The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Sex talk > Comments

Sex talk : Comments

By Lyn Allison, published 27/4/2006

Exactly what sex education are our children receiving?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 12
  7. 13
  8. 14
  9. All
“But comprehensive evidence-based relationships and sexual and reproductive health education in our schools with parents involved and teachers properly equipped to deliver it, must surely help. “

Thats the way to go, but not another inquiry for the bureaucrats to stuff up. Haven't we learnt yet that inquiries only provide bureaucrats with an excuse to look like they are doing something, but are just shuffling papers.

Full sex education, health and lifestyle approach, should be the most important aspects of early learning. If we add reading writing and maths, you have the basis of a start and good understanding of life. We do 3 things most in our lives, eat, sleep and have or think about sex, yet they are the ones that education neglects the most.

I actually don't think things have changed much over the years, people have been doing it from the age that they become aware of itsince time began. Pregnancies in the young have always been prominent, as has sexual disease. Like most things to do with ourselves, we haven't progressed very far at all.

Until education is moved away from economic outcomes and into people outcomes, society will continue to go down the drain.
Posted by The alchemist, Thursday, 27 April 2006 8:14:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sex education is a matter between child and parent. No inquiry will or should intrude into this relationship. Parents must take primary responsiblity for forming their children intensively into adulthood but particularly in the formative years 0-7. If parents are able to do so but are not prepared to sacrifice themselves perhaps they so leave child bearing to others. Once an individual has offspring they have a life long responsibility to form and support the child for the childs sake but also societies.
Posted by pablo, Thursday, 27 April 2006 10:08:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thankyou, Lyn Allison, for continuing to keep the important issue of sexuality education in the media. The World Health Organization defines sexual health as: 'a state of physical, emotional, mental and social wellbeing in relation to sexuality; it is not merely the absence of disease, dysfunction or infirmity. Sexual health requires a positive and respectful approach to sexuality and sexual relationships, as well as the possibility of having pleasurable and safe sexual experiences, free of coercion, discrimination and violence (WHO, 2002).

Good sexual health is central to our lives. It is important for personal happiness, but also has implications for the fiscal bottom line. Sexuality education is too important to be left ad hoc, and I support Senator Allison's call for, 'comprehensive evidence-based relationships and sexual and reproductive health education in our schools with parents involved and teachers properly equipped to deliver it'.

Such education is not merely the mechanics of reproduction and issues of safety, but incorporates communication, decision making and relationship skills, as well as the development of good self esteem and respect for others. We use these things in all aspects of our lives. Perhaps calling it sexuality education gives people like Pablo the wrong idea. In Victoria the new curriculum strategy, Victorian Essential learning Standards (VELS), has communication as on of the key areas. It's a good start. But specifics about sexual safety are not specified. ARCSHS's excellent resource, Talking Sexual Health, is a great tool for teachers.

Knowledge is power. Let’s empower our children.
Posted by LindaK, Thursday, 27 April 2006 10:39:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Great article Lyn, with many valid points! No doubt the Christian Taliban will fight you all the way however, claiming that just abstinence and prayer should be taught. The evidence shows what a disaster that turns out to be, so please don't give in to them and their vast spin machine.
Posted by Yabby, Thursday, 27 April 2006 11:07:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I know I should agree with the article. In fact I do agree with the theory of it: children should be taught all the skills they need to function in society. As for leaving sex ed to parents: what a joke.

However I've a feeling that sex ed, at least the way it's taught now (to my understanding anyway), is a bit like having a class on using the internet. You end up with the students teaching the teacher ways to beat the system. Any formal sex ed class will talk of love, respect, safety etc but will it mention fun? How about sex and drugs? Should we talk about 'friends with benefits' and how oral sex is a good substitute for the 'real thing'? These aren't my concepts: do a search, see what "kids" are saying to each other in permanent forums let alone with IM. I guess it's not impossible to 'teach around' such concepts, I just have a feeling that adult teachers will always be fighting the last war.
Posted by PeterJH, Thursday, 27 April 2006 11:37:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lyn, by installing the federal government in the role of parent you are removing a vital part of the relationship between parent/s and child/ren and that is communication. Parents today feel uncomfortable about discussing sex with their children. The state, with its structured sex 'module' taught in the classroom, has undermined the confidence of parents. How can parents compete with such a 'superior' parent. Teenagers must wonder if their parents have a role in their lives other than someone to drive them to netball or soccer.

Is it any wonder that by the end of high school 25% of young people are sexually active. The pansexualism of 2006 is unavoidable. We see Britney dressed like a seductive school girl on the prowl. The muliebrity she displays is not that of a shy girl unsure of herself. Instead Britney is cast as a soubrette and a wink from any male would see her panties down around her ankles. In another page from the playbook 'sex sells,' a couple in a car who, after a passionate embrace, must curse the fact that the back seat is occupied by 3-year-old Jackson and they'll have to go inside the house to relieve the pressure.

Lyn, can you inform the debate about the incidence of teenage pregnancies in countries where there exists a strong parent/child bond.

And illegal drugs playing a role. What happened to the mantra 'harm minimisation' that was developed by the doctrinaire organisations?

Let's do something daring; let's develop a sex module that we can arm parents with so that they may teach their children.
Posted by Sage, Thursday, 27 April 2006 12:17:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Socio-sexual co-habitation practices in neo-Pacific mythology"

by Prof. Reginald Bygges-Bottomley

http://byggesbottomley.blogspot.com/
Posted by King Canute, Thursday, 27 April 2006 12:24:20 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sexuality, including the way sex is had and with who and all attitudes towards sex is created by our total social environment, school, family, T.V. internet, peers and all too often sexual assault and abusive sex education too.

It is too late to say lets surround our children with positive and empowering sexual images, that is simply not how our world is. We have to create relevent images, and attract their attention to it,

The public debate has all too often been between pornography and censorship,with little public discussion about the nature of healthy public images of sexuality, only about how much sex is acceptable in terms of censorship classifications and public advertising protocols.
Football cheerleaders with costumes, and often breasts, designed for men's titillation are considered acceptible images of sexuality on T.V. as long as they keep their tops on. Similarly all the very short and intense matcho/submissive sex scenes on T.V. that might show only some thigh and shoulder, are the models of sex that our society publically promotes including to our young, who cannot but feel disapointed at first sexual experience because there was no simultaneous orgasm within 30 seconds like on t.v..

The answer, or part of it anyway, is to promote strong, free, real sexual imagery everywhere - including at school in anatomy text books, realistic condom demos, life models (proffessional adults) in art class etc - without fuss. but not just at school - everywhere, Remove the guilt element that causes so much denial and escapism, and be open about sex including redifineing censorship classifications to avoid violence and powerless sexual images rather than erotic images.

Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" would have been powerfull if she defended the beauty of her breast rather than apologising for her obscenity. Public culture is sex education - especially the music industry, good and bad alike. Janet's breast is obscene but the plethora of wiggling bums and tits that provide visual imagery for male popstars, footballers and advertisers goes to our children daily..
Posted by King Canute, Thursday, 27 April 2006 2:11:40 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Information without guidlines leads to an 'anything goes' mentality.

The debate about sex education is incomplete unless the moral ingredient is thrown in the mix.

We can say it is the parents role or the school's but who decides what's best for the child moraly? We teach them how to do it but not the real consequences of their acts.

Pregnancy and/or STDs - as devastating as they may be - are the least of our long term problems... believe you me.

Society has distorted all aspects of decency and moral values in the name of freedom, political correctness, and self expression to a point where educators and parents alike can't recognise the difference between the good and the bad anymore.

Afterall if they teach our children that they came from a monkey... how can we expect them to behave as humans?
Posted by coach, Thursday, 27 April 2006 2:42:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sex education, data and advice?
Step one. Remove sex guilt make the morality apply to the behaviour not the sex or belief system. The reverse seems easy enough the Iraq killings resulting from a depraved desire for domination and involving perversion of truth and the requirements of Democracy, or the AWB scandal resulting from trying to exclude the Americans gaining access for Australian wheat
Step two. Remove the idea of God’s image being an object of obscenity
Step three. Broaden the idea of love from sex gratification which our hormones impose on us, to shared experience which may lead to a deeper relationship, but is unlikely to do so when sex carries the load for love, even if in the view of some it is the initial mechanism of pair bonding Actually the neuroscientists tell us the more desire to please the other the greater the serotonin surge = more fun!
Step four. Remove the stereo male patriearchy and replace with education about how males and females differ and how they are similar. Shakespeare’s shylock might clarify the point do not Jews bleed etc. Many of the differences are hyped and used for selling. Period pads but one example, skin blemish another
Step five Teach basic principles of health and disease transmission and that morality demands we do not transmit however high the sexual urge
Step six Parents can but usually don’t leaving it to the few books lying round, to be read under the bedclothes, widen the scope. How can sex education destroy the parental role excepting the parent wants to teach some proscribed role for sex?
Step seven Stop using sex as a means of selling if the customer wants the goods sex has little part.
Step eight Value children as humans needing security love as well as potential economic ciphers.
I feel sure there are more and admit that sex education has improved since I first learnt any some forty years ago but there is backlash growing which would place sex out with the fairies again talked of in tones of enjoyable righteous indignation!
Posted by untutored mind, Thursday, 27 April 2006 4:20:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well, yabba-yabba-yabba...

A perusal of the good Senator's previously published forays into "How to brainwash and influence people" on this page, reveals previous writings about sex education. Clearly the woman is obsessed with it.

In my circle of friends and Internet chums, sex education is not a topic we talk about much, except when it's raised by zealous advocates like Lyn Allison here. But why is this such an overwhelming topic for her and, as the leader of the Democrats, that party too?

The argument supplied here has little to commend it to call for an official Federal Government inquiry when there are much more significant national matters to contend with. Great swathes of the population aren't beset by sexual ignorance, nor are there any ravenous pandemics of sexual diseases causing people to drop dead in the streets like flies. So why is this of such importance to her?

After all, it isn't a terribly complicated subject. Thousands of preceding populations don't seem to have had any problem with it. The world is literally crawling with humans. Obviously somebody knows what they're doing. First there's consent, then you put that bit into that bit, wiggle it around a bit, and the next thing you know - bang-bang - babies.

There are of course a couple of variations and diverse flavours, depending on individual taste, but what the heck - it isn't even as complicated as using a computer and most people can manage to do that without taking lessons. So why do we need lessons in what just comes naturally?

It's simple - we don't.

No. There's a deeper agenda to Allison's push. It just can't be as straight forward as she's presented here. No way. There's got to be more to it. There's got to be a lot more to it. And there is, isn't there Lyn? Something to do with political ideology and social engineering. Indoctrinating kids into being liberal thinkers and thinking only inside that square. Tell us all about that Lyn.

But no, she won't.
Posted by Maximus, Thursday, 27 April 2006 4:39:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The abscence of STI's doesn't necessarily mean you have good sexual health. If you want to paint those who don't care about STI's as irrational, irresponsible or unimformed (perhaps just plain 'mad') then you are no better than those fundamentist Christian groups.

Oh, and if sexual health education doesn't (yes, you read correctly) encourage early sexual activity, then I'm opposed to it.
Posted by strayan, Thursday, 27 April 2006 8:28:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Maximus - you obviously don't have daughters. Believe me you would want them to have sex education.
Posted by sajo, Thursday, 27 April 2006 9:19:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"then you put that bit into that bit, wiggle it around a bit, and the next thing you know - bang-bang - babies."

Well Maximus, it would be nice to think that Aussie teenagers actually know a bit more then you about sex and avoiding pregnancy :)

Given the teenage pregnancy rate and abortion rate, some in the community think that kids should actually be taught how to avoid
having babies. Knowledge empowers people, they go to school for knowledge, so why not give them knowledge? You might as well be honest and tell girls that boys tell lies to gain consent.

I don't really care about Lyn's motives. A liberal society is actually not a bad thing, it means a tolerant society, which is
required if secular democracies are to function. That's certainly
alot better then Muslim or Catholic religious tyranny!

If Aussie kids become more empowered about their lives by better education, bring it on. If I had my way, we'd throw out religion
and teach kids philosophy, ethics, emotional intelligence, conflict resolution skills etc, which would all help them in their lives and also lead to a more informed and more tolerant society.

So you keep wiggling around a bit, but don't try to deny kids the education that they deserve and which could be provided to them, for little or no extra expense, to the benefit of all.
Posted by Yabby, Thursday, 27 April 2006 10:38:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If it helps to reduce paternity fraud, I’m all for it.

For those interested in what Janet Albrechtsen had to say about paternity fraud yesterday in The Australian:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,18928924-32522,00.html
Posted by Seeker, Friday, 28 April 2006 12:46:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Education is better than ignorance, whatever the subject. There should be a standard curriculum throughout Australia on sex education and it should be taught to every child, in every school, without exception. It should be broad based and include such things as respect and the right to choose for oneself, without coercion, one way or the other.

I see the main problem as being the strange artificial conflicts encouraged in Australian society. Sexuality and nudity is prevalent in advertising and entertainment. This can be criticised, but it will continue. In the 1970s and 1980s nudity became commonplace in theatre, TV, films and on many Australian beaches. The beach nudity was non-sexual and most of the entertainment nudity was harmless, by almost anyone's standards. But interfering politicians and bureaucrats, egged on by religious extremists, couldn't allow this sort of thing to continue. So people were encouraged to be ashamed and embarrassed of their own bodies.

So what do we teach our children? Be ashamed of your bodies and their functions, but be comfortable about learning about sex. Be comfortable about tampon ads on TV, but be too ashamed to get changed in a locker room amongst people of your own sex. It doesn't add up, does it?

Some of the European countries don't seem to have these problems to anywhere near the same extent. And they are reported to have lower rates of unwanted pregnancies and abortion too. How about finding out what they are doing and teaching and following suit. Ah, but the Australian wowsers wouldn't approve of that, would they?
Posted by Rex, Friday, 28 April 2006 2:09:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
UNTUTORED MIND said...

"Step one. Remove sex guilt make the morality apply to the behaviour not the sex or belief system"

Sounds very Christian to me :) .. 'Guilt' and sex are usually only relevant when one is:

a) Being unfaithful to ones partner
b) Being unfaithful to the values one already subscribes to in ones heart.
c) Being unfaithful to your upbringing.

God, being the inventor of sex, I'm sure has the view that there is nothing wrong with it in itself. But the problem is 'us'. Due to the pleasure factor, and our natural instinct for spreading our genes, male female attractiveness etc... there will always be a tension between our agreed values and our inner desires.

I think the reasoning goes something like this:

'Yes, I know how a good healthy happy society should run, BUT.. she/he is so HOT.. and so AVAILABLE etc...

That brings us back to the 'Ethically Speaking' thread, and the idea of values frameworks and the need for 3 things.

1/ Upbringing.
2/ Teaching of ethics
3/ a Reason for obeying 1&2 above.

I think the more important aspect is the values framework of the society. It is MUCH easier to be pure when everything in the community is based on such a value. Only when we do HAVE a framework like this will such things as adultery, sex with children, sex with vulnerable older people, pre-marital sex be seen for what they are and regarded with appropriate negativity.

I would rather see a caring community which made no bones about the wrongfulness of:

-Premarital sex (but did not make guilty parties 'eternal outcastes')
-Adulterous sex (but did not throw the first stone)
-Deviate sex (but recognized that some people need a lot of help in this area)
-Gave information at schools about reproduction and STDs

Most of our permissiveness can be traced back to the Arts in collusion with our fallen and opportunistic natures. "Pushing the boundaries" in plays, novels, visual media and opinion leaders. Such things erode the 'line' between right and wrong.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Friday, 28 April 2006 8:00:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There have been some freaky things said in the name of Christian moralism here, including premarital sex in the same category as child rape. Can any of the christians explain what is wrong with informed premarital sex other than insulting notions such as "buying used goods". Such a confused sexual morality is what creates confusion and guilt if taught to our young people and a major cause of self esteem problems at all ages.

And on teaching morality with sex education -
There seems to be some consensus that the so-called "formative years" , from birth til 5 or 6. is the time when the human's personality develops, as does our sense of social order and our place in it. These formative years is where we get our morality from, it starts in many cases with teething. When baby wants to bite mums tit and the first negotiated settlement of the baby's life begins. Without moral frameworks, without even language, love and bonding alone is the mechanism for teaching mutual respect for the first time. Mutual respect, taught before language. and all through a child's life is the first rule of sex education, but it is much too late to consider teaching it when puberty arrives, except in remedial and therapeutic situations. Similarly emotion, tenderness, intimacy and connectedness. These are the first things a child learns, and if maintained throughout their formative years and beyond this will be the nature of the adult.

It seems to me adolescence (a strange phenomenon of western society) is the time to encourage people to be strong in what they allready believe, follow their heart and resist peer group pressure, whether that pressure is telling them to be promiscuous or to abstain until they are married. we need to convince young adults that they allready have everything they need to exercise responsible judgement - Adolescent sex education is the time to empower young people to exercise that judgement and give them all the resources they need to make the best judgements and more importantly, do the right thing by those judgements.
Posted by King Canute, Friday, 28 April 2006 12:57:50 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Maximus,

You're a twit. This is actually quite a serious issue.

As implied by Sajo, there is more to this than the "hokey pokey". For example, how does a teacher deal with an eleven year old girl that is menstruating for the first time and has no idea of what is happening to her. The teacher or staff member must be trained for this.

The is also a maturity aspect involved. Girls will tend (or even need) Reproductive Education before boys. Does society limit this education to reproduction and health, or are gay/lesbian/bisexual/beastiality/bondage/fetish concepts discussed with and by students.

Sen. Allison is quite brave in bringing this topic to the fore.
Posted by Narcissist, Friday, 28 April 2006 1:27:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lyn Allison:

After trying to digest the thrust of your article, overall I commisserate your emotive view and common sense - niggly, you instill a disquiet because of your Political stance in the past.Hidden Agenda perhaps ?

Which Parent dosen't agonise over their teenage siblings ?

Unfortunately, they come in the thousands. They consciously abrogate their responsibilities, relying on Government to ' welfare' their children through life, and even strenously abetting them - to ride the ' lollypop-roller-coaster' with free handout's,grants,special support and countless charitable initiatives made easy by myriad bleeding hearts, do-gooders, Christian Organisations riding the 'gravy train' of Tax payer funded Social Security largess ?

Quote: "cringe worthy talks on sex " say's it all. Who's responsibility is it to educate your children in the first place ? We worry over what they eat in the 'tuck shop'; the company they keep; the subjects they elect in the curriculum - yet, shameslessly buck at educating them on the necessities of Life !! Expediently, because we still live in the Victorian straight-jacket, coquetishly side-step sex, and even though the vast majority of us don't reside in the Canberra 'fish-bowl', have no illusions about addressing promiscuity, safe-sex, teen relationships, contraception, STD, and all the paraphernalia of 'sexual intercourse'...see I've said it. Bring it out in the OPEN, for goodness sake lady ?

Two Summer's ago, I volunteered for " schoolie's Week " at Surfer's. Mainly to anticipate the psychological impact and ramifications of teenage behaviour, and to complete an assignment. I could publish a book from 'first hand' experience at the coal face. My recommendation to ALL Parent's: to spend time with their siblings whilst they enjoy this 'eye-opener'annual event on the Gold Coast.

Pubescent behaviour in 2006, has NO precedent, nor comparison to Yesteryears. The Media, Advertising, Fashion Industry, Life-style et al have reached heights never before envisaged in previous generation.We are bombarded, traumatised, brainwashed and thoroughly saturated with scantilly clad 'sex-oriented'themic manipulations and gyrations, designed by professionals, to glamorise, cajole, seduce, and encapsulate the human mind, bordering on Science fiction. Orson Well's predictions have arrived.

continued..
Posted by dalma, Friday, 28 April 2006 5:16:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Despite the small army of Volunteers, social workers, psychologist, police, security personnel etc the event is a magnet for the seedier side of Society. Predators, paedophiles, deviants, drug pushers/takers, and mix-bag of flotsam and jetsam as is common to any big city event. It caters for everybody, but more specifically focuse's on Year 12 students completing their school years.

The word limit on Forum precludes me futher discussing 'Schoolies'.

All the emphasis on Sex Education focuses on Teenage Mum's, you would think ?For reasons yet unexplained, Adult boy's escape the scandal, retribution and stigma females have to go through ! It takes two to tango. It is common knowledge the seducer's are young men, only a few years older than their prey. The predator's often pick on the weak; bragging about their sex-prowess to their mates, imagining they are some Brad Pitt with flocks of Angiellina Jolly's falling over themselves, swooning for their manly favours ? Good Lord. The fact, they don't use condoms is diabolical to the extreme. Evidently, the STD message hasn't filtered through, nor the aftermath of failed pregnancies, abortions and miscarriages. Quoting figures and statistics to pubescent adults is fraught with Counter productive gogglegook.Sailing out the window with kids with short attention spans !

True, promiscuity, STD and unwanted pregnancies are on the rise. The J curve is destined to pan out, just as soon as Parent's take responsibility and Bureaucrats get off their proverbial and cease making flatulent noises !

12 Year''s ago I heard the same mantra from the Sister's of Mercy lecturing Indegenous school girls at Kakadu. That evening the local Disco was reverberating with KISS and Rollingstone's throbbing music. Inside, the dudes were drinking beer openly, sharing'tallies' with the giggling sheilas. It was supposed to be strictly supervised but alas,their elder's were doing their own thing in the car park, oblivious to their surroundings. By 9 pm, the car park, and nature reserve was a battle ground of fornification ? This rare incident, is identical to what is occuring weekly in some suburbs on the Gold Coast.

Cheers
Posted by dalma, Friday, 28 April 2006 6:04:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dalma, thank you for telling what we already imagined is happening out there.

You put the responsibility on parents and I agree to a point. But didn’t the parents once do what you have described to us? You would think that if you went to a "schoolies Week” at Surfer's you would never want to send your children there. Alas what could be promiscuity to you and I is absolutely fine with most parents today, and viewed as normal and acceptable behaviour.

After all alcohol is still glamorised and widely abused by adults (parents) and youngsters alike.

We have reached a point of no return. I don’t see the J plateauing at all as long as moral values and ethics are out of the context of education both at home and school.
Posted by coach, Friday, 28 April 2006 6:39:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My apologies for misrepresentation in the earlier post. Pre-marital sex was in the same category as "Deviate sex" not child rape as I wrongfully alleged.

However the point is the same - what is wrong with sex outside of marriage? Until anyone can give a serious answer to this question they just look foolish insisting on such things as a moral code.
Posted by King Canute, Friday, 28 April 2006 7:05:06 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A few weeks ago I went to a reunion of a bunch of friends, who had hardly seen each other for 25 years or so. We sat down and compared notes about our lives. Everyone in that group perchance today runs their own business, has a family and is doing well and contributing
to society. Yet 30 years ago this same bunch were considered by our parents to be a bunch of long haired, pot smoking hippies, with absolutaly no hope for the future and they wondered what the world was coming to, with people like us around as the future generation :)

Those "evil" schoolies will no doubt turn out much the same. If they have been given a good education in how to deal with times of peer pressure etc, how not to land up pregnant, they will most likely do
even better.

I agree with Coach (amazing) that ethics and morality should be discussed and taught at school. Perhaps I disagree as to what should be taught. Threatening educated kids with burning forever or floating on god's clouds if they are good, simply does not work, we are not in the third world, where people are more gullible.

I agree with Edward de Bono, we need to teach kids how to think. On these issues we need to challenge them to actually think about them and come up with their own reasoned opinions. Ethics and morality should be taught, but not as god being the answer to everything, for thats clearly failing, apart from those few who seem to need religion to cope with life. There is clearly a gap here that needs filling, in the education system.
Posted by Yabby, Friday, 28 April 2006 7:17:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Narcissist,

How do you do?

Firstly, let me tell you a little bit about Internet etiquette and the law. "Maximus, You're a twit.", you say. Perhaps you're correct, but then again perhaps you aren't.

Clearly, bereft of solid argument, you revert to the personal attack because you disagree with my post and are unable to answer it in coherent discussion, so you slander my good self, publicly, in front of all. This has a title under law and it's called defamation. Don't worry, I shall not sue you. But you should be careful, some will.

Perhaps instead of sex education, civility education might be a better subject to teach in schools. For example, you'll get a much greater sympathy from the audience if you criticise behaviour - in this case my posting and my opinions - rather than by personally attacking the individual. Personal attacks - throwing dirt at people - only reflects upon the thrower. Dirt thrown is ground lost.

Next on to your behaviour, your arguments.

You write, confronted by a menstruating 11 year-old girl a teacher is in need of training to handle the matter. "The teacher or staff member must be trained for this.", you say. Sure. Who would argue with that? But that's teacher training, not student sex education.

Now, notice how I did that. See how I criticised your behaviour, but not you as an individual? I did not call you a twit, an idiot, a fool, nor even a ratbag, regardless of my personal opinion of you. You see that's how it's done eloquently.

On with the story.

If girls need special education about the physiology of their bodies, then give it to them. But seeing as how they're only 50% of the student population, why drag boys through the misery? So too with "gay/lesbian/bisexual/beastiality/bondage/fetish" persons; they represent only about 2% of the population so why drag 98% of the student body through their misery in sex education lessons?

There's got to be a lot of better things to learn at school, like civility, respect, tolerance and especially the law.
Posted by Maximus, Sunday, 30 April 2006 6:49:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well said Maximus... nice (and educational) retort. Your not a twit.

The role of sex education in Schools should be limited to the reproductive and health aspects, which are a legitimate part of education. The morality, hmmm now that's a tuff one in this day and age.

I'd LOVEEEEE to suggest we outline certain types of behavior as 'acceptable' and 'unacceptable' but my list would annoy those who desire not to be marginalized because of their preference for intercourse with animals.. then there is the Nambla crowd.. OH.. I hear someone say "It's 'ok' to hammer away at them..they are BADDDD"

But I'd want to go as far as including pre-marital and extra marital sex, and would want homosexual sex on the list of 'deviate' and therefore UNacceptable to a well balanced socially healthy community.

Sadly, we have taken the line of least resistance and MAXimized the 'allowable/acceptable' and reduced the 'unnaceptable' to the bare minimum. I wonder what a teacher would say when a child or student asks "Please Mr/Ms so and so, could you tell me WHY it is immoral for older people to have sex with children" ? ummm would he/she say "err..because it is" ?...or.. "Because it damages children" ? at which point of course the smart aleck student reminds the teacher that our crimes act allows for sexual relations by older men with girls as young as 13 ! (when married to them) Perhaps the Teacher then says... "err.. I was not aware of this"

Student "Soo.... why does it 'damage' children outside of marraige but not within it" ?

Teacher. "Listen, the law is the law, and we don't allow certain things"

Student "Umm.. it cannot be the 'sex' which damages them, because its allowed if they are married, so...why don't we allow single children to have it also" ?

Teacher "Confused blank look".....'Because.. because... err.. ITS WRONG! get it ? Now sit down and no more questions !'

Then the REALLLLY annoying student, u know..that Bible bashing one.. raises his hand and asks, "What about Gods law" ?

Teachers eyes glaze over.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Sunday, 30 April 2006 8:05:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby,

I can tell that you're a woman of good spirit. I appreciate your comments. I trust you'll take this post in the spirit in which it is written too.

Yes, I do play the devil's advocate when confronted by mindless rhetoric. After all, somebody's got to try to strike a balance.

However, I'm curious about your argument, "boys tell lies to gain consent."

Clearly you know more than I about this matter. Perhaps you have personal anecdotes about these boys' lies. Please do enlighten us. What sorts of lies do these dastardly boys tell girls that brings about the loosening of knickers?

Do they tell dog-ugly girls that they're beautiful?

Do they tell girls that if they have sex during a full moon or when the moon is waning, impregnation is impossible?

Do they pledge forever-and-ever lasting love and devotion? Is this the reason that so many innocent female schoolteachers are being seduced by young primary-school boys in recently publicised child sex abuse scandals?

Oh, those naughty lying boys. It must be all their fault.

Please do enlighten us about these despicable lies that boys do tell. I for one would be most grateful to know. If such lies do truly loosen panties, all men, and myself in particular, should know about them. But don't tell my wife.

LOL,

Good luck to you Yabby.
Posted by Maximus, Sunday, 30 April 2006 8:12:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hey Boaz David.

What is wrong with premarital sex? Twice now you have said you are against it, why?

What is wong with homosexuality?

I know you cant give a sensible answer beacause the only answer is because the bible says so.

King solomon had sixty wives, eighty concubines and saw a pubesent girls breasts as a sign of the beauty of of God. The bible says lots of things.
Posted by King Canute, Sunday, 30 April 2006 9:15:32 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BD, we all have aptitudes in life for some things, not for others.
Rest assured that you have absolutaly no aptitude at all to write the sex education, morality and ethics course for schools :)

Maximus, my words are limited to 350 lol, but as a male I have listened to my friends and associates try to push every conceivable emotional female button, in an attempt to loosen those panties, with varying success rates. Some have been extremely good at it and have a trail of children around the district for their efforts.

You seem to think that sex education for boys is not required. Perhaps its worth teaching them, that if they take no responsibility
for their actions or for contraception, in today's society they can spend the next 20 years paying a fair % of their future salary on child maintenance payments.

There is also the question of morality and the kind of society that you want to live in. As a social species, its a more pleasant one, if we don't go around purposefully inflicting emotional pain on others through deceit. Emotional pain can be more enduring then physical pain in lots of ways. So boys should think of that before they tell girls lies. They should also think just a little about the consequences of their actions on the lives of others. If you disagree with that, then clearly you have no objection if I try to remove your daughter's panties or try to chat up your wife :)
Posted by Yabby, Sunday, 30 April 2006 9:29:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby..RATS.. another job opportunity down the tubes.. grrrr :)

Kanute.. pre-marital sex is not 'good' in the sense that it deprives us of a pure bond with our eventual mate. Mainly because if we have it with those who don't end up as our mate, we have baggage about it.

This goes for both genders.

I know I'm being rather idealistic and have not in my life fulfilled this, I've not always known Christ. I'm stating the ideal, rather than the guaranteeable.

Homosexual sex is plain wrong on two counts. Biologically, goes against our natural design. and Theologically/morally it is an abomination to God. I realize that a non Christian will not neccessarily share these views, but at least I can state them for peoples reflection.

I think we would have a wonderful society if we constructed a framework with limits to sexual adventurousness, constraining it to marraige. I find myself that if the framework is there, even the temptation to desire that which is outside the boundaries is reduced.

Its not something which can be effectively legislated.... but only by consensus and social sanction.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Monday, 1 May 2006 8:25:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
B.D.

you are still just repeating your disaproval and have still given no reasons why premarital sex or homosexuality is wrong. You can get as poetic as you like in elaborating your dissaproval, but I just ask for one simple reason why these things are bad.

It seems to me you are displaying a charachteristic christian subconscous sexual repression, and your unwillingness to engage in a rational discusssion on this issue just proves that. I challenge you, and the other christians to acknowledge your own brainwashing on this matter. Otherwise give a reason for such a hardline morality.

It is very dangerous to insist on any moral code, especially sexual morality, if you can give no reasons for your insistence.
Posted by King Canute, Monday, 1 May 2006 11:11:21 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“limits to sexual adventurousness, “

Of course bd, we can't have freedom with freedom can we.

Homosexuality is wrong to you, because your afraid of it. You preach pre marital restraint, yet confess to be unable to restrain yourself. It appears your hypocrisy knows no bounds.

“Its not something which can be effectively legislated.... but only by consensus and social sanction”

What do you class as social sanctions, jail, the stocks, re-education, blackballed, dunked. Your not being idealistic, just ridiculous. How do you stop whats been happening on this planet involving all species and continues to do so. Even with 2000 years of being told its evil, its still happening.

As your god created everything in perfection and totality, is this a mistake or are your beliefs a mistake. As appears by the constantly growing evidence available and the increasingly irrational and ridiculous statements by monotheists.

As to men taking advantage of young women, give us all a break. I remember being employed in a catholic girls college. It mattered not what my position was in the school, being the only male, I was constantly harassed by young women eager to increase their sexual experience. Not a rare occurrence, but a daily one involving many different aged girls, from 11 to 17 and sometimes their mothers.

Theres one option and many have expressed it, proper and full sexual education. Like religion, I wouldn't teach alternatives, but just mention them as being part of life. Just like different jobs.

Sadly the fearful religious will continue to push the irrational and unworkable upon us, as they do in every aspect of life.
Posted by The alchemist, Monday, 1 May 2006 11:42:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'Fearful religious'? Hardly! Sex within marriage is celebrated by the majority of Christian and secular humanist people.
Yet surely anything which is good can also be lost! It is in relation to the moral question: what is the greater good? That we encounter the risk of disrespectful treatment of our sexual selves.

Perhaps it is the most defining attribute of our times that life has become dissociated from life-giving actions. "Life" is often defined selfishly as "my life", as if I am an island. I agree with B.D. in the sense that our bodies are the one gift we offer our spouse in marriage. Anything which compromises our freedom to give this gift wholeheartedly, ought to be recognised for what it is: harmful to our ability to trust and believe in our loveable nature.

Therefore, 'chastity' becomes a way of timing one's intimacy so as to maximise the benefits to the relationship with one's future or present spouse. Information and work to understand our natural, combined fertility hinges upon discipline with time, ('disco' in Latin meant 'to learn').

www.celebratelove.com.au has information available about the mutuality of man and woman in God. We are made in the image and likeness of God, and called to become one in Christ Jesus. Private nakedness is a part of the sign of a wife and husband's love for oneanother, and time to be naked together in marriage enables greater intimacy.

I remember a billboard from the side of the road.
Ch_ _ch Who's missing?
The letters sum up the reality. We are the Church. Do not be afraid of encountering God. He is forgiving and delightful.
Posted by Renee, Monday, 1 May 2006 12:14:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby says in part: “As a social species, its a more pleasant one, if we don't go around purposefully inflicting emotional pain on others through deceit. Emotional pain can be more enduring then physical pain in lots of ways. So boys should think of that before they tell girls lies. They should also think just a little about the consequences of their actions on the lives of others.”

I’m kind of wondering where Yabby lives, to come up with such tautology – murky and muddy perhaps but apparently quite comfy …
Posted by Seeker, Tuesday, 2 May 2006 12:26:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Renee,
read you bible.
Nakedness is the perfect state of gods creation, the way human beings were made. The privatisation and shame of their nakedness is the very symbol of sin itself, according to Genesis anyway.

read your bible
Song of Solomon 6:8 king Solomon's seduction of yet another virgin.
"There are threescore queens(wives), and fourscore concubines(live in lovers), and virgins without number.
My dove, my undefiled is but one; she is the only one of her mother, she is the choice one of her that bare her. The daughters saw her, and blessed her; yea, the queens and the concubines, and they praised her."

you say..."Therefore, 'chastity' becomes a way of timing one's intimacy so as to maximise the benefits to the relationship with one's future or present spouse."
the obvious response to this is that if someone has worked out their sexual identity and hang ups before they settle down, they are capable of choosing appropriate life partners and lifestyles better than if they have not yet fully discovered themselves.

your comments about sexuality and fertility is interesting. what is your opinion about contraception? similarly what is your attitude to masturbation?

we may freely give our bodies during sex, but we get it back at the end. My body does not belong to the first person that I had sex with, nor does it belong to my wife. But bodies are fun to share
Posted by King Canute, Tuesday, 2 May 2006 1:26:26 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Kanute
well.. I'll try to answer your question, but I doubt it will completely satisfy.

Pre/extra/deviate sex is 'wrong' in the sense that it

-deprives us of the 'best' that we can experience. You may not agree with this, because while I speak from experience, and also belief, if you have not had the experience or share the belief it will seem some remote irrelevancy to you.

Sex is always enjoyable/pleasurable on the physical level, but outside of its intended place, I believe it will not give the emotional/heart fulfillment it can give, also, it could also produce very negative psychological consequences the further it goes from Gods place.
Obviously, I'm speaking from a faith position, not a 'legislative' so you don't need to worry too much :)

On the Song of Songs, it is indeed a beautiful story of love. The personal circumstances of the author are unknown to us in terms of his mental outlook at the time of writing. He may well have realized the futility of the numerous wives and concubines by this time. You can glean this from Ecclesiastes, where he refers to having 'tried all manner of pleasure' in seeking meaning and fulfilment in life.

I certainly don't find selfish exploitative seduction in the Song.

If we are not able to ascribe 'wrongfulness' to certain sexual behaviour, does this mean you are ok with bestiality and incest ?
The 4 major 'no no's in Scripture re sex are:

1/ Homosexual
2/ Bestial
3/ Incestual
4/ Extra marital

I think 2 and 3 would be accepted by most people, but I have seen people question even those on this forum in an article written.
In the same article, there was also reference to how we 'stigmatize' people who enjoy sexual experiences with children..... go figure where absence of moral declarations will lead.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Tuesday, 2 May 2006 6:19:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BD, perhaps you should put down the holy book for once in your life and learn what nature and science can teach us about sex, sexual attraction, morality etc.

Pair bonding, or marriage as you like to call it, evolved in ours as well as a number of species, where lots of resources are required to raise the offspring. Sex is one of the reasons why males stick around to provide those resources. In today's society, where females can earn their own resources, males are less required, thus the higher divorce rate etc, no magic in any of this, all quite logical.

We know that levels of certain fetal hormone levels at certain times of fetal brain development, affect sexual inclination later in life.
You are not turned on by women due to freewill, but by those innate tendencies. Similarly homosexuals have innate feelings, due to mother nature herself. You cannot condem people for what nature herself created, holy book or not.

Morality is grounded in biology, but is basically a set of subjective rules that we agree on, so that we can live in harmony as a social species. Understanding nature and our role in the world will teach us far more about these things then so called holy books written in primitive times ever will.
Posted by Yabby, Tuesday, 2 May 2006 7:12:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We live in a fallen world. A world that is falling apart because it decided to move away from God.

God's creation was shown in Genesis in two forms:

1. purity, perfection, and total intimate relationship with one another and with God

2. sin, fear, and shame - punishment enters the world due to man's desobedience.

We live in that latter state. We are disconnected from God's intimacy and purity. But God provided a way out because as a father He loves us dearly. He sent His Son to take way that sin and bring us back to Himself to enjoy that pure relationship for ever as He first intended.

So to judge God and His creation on humanistic observations is laughable. Man's imperfection is there only to point at perfection: God Himself. Good and bad are mutually interdependent. Good cannot exist or make sense without the bad.

The bible is there mostly to work as a mirror to our foolishness. King Solomon is described in the bible as the wisest man than ever lived. His debauchery is but an illustration of where we can end up when we exclude God and rely on "self" for our moral constructs.

Not surprising, God ways are a stumbling block to the "lost" because they do not understand God's mind and intentionality for His creation.

In Jesus, we (Christians) have that broken link (sin) with the creator restored. We communicate with the divine through an open line enabled by Him through the Holy Spirit that indwells in us when we are reborn in Christ.

So how can we explain God's mind and plans for His creation to the outside world? A world that is enjoying foolishness construed as wisdom. A world that is dead in its transgressions, decisively lost by its stubbornness to remain on the outside of God's defined boundaries.

All we can do is point them back to Jesus.
Posted by coach, Tuesday, 2 May 2006 10:28:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lyn

I researched sex ed classes presented by Interrelate, which most schools use these days and wrote this six years ago: http://www.vaginaverite.com/duwrose/rosefaqs.html then a couple of years ago, I wrote an article for Online Opinion three years ago: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=806

An overhaul of Sex ed in australia has been a crusade for me, but no one was prepared to listen then...as there are none so blind as those who will not see. I wish you GOOD LUCK and if there's anything I can ever say or do to help, do contact me.
Posted by Rose C, Tuesday, 2 May 2006 10:47:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sheesh Coach, you have no idea how many times that religious nuts have predicted the end of the world as we know it. Invariably
they were wrong, as history shows. So it looks like you will be just another statistic.

If there is any danger to the world, its in fact caused by religious
fanatics in the US, Iran and Israel, all wanting to destroy each other, using nukes to achieve it.

As they say, religion is the opium of the masses. You certainly seem to have been floating on something, when you wrote that post :)
Posted by Yabby, Tuesday, 2 May 2006 3:24:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What does genesis say sin is? It is eating of the forbidden fruit. What is the forbidden fruit? It is the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Partaking in this knowledge of good and evil, as articulated in the above christian sexualities, is indeed the embodiement of biblical sin. The message of genesis and indeed jesus is the transcendence from sin, guilt and materialistc, egoic and dysfunctional consciousness.

This the bible shares with all the ancient religions of the world who wholesomely accept human sexuality. It is the modern christians who have imposed notions of individual morality in order for the materialistic post- constantine state to control the populations of the Roman empire.

Break free of sin and the illusions of this world. This does not mean bestiality or pedophilia, the paths that B D is so terrified of falling down if his tightly held knowledge of good and evil was unravelled. It just means being at ease with yourself and others without this "buying used goods" hang-up or misinformation about how psychologically tortured those are who did not save their virginty until marriage.

Tell the truth to young adults, not scare them with falseties. Support them to be who they are with integrity, dont tell them they are dirty and guilty if they discover their own sexuality, whatever it is. The deviate homosexuals are a bit tormented, but that is by the intolerence of the normal adherents of the knowledge of good and evil. Those gay folks that build up their defences from rednecks seem to be as happy as anyone else. Indeed the Gay Mardi-Grass is a much happier affair, despite dealing with heavy issues of HIVAIDS and homosexual persecution, than any modern church I have seen including the somewhat sheep like joy of hillsong church and the pentacostals.
Posted by King Canute, Tuesday, 2 May 2006 4:50:45 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Coach, sure your not BD in drag. You don't sin eh coach, perfection in drag. I'd like to see you reborn in christ, that would be a miracle, but you'd have to explain the homosexual bit, he's a bloke isn't he.

Renee “fearful religious”, I was referring to monotheists fear of giving people power over their lives in responsible freedom. We all know how much christians are into sex, you see it in the churches, courts and in the broken lives throughout the world.

What is, “disrespectful treatment of our sexual selves.” Morals are a religious concept, not physiological, psychological or biological, they are failed concepts that cause more harm than good.
Posted by The alchemist, Tuesday, 2 May 2006 5:11:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hmm... So what are you saying here The alchemist? If I'm reading you correctly, you say, "Morals are a religious concept, not physiological, psychological or biological, they are failed concepts that cause more harm than good."

Ergo, I take it that you suggest the opposite is a better way to go. That is, to do more good than harm we should dispense with morality. Is that correct?

Are you promoting immorality or amorality?

To promote the former would be to promote evil - if you believed in such a concept and to promote the latter would be to rank humans with animals - let's do like on the Discovery channel.

And now there's the rub. If kids are going to get brainwashed by teachers (and I could say rude things about Yabby, but I'm not going to) about sex, just exactly which political/morality version are they going to get?

And that's exactly why it should not be taught in schools because parents should have the choice to decide which moral values go with sex education.

By all means teach the sexual physiology of mammals, including detailed human specifics, but leave out the rest. That's the parent's job. Lyn Allison here wants to become every kids mum and go do their sex education, morals, politics and braimwashing, all in accordance with her directives, which of course suit some of the posters on this page - but not all.

The subject should be taught in science/biology but should not be a stand alone topic subject to persuasive political spin as has possibly taken place in your case The alchemist.
Posted by Maximus, Tuesday, 2 May 2006 7:03:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
King Canute – you are mistaken about the message of the scriptures and particularly genesis.

1. Sin is not the forbidden fruit per se as you put it. Sin is “disobedience” to God’s instruction not to eat from the tree.
2. The temptation was to become like or above God by eating from the tree (God embodies all knowledge including the knowledge of good and evil)
3. By disobeying God, sin and death entered the world. Thus we are all sinners. There is not one good person in the eyes of God. To break the least of the 10 commandments is to break all 10.
4. Sexual deviations are but a symptom of man’s sin, a sign of defiance and self glorification. Putting self above God. Living by rules other than God’s rules.
5. “Tell the truth to young adults, not scare them with falseties.” You bet. All “hang ups” and guilt feelings are the result of disobedience to God’s rules and are therefore self inflicted. The pain is caused by a guilty conscience and not misinformation as you put it.
6. As for the tormented deviate homosexuals; it is simply their unnatural lifestyle choice; the bible calls it “abomination”. There is nothing “gay” about sodomy.
7. To compare the depravity of a Mardi Gras to an upbeat church worship service is just another reflection of your sick mind.
8. True “happiness” is the result of “righteousness”. By being right with God, joy and many other blessings start to pile up.
Posted by coach, Tuesday, 2 May 2006 11:23:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Coach,
you should not selectively choose and reinterpret bible verses to justify your own cultural prejuduces.

Genesis is clear and unambiguous about the nature of sin, it is not disobedience of an arbitrary rule imposed by god, it is the direct consequence of eating of the fruit of knowledge of Good and evil

Genesis 2;16
16And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
 17But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

as to sex

Exodus 20 is the 10 commandments including "though shall not commit adultery"
Exodus 21, is part of the same law that god gave to moses with the ten commandments - it includes laws ensuring that wives are not neglected if a man takes other wives or concubines
Ex 21;10 If he takes another wife, he shall not withhold her food, her clothing, or her conjugal rights.
11 If he does not grant her these three things, she shall be given her freedom absolutely, without cost to her.

compare this with the song of solomon and his wives and concubines and you see a consistent theme of biblical sexuality emerge. Who are you to challenge what is in the bible.

Coach, You obviously have a well developed knowledge of good and evi, but don't try and use the bible to justify your own sexual abherations.
It is not too late for you however, Jesus died for your sins and you can transcend your sinful state. All you have to do is abandon the knowledge of good and evil and open your heart to the Jesus of the Bible and return to the garden in a state of health and communion with god and each other. - and then you won't need to tell prefabricated religous lies to innocent young people any more.
Posted by King Canute, Wednesday, 3 May 2006 1:46:11 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Maximus, I'm not suggesting anything. There are more approaches in life than the singular thought patterns of the religious. There is a thing called ethics, used by the sensible life forms on this planet.

Monotheists rant about their high up standing morals, yet their application in life, is filled with the opposite and shows no examples of moral fortitude.

I agree sex should be taught in biology, it's also part of our psychology and as most parents are bereft of intelligent understanding, when it comes to sex, they do one thing then tell their kids another. So how can they possibly teach it except from a suppressive dictatorial approach.

Maximus, your god certainly failed to create a sexless being, or monotheists don't understand what is really written. This is understandable considering the depth of fear and superstition that rules the lives of the followers of god.

Educating people into the psychological approaches of sex will ensure they are informed and can cope when their hormones sweep them of their feet. If we class them as intelligent beings, then they will work out their own ethical standpoint for their lives. When you submit them to failed, suppressive and harmful restrictions, they will suffer psychologically, as will society.

We can well see how inept monotheists are at living in reality, so its no wonder so many children forcibly indoctrinated into god, go through so much sexual confusion in their lives.

As an example, there are many posters on this site that make constructive and informative comments on many subjects, but the monotheists can but talk on religion, as thats the limit of their narrow and un-evolved intelligence. Its the same for sex, Lyn Allison is a typical brain dead politician who has no concept of reality, just spends her time looking in the mirror in fear, like all politicians and the religious
Posted by The alchemist, Wednesday, 3 May 2006 8:06:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"just exactly which political/morality version are they going to get?"

Quite simple Maximus, we teach them what we know and have substantiated evidence for, as we teach other subjects, as we teach in universities, as we rely on in courts of law.

I see no reason, if some kids have alcoholic parents, drug addicted parents, parents who don't care abour their kids, etc, why these kids should be deprived of a complete education.

My last comment to you was made for one good reason, to get you to stop and think why what we call morals and ethics, evolved as behaviour in various social species in the first place. You can
give kids guidance in thinking about morality and ethics, without actually telling them what to believe. For that they can make up their own minds or be influenced by their parents.
Posted by Yabby, Wednesday, 3 May 2006 12:15:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi guys, The alchemist and Mr Yabby, it's me again.

Thanks for your replies. I accept where you're respectively coming from. Not a problem.

However, I don't see sex education being quite as simple as the cases presented - if only it was that simple, as it should be. In particular, I take considerable umbrage to the material that was proposed in the South Australian sex education trial a couple of years ago. At that time I studied their stuff fairly thoroughly and beyond a doubt, it pushed a feminist/left ideology very heavily. Now that's what I've got a problem with. In fact, pretty much the entire public school system is driven by that same philosophy, without balance, without openness. It's a grim closed shop decided upon by state boards of study. It's one reason I removed my kids from public school for home schooling. I don't trust the teachers, the curriculum or the boards of study. They are seriously bent.

I would also have the same attitude to schools if the driving force behind them was blind capitalist/right or any other dogma.

I believe knowledge should be just that, knowledge, without political bias or spin. And I'm especially suspicious of political parties calling for regimented, compulsory schooling of any kind and in particular, sex education. I know exactly what spin they'll put on it. I for one don't like that sort of education, so I fight it.

I believe that morality and ethics are life learnt. Not school taught. Decency is learnt from parents and family. Where that fails, I don't believe any school, mentor or do-gooder can straighten out the bent wheel. Only the wheel itself can do that, in time. That's what happened to me.

Anyway, it's good to talk this stuff out, but 350 words is limiting - and so too is the eternal ticking clock.
Posted by Maximus, Wednesday, 3 May 2006 6:38:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The inability of religious persons to understand that what works for them doesn't work for everybody never ceases to amaze me. Pre-marital sex is evil, gay people are evil? Pleeeaassse. I have pre-marital sex a lot, and it's good. It wouldn't be any different if I was married. Oh, I forgot, everything is always perfect in marriages isn't it (falls on floor laughing).

What is evil is stupid social control systems based on archaic manuscripts trying to impose themselves on people who can think for themselves. Dont eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil ie WHATEVER YOU DO, DONT THINK FOR YOURSELF, JUST DO WHAT YOU'RE TOLD. Lovely..

As for the sex education, just tell people the truth. What people do, how not to get pregnant or catch diseases, and that its their choice etc.
Posted by hellothere, Wednesday, 3 May 2006 9:36:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Maximus, thanks for your response. I have to admit that I would
have dreaded the thought of homeschooling. I went to school to
be with my mates etc, education was a second priority. But in
that time I learnt much about cameraderie, people skills, etc, things that homeschooled kids could well fall short on.

No doubt that teachers each have their bias, but at the end of the day, if the curriculum is well written, they can be encouraged to
stick to that.

There are countless graduates coming out of our education system, who are doing well in this world, despite the concern of some doting parents, so it can't really be all bad.

Good sex education matters, in terms of teenage pregnancy rates,
abortion rates etc. I see no good reason why it should be denied to students.

If you have ever read Goleman's "Emotional Intelligence", he refers to schoolkids who learn about people skills, conflict resolution skills and other usefull life skills and the dramatic effect that they can have on peoples lives. Why should we deny our kids these
abilities?
Posted by Yabby, Wednesday, 3 May 2006 9:51:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lyn Allison:

Isn't it hilarious - whatever became of the original proposition: ' the need for Sex Education in Schools ??' Overnight we've elicited umteen sex theorist, offended a few religious zealots, and in between attracted a potpourri of fence-sitters who throw stones ' either-which-way-the-wind-blows ?' So, what are you ?

Have we any die-hard convictions regarding a natural human bodily function ? Do we blush, do cart-wheels, or just 'let-it-all-hang-out'? Whatever your hangup's, it's really not surprising, the family bedroom is still out of bounds, taboo for some and positively 'kosher' for others. Are we 'cringe-dweller's' or 'avant-garde' when it comes to clinically diddecting the boudoir and it's occupants ?

Scene one: Country school in Godwana.

Riddle: What has Clinton, John Perfumo, John Prescot, ex-senator Graham Richardson, actor Michael Douglas and Charlie Sheen have in common ?

Shy dimunutive Stott Dispoja sitting in the front row answers: " good looks ?" "Naw" replies priggish school teacher Miss Latham-faulkner-rudd. "I know", says petulant Johnnie Howard from the back row: "they invaded Iraq ?" " Dunce", mumures Miss LFR under her breath. Freckle-face Julie Gillard pounces " they all starred in the Bold-and-the-beautiful soapie ?" " Another ?" queried Miss LFR derisively.
From square-leg, Jackie Kelly pipes: "I know, they were lover's of all those desperate housewives ?"
Not to be stumped at gully, Heather Coonan spin's out triumphantly: " Wallabies..yeah, the green and gold wallah's who trounced the Kiwi's at the Wacka, that's who ".
Exasperated, teacher explodes: :" No no numbskulls.They all had zipper troubles. They couldn't keep their fly's done up ".

Therein lies the crux to the dilemma prevading Adolescent Sexual behaviour, circa 2006.

Despite exponential advancements in most spheres of Human endeavour, society as a whole has not shed the Victorian Age enigma that still persists in modern day Australia. We eulogise our Bronze bodied Iron-man and bikini clad nymphs soaking up the Sun from Surfer's to Bondi;from Glenelg to Cottlesloe; from Sandringham to Casuarina; from Bell's beach to Davenport.

The G-string has superceded the bikini. Boobs are in. Bra's relegated to St Vinnie's whellie-bin.

continued...
Posted by dalma, Thursday, 4 May 2006 11:54:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nudity and nakedness are at the forefront of our persona. We are the most over exposed - melanoma conscious people on the world-wide-web.

Alfred Kinsey. Sex guru, Researcher and publisher of : " Sexual Behaviour of the Human Male ", followed by S&B of the Human Female, shocked his contemporaries, the Religious establishment,as no other. People from all walks of life purveyed and discussed it's contents to 'peep-shot' at what their neighbours were doing in their boudoirs. If they categorised as being 'normal' with some of their 'fantasies, inhibitions and even gymnastics - performed in the sanctuary of their bed chambers !

Some say cigar-smoking Sigmund Freud, psychoanalyst and 'father of sexology' started the Sexual Revolution in the 40's. Postulating mankind exhibited : " unconscious sexual drives in infancy and early childhood sic..help shape our personality ".
"Open the window of the unconscious - where lust, rage and repression battle for supremacy and change the way we view ourselves ". It created a storm in a tea-cup.

Overall, he wasn't far wrong. We have Parent's with ' little understanding of even the most basic facts about human sexuality'. They muddle through even as their forbearer's did. Explains why 3 million 'voyeur's', sorry 'viewer's' passionately watch Ch10's 'Big Brother' series. Meant to titillate, participants are emboldened to exceed moral-ethical grounds bordering on pornographic classification. Ostensibly, Producer's set the racy pace. Evidently, there are no shortages of aspiring young 'porno-queen's' reaching for celebrity recognition ?

Peer review of School based Sex Education Programmes expose a few shortcomings. Some achieve significant behavioural changes more then other's. Moral and social values vary significantly. Differed by levels of education, socio-economic state, income, religious persuasion and housing estate area's. Programs for gardes 9/12 for HSS. Low risk youths. Sex inexperienced youths. Multicultural ethnic youths.

I gained feedback speaking with Teenages:
Sex becoming the new drug sweeping Oz. Sex is readily available. Teen's think they are invincible when it comes to STD. They mature faster. Parent's encourage Plastic surgery to enhance looks. Binge drinking on the rise. Drugs promote promiscuity. They experiment at an earlier age.

Cheers
Posted by dalma, Thursday, 4 May 2006 12:37:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am curious why no christians have responded to my bible teachings. Have I converted you? Or do you think you may catch my sickness by discussing the bible?

Perhaps you are waiting for your pastor to tell you the answers?

Incidently I do not condone biblical sexuality. But if we are going to use the bible as a tool to discuss morality and sexuality, which I believe we can, we must teach it as the wisdom of the stories themselves, from the perspectives of the writers and their culture, not our own contemporary moral illusions. The clear story of biblical sexuality is that it changes so as to be appropriate to the cultural needs and norms of the time. For example a lot of the cleanliness laws relating to blood - menstruating women and sexual avoidence times for example, is surely a ceremonial thing, but I believe it was also a community health practice relevent to the diseases of 3000 years ago just as safe sex can be interpreted as gods law today. The massive advertising campaigns about safe sex in the last couple of decades is the contemporary equivalent of ceremonial sex laws and practices. - leading to health and connectedness without guilt, just like god planned it.
Posted by King Canute, Thursday, 4 May 2006 5:17:59 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
p.s. safe sex education is good for reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies too.

Don't want to be too safe though, or you would get no virgin births anymore.
Mathew ch 1 The very first thing in the new testament - gives Jesus'connection to the holy BLOODLINE of King David (and Solomon) - through Jesus' father Joseph.

Amen
Posted by King Canute, Thursday, 4 May 2006 5:28:35 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby, this may come as a shock to you, but I do not have fear nor misgivings about teenage pregnancy, nor teenage brides, nor teenage grooms. Where's the horror in that?

Well of course there isn't any, unless you've been brainwashed by feminist Marxism.

Old song - "It was a teenage wedding, and the old folks wished them well..."

Nature gives teenagers the ability to reproduce. Why on Earth shouldn't they? You go grrrl, I say, you go get pregnant grrrl - make babies. That's got to be better than the daily tabloids whinging about the miseries and woes of the "thirty-something" career spinsters, who can't get a man - past their use by dates - and who are in a frightful race with that ol' ticking clock.

Pregnant at 18? It's got to be better than 30-odd and no prospects of husband, home and family, with just a lonely posh apartment, a cat and a TV.

I'll bet you never thought you'd ever hear anyone say that?

"Oh gosh," you'll say, "that's all so shockingly outside the politically correct square of post modernist mediocrity."

But happiness is not about career and money - only a fool would believe it so. Happiness comes from love and family and the kids, who give you eternal fun, and misery too, but a good parent overcomes that.

Now that's what they should be teaching in sex education classes. You kids go out and make babies and love and families. Not the opposite as will be taught by Lyn Allison and her cronies.

The question is: Is human procreation good or bad?

Do think deeply about it. But hey, I'm not going to tell you the answer. Our good BOAZ_David might. But I won't. You go figure it. It's just part of the test of life. Good luck.
Posted by Maximus, Thursday, 4 May 2006 7:16:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Nature gives teenagers the ability to reproduce. Why on Earth shouldn't they?"

Well if you want to stick to nature, then parents provide the resources to feed the offspring, thats what pairbonding is all
about. If teenagers can do that, thats fine by me. The role
of sex education is not to tell kids how to live their lives,
but to help them make informed choices. Sadly alot of teenage
pregnancies are accidents, not all those girls want to live
in semi poverty for the rest of their lives, things just went
wrong one night when the hormones surged and she was drunk perhaps.

Happiness means different things to different people, we each
have to decide what our purpose in life is and what our
priorities are. Some people think its kids, some people love
their careers. Give people a good education to cope with life
and make informed choices. Empower them with knowledge. There
is no need to indoctrinate them with any worldview, neither the
feminists worldview, nor the Maximus worldview :)
Posted by Yabby, Thursday, 4 May 2006 8:36:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Maximus, you are sending yourself up, right? Teenage pregnancy is good, that is about the stupidest thing I have ever heard. Do you actually remember being a teenager? Does the word "immaturity" mean anything to you? I remember what I was like when I was 18, and I can tell you one thing for dead set certain, I would have made a pretty crappy father - or maybe no father at all given that teenage dads have a tendency not to stick around leaving teenage mum to struggle by on the governments largesse. Oh happy happy family indeed.

And as for your crack at "career spinsters", well you might find that the posh apartment (and the education, and the overseas holidays, and the well-maintained figure, and the nice car, and the restaurant meals) compare reasonably well with the tracky dacks and Happy Meals of your lucky lucky teenage mum.

And as for career and money not bringing happiness..well, no. But they help. Some peoples families don't bring them a hell of a lot of joy either.

And your final question, here comes the big one...drum roll.......IS HUMAN PROCREATION GOOD OR BAD!

Um... kind of depends on each persons individual situation.

That was kind of an anticlimax actually...bummer.
Posted by hellothere, Thursday, 4 May 2006 9:56:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
About pregnancy, it is no surprise to me that no time is the right time for many women. Didn't Jesus say, moments before his crucifixion, to the weaping women of Jerusalem, 'Don't cry for me, but cry for that time when a barren womb is celebrated as a good one.' (my paraphrasing, Gospel according to Luke, Jerusalem Bible, chapter 28, verses 28-30).

Apart from motherhood's total commitment of body, mind and soul, how many of us have been brain-washed to think that money and career-values are the yard-sticks of our worth? It can take years to unravell the harmful effects of this materialist view. For it actually takes time to begin to substantially acknowledge that one is worth something beyond this 2-dimentional view. Life is three dimensional, and includes death!
We can't take our wealth with us, that's for sure. But what we bequeath to the world will remain, and our spirits will wait-out the time until the last day, when we rise up in perfect body and soul!

To atheist or agnostic people reading this - bear with me - I like to discuss these matters, as they are of some consequence for the world's future. I'm sorry if my religiosity annoys you. Please accept that I need you to think (or if you're willing, to pray) for me also, in my unbelief!
Certainly Christians are not a homogenous totality. For although we enjoy communion, it is incomplete on earth, and will remain very humanly confusing until we reach life everlasting. Yet the Eucharist sets us free to live lives of thanksgiving to God, for his presence among us! By his death and resurrection he offers us his body and blood! 'Amen' is the response, and we have a duty to share our faith and to seek to encourage one another in faith.

The Bible is a living text. That is why I make reference to it. I am no literalist, but I perceive truth is living and active, and our understanding is activated by the holy scriptures!
Posted by Renee, Thursday, 4 May 2006 10:14:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'Teen-agers in the United States are far more likely to get pregnant and get an abortion than their counterparts in Western European countries.

Planned Parenthood officials believe that's because Europeans talk to their teen-agers about sex differently from Americans, viewing it as a public health issue rather than a moral, religious or political matter.'

For more, see:
http://www.clothesfree.com/pregnancy.html
[NB This website is nudist. I don't know what the attitude of On Line Opinion is to such things, but if you are offended by a very small amount of non-sexual nudity, then don't go to it.]

'European teens are taught that sex "is a healthy party of who you are, but it has responsibility."

"Talking about sex in a realistic and sensitive way is still in the closet in America," she said.

Europeans take a pragmatic and open approach to discussing sex, she said. And they've accepted that most young people are not going to wait until marriage to have sex.

Scientific studies and opinion polls have shown that 80 percent of young people will have an intimate sexual encounter by age 20, and that 90 percent of couples have not waited for marriage, Huberman said.

"Waiting for marriage may be a religious belief, but the American public by a majority does not believe it or act on it," she said.

A majority of American adults want their children taught how to delay their first sexual encounter and how to protect themselves when they do have sex, she said.

"It's morally wrong to send young people into the adult world without the knowledge, skills and values to deal with sexual issues responsibly," she said.'

My opinion. Perhaps we can at least to some extent substitute "Australians" for "Americans". Well worth the consideration of logical people who prefer to be well informed.
Posted by Rex, Saturday, 6 May 2006 3:27:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rex, thanks for that post and the associated link.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Saturday, 6 May 2006 3:32:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I too thank Rex for his well reasoned post - something that is in short supply on OLO.

I checked out the website - very good. I really fear that Australia is following the US in its repressive attitudes not only towards sex but towards anyone who doesn't quite 'fit' eg gays, non christians and so on.

On another thread I went to Wikipedia for a look at American christian 'values' and I find it relevant here. Australia following USA's 'lead' will result in USA level unplanned pregnancies and STD's.

"In the 21st Century, the phrase "Christian values" or family values was used by many conservative groups to describe the following values,

* censorship of sexual content, especially in movies and on television
* the desirability of laws against induced abortion
* the desirability of laws against birth control
* sexual abstinence outside of marriage
* the desirability of laws against same-sex marriage
* the desirability of reinstituting faculty-led prayer in taxpayer-funded schools"

See also this report on teenage pregnancy in US and the manipulation by anti-choice clinics masquerading as planned parenthood clinics - Tony Abbott has given the green light for this to occur in Australia.

"Misleading 'crisis pregnancy centers' are appearing across America, aiming to limit or even prevent women from exploring all of their legal health care options."

http://www.alternet.org/rights/35545/

Sex education is all about our health and well being as a nation, yet it is still relegated behind closed doors in the 21st century - to our detriment and shame.
Posted by Scout, Sunday, 7 May 2006 9:46:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Some thoughts.

* censorship of sexual content, especially in movies and on television

I don't have a problem with this. Due to the extremely exploitable nature of sexual content, and the continual battering rams against whatever happens to be the current 'level of acceptability' by commerical rather than artistic interests, who seek financial gain by 'pushing the boundaries' I suggest we limit media exposure of sexual content to 'alluding to' (yes..this is very 40s and 50s ish :)
rather than showing. We don't have hot passionate sex in front of our neighbours, why should we see 'them' by proxy on our Tv screens ?

* the desirability of laws against induced abortion

I agree. Life is sacred.

* the desirability of laws against birth control

Don't agree, cannot see the point of this one. No biblical foundation that I can see.

* sexual abstinence outside of marriage.

Agree. Most people who have been the victim of adultery would also I feel.

* the desirability of laws against same-sex marriage.

Agree. We should send a message about boundaries through the law.

* the desirability of reinstituting faculty-led prayer in taxpayer-funded schools"

Nice if everyone is Christian, sadly, they are not. Might be some value in a symbolic way, but don't expect teenagers to put their hearts in it while their hormones are raging.

A community which begins the day with voluntary corporate prayer is a joy to be a part of.

Scout, things are 'well reasoned' if they agree with u ? :)
Posted by BOAZ_David, Monday, 8 May 2006 8:07:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BD

"Scout, things are 'well reasoned' if they agree with u ? :) "

NO.

I disagree with R0bert over the level of domestic violence committed by women.

I had a very interesting debate with 'Ian' on the Republic issue even though we held opposing POV's.

Your problem, BD, is that you want to convert all non-christians to your version of christianity. Fortunately not all christians are as narrow minded as you and they also believe in live and let live. One of the interesting aspects of posting here, has been the consolidation of my agnostic beliefs. The level of irrationality displayed by the far right religious posters has confirmed, just how out of touch with reality a belief in dogma creates.

Furthermore, if you found Rex's post not "well reasoned" then could you point out your 'reasons', please?

Rex stated: "Planned Parenthood officials believe that's because Europeans talk to their teen-agers about sex differently from Americans, viewing it as a public health issue rather than a moral, religious or political matter."

Do you believe that sex is not a public health issue, BD?

I find the christian focus on sex, limiting censorious and inequitable. For this reason sex education in the USA is not well rounded and inclusive, leading to misinformation and discrimination against people who don't fit your narrow definition of acceptability.

Lets agree to disagree BD.

I notice you didn't bother with my link regarding misleading pregnant teenagers by religious anti-choice agencies.

I suppose you believe if these pregnant girls just believed in 'jesus' their unwanted pregnancy would just disappear.

Like Rex and R0bert I prefer to deal with reality. I guess reality for you is a left wing concept.
Posted by Scout, Monday, 8 May 2006 8:57:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My 2 cents.

* censorship of sexual content, especially in movies and on television

Definitely agree – the rating standards are a joke at the moment, especially during prime time (children viewing) slots. Advertising, music, some sports, radio, should also be regulated.

* the desirability of laws against induced abortion

Absolutely – except under very strict supervision and in extreme cases only. There is nothing “casual” about killing another human life.

* the desirability of laws against birth control

Agree with BD – this is mostly a Catholic initiative. Birth control is OK for a short time only - as long as it is for the right motives and not for selfish reasons. (i.e. career, mortgage, travel,…)

* sexual abstinence outside of marriage

God’s law – not negotiable

* the desirability of laws against same-sex marriage

As previous

* the desirability of reinstituting faculty-led prayer in taxpayer-funded schools"

Why not – after all it is the Christians who first instituted public schools.

What seems archaic to some is pure common sense to other.

I don’t believe we are following the US in this; they are still very much a Christian nation at large; however the biblical logic is the same (for some).
Posted by coach, Monday, 8 May 2006 9:27:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Scout, I agree with you entirely, the irrationality and hypocrisy of monotheists knows no bounds.

“*censorship of sexual content, especially in movies and on television

“I don't have a problem with this.”

“I suggest we limit media exposure of sexual content to 'alluding to' (es..this is very 40s and 50s ish :) rather than showing.”

Both ways again BD, you must make up your mind and realise that the world is full of intelligent people. Unlike in the past, when you could fool people with your delusions, now people are grownup. Not infantile and brainwashed, nor hell bent on controlling the world with the lies and deceit your beliefs preach.

Rex has placed before you excellent evidence of the reality of your flawed and a suppressive doctrine.

Coach, your right, the USA is a christian nation, they have the highest crime rates, the highest execution rates, the highest discrimination rates, they highest rates of poor in western countries, the highest murder rates, the highest rates of sexual corruption and abuse. The highest rates of religious leaders calling for war, the highest rates of religious leaders charged with corruption and sexual infidelities. They also have the lowest rates of health and welfare support and the lowest wage rates in western countries.
A perfect example of a truly christian nation that exemplifies the true nature of god.
Posted by The alchemist, Monday, 8 May 2006 9:47:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
coach, are you just giving your general support to those "christian values" or are you supporting them being part of the law and forced on non-believers?

You and I seem to have spent a fair bit of time on this topic in the past and I thought that you had differentiated between a belief in Gods standards and a desire to enforce them on others - the free will thing. If God has truly given humans free will then christains should not attempt to revoke it. Your comments read as support for enforcement in law (but I might be misreading them) of those christain values.

As per your comments in a previous post -

"So only Jesus (God) will judge people at the end.
Should “I” let people to the final judgement or do “I” interfere in their affairs?
Should I warn people of an incoming tsunami?
1. The rational is “love” and knowledge of the consequences.
2. I am not allowed to judge. Only God judges his creation.
3. My function as a Christian is to tell people the good news of their salvation in Christ Jesus.
4. Only if the person is a close friend – I would probably counsel him/her within the confides of our friendship; the aim is to redirect them to God’s way. There are many scriptural models for that.
5. I would definitely pray for them and for myself.
Free will allows people to make wrong choices. "

BD, I'll second scout's comments regarding disagreement. We understand the difference between giving different weight to different evidence and ignoring all the evidence in favour of the inspired word of an invisible friend.

You continue to refer to this mythical world where conversion transforms people into much better people - believing your own propaganda (sad). The real world is not like that, too often pastors cheat on their wives, youth ministers don't keep their hands off the youth they claim to be helping, christain businessmen rip customers off, churches misuse public money to help their own bottom line etc.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Monday, 8 May 2006 10:40:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hey R0bert

Just a point. BD questioned my interpretation of 'reasonableness' and not yours, even though we both applauded Rex's post.

I think this means that BD believes that some (men) are more 'reasonable' than others (women).

;-)

On topic, I quoted the Wiki 'christian values' to see what I would stir up. What is truly appalling is that neither "christian poster" could make the link between repressive sexual attitudes and the suppression of sex education and all the sad consequences that ignorance of sex results in.

Instead they went off on a rant in support of these very American christian "values". Perhaps they should consider seeking refuge from us heathens in the good ole USA.

Can't see the world for the bible.............can't see the forest for the trees.
Posted by Scout, Tuesday, 9 May 2006 8:52:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Scout, it might be that I did not go far enough in my post and say why I was thankfull for the particular post or you may be correct and some persons are regarded as genetically more "reasonable" than others. I'm not so sure that BD is running a fan club for me so tend to assume the first.

It is quite telling that the core point of the post and attached link - that repressive sexual attitudes lead to more unwanted pregnancies etc than a matter of fact approach has not been seriously contested (alternative statistics etc) by BD or coach.

I'm fine if they want to keep those values for themselves, I share some of them in my own life - I don't have a particular interest in becoming homosexual, I don't cheat on partners (because of the trust issue rather than the "who put what where" thing). My concern is about attempts to impose those "christian values" on others who don't follow their faith or have them enshrined in law. Hence my attempt to get coach to clarify if his post is a personal support for those values or a desire to have them imposed on others (thus reducing the free will the christain god has supposedly given those others).

Keep up the good work my friend.

R0ber
Posted by R0bert, Tuesday, 9 May 2006 9:54:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks for the comments everyone. I can't of course claim any special recognition for the points raised. I'm not the researcher, just the messenger.

What we have is evidence of what works in a number of European countries to help reduce unwanted pregnancies and abortions in young people. And in America and perhaps also in Australia what does not work.

What appears to work:
Straightforward advice about sexual matters, without unneccesary religious interpretations.
Common sense advice about avoiding inappropriate sexual activity, unwanted pregnancies and STDs, without resorting to religious based ideas on morality.
Encouraging people to be accepting of nudity, rather than brainwashing them into being ashamed and embarrassed at their own body and the bodies of others.
Accepting that a significantly large minority of people are born with a physical/psychological make-up which is not 100% heterosexual. And being prepared to accept that such people have just as much right to sexual and/or loving relationships as heterosexual people.

What demonstrably doesn't work:
Censoring the human body by banning nudity on TV and films, in the print media and from almost all beaches.
Pretending that being gay is a personal choice and inherently sinful.
Allowing misguided religious extremists to set the standards with which all must legally comply.
Allowing uninformed, misinformed and unrealistic people to set school curricula on sexual education. And allowing even basic sex education to be optional.

I would suggest that, in at least some respects, Australia is currently neglecting various aspects of medical science and instead is promoting superstition.
Posted by Rex, Tuesday, 9 May 2006 1:55:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
R0bert,

My understanding of how laws are (I hope) formed and/or changed is by extensive deliberation. I get the feeling that some of the non-believers in God make it their life passion to denigrate and oppose any hint of religion soiling their (perfect) life.

I do not wish to impose Christian morality and values on the rest of the world, and in return I do not want to see the laws governing “us all” coming exclusively from the other camps.

Take for example one of Rex’s comments: “Accepting that a significantly large minority of people are born with a physical/psychological make-up which is not 100% heterosexual. And being prepared to accept that such people have just as much right to sexual and/or loving relationships as heterosexual people.”

First, what is that significant large minority? 0.1%, 1%, 10%, more? less?

There are no scientific proof that homosexuals are born “that way" (except for extremely rare biological abnormalities). So why should I be accepting of a deviate lifestyle presented to me and my kids as “normal” and be pronounced the homophobic for speaking my views.

It is impossible to reason together because we have different views about life itself, its origin, and our purpose in it.

You (I’m generalising here) see the here and now - unwanted pergnancy, STD, abortion... - no eternal consequences for your actions or beliefs.

Cause and effect of sin, real love, faith in God, etc have enormous behavioural implications, and cannot be put across to non-believers in a post or two.

I think - no, I truly believe - that the shoe is on the wrong foot here. There is a definite plan for living according to the creator of life and by deliberately choosing to stay outside this "plan" does not mean (you) are right or God's plan is wrong or obsolete.

In a perfect world I would have loved to see our children presented with both versions of morality - God's plan and all other theories -they deserve to know the difference and not just the religious-less aspect.
Posted by coach, Tuesday, 9 May 2006 10:47:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sex education in schools i can speak from my own experiences private catholic schools teach the facts first then the religious views of it which is good because you can sleep through the second part they focus on it heavily and in the case of my old school they spent a week on STD's alone! In public schools however the oppurtunity is there for you to learn about that stuff if you want to whereas in private it is compulsory. there needs to be a system in place that can cater to the needs of all religions and rich private kids and normal publics can relate to.
Posted by jkid, Tuesday, 9 May 2006 11:08:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Does God's plan still include the polygamy laws of Exodus 21?

or is the bible deviate?
Posted by King Canute, Tuesday, 9 May 2006 11:11:31 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"There are no scientific proof that homosexuals are born “that way" (except for extremely rare biological abnormalities). "

Coach, there is in fact a mountain of evidence, it depends on how much proof you need. We can create gay rats and monkeys in the lab.
If we did the same things to human guinea pigs, there would be an ethical outcry, so that prevents the absolute "proof" that you want.

But you can think about it for yourself. If you see a pretty girl and find her attractive, is it because you stop and say to yourself that your free will will deem her to attract you, or are you innately attracted to her? Some things come kind of naturally, some things we think about. Sexual attraction comes naturally, its part of our genetic make up. That is exactly why I will never condem gays for the way they are. Today we understand that all brains start as female, various hormones then affect those developing brains during fetal growth, which determines sexual inclination later in life. If something disturbs or alters that development, it can affect the fetus later in their life. So how can I condem people for what comes naturally to them, through no fault of their own?

Go out and look around, at somebody who you find no attraction to at all, of whatever gender. Then try your freewill argument, to suddenly find them stunning. You will fail, I betcha.
Posted by Yabby, Tuesday, 9 May 2006 11:21:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
coach, I think Yabby has covered the no proof argument well. It boils down to the idea that you are not convinced by the proof - kind of like my friend Scout and I on the DV gender issue, we each choose to give the most weight to the proof which fits best with our own world view. Fairly normal behaviour as long as you know that you are doing it and take it into account.

I don't particulary want homosexuality promoted to my son as a better alternative. I have a personal preference for heterosexual lifestyles. That personal preference does not give me the right to tell other consenting adults what choices they can make with each other nor does it give me the ethical right to try and have the law treat them as criminals.

Likewise I don't want my son taught that your belief system (or ones like it) are "normal" or a better alternative. I regard it as a sad vestage of more primitive times. I wonder if some people have a genetic disposition to a belief in God or if it is entirely a learned behaviour. If as an adult he chooses such a belief system for himself I will be saddened but will still love and accept him.

I find it very hard to take the christain churches posturing on morals at all seriously when so much of the church does not take them seriously or when the outcomes seem to be more destructive done your way than in an informed less absolute manner. The "just don't do it" method does not work well - inside or outside the church.

Eternal judgements - we've been through that before. If your God can't manage what he has here now (the church) then I'll take my chances on a judgement day and hope that his superviser intervenes and brings some common sense to the table.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Wednesday, 10 May 2006 8:10:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Excellent posts from Yabby and Rex.

Homosexual behaviour occurs naturally in the animal world - doesn't have to be induced in a laboratory. The level of homosexuals in humans is generally deduced to be at around 10%. Hardly a percentage to panic about and not anything I'm concerned about. Most gays and lesbians make valid contributions to our society - they tend to be better educated than average and have every right to form loving relationships with one another.

Rex, I agree we need to relax about our sexuality - there is nothing more exhilarating than swimming in the nude.

R0bert, I think you are being over anxious about your son. He can't be "made" gay. He either is or isn't. Either way I hope you will love him for who he is.

My very first sexual experience occurred when I was 11 with another girl the same age (who I later realized was gay) - I didn't really understand what she was on about so nothing really happened. The experience certainly didn't turn me into a lesbian, that's because I was already 'wired' as hetero - as our sexuality is determined from birth. As Yabby says we start as 'female' till the hormones kick in for males to develop. This is another reason why babies are sometimes born with both genitalia or no genitals at all. I suppose that the religious would have us believe that these babies 'chose' their ambiguity!

Regards
Posted by Scout, Wednesday, 10 May 2006 10:11:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This question of "naturalness" disturbs me. There is so much about modern life that is not natural, such as 9-5 work, the nuclear family, industrialisation, motor transport, T.V.etc. In fact it seems that our whole lifestyles are created to fit the circumstances we find ourselves in rather than some inate given. Why do we single out sexuality to judge it's naturalness? Do we challenge the naturalness of the boss/worker relationship ?

A better question, it would seem to me, is does it hurt anyone? What in real terms is wrong with it? - if there is nothing, then let's focus on the things that do do damage instead, such as domestic violence, rape and pedophilia.

An unnatural obsession with homosexuality is a diversion from the real issues of love, respect and mutuality. If we were more concerned about these issues we may be able to tackle predatory sexuality, be it from gays, priests or married people. But as long as we stay in irresolvable circular arguments about gods intention when s/he created gay folks, we are just confusing the truth of sexuality - both good and bad.
Posted by King Canute, Wednesday, 10 May 2006 11:33:11 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
hmmmm...guys guys guys...we've deviated off topic...with bible rants and confessions and Big Questions...

sex education...it's important...please refer to the websites on the above post by me...it doesn't just question what kids are learning IT OUTLINES what they are learning and asks if it's enough. How do we change the status quo? Who do we lobby...? All this other stuff is fascinating but not relevant...who cares who's gay or straight or a christian? Knowledge is still a vital tool in this thing we call life...so lets arm our kids as much as possible - in everything...and let them make INFORMED decisions.
Posted by Rose C, Wednesday, 10 May 2006 11:40:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Scout, I'm hoping that you have misunderstood my intent. Not particularly worried about gay influences on my son - I'm much more concerned about the activities of another group who actively target children (and specifically my son) trying to draw children into the groups sad delusions. Two guesses what group that would be.

More on topic
I suspect that our perceptions of our sexuality is influenced to some extent by social conditioning.

That could result in some fairly mixed up people - gays trying to be straight and visa versa, people with unhealthy sexual attitudes and behaviours etc. Therein lies one of the real dangers in "the moral minorities" attempts to force everybody to conform to what they think their imaginary friend demands. People being trained or forced to live a lie which does not fit them. Not only are their own lives harmed but also the lives of partners caught in the confusion, innocent victims if their confusion leads to sexual violence etc.

When you try to bend people to fit a space that they don't fit into some will come out bent but not necessarily in the manner you expected.

Cheers
R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Wednesday, 10 May 2006 7:07:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"All this other stuff is fascinating but not relevant."

Rose, you make good points, but I'll tell you why this other stuff
if relevant and why we argue about it:

The Christian Taliban, ie. the extreme fundie end of religious fanatics, might only make up for say 10% of the population, but what they lack in numbers, they make up for in noise and lobbying ability.

Countless topics, abortion, contraception, sex education, euthanasia, gay relationships, etc. etc. land up in a similar
quagmire, the fundies fight it all the way, based on their dogma.

Alot of the time, politicians will walk away, its too controversial etc. Exactly this applies to sex education. Fundies will preach that abstinance should be taught, even though we know that in reality its a dismal failure. The net result however is no change happens, as everyone is far to polite to step on toes and make
changes happen.

Look at the way that the Catholic lobby swung into action on euthanasia or on RU 486. Congratulations to those who finally stood up to them on RU 486!

The same will happen to sex education, as happenend to euthanasia, unless there is a real political will for change. That small minority will make such a racket, that politicians will back down and do nothing. I hope I'm wrong, I'd love those that matter to prove me wrong.
Posted by Yabby, Thursday, 11 May 2006 9:20:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I obviously agree that this religious discussion is relevent as I am contributing to it.
The problem with the sexual development of young people today is not a question of inadequate curricula at schools but of attitudes to sex by the whole society.

While there is an aparent controversy between Christian moralism and other more flexible and circumstance specific sexual moralities without a thorough exploration, the young will only be confused by the conflicting paradigms and turn off completely - which is the most dangerous thing to do, and it would seem, a common thing for young people to do.

It is guilt, not inteligent and heartfelt analysis that keeps Christian moralism on the agenda, and of course the proselytising enthusiasm of the Christian minoroties to enter every debate and push their barrow. But the barrow is never explained properly, it is given as a holy and eternal given - which it is not, hence my focus on the internal contradictions of the modern bible mode.

We can not stop the christians preaching, nor should we try. But we should also not ignore them and accept their legitimacy by default, even if, and especially because, christianity is held up in the mainstream as a legitimate framework to aspire to. Nor should we let their claims go unchallenged so that an unsuspecting and naive reader may believe that they have a position of moral and intellectual integrity simply because some old book says so.

Let the Christians explain themselves, encourage everyone to explain themselves and allow young people to be exposed to as many different opinions as possible, then let them, indeed encourage them, to make up their own mind the same way we generally encourage our young people to choose their own career, community, political opinions and friends.

educate and empower, not indoctrinate and enforce. This is how Jesus worked, according to the bible anyway.
Posted by King Canute, Thursday, 11 May 2006 11:19:59 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
King Canute, thanks for your excellent contributions to this debate.
Your answer to BD's call to return to old values left in in stiches - awesome work. I've spent a bit of time on the polygamy debate with some of the fundies but have not touched the issue nearly as well as you did with that piece. If I was wearing a hat I'd take it off to you.

I have mixed views on stopping misleading or unsubstantiated preaching. You may have seen the discussion on TITA on another thread. We don't allow snake oil salesmen to push their product as curing anything and everything. Not sure why BD and his kin should be able to continue to make unsubstantiated claims about the merits of their product without penalty. Likewise the standover tactics of threatening eternal torture to those who don't sign up is an utterly unethical tactic which is used without any substantiating proof. Self regulation does not appear to work for those pushing theologies and ideologies. On the other hand I don't like nanny states or unnecessary government inteference.

Cheers
R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Friday, 12 May 2006 8:46:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 12
  7. 13
  8. 14
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy