you stop Tom Cruise from jumping on couches when he isn't stopping crimes the occur in the future.

103. robaylesbury says on Aug 1, 2010 @ 04:15 AM:

     I will address your last two points first.

     1. You are correct. I would love to hear a good argument for the existence of God. It would be thrilling, and I would have to do some serious re-thinking.

     2. I do not not feel that you as a person are dangerous. I do, however, feel that your arguments are dangerous, and if followed through would cause real societal problems.

     With those two, hopefully, out of the door, I can address the rest. But first, a little proverbial throat clearing.

     I feel that I have answered your questions. However, there are some things that I would be interested to hear you expand upon. Here goes.

     1. You challenged the Dutch study, stating that the means of measurement differed sufficiently to skew the results. I have now provided meta analysis for the age range of 15-19 years. This has shown globally accrued statistics, and provides a birth rate of 7.7 per 1000 for the Netherlands, against 56 per 1000 for the states. I suggest that this rather emphatically de-trousers your entire premise?

     2. Why do you feel that good parenting, good education, along with access to contraception and health care
     would result in an increase in teen pregnancy and std's? As a corollary, why do you feel that nobody is choosing to adopt the "No Sex Education Policy". I sense that you have a tendency to simplify a very complex issue, and it would appear that governments are largely ignoring you. Why do you feel this is so?

     3. Are you able to venture a comment or two as to why a large number of foetus's self terminate prior to the parents having an awareness that they were pregnant? There is no societal demographic to which this phenomena is unique. This number vastly oustrips the number of abortions performed per year. Why is God so passionate about post parental awareness abortion, yet clearly indifferent to when it occurs before hand?

     4. On the subject of homosexuality, you made the following comment.

     " The second problem is you are ignoring the aveage life expectancy of a homosexual male. At one point the age was about 35 years old. It's probably a bit higher now due to more knowledge about the AIDS disease. However, You still run into the problem of a incredibly high rates of suicide, partner on partner violence, STDs, and drug abuse. Despite the political arm of the homosexual movement's PR campaign to convince people that homosexuals are the same as straight people, the statistics prove otherwise. From a naturalistic prospective homosexuality isn't a healthy life style."

     Please could you provide your source for this? I am keen to interogate it.

     5. Are you able able to offer assurances, that should your policy of "No Sex Ed" be implemented, those from vulnerable, deprived, and poorly educated backgrounds would be adequately informed? How could this be measured?

     6. You challenged the statement made by Sam Harris that "no society ever destroyed itself for being too reasonable"

     I cannot immediately think of a society that has suffered for doing so, and was wondering whether you might be able to enlighten me?

     To conclude, I feel that you struggle to embrace the complexity of the issues we face. I know you are not stupid, but I am concerned that the fog of religious dogma may have harmed your ability to interogate data from sources that challenge your perspective.

     Please note, this is not a "debate" either. It's just an exchange of ideas. People who study these posts can form their opinions accordingly. I think we need to step back from the concept that one of us must win or lose. I'd prefer just to get my thoughts out there and leave others to ascribe the appropriate value.

     The really odd thing is that at the end of the day we probably both, deep down, want the same thing. Lower teenage pregnancy, lower std's, and a well informed society.

     It seems to me that our disagreement is on the pathway to that goal.

     Regarding the issue of homosexuality, I cannot see how we shall ever agree on that.

104. robaylesbury says on Aug 1, 2010 @ 04:20 AM:

     You say "You are suffering from the same "intellectual attribution bias" that you seek to avoid."

     Of course I am. Why do you think I come here to have my cage rattled?

     Where do you go?

105. KStret says on Aug 3, 2010 @ 12:49 AM:

     Rob,
     You are just repeating the same arguments that you know don't hold up. If you didn't know they were fallacious arguments, you wouldn't refuse to answer certain question, change the subject, or make a strawman argument to get around my point. If you know that, why would you post the exact same arguments when you know they will be refuted? That makes absolutely no sense.

     
     " I have now provided meta analysis for the age range of 15-19 years. This has shown globally accrued statistics, and provides a birth rate of 7.7 per 1000 for the Netherlands, against 56 per 1000 for the states"
     
     You have just posted another study. That is all. If I waste my time and point out the flaws in your current study, you will just post another one. I can also post studies that agree with me. So what? Why do the studies you post count more than mine?

     Posting a study doesn't address the many other issues that I have brought up such as the mental harm sex can have on adolescents that you ignored.
     
     "Why do you feel that good parenting, good education, along with access to contraception and health care would result in an increase in teen pregnancy and std's"

     Rob do you listen at all? A school does not have the right to take over as a parent. If I tell my own child no, the school doesn't have the right to say yes and not tell me. The fact that you buy into that philosophy shows your notion of a partnership between the school and parents is a dictatorship.

     You are not the parent of my child. I am. Your position is if a parent agrees with you that's fine but if a parent doesn't agree with you the school forces your opinion on their children. Heads you win, tails I lose. Yet, if abstinence only was forced on your child you would be screaming about fascist fundamentalist child abusers.

     I don't want my child to watch Friday the 13th. I find out that the school showed the movie with out my permission. Is that ok? No it's not. Sexual education is a lot more important than a slasher movie. You are teaching values to my child.

     Don't watch Friday the 13th but if you do, close your eyes at exactly 1:15 into the movie when Jason squeezes a campers head and theirs eyes pop out. Don't watch Friday the 13th but if you want to rent it, you can get it at the school library. Excuse me? You are not my child's parent nor do you have the right to usurp my parental authority.

     "You challenged the statement made by Sam Harris that "no society ever destroyed itself for being too reasonable""

     I asked you who gets to define what is reasonable and you ignored that. At one time eugenics was considered reasonable by the most educated minds in the world, how did that turn out?

     "Are you able able to offer assurances, that should your policy of "No Sex Ed" be implemented, those from vulnerable, deprived, and poorly educated backgrounds would be adequately informed? How could this be measured"

     Are you able to assure me that despite forcing your opinions and values on my family, that teenagers are going to listen to what they teach in sex education and will always have sex sex? Of coarse you can't.

     They are going to have a small window of opportunity to have sex and they are going to do it regardless of if it's safe sex or not. They will be drunk and have unsafe sex. Males don't like to wear condoms. Maybe a group of girls will decide that it would be a great idea to get pregnant together.

     Once again, you have two different sets of rules. One that applies to you and one that applies to me. You can't give me any more assurance than I can give you but you seem to think since your position is the correct one, therefore, your reasoning doesn't apply to you.

     When a group of teenage girls decides to get pregnant, the problem is never what they are being taught in sex education or the crazy idea that teens don't think like adults. The problem is the schools don't have enough power. If they just could put the girl on the pill without their parent knowledge all problems will be solved.

     No, if the school called the parents and told them their daughter has been taking multiple pregnancy tests and is upset when she isn't pregnant, the problem would be solved. She would be grounded and not allowed to see the boyfriend who isn't going to have anything to do with the child or her, now that she is pregnant.

     This is the fundamental flaw in your reasoning. You think you can some how legislate, regulate, control and the results will yield a perfect outcome. You can't regulate and control bad parenting that isn't abusive or teen age behaviour.

     Then you conflate your opinion with facts, your opinion then becomes a fact and mine is just an opinion. You get to decide what is bad parenting and what is reasonable.

     We aren't perfect and life isn't fair. There are going to be bad parents. There are going to be teenagers who get pregnant regardless if you force your opinion on them or not. There are going to be parents who raise their children in a manner you might not like but you don't get to force your values on them.

     "I know you are not stupid, but I am concerned that the fog of religious dogma may have harmed your ability to interrogate data from sources that challenge your perspective"

     I have not brought religion into this at all. In fact, I came to my conclusions before becoming religious. If I am letting a fog of religious dogma cloud my mind, why is it you are the one who is evading answering questions, equivocating, conflating different issues, attempting to change the subject and reverting to ad hominem attacks? If what you say is true, you should be able to destroy my arguments.

     "Are you able to venture a comment or two as to why a large number of foetus's self terminate prior to the parents having an awareness that they were"

     Are you kidding? This has nothing to do with the subject we are talking about. Please tell me you are not conflating abortion with a myriad of reasons why a early pregnancy doesn't hold, while disingenuously attempting to blame God or make the argument because some pregnancies end naturally or have problems that abortion is the the same as that, making them both ok.

106. robaylesbury says on Aug 3, 2010 @ 03:17 AM:

     Hello kstret. You have refuted nothing.

     1) I posted a GLOBAL meta analysis. This is a study comprised of all data accrued from multiple locales from age range 15-19. Refute it by offering hard data that I can interrogate.

     2) Sex too early could possibly cause mental harm. Therefore we must combine good parenting, good education, access to healthcare, all amidst a climate of healthy discourse to ensure that our youths are well informed. It isn't always going to work, but we see that this model is now widely implemented and meta analysis shows that it is having a generally positive impact. Again, if you can produce hard data that refutes this or validates an alternative strategy then I am open to this.

     Whilst we are on the subject of mental harm, perhaps you could address the mental harm caused by instilling our youths with dangerous levels of repression? Of telling them certain sub groups in society are somehow evil by virtue of sexual orientation? Of saying that practices such as masturbation necessarily lead to sin.

     3) Does the school have the right to take over as parent? For the umpteenth time, please stop stating this as a black and white question. When will you understand that in any society there exists parents whom are unequipped to provide good parental guidance. I was dealing with a job the other day from a mother whom had given birth to nine children, by five different fathers. How confident are you that she will pass on the correct knowledge to her children? It's a massive frustration to me that you simplify and dumb down something so important.

     4) Regarding my question "Are you able able to offer assurances, that should your policy of "No Sex Ed" be implemented, those from vulnerable, deprived, and poorly educated backgrounds would be adequately informed? How could this be measured"

     I feel you have ventured no answer. I'm keen to undersand how this master plan of yours works on the ground because from where I'm looking you've left gaps the size of Nebraska through which the least educated and vulnerable could fall?

     5) You say "This is the fundamental flaw in your reasoning. You think you can some how legislate, regulate, control and the results will yield a perfect outcome."

     That is the ugliest misrepresentation you have conjured up yet. It is precisely because I recognise that we DO NOT live in a perfect world that I support measures that seek to offer support, education and knowledge to the widest number possible.

     6) "Are you able to venture a comment or two as to why a large number of foetus's self terminate prior to the parents having an awareness that they were pregnant.?"

     I argue that due to the huge amount of money and campaigning that the Christian right invests in the pro-life message, I am surprised that this well known medical statistic is not of interest to them? So once again, it would appear that God isn't that concerned about pre-parental awareness termination; why would he care later down the road? Life begins at conception, correct? Does it not at least strike you as an odd disconnect?

     7) Regarding Sam Harris, let me give you some scope. What is your definition of reasonable? Let's go with that for now.

107. KStret says on Aug 3, 2010 @ 07:09 PM:

     Rob,
     "posted a GLOBAL meta analysis. This is a study comprised of all data accrued from multiple locales from age range 15-19. Refute it by offering hard data that I can interrogate."

     First of all, meta analysis studies have problems with them. Second as I said before, this line of debate goes into an infinite regression of study posting that ultimately proves nothing.

     You have a two different sets of rules, one that applies to you and the next applies to me. You post a study that have problems with it as proof that your position is correct,I point out the flaws, you ignore me, you argue that your flawed study proves your point, I point out the flaws again and you post another study. Yet, if I did the same thing you would flat out dismiss it. In short, getting into a study pissing match is a waste of time and proves nothing.

     "Sex too early could possibly cause mental harm. Therefore we must combine good parenting, good education, access to healthcare, all amidst a climate of healthy discourse to ensure that our youths are well informed."

     In other words we must force your position on parents that disagree with you. You never defined what you mean by healthcare. Since you won't answer what you mean by healthcare and judging by your propensity to ignore stating things that reveal your position, I take it you mean that a teen has to have access to abortions and birth control pills.

     You also believe that a parent doesn't have the right to know that their own child is being given hormones or getting an abortion. That is not a partnership or parents working with schools. That is a fascistic elitist mindset that is forcing values on children and taking over as the parents.

     It also presents many problems that you will not answer. You are assuming teens are adults and they are not. You ignored that many times. You ask me to assure you that everything will be ok if sexual education is eliminated. I asked you if you can assure me that teens will always have sex sex. You ignored that question too. You are forcing your values and taking away a parents right to teach their own values to their own kids. You ignored that too and are utterly incapable of seeing that. As you also ignored my Friday the 13th analogy.

     "Whilst we are on the subject of mental harm, perhaps you could address the mental harm caused by instilling our youths with dangerous levels of repression? Of telling them certain sub groups in society are somehow evil by virtue of sexual orientation? Of saying that practices such as masturbation necessarily lead to sin."

     Let me get this straight: A parent doesn't have the right to teach their own child that homosexuality is wrong? A parent doesn't have the right to tell their own child not to masturbate? What you are really saying is a parent doesn't have the right to disagree with you. You have ventured from forcing your values on children in school to policing parents thoughts. You are the thought police.

     Rob, you can not see that your position is that you disagree with how some parents bring up their own children and you want to go into their home to tell them how to bring up their own kids. If a parent wants to teach their child that homosexuality is wrong, they have a right to do that regardless of how you feel about it.

     Once again, you can not see the ramifications of your own your logic chain. If I apply your own rationale to a Christian world view, you would vehemently oppose it. Is ok with you if Christian morality is dictated to you? Can they force you to teach your kids that homosexuality is wrong? You obviously would be against that but that's exactly what you are doing.

     You also can not see that if repression is bad on the extreme end of the spectrum, hyper sexuality must also be bad. They are not teaching kids to repress sexuality in schools at all. They are teaching hyper sexuality. You only concern is pregnancy and STDs. To quote CS Lewis if teenage males could have all the sex they want by the time they are done, you would end up with the population of a large island.

     A person can still be harmed even if they are in a long term relationship. I gave you the example of a girl thinking she will marry the guy she has sex with and being devastated when they break up. You ignored that too.

     "For the umpteenth time, please stop stating this as a black and white question. When will you understand that in any society there exists parents whom are unequipped to provide good parental guidance. I was dealing with a job the other day from a mother whom had given birth to nine children, by five different fathers. How confident are you that she will pass on the correct knowledge to her children? It's a massive frustration to me that you simplify and dumb down something so important."

     It is a really simple issue, you just want to dodge it. You don't have the right to appoint yourself as the parent of my child. You don't have the right to teach your values to my child. You don't have the right to give my child a medical procedure with out my knowledge and you don't have the right to give my child hormones or drugs without my knowledge or permission.

     Your logic chain is their are bad parents and they might teach their kids incorrect knowledge. Therefore, you have the right to take over as the parent. Who gets to define what is correct and incorrect knowledge? Apparently you do.

     "argue that due to the huge amount of money and campaigning that the Christian right invests in the pro-life message, I am surprised that this well known medical statistic is not of interest to them?"

     Again this has nothing to do with what we are talking about.So by your own rationale since people die naturally, that is the same thing as murder? Therefore, murder is permissible?

     "Regarding Sam Harris, let me give you some scope. What is your definition of reasonable? Let's go with that for now."

     In other words, let's forget about you answering the question because you can't and move the focus on to me. I am not the one attempting to force my views on everyone else. You made the claim that no society has ever gone wrong being rational. Eugenics proves this to be a fallacious statement(ignored) and if that is the case, why don't the four dictators of reason agree on a simple answer for abortion? I though we could all sit down at the table and all rational people will come to the same conclusion?

     
     "It's a massive frustration to me that you simplify and dumb down something so important"

     You are frustrated Rob because you are trying to obfuscate your position because it's elitist and fascistic. You assume your position is a fact and can't handle it when your position becomes clear. You can not address all the the inconsistencies and ramifications of it. Your position when stripped away of all the straw men, evading, and conflating, is that people don't have a right to disagree with you.

     Because your opinion is a fact, you seem to think if you keep giving the same argument, it will refute all the objections and questions about your position. The problem is you are simply giving your opinion.

108. Rayburne F. says on Aug 3, 2010 @ 09:00 PM:

     Good job..Rob! My wife and I decided to take our daughter out of "sex education" classes that failed to teach (I have nothing against our daughter learning human biology and the anatomy of the human body) personal and moral responsibility and accountability alongside sexual behaviour. We have that right and responsibility as good parents, despite what Rob..maintains. Also, teaching children tolerance (accepting something you don't like for the good of society) is very different from teaching them we they must actively support and promote homosexuality.

109. Rayburne F. says on Aug 3, 2010 @ 09:31 PM:

     Correction: Kstret, not Rob...obviously.

110. robaylesbury says on Aug 4, 2010 @ 04:37 AM:

     1. Produce data to support your position Kstret. Histrionics and hyperbole does not count. Demonstrate how your policy of no sex education is going to protect the least educated, the deprived?

     2. As I have made repeatedly clear, the data that I present on teen pregnancy has been globally accrued from multiple sources. If you disprove of the information then provide better information that we can peruse.

     3. You are free to teach your children whatever you want. Equally, we must recognise that exposure to other viewpoints is an essential part of any persons education. I assume you agree with this, lest your comment about "thought police" comes back to haunt you?

     4. I really do need to press you for your vision on how your no sex education policy plays out on the ground? It is at the core of your argument, and I feel that it is reasonable to ask you to elaborate on it.

     5. You express concern that large numbers of teens are being granted abortions or being given access to contraception. Are there any figures that you can point me in the direction of?

     6. I do not understand why you would not want to provide your definition of reasonable? And as I already answered several posts before, the horsemen are free to disagree and should be expected to do so. I also believe that it was you whom christened them as the most reasonable persons on earth so I feel no obligation to defend your description on your behalf.

     7. Concerning the abortion issue, why would you conflate dying of old age with early foetal demise?

111. robaylesbury says on Aug 4, 2010 @ 04:48 AM:

     Hello Ray. I am inclined to agree that any sexual education that focus's purely on the biological is deeply flawed. From a Christian viewpoint have you studied the "abstinence plus" program? They have fared better than most abstinence only teaching. The promote abstinence as the preferred path, yet the course also includes information on contraception and sexual healthcare?

112. robaylesbury says on Aug 4, 2010 @ 04:48 AM:

     Hello Ray. I am inclined to agree that any sexual education that focus's purely on the biological is deeply flawed. From a Christian viewpoint have you studied the "abstinence plus" program? They have fared better than most abstinence only teaching. The promote abstinence as the preferred path, yet the course also includes information on contraception and sexual healthcare?

113. robaylesbury says on Aug 4, 2010 @ 05:16 AM:

     Have just reviewed my post to Kstret and felt I needed to add some further comments.

     8. You state that schools are actively promoting hyper sexuality. Are you able to provide any data that this is a mainstream issue? I also need to press you to provide the source of your data on homosexuality life expectancy, domestic violence, and STD rates?

     9. I recall asking you a few posts back where you go have your way of thinking challenged? I assume you would consider this an essential strategy to counter cognitive bias? Or do you prefer the salt cellar approach? hanging out only with those whom agree with you and only reading literature that supports your existing bias's?

     10. I also asked a few posts back as to whether you had any thoughts as to why your strategy on sexual education is largely being ignored? You appear convinced of it's veracity; why are most western governments doing the exact opposite; namely promoting a philosophy of good parenting, good education, and guidance on contraception?

114. KStret says on Aug 4, 2010 @ 06:07 PM:

     Rob,
     I am not playing this game. You are evading answering questions, equivocating, attempting to change the subject, attempting to hide your position, using ad hominem attacks, and conflating issues that have nothing to do with the subject.

     The issues boils down to the fascistic opinion that you know better than I do and you want to use the schools as a mechanism to force your opinion on other peoples children.

     How many times did you refuse to answer the question of do the schools have the right to put teenage girls on the pill, give pregnancy test, hand out condoms, teach graphic sexual acts, and provide abortion information or abortion services without parental knowledge or consent?

     You still haven't answer it. Look at your responses to this question.

     1. You conflated child abuse with a parental rights issues. You gave the example of a teenage girl getting raped by her stepfather or father. That has nothing to do with the issue. A teenage girl is getting raped by her father so the school nurse should put her on birth control pills or give her a condom?

     2. You explicitly stated that if your values aren't taught in schools a parent might teach their own child that homosexuality or masturbation is wrong. That mentality is the mentality of the though police. You attempt to address the issue here:

     "Equally, we must recognise that exposure to other viewpoints is an essential part of any persons education. I assume you agree with this, lest your comment about "thought police" comes back to haunt you?"

     You are contradicting yourself. A parent can teach their own children what they want but they must be exposed to other viewpoints. Who gets to decide what view points they are exposed to? You do.

     It is up to the parents to decide what view points they are exposed to and when, not you. Schools should be teach reading, writing, math, and history. Seeing how bad academic standards are plummeting, they should be more concerned with that rather than imposing their values on other peoples children.

     Another variation of the argument that you have been using is that if your views are not imposed on parents, they might make bad decision and teach the wrong information. What is the right information? Your opinion. Look at the presumptions of that view point:

     Your opinion is the right one, you can force your view point on other parents, by forcing your view point you will save the children from their own parents, and you are assuming the children will actually listen to you.

     3. You want to get into a study posting match. This takes the attention of your inability to deal with the inconsistencies of your position, having to actually answer questions and back up your opinions. You posted a flawed study and used that over and over again as proof that you are correct. After pointing out several times that the study was flawed and it was transparently obvious that you were evading the issue, you posted a meta analysis study. All that is is a bunch of studies bundled together. Now instead of looking at at one study I would have to look at several. When I find the flaws in them, what will you do Rob? You will post another study. All you are doing is using study posting as a diversionary tactic and it still doesn't address other issues associated with sex education.

     4. Change the subject. You bring up abortion and make an illogical comparison between pregnancy that have problems and end and abortion. I point out that statement is the same as saying people die naturally and that is the same as murder.

     You ask me to define what is reasonable when you are the person who made the contention that nothing ever bad comes out of being reasonable. I cited eugenics, asked why the most reasonable people can't agree on abortion, and who gets to define what is reasonable. You can not answer any of these questions. It is transparently obvious that you are evading answering questions, so what do you do? Ask me what is reasonable when it was you who claimed to be reasonable. This is just another diversionary tactic.

     5. You make an hominem attacks. I am just letting religion cloud my judgment. I haven't brought up religion once and I came to my conclusions before becoming religious. You argue that people don't like me and more people agree with you. So what? That doesn't mean you are correct.

     
     You have ignored

     1. Parental rights. You position is clear on this issue. Parents do not have the right to teach their children things that Rob doesn't agree with.
     2. The mental harm issue. The only way you address this is to either construct a strawman argument that's prepossession is that parents might teach their kids that homosexuality is wrong. In other words, parents might teach kids values that Rob doesn't agree with. This reinforces your position on parental rights or you flat out ignore it.
     3. You assume teenagers are adults . It is universally accepted that teens don't think like adults. That is what makes teens so dangerous. You couple a toddler mentality with the belief that they are mature and grown up, when the reality is they are not. Many believe that they are invincible and they don't think anything bad could happen to them. You ignore this issue.
     4. You seem to think that if teenagers are taught your values they will listen to you and and will make decisions adults would make. Do you think that if a teenagers has a half hour window of opportunity and they can't have sex that they won't do it? That's not how teenagers think. They are impulsive.
     5.You assume that pregnancy and STds are the only issue here. You ignore all other issues.
     6. You are utterly incapable of seeing the exact same rationale that you have can be applies to a christian morality. Abstinence,homosexuality being wrong, and no masturbation would be forced on to your kids using your own logic chain.
     7.If pregnancy and STDs are the only issues and you are clearly willing to trample parental rights, Why stop there? There are teenagers who won't listen and have unsafe sex. They might get pregnant or an STD. If you will trample parental rights, pregnancy and STDs are all the matters, and there are teens who won't listen, the logical end to you conclusions is to force teenage girls to get birth control shots and all teens get a shot of antibiotics every month. You ignored that point too.

     Here is my definition of reasonable. Schools should teach reading, writing, math and history. Parents should teach values. If you want to teach your children if it feels good do it just wear a condom, that is your business. If I want to teach my kids that abstinence is the best way that is mine. It is unreasonable to force your values and thoughts onto my children or in my house.

115. robaylesbury says on Aug 5, 2010 @ 12:44 PM:

     1. You missed the point utterly. My example of the Father - Daughter rape was by way of an example of when the family situation was so bad that the daughter could not attain appropriate guidance from the Father.

     2. All kinds of wrong, and no contradiction. Teach your children as you see best, Kstret. Acknowledge, however,that in the world outside the home our kids hear alternative viewpoints whether we want them to or not.

     3. I have posted a GLOBAL meta analysis on teen pregnancy and abortion rates aged 15-19, accrued further to extensive research and study into a challenging social issue. I did this further to your initial objection based on the Dutch obtaining data from a wider age group. Based on the 15-19yr age band it showed the Dutch as having a teen pregancy rate of 7.7 per 1000 compared to 56 for the United States. This routs your objection of skewed statistics. I invite you to provide information in support of your position, and you decline, using the term "pissing match"
     Once again, I cordially invite you to provide data that we can interrogate, along with the sources from which it was accrued.

     4. The questions regarding pre parental awareness abortion is of interest to me from a theistic viewpoint, and an interesting addition to the overall discourse. I am happy not to press you further on this to appease your suspicions that I seek to change the subject.

     5. Ad hominem attacks? Can you honestly say that your religious beliefs have not informed your view towards homosexuality and abstinence? If not then please accept my sincerest apologies. If they have, be honest about it.

     Part B - What Kstret feels I have ignored.

     1. Parents can teach a child as they see fit. Once in the outside world they enter the marketplace of ideas, and perhaps some initial ideas may not endure, or morph into alternate viewpoints.

     2. The mental harm issue. Hyper sexuality can be an problem, and one hopes that good parenting and good education can help provide some balance. Once again, we cannot be around our children 24/7 to monitor all stimuli. Equally, repression can create terrible problems that can have grave consequences. A healthy balance that acknowledges sexuality whilst not making it an obsession would seem to be a desirable start point. And of course teach your children that homosexuality is a bad idea. Just expect others to challenge that view. We don't all happen to share it.

     3 & 4 (variaions on a theme) I don't assume all teenagers are adults. I assume they are teenagers. As such, I accept that whilst not fully developed they are generally capable of good levels of cognitive functionality. I absolutely reject your blanket statement that they are toddlers. It is insulting and belittling. I'm inclined to show them a modicum more respect.

     5. I do not assume that pregnancy and STD's are the only
     issue. The primary issue for me is one of combining good parenting and good education in the hope that this will facilitate the growth of healthy young adults. By healthy I mean young adults with emotional maturity and knowledge of the options available to them across a wide spectrum of life experience.

     6. I am unsure that I have understood the thrust of your point?

     7. Pregnancy and STD's are not the only issue. See my answer to Q5. I have made very clear that the school should offer such support ONLY when the family circumstances of the child in question are so degenerative that the parent/guardian is unable to offer reasonabe levels of parental guidance.

116. robaylesbury says on Aug 5, 2010 @ 12:54 PM:

     Questions I feel Kstret needs to address.

     1. Can you articulate how your policy of no sex education is going to protect the least educated, the deprived? How does it play out on the ground? It is at the core of your argument, and I feel that it is reasonable to ask you to elaborate on it.

     2. You express concern that large numbers of teens are being granted abortions or being given access to contraception without the consultation of parents. Are there any figures that you can point me in the direction of?

     3. You state that schools are actively promoting hyper sexuality. Are you able to provide any data that this is a mainstream issue? I also need to press you to provide the source of your data on homosexuality life expectancy, domestic violence, and STD rates?

     4. I recall asking you a few posts back where you go have your way of thinking challenged? I assume you would consider this an essential strategy to counter cognitive bias? Or do you prefer the salt cellar approach? hanging out only with those whom agree with you and only reading literature that supports your existing bias's?

     5. I also asked a few posts back as to whether you had any thoughts as to why your strategy on sexual education is largely being ignored? You appear convinced of it's veracity; why are most western governments doing the exact opposite; namely promoting a philosophy of good parenting, good education, and guidance on contraception?

     Many thanks for sparing the time to give this your attention.

117. KStret says on Aug 5, 2010 @ 05:12 PM:

     Rob,
     You keep posting the exact same arguments and are expecting different results.

     1. You are conflating child abuse with parental rights. The girls father should be put in jail. If a friend of the family, a doctor, a friend, or a teacher in school sees that she is being abused they are in the right to report it to the police. This has nothing to do with parental rights pertaining to sexual education. If you repeat this argument again you are going to get the same response from me and we both know you don't have a rebuttal.

     2. You are making a contradictory statement. Parents have the right to teach their kids what they want but they must be taught "alternative viewpoints whether we want them to or not." In other words, if a parent doesn't want a certain view point taught to their children, it's too bad. You get to decide what view points should be taught that are so important to disregard the parents opinion. This is a fascistic mentality.

     You also don't understand that your rationale can be applied to the exact opposite opinion that you have. If a christian opinion is forced onto you, that is wrong but it is perfectly permissible for you to force your opinion on to Christians. You have no rebuttal for this.

     3. You do not understand my position with the studies. Your entire case is based on social science studies that agree with you. You have totally ignored studies that disagree with you. If you want to base you opinion of studies you need to look at both sides of the issue, not just cherry pick what you like.

     You posted a flawed study and made the argument over and over again that the study proves your point, while ignoring the flaws. After dodging the flaws over and over again, you could not keep ignoring my point. Then you posted a bundle of studies. You are making a fallacious argument because you are not looking at both sides of the issue. You are cherry picking what studies you like and ignoring the rest.

     If I point out another flaw, you will ignore what I say until you can not ignore it any more, and then you will post another study that agrees with you. You want to get into a study posting match when your entire reasoning is fallacious. You will ignore this and go back to your bundled studies arguments.

     My position has nothing to do with studies. I only pointed out that studies can be flawed and the devil is in the details. I also pointed out that using your own logic chain, abstinence could be construed as even better than your position. If you can cherry pick the studies you like and use a flawed study to prove your point so can the other side. Once again the hypocrisy of your position comes to the surface. You can't see the ramifications of your own logic chain because your opinion is a fact.

     Another point that has gone over your head is my criticism still stands even if you are right. What are you saying? Taking away parents rights is ok because it keeps the pregnancy rates and STDs down.

     In other words the needs of the collective out weigh and are more important than the individual. There are kids who aren't going to listen to safe sex doctrine. If the needs of the collective wreak havoc over the individual, it is perfectly consistent with your position to force teens to get a antibiotic shot once a month and to force all teenage girls to get a birth control shot as needed.That would almost eliminate pregnancy and STDs. You have no response to this other than to make the same argument over and over again.

     5. I can say that religion had no part in my views on sexual education and homosexuality. In fact, I believed the stereotype that Christians were dumb. My position with both of the issues is that you have the right to teach your children and live the way you want to. You do not have the right to force your views on to me.

     What happens in the liberal mindset is the very act of disagreeing with you equates to homophobia and bigotry. In our previous exchange about homosexuality, you could not address the issues but instead labeled me a bigot.

     6. You keep saying that the primary issue for you is good parenting and good education. First of all, this doesn't address the fact the only argument you are making for why your ideas trump mine is because of pregnancy and Stds.

     Secondly who gets to define what good parenting and good education is? You do. You stated very clearly, that if schools can not take away parents rights, they might teach their kids that homosexuality and masturbation is wrong.

     Your position amounts to you can teach your kids the values you want at home but the school will correct those flawed values and set the children straight.

     "Equally, repression can create terrible problems that can have grave consequences. A healthy balance that acknowledges sexuality whilst not making it an obsession would seem to be a desirable start point."

     Rob the default position for a teenage boy is hyper sexuality. If left unchecked the population would be about 100 trillion people. There are on the extreme end of the septum. The only direction they could go in is the repression direction.

     "I don't assume all teenagers are adults. I assume they are teenagers. As such, I accept that whilst not fully developed they are generally capable of good levels of cognitive functionality. I absolutely reject your blanket statement that they are toddlers. It is insulting and belittling. I'm inclined to show them a modicum more respect. "

     You are assuming they are going to listen to you and you are assuming they will make adult decisions. As I said before, you are dealing with the mentality of someone who thinks the worst thing in the world that can happen to them is being grounded on Friday night.

     Look at all the teens who skateboard off a ten foot drop and are surprised when they fall and break something. They are not mentally mature enough to make adult decisions. This universal recognised. You ignore this point and restate the same argument.

     "The mental harm issue"

     You also once again ignored my point that sex can cause harm even if it's not excessive. I gave the example of the girl who is devastated because she has sex with a guy that she thought she was going to marry. This is common trauma that happens to teenage girls. You ignored this point too.

     
     "See my answer to Q5. I have made very clear that the school should offer such support ONLY when the family circumstances of the child in question are so degenerative that the parent/guardian is unable to offer reasonabe levels of parental guidance"

     The way you define a "degenerative" relationship with a parent or guardian who is "unable to offer reasonable levels of parental guidance" is when the parent disagrees with you.

     "Can you articulate how your policy of no sex education is going to protect the least educated, the deprived"

     I have answered this before rob and you had no rebuttal, you are just asking the same question again.

     You can not answer the question of if you can guarantee that kids are going to listen to you despite taking away parental rights. Can you assure me that a teen age girl isn't going to be mental harmed because she had sex with prince charming and it didn't turn out that way? No, you can't but you have two sets of rules. Your question also presupposes that your position is correct and you can save kids from bad parents.

     
     "You express concern that large numbers of teens are being granted abortions or being given access to contraception without the consultation of parents. Are there any figures that you can point me in the direction of?
     You state that schools are actively promoting hyper sexuality. Are you able to provide any data that this is a mainstream issue"

     You are again attempting to go into a study posting battle. If you want more information on hyper sexuality look up "fistgate" and the many other controversial things the group GLSEN have been involved in. For abortion, look at the many controversies associated with planed parenthood and schools providing abortion information to kids.

     
     "I recall asking you a few posts back where you go have your way of thinking challenged"

     I can see how my arguments match up. For example, if someone ignores my points, changes the subject, and calls me names, I know I have better arguments.

     "I also asked a few posts back as to whether you had any thoughts as to why your strategy on sexual education is largely being ignored?"

     It would probably be because they all have the same mindset as you do. Parents are just ignorant and they know better. It's the typical progressive mind set that they have had since the late 1800s.

118. robaylesbury says on Aug 6, 2010 @ 06:33 AM:

     1. Incorrect again. The example I used was to establish that there are certain environments in which the child is not the recipient of good parenting. Please remember that the majority of abuse victims DO NOT come to the attention of social services or the police, and some children need to take the guidance from those beyond the immediate family. Tragic, but sadly true.

     2. Parents have the right to teach children as they want. Unless you plan to lock them indoors, however, we can reasonably expect them to come into contact with information that you may not agree with. I do not have an issue with a Christian opinion being ventured; we're in the marketplace of ideas, remember? If it is a good idea perhaps it will endure. If not, perhaps society will select against it. That's life.

     3. Your position on studies appears to be to ignore any that challenge your existing view. You accuse me of posting only results that are consistent with bias. I would ask that you provide evidence of this? It sounds a bit Ad Hominem to me. To assist you, here's a definition of Meta analysis for you.

     "In statistics, a meta-analysis combines the results of several studies that address a set of related research hypotheses. In its simplest form, this is normally by identification of a common measure of "effect size", for which a weighted average might be the output of a meta-analyses. Here the weighting might be related to sample sizes within the individual studies. More generally there are other differences between the studies that need to be allowed for, but the general aim of a meta-analysis is to more powerfully estimate the true "effect size" as opposed to a smaller "effect size" derived in a single study under a given single set of assumptions and conditions."

     You of course provide no evidence that that large numbers of teens are being granted abortions or being given access to contraception without the consultation of parents. Or that there is an active liberal strategy to hypersexualise teens.

     Incidentally, what "Devil" are you expecting to locate within the details?

     4. The primary issue for me is good parenting and good education. Who get's to decide what good parenting and education is? Society does. Sometimes this works, sometimes it doesn't. Again, this is the real world and we appear to be stuck with a certain amount of compromise. The zeitgeist is in continual flux.

     Unless you are positing the adoption of Christianity as a one size fits all solution?

     5. Apparently I assume that young adults are always going to listen to me? Apparently I "assume" an awful lot more, besides. This is an inferior debate strategy that you have deployed with equal zeal on previous threads. I can only hope that you will desist.

     6. Hyper sexuality and repression are dangerous ends on the same spectrum. Your teenage girl example is sad and sits somewhere on this spectrum.

     What is your solution? Is it one size fits all Christianity?

     7. At no point have you addressed my pivotal question "Can you articulate how your policy of no sex education is going to protect the least educated, the deprived? How does it play out on the ground?"

     What happens to those that fall through your monumental black hole. How do you measure this?

     8. You bemoan what you describe as a liberal tendency to condemn anyone for speaking out against homophobia? By all means have your viewpoint, but don't moan when you get challenged. We do not all share your view.

     9. Regarding teenage males, you say that "If left unchecked the population would be about 100 trillion"

     Once again I am assuming this, assuming that. Enough of the "A" word, Kstreet.

     Let's take your projection as true, don't you think it might be a good idea to do something about this?

     Or, alternatively, we should adopt Christianity as a one size fits all solution. Right?

     Right?

     10. Regarding why Kstret's position on sexual education is largely being ignored, he fears that this is because the whole world has my mindset. Nothing to do with the hard won, gradual accretion of knowledge we have attained down the years. Nothing to do with seeking to learn from failure as well as from success. Nothing to do with looking at the universe and asking simply, "what can we learn from this?"

     11. Finally, I absolutely loved your answer to the question "Where do you go to have your way of thinking challenged"

     Your answer; Ktreet!!!!

     Kstret goes to, err, Kstret to get his way of thinking challenged.

     That's beautiful. That's your best yet. I'll treasure that admission whenever we discuss anything in future.

119. robaylesbury says on Aug 6, 2010 @ 06:45 AM:

     Actually, perhaps America's best Christian is onto something.

     http://www.youtube.com/mrsbettybowers

120. Anonymous says on Aug 6, 2010 @ 08:37 PM:

     I doubt if Betty Bowers is on to something, but I'm positive that Dr. Ravi Zacharias is on to something in the following talk he gave to Mormons and evangelicals. See the following:

     
     http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5799634011915096131#

121. KStret says on Aug 7, 2010 @ 10:21 AM:

     Rob,
     I am sorry but once again you ignored everything I said and just re-posted the same points that I have already addressed.

     1. You are still conflating child abuse with parental rights. Now you are making the argument a child might be a bad home, therefore, you have the right to give a teenage girl birth control pills, condoms, and teach graphic sexual material without parental knowledge. This position is consistent with your entire premise the whole time. You are teaching the correct information, you can save a child from their parents, and they will listen to you. You are assuming a lot. I also pointed out before, the last thing a teenager needs who is being molested or in a abusive family is to be having sex. You define abuse as being in a christian family who disagrees with you.
     2. You are still making a contradictory statement and did not address my points.
     3. You do not read or comprehend what you read with my position on the studies. Your entire position is predicated on studies. The fact that you are asking me to post a study that disagrees with your studies, shows you haven't read any studies that disagree with your view point and are just cherry picking studies that agree with you. If that's the case, you positions falls flat on it's face. You also ignored that my points still stand even conceding that you are correct.
     4. You are just repeating the same thing that you have posted over and over again. Your position is you know better than parents who disagrees with you. That is not one of a partnership or good education but a fascistic position.
     5. Arguing that I have an inferior debate strategy isn't addressing the flaw in your position. Teaching childing your values because it lowers STDs and pregancies is assuming a lot. That is what you are doing.
     6. You ignored my points. Your contention is that education or teaching what you want is the best and most reasonable way. It is perfectly permissible in your view to ask me how by teaching no sexual education how I am going to protect children from their own parents, which you can't. If you can ask me that, I can ask you how you deal with the ramifications of your policy.

     You teach a girl sex is no big deal, wear a condom, it's your decision and none of your parents business, she dates a guy for a year, they have sex, and break up and she is devastated mentally. It turns out that sex is a big deal. That's tragic?
     So I am responsible for bad parents but you are not responsible for the ramifications of your own philosophy? I have to assure you that there will be no bad parents but you do not have to assure me that your own policy won't harm a teenager mentally?
     7. Once again you are assuming that you can save children from bad parents by teaching your values. You are once again assuming that teaching what you want will "protect the least educated, the deprived." How is giving a teenager birth control pills without parental knowledge protecting the deprived? Do you define abusive as fundamental parents telling their own daughter that she can't have sex? Does the equate to being deprived? You have ignored over and over again that I can ask you the same question and I have, but you just keep posting this question over and over again. My position is parents teach their values to their children and they don't force their values on other peoples children. Are there bad parents? Yes but life isn't fair. I can't protect children from bad parents anymore than you can. However, you think you can accomplish this by having the school become the parent.
     8. You are not challenging me you are name calling and dismissing without addressing any of my points. To you pointing out that at one time a large number of the homosexual population when to bath houses is homophobic.
     9. I don't understand you point here. Teenage males are hyper-sexual. The only direction they can go in is repression.
     10. Arguing that everyone agrees with you doesn't mean that you are right.
     11. That's great and has nothing to do with this subject.

     "What is your solution? Is it one size fits all Christianity?"
     By positing this question it shows not one thing I have said has registered and you are incapable of seeing another position other than your own. This statement is the apotheosis of the strawman arguments and ad hominem attacks you use. This entire time my position has been to force Christianity and christian values on other people, even though I haven't brought religion into this at all? Can you see the utter hypocrisy of your statement? That is what you are doing not me.Parents get to teach their own children the values they want and unless the child is being abused you can't save children from bad parents.

     Post the same questions and responses again......

122. Rayburne F. says on Aug 7, 2010 @ 02:56 PM:

     Kstret, I jumped off the merry-go-round with Rob..quite a while back because I know he is not going to concede anything. I have discussed issues with Rob.. long enough to know you are not going to get anywhere with him (Try to convince a man against his will, he is of the same opinion still). As I have already indicated already, Rob.has his own form of logic when boxed into a corner--and I don't know about the other readers out there, but that appears to be exactly the situation. Nor do I really care about whether or not people out there agree with Rob.because, as you have rightly indicated, that doesn't mean he is right. But then, I'm sure Rob. would disagree with you on what is right, also. Nevertheless, I would be the first to defend his right to do so in a politically correct, relativistic, pluralistic society that tends to look upon one's cherished right today to disagree as a form of intolerance. I just hope he would do the same for me (and my children) when (not if) push comes to shove. God bless.

123. Kstret says on Aug 7, 2010 @ 10:36 PM:

     Rob,

     "Incidentally, what "Devil" are you expecting to locate within the details?"

     I don't know how I missed this one.......
     Rob, the devil being in the details means the the studies you are referring to uses human skin for paper,human blood for ink, and is bound in demon flesh; much like the necronomicon. If you even look at the sex-ed studies, you will take on a demonic voice, start projectile vomiting pea soup while shouting," THE SOUL IS MINE!"

     http://www.escapade.co.uk/ProductImages/SALEHIRE/Medium/TA426.jpg

     The studies are also best viewed while wearing goat leggings

     or

     It could mean that a study boasts of having the lowest pregnancy rate, you look at it, and they included elementary school children who aren't sexually active and don't count early abortions. You decide what I meant.

124. KStret says on Aug 7, 2010 @ 10:46 PM:

     Ray,
     You are right he is just going to keep posting the same thing over and over again ignoring everything else.

     Incidentally, I don't know how old your children are but one of the tricks the schools systems uses, is when you sign a consent form for the school to administer medication like aspirin, they don't tell you that also gives them permission to give them birth control pills etc.

     They are also implementing some the of the more controversial aspects of sexual education directly in to the class room. This way they are side stepping sexual education because so many people are becoming aware of what they are doing.

     They will teach a unit about families to kindergartners and include homosexuality in the curriculum. They will read homosexual fairy tales to children. When a parent complains about it, it's not sex educations, it's teaching about different families. Because of the 1% of kids who were adopted by same sex couples or have a parent that is gay, that gives them the right to teach kindergartners about homosexuality.

     There was a school that kept teaching kids about homosexuality. A kid's dad asked to be notified when they were teaching things that had to do with homosexuality, so he could pull his son out of the class.

     After the school did not notify him several times, he went down to the school to talk to them. They gave him the 'there are same sex couples who have kids so we can teach it' argument and refused to talk to him. He told them he is not leaving until the issues was resolved. They called the police and had him arrested.

     Home schooling looks like the way to go but not everyone can do it and I am sure they will be coming after that as well.

125. Rayburne F. says on Aug 9, 2010 @ 07:07 AM:

     Thanks for the tips, Kstret. I will keep them in mind. So far as I know and can determine, they have been up front so far and have not been doing anything behind my back that I should know about. I have written articles in the local paper expressing my views (so have other Christians), so they know where I stand. However, I will not let my gusrd down. I know where recent proposed "revisions" to the new curriculm are headed and it would not surprise me if they try to introduce them through sutle and manipulative means. Thanks for your input.

     We are looking forward to going home (Newfoundland) for 10 days to visit my family and friends. Take care and God bless.

126. robaylesbury says on Aug 9, 2010 @ 09:39 AM:

     Hello Kstret.

     1. Apparently I "Define abuse as being in a christian family who disagrees with you."

     Where? Please feel free to cut and paste where I have said such a thing? Or could it be just another creative paraphrase on your part?

     2. No contradiction. Teach your child according to the values you hold. Make no mistake, however, that nobody can insulate them fully. And whom would want to? Isn't one of the greatest joys having our viewpoints changed and modified via new information? From my own perspective, I consider it my role to teach my children HOW to think, rather than WHAT to think. Give them skills to interrogate data, warn them against taking anything on authority. As a parent I'm keen also that they understand that I am human, capable of error.

     3. Your position on studies is to ignore them. I understand that fully. Once again provide something that I can interrogate, along with its source.

     4. My position remains consistent when it comes to the role of parents and schools. I accept my limitations as a parent and recognise that much of what my children learn will come from sources other than myself. I'll do my imperfect best, showing love and warmth, hopefully playing a small part in their life journey. How will I fare? Ask them a few years down the road. Apparently his makes me a fascist. Ok, mea culpa, as they say in Italy.

     5. You have a tendency to make massive assumptions which you combine with sweeping generalisations with a side dressing of over simplification. I'll let others decide whether I have addressed the flaws in you logic.
     
     6. I never ignored your points. Once again, I invite others to decide the value of my claims. There is nothing controversial in the idea of informing young adults of the options available to them. I'm encouraged by the data we are seeing, whilst being enough of a realist to know that there are no perfect solutions. Rose tinted glasses do not a clear view of reality make.

     7. You used the "A" word. I assume this, I assume that. Once again I hope you can desist in this inferior modus operandi. I advocate my position in the hope that it will help make a bad situation a bit better. Will it eradicate teen pregnancy? No. Might it reduce the figures? It appears that this is the case so far. As always, nothing should be taken for granted. If it can be proven that the strategy is not achieving its goals we should refine, review, or replace it.

     8. I'm unsure what you are talking about? Something about homosexuals and personal hygiene? I'm kidding. Seriously though, why are the sexual and emotional life choices of others such a pressing issue for you? In fact, why is it ANY of your business? Homosexuals exist both in nature and in society. Where does the phobia, the mania, the fear come from?

     9. I acknowledge that teenage kids are sexual beings. This is why it is such a pressing issue to ensure they understand the rights and responsibility that comes with sexuality. This means more than teaching a kid to put a condom on a banana (what is this obsession you have with banana's anyway?); it requires an intelligent and well rounded strategy that takes guidance from society at large. It might surprise you, but I think teaching abstinence is a good strategy, and perhaps should even be a spearhead. However, for me I want the bases covered. If these kids are going to fool around, and I think we agree that they will, then I'd like them to be aware of how to protect themselves and others. This to me is simple recognition of the way the world is.

     10. You are correct. Arguing that just because everyone agrees with me a strategy must be right is risky. Which is precisely why we need to study the data that comes in from a myriad of different sources. Thank you for making my point for me.

     11. I was stunned by your surprisingly candid admission that you go to Kstret when Kstret seeks to have his way of thinking challenged. I can't quite decide whether I admire your honesty on this or not? Either way, it's not often that somebody hoists themselves by their own petard quite so spectacularly.

     12. I think Ray likes you.

127. robaylesbury says on Aug 9, 2010 @ 09:46 AM:

     Re your link;

     http://www.escapade.co.uk/ProductImages/SALEHIRE/Medium/TA426.jpg

     I want my book back!!

     Concerning your observation "It could mean that a study boasts of having the lowest pregnancy rate, you look at it, and they included elementary school children who aren't sexually active and don't count early abortions."

     The answer is to look at GLOBAL META ANALYSIS for the age range 15-19yrs. Voila!!

128. KStret says on Aug 9, 2010 @ 10:58 PM:

     Rob,
     If your children came home from school and told you that homosexuality is a sin, sex is a sin,abstinence is the best way,masturbation is wrong and the school didn't inform you about the curriculum, would you be upset?

129. KStret says on Aug 9, 2010 @ 11:34 PM:

     Rob,
     "I'm unsure what you are talking about? ."

     The homosexual political movement has been attempting to change the perception about gays. They want the perception of samesex couples to be that they are just like straight people, they just are attracted to the same sex. The reality is that this isn't true. In the 70s and 80s a large percentage of gay men frequented bath house orgies.The average number of sexual partners of a homosexual man amounted to a full time job. In the politically correct mind set, simply pointing out facts that don't show homosexuals in a favorable light equates to homophobia and bigotry.

     If you want to go to a bathhouse orgy, that's none of my business. If you want to say gays are just like straight people and we are going to teach you children about homosexuality whether you like it or not, that is another issue. By simply pointing out the fact that a large number of the homosexual population goes to bathhouses and that there is no equivalent of the bathhouse in the straight population, to many progressives that is homophobia. No, that is dodging the point and name calling to side step having to address the fact of the bathhouses.

130. robaylesbury says on Aug 11, 2010 @ 06:49 AM:

     Are we talking about Catholic schools now?

     And why are the sexual partners that homosexuals any of your business?

131. KStret says on Aug 11, 2010 @ 02:56 PM:

     Rob,
     "Are we talking about Catholic schools now"

     No but if you are going to side step the issue by making some kind of separation of church and state argument, we can change the example to homosexuality is not normal, abstinence only is the best policy and you should wait until marriage to have sex. The separation of church and state argument would also contradict you previous argument that kids need to hear "alternative viewpoints whether we want them to or not."

     "And why are the sexual partners that homosexuals any of your business"

     As usual my point went over your head. If they want have orgies that is their business. If they want to market them selves as being just like straight people, it's fair game to point out that is not true and point to the large number of homosexuals that frequent bathhouses. Pointing that out is not homophobic or bigoted as some people might suggest to get around he issue.

132. robaylesbury says on Aug 11, 2010 @ 11:07 PM:

     Hello Kstret
     
     Regarding schools, I accept that they may not always teach subject matter I concur with. As a parent I can venture an alternative viewpoint. What I won't do is deny them the important opportunity of hearing subjects that do not align with my personal views.
     
     Regarding sexuality, is there some norm you appear to be referring to? What is this and how have you settled on it? You made clear that you have not mentioned Christianity in your thread. Can I infer that you are coming from a secular viewpoint? If yes, can you articulate?

133. KStret says on Aug 12, 2010 @ 03:04 PM:

     Rob,
     You are dodging the question. If your child came home from school and was taught with out your knowledge that homosexuality was not normal, abstinence is the best way in regards to sex-ed, and you should wait until you are married to have sex, would you be upset?

134. robaylesbury says on Aug 13, 2010 @ 08:58 AM:

     I would be disappointed.

     However, I accept that the school may not always teach subject matter that I concur with. And as a parent I am able to venture an alternative viewpoint.

     And just in case anybody missed it first time around, What I won't do is deny my children the important opportunity of hearing subjects that do not align with my personal views.

     They are autonomous human beings. Not my own personal vanity project. What kind of feeble minded, insecure, egocentric creature I would be should I ever choose otherwise?

     Regarding sexuality, is there some norm you appear to be referring to? What is this and how have you settled on it? You made clear that you have not mentioned Christianity in your thread. Can I infer that you are coming from a secular viewpoint? If yes, can you articulate?

135. KStret says on Aug 14, 2010 @ 02:45 PM:

     Rob,
     "I would be disappointed"

     
     You would probably be more than just disappointed. However, if you admit that, what you are saying is that other peoples views need to be challenged with your views. If your views are challenged with other peoples views that is not permissible but makes you a hypocrite. You also have the luxury of down playing that sentiment because your views are not being challenged by the culture. If the culture flipped and your views were challenged, I have a sneaking suspicion we would be hearing a lot of words that end in phobia and isms.

136. robaylesbury says on Aug 15, 2010 @ 04:35 AM:

     Kstreet observes;

     "You would probably be more than just disappointed"

     Err, no. I would be just disappointed.

     And then Kstret comments;

     "If your views are challenged with other peoples views that is not permissible but makes you a hypocrite."

     I haven't the faintest idea what you just said?

     Regarding sexuality, is there some norm you appear to be referring to? What is this and how have you settled on it? You made clear that you have not mentioned Christianity in your thread. Can I infer that you are coming from a secular viewpoint? If yes, can you articulate?

137. KStret says on Aug 15, 2010 @ 03:37 PM:

     Rob,
     "Err, no. I would be just disappointed."
     Really Rob? Why is it then that you supported a college professor losing his job because you didn't like what he said about homosexuality?

     "I haven't the faintest idea what you just said"

     You have the luxury of sending you kids to school without them coming home and telling you that homosexuality is a type of mental disorder and not normal. In other words, it means just what I said. Your views are not being challenged by the schools or the culture.

138. robaylesbury says on Aug 15, 2010 @ 04:08 PM:

     1. Could you point me towards the post you are referring to?

     2. You seem distressed that my views reflect the zeitgeist?

     3. Regarding sexuality, is there some norm you appear to be referring to? What is this and how have you settled on it? You made clear that you have not mentioned Christianity in your thread? Can I infer that you are coming from a secular viewpoint? If yes, can you articulate?

139. KStret says on Aug 15, 2010 @ 05:40 PM:

     Rob,
     1. In this blog, we were talking about the college teacher being fired for making "offensive"comments about homosexuals. You supported the school firing him because he is a "ignorent fool."
     2. Am I correct, that you must support traditional marriage and have no problem with homosexuals not being able to marry then? After all, the culture doesn't want it.

     "Bad reasons are given, but I still think UI made the right decision in not renewing this guy's contract. Kenneth Howell is in ignorant fool who mistakes his religious dogma and his personal prejudices for knowledge.

     Here's an example. Keep in mind that this fellow is a professor, supposedly teaching college students something about philosophy. Here he's trying to explain why homosexuality is wrong."

140. robaylesbury says on Aug 15, 2010 @ 10:41 PM:

     1.) Kstret, you refer to the article penned by PZ Myers. Let's see what PZ had to to say;

     "Kenneth Howell was an adjunct professor at the University of Illinois. He is not being rehired at the end of his contract, apparently because he has been accused of hate speech against gays by a student. He had written an email to his students defending the Catholic position on homosexuality, and a friend of one of the students wrote to the university and the media accusing the professor of "hate speech", of "indoctrinating students", and "limiting the marketplace of ideas".

     I hate to say it, but I think the student was wrong. I read the professor's email, and I don't think it is hate speech at all.

     It's stupid speech.

     A letter that condemned students, that threatened students if they didn't agree with his views, that discriminated against a segment of society, or that denied people full participation in the culture for their views or background or private practices…that would be hate speech. This letter, though, is a pedantic and polite explanation of the views of the professor and of the Catholic church and of his interpretation of utilitarianism, and in fact is careful to say that he isn't condemning any individuals. We can't endorse using this kind of discussion as an excuse to expel people from academia — we want professors and students to be able to communicate freely with one another, without fear of retaliation. I see no sign that the professor was discussing the matter in a way that disrespects any of his students.

     And the student complaining was doing so poorly. The professor's ideas made him uncomfortable. He disliked what he said. He thought the professor was insensitive.

     Those are not good reasons. If a student is never made uncomfortable, that student is not getting an education."

     Here's the link -

     http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/07/honesty_about_sex_is_going_to.php

     Kstret, I cannot thank you enough for refreshing my memory concerning this article. I do believe that you have hoisted yourself by your own petard again.

     2. I support traditional marriage whilst having absolutely no problem with gay marriage? I was not not aware it was
     an either/or proposition?

     3. Regarding sexuality, is there some norm you appear to be referring to? What is this and how have you settled on it? You made clear that you have not mentioned Christianity in your thread. Can I infer that you are coming from a secular viewpoint? If yes, can you articulate?

141. KStret says on Aug 15, 2010 @ 10:41 PM:

     Rob,
     In other words, For teaching catholic thought on natural moral law pertaining to homosexuality, Kenneth Howell should be fired because he is a "ignorant fool."

     To put it another way Howell should be fired for disagreeing with you. This presents a problem for your claim that you would only be disappointed if you child came home and was taught that homosexuality isn't normal. Your child is in grade school but you wanted Howell fired and he was teaching at a college, where most of the students are over 18.

     
     "What I won't do is deny them the important opportunity of hearing subjects that do not align with my personal views."

     Kenneth Howell was giving the students the important opportunity of hearing something that does not align with your personal views but you think he should be let go for giving students the important opportunity of hearing something that does not align with your personal views.

142. KStret says on Aug 15, 2010 @ 10:48 PM:

     Rob,
     1. That's great that you think the student was out of line and it wasn't hate speech. That still doesn't change the fact you thought he should be fired because he was ignorant and stupid.
     2. "I support traditional marriage whilst having absolutely no problem with gay marriage?

     That's not what I asked you Rob. If you have no problem with the culture setting certain standards, you should have no problem with the culture telling homosexuals that they can't get married. I am I correct in that assessment?

143. KStret says on Aug 15, 2010 @ 11:02 PM:

     Sorry Rob,
     http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/07/honesty_about_sex_is_going_to.php

     I couldn't tell where the PZM blog ended and your comments began.The way the quotes were placed after the first paragraph, it look like you posted part of the article and were commenting after that.

     Do you support his contention that Howell should have been fired for being stupid?

144. robaylesbury says on Aug 15, 2010 @ 11:05 PM:

     1. Please could you cut and paste where I stated that I thought Kenneth Howell should be fired?

     2. The term Zeitgeist means "spirit of the times". It in no way implies that every cultural shift is enshrined in law.

145. KStret says on Aug 15, 2010 @ 11:15 PM:

     "I do believe that you have hoisted yourself by your own petard again."

     Not really.If you don't hold PZM's opinion that Howell should be fired for being dumb, my comments would go to the blog you posted. If you don't hold his opinion why would you bother posting it? He shouldn't be fired for hate speech but he should be fired for being a fool?

     You third question isn't germane to the topic at all. I am keeping it secular to prevent a separation of church and state defense. However, by your previous comments, you shouldn't have a problem with your views being challenged by religion even in schools.

146. robaylesbury says on Aug 15, 2010 @ 11:18 PM:

     No probs about the PZM comments.

     Concerning KH, It would be up to the school to decide whether he should be released. I do not have all the information concerning his day to day performance so I am a bit hesitant to comment.

     Concerning the PZM article, PZ is a brash rhetorician and the thrust of the piece was a de-construction of the Catholic view on homosexuality. Those were my reasons for
     posting it.

147. KStret says on Aug 15, 2010 @ 11:24 PM:

     Rob,
     "The term Zeitgeist means "spirit of the times". It in no way implies that every cultural shift is enshrined in law."

     If the majority of the culture doesn't want something, you don't really have a cultural shift. If you are fine with going with the flow of the spirt of the times and the spirit of the times doesn't want same sex marriage, you should be ok with not letting homosexuals get married, right?

     Otherwise, what you are saying is when the spirit of the times goes in your favor, no one should complain that the culture is going in a direction they don't like. When the culture is going in a direction you don't like that doesn't count.

148. Anonymous says on Aug 15, 2010 @ 11:30 PM:

     "Concerning the PZM article, PZ is a brash rhetorician and the thrust of the piece was a de-construction of the Catholic view on homosexuality. Those were my reasons for
     posting it."

     I pointed out the flaw in his reasoning in my previous comment about 300 posts above this one.

     
     "Concerning KH, It would be up to the school to decide whether he should be released. I do not have all the information concerning his day to day performance so I am a bit hesitant to comment."

     Based only on what KH said should he be fired?

149. robaylesbury says on Aug 16, 2010 @ 01:02 PM:

     You seem to be floundering.

     I have no problem with traditional marriage. I have no problem with Gay marriage.

     Concerning the PZ article, I expect you have persuaded yourself of the efficacy of your position.

     I feel for KH insofar that he has to marinate daily in the intellectual and moral sinkhole known as Catholicism. From what limited information I have it may be that was treated harshly, however.

     We done?

150. KStret says on Aug 16, 2010 @ 10:49 PM:

     Rob,
     "You seem to be floundering.I have no problem with traditional marriage. I have no problem with Gay marriage."

     You are evading the issue. If the spirit of the culture does not want same sex marriage by your own rationale you should have no problem with that. Is that correct or incorrect?

     
     "feel for KH insofar that he has to marinate daily in the intellectual and moral sinkhole known as Catholicism. From what limited information I have it may be that was treated harshly, however."

     I will take that as he should not have been fired. What if he used "hate speech"?

151. robaylesbury says on Aug 17, 2010 @ 07:28 AM:

     1. I have no problem with traditional marriage. I have no problem with Gay marriage.

     The Zeitgeist makes no obligation on individuals. Are you saying that I am obligated to conform with it?

     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeitgeist

     If he used "hate speech" as defined by your legal system then yes. Your legal system, your rules.