is this right that Pre-marital sex is ok

Originally posted by inimalist
before we go further, let me know if this seems like an accurate appraisal to you. I want to know what I'm arguing for, so I don't spend the time explaining something just for you to say "well, sure, that is physical, but this other ambiguous thing I can't define isn't".

I'm not so sure I agree on what you need to do to prove the stance superior. Proving that X is inside the brain or physical wouldn't seem to me to show the stance superior, since I assumed that was what determinism was claiming the whole time. So really all that would show was what I assumed you were already claiming.

To solve the problem I posed you would need to show that X can produce logical theories, not simply show it can physically produce theories. Even if you showed that there was a place in the brain that manufactures ideas, it wouldn't solve the problem.

The problem comes from our apparent inability to influence the creation of these ideas/theories. It isn't even so much about whether or not the X is physical or non-physical. It's about whether we can control X or not. I argue that if we cannot control X, we cannot trust X to produce logical truth.

So you need to provide some reason as to why we can trust X to produce logical truths. Not simply show that X is inside the brain.

Originally posted by Digi
Ok, so your hypothetical soul might not be bound by physical restrictions, but the body and mind still are. So how does the soul compel the body to defy causality? I don't see this as being able to be reconciled. Either it is a causal entity, or it is impotent to affect the body/mind because the body and mind remain bound by the laws of reality.

You've still done nothing to explain how something, anything, happens that isn't deterministic. And in doing so, you're essentially claiming that choices happen that have no cause or reason whatsoever.

Also, there's no evidence for a soul whatsoever, etc. but you seem to be ignoring that. Your argument, as such, amounts to "well, magic, therefore not science."

Actually, whether or not we have a soul is irrelevant to the main point of whether or not we have free will. That's what's relevant to the debate at hand. Free will. Not whether we have a soul or not.

You made the claim that we do not have free will. I challenged it. So at this point it is up to you to reconcile the potential problem I posed, or concede that the point supporting premarital sex based off of our lack of free will is not viable.

Originally posted by TacDavey
To solve the problem I posed you would need to show that X can produce logical theories, not simply show it can physically produce theories.

...

So you need to provide some reason as to why we can trust X to produce logical truths. Not simply show that X is inside the brain.

I'm not sure I understand... It isn't enough to show where all theories come from, I have to show that some of those theories fit with the universe?

Like, you realize I haven't claimed human perception leads to remarkably accurate understanding of the world. Surely it provides the best we have to go on in most cases, but by in large, I don't trust a lot of what individuals think about random things.

This is one of the advantages of science. It is not a single person, but many, not only at the experimental level (very few experiments are done with a team of a single individual), but also at the peer review and external replication levels as well. Single brains, sure, do not necessarily produce rational thought, but when many people with relevant expertise follow a self correcting method that is frequently improved upon, we can come to a very reliable, and demonstrably correct, understanding of the universe.

You want me to prove something, in this case, that I haven't argued for...

Originally posted by inimalist
I'm not sure I understand... It isn't enough to show where all theories come from, I have to show that some of those theories fit with the universe?

Like, you realize I haven't claimed human perception leads to remarkably accurate understanding of the world. Surely it provides the best we have to go on in most cases, but by in large, I don't trust a lot of what individuals think about random things.

This is one of the advantages of science. It is not a single person, but many, not only at the experimental level (very few experiments are done with a team of a single individual), but also at the peer review and external replication levels as well. Single brains, sure, do not necessarily produce rational thought, but when many people with relevant expertise follow a self correcting method that is frequently improved upon, we can come to a very reliable, and demonstrably correct, understanding of the universe.

You want me to prove something, in this case, that I haven't argued for...

But that's the thing that has to be proven in order to rectify the problem I posed.

The problem doesn't go away by increasing the number of people working on it either. Because the problem would still exist in all of the theories and corrections they might make.

Originally posted by TacDavey
But that's the thing that has to be proven in order to rectify the problem I posed.

The problem doesn't go away by increasing the number of people working on it either. Because the problem would still exist in all of the theories and corrections they might make.

I'm not really sure what to say...

this is sort of the point where, if you want there to be any conversation, you have to present something else.

All scientists admit what you have pointed out is a flaw. period. is the conversation over now or are you going to tell us what you think the answer is?

or in terms of the theory formation stuff, if the models I made aren't describing what you are talking about, can you do it? Like, would explaining how you come up with a "theory of how light switches work" be a both complex and accurate enough theory that people have? if not, why not, specifically. Tell me what is different between the theories you are talking about and that.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Actually, whether or not we have a soul is irrelevant to the main point of whether or not we have free will. That's what's relevant to the debate at hand. Free will. Not whether we have a soul or not.

You made the claim that we do not have free will. I challenged it. So at this point it is up to you to reconcile the potential problem I posed, or concede that the point supporting premarital sex based off of our lack of free will is not viable.

Ok, so let's go through your progression.

Me: What's the alternative to determinism?
You: A soul (your verbatim response). Without which, free will isn't possible (paraphrased this time).
Me: Provide any reason to believe in a soul
You: A soul is irrelevant to the main point.

Feel free to jump through a few more logical hoops to justify this to yourself. Personally, smells like BS to me.

You're also creating a false dichotomy in your challenge to me, and shifting burden of proof improperly, and supposing there's only one justification for believing premarital sex is ok. Let me try to tackle them one at a time:

False Dichotomy and Reiteration of Justification
- The false dichotomy has to do with "either prove to me this or concede I'm right." Common sense informs us that there is often more than one reason to justify something, perhaps several. The fact that you are reverting to this suggests to me you're still approaching morality as a right/wrong world of absolutes, not a spectrum where we can apply broad rules to situations that have nothing in common. I've actually provided more than one in our long discussion, so it feels tiresome to reiterate. However...
- Setting aside free will/determinism for a moment, one could justify premarital sex on purely sociological grounds, as I as did earlier. I outlined several situations in which no harm ever comes of sex ("Sally and John have sex. They enjoy it. Horray for Sally and John!"😉 and your comeback was to try to paint premarital sex as an a priori bad act, when it is not. It's only bad when it's bad, and with proper caution and emotional preparedness, it's a good, loving, fun act. Your view of acts is very black and white, based on the concept of sin, and does not hold up to scrutiny. Nothing is inherently bad if it hurts no one, there is no ill intent, etc. You might as well say kissing before marriage is a sin because it has the potential to emotionally harm others, or give them mouth herpes or something. But you precious book says nothing about it, so you don't take a stand on it. This isn't an analogy - it's literally the exact same thing. But because your dogma creates an arbitrary line at vaginal insertion, you're against it.
- To me, your view is ****ing sick because it's needlessly damning. You can exercise and teach caution, care, love, etc. without creating guilt for acts that are harmless. I've seen people cry in guilt because they masturbate, I've seen people emotionally torture themselves because they engage in premarital acts that hurt no one except a mythical deity in the sky. Because, to them, it is wrong. You can argue that this is the wrong way to interpret it, but how do you expect people to react when their desires lead them one way, they can't see the rational harm in it, but their religion tells them they are wrong, God is displeased, there's a possibility of hell, etc. etc. It perpetuates needless guilt and suffering, and that you can't see that is tragic.

Dodging and Moving the Goalposts
- I'm still waiting on a reason to think we have a soul. Which, according to your own words, is what grants us free will.

Burden of Proof
- We can confirm the existence of a material, physical world, and know that it operates based on physical laws that govern the universe and its workings. We're made of the exact same stuff as the rest of the universe, and our bodies operate by the same physical laws. The burden of proof is upon you to provide the supernatural element by which we defy causality. Otherwise, you're just talking shit without the slightest justification.
- We know the physical processes of the mind can account for human behavior. We know that we actually make decisions before we have conscious awareness of them, that the physical processes of a decision and action are in motion prior to awareness of the decision, thus confirming that the physical underpinnings of life are all that is needed for us to function. Awareness is secondary - a byproduct - but not intrinsic to choices. These are facts that support my claim. What the hell do you have?

Your objection
- What you have is an objection to the way we form thoughts, not an objection to determinism itself. You haven't provided one iota of reason to suggest we aren't entirely causal, determined beings.
- You also haven't acknowledged that both inamilist and I provided the answer to your objection before you made it. Essentially what you're talking about is our subjective interpretation of reality, which means we can never know anything with 100% certainty. Yes, absolutely true. Because the objective truth of reality is filtered through our subjective perceptions and minds, whether determined or otherwise, we can't be 100% absolutely certain of anything. Religion, science, our own existence, nothing.
- The problems with that are two-fold, however, if you use it as a defense for religion. One, it applies equally to everyone, so if you want to use it to knock our theories - sorry, our facts - you must also concede that you yourself cannot know anything for certain, and that your own ideas are on equally tenuous ground (or more so, given lack of evidence).
- Second problem, in order to function in reality, we have to assume that we can at least approximate reality and how it works. So when we see a desk in front of us, we can be reasonably sure it exists, and we are viewing the universe in some truthful way. Determined or not, our perception of reality has to approximate reality unless you subscribe to some sort of philosophical anarchism. So, in a determined universe, we can still observe the universe as it exists, so when we test that universe, we can come up with how it works. It's literally how science works. Your questioning of our determinism might as well question the entire history of scientific progress. Like, if we don't have a grasp on at least some aspects of reality, how does the iPhone exist?
- Being determined doesn't invalidate our experiences, our perceptions, our knowledge. It's just the process by which the universe works.

...

Please, run that ice cream story through your head a few more times that I proposed earlier. If you can tell me why you don't pick vanilla every time, I'll be impressed. Why would the ball not fall? How can anything in existence not be causal? How can the universe include elements that defy its other laws? As it is, you would always pick vanilla, so...good luck.

I also want to say that I think I'm more moral because I don't blame, I don't judge, I don't consider anyone to be in sin. I work toward happiness and freedom without labels on actions or people. Some of that is true of you or most people, but the fact that you still exist in a polarized world of good and evil means you haven't entirely move past that type of thinking yet. If you want a slightly less abrasive take on this idea - since I know this conversation isn't all roses - check out some Taoist philosophy, which is essentially a deterministic philosophy (as is most Buddhism). It's where I first encountered this idea, before being introduced to it by more secular philosophers.

Assuming a person got divorced and that pre-marital sex is not ok. What about both health and mental problems that develop due to not having sex?

Originally posted by inimalist
I'm not really sure what to say...

this is sort of the point where, if you want there to be any conversation, you have to present something else.

All scientists admit what you have pointed out is a flaw. period. is the conversation over now or are you going to tell us what you think the answer is?

or in terms of the theory formation stuff, if the models I made aren't describing what you are talking about, can you do it? Like, would explaining how you come up with a "theory of how light switches work" be a both complex and accurate enough theory that people have? if not, why not, specifically. Tell me what is different between the theories you are talking about and that.

That's the thing I've been trying to get across, though. It doesn't matter what I think is the answer. Digi provided an argument that was flawed. Meaning it cannot be used to support his stance until the flaw is rectified. Which was the whole point. The main point of the current topic is premarital sex. Not determinism. Determinism was used as a reason to support his side. So if determinism is shown to be a flawed line of reasoning, then what needs to be accomplished as far as the premarital sex debate is accomplished. This isn't a debate about determinism. What my stance on souls or free will is is irrelevant to the debate about premarital sex. If you want to debate free will/determinism/other possible explanations it belongs in another thread. It would ONLY be relevant if you wanted to make the claim "My stance is flawed, but since you aren't providing an alternative, it's right." Which is obviously not logically valid.

Originally posted by Digi
Ok, so let's go through your progression.

Me: What's the alternative to determinism?

And right there is where the problem is. My alternative is irrelevant. I shouldn't have even brought it up. The main topic is premarital sex. Not determinism. Determinism was one of YOUR points and I pointed to the fact that one of YOUR points was flawed. This isn't about my stance on a subject I didn't bring up. If I can show that Determinism is a flawed line of reasoning, then your support of premarital sex using determinism is no longer valid. That's as far as this topic on this specific debate needs to go.

Furthermore, even if I did supply a counter argument to determinism and it ended up being invalid, that doesn't fix the flaw in YOUR version, so in the end it still can't be used to support premarital sex.

Any way you look at it my alternative to determinism is irrelevant. You either have to rectify the flaw in your argument, or admit that the argument, and as such it's support of your side, is flawed.

Originally posted by Digi
[b]False Dichotomy and Reiteration of Justification
- The false dichotomy has to do with "either prove to me this or concede I'm right." [/B]

With all due respect, this sounds like a better representation of your side.

"Prove to me your view of free will is right, or concede that determinism is right."

This is obviously a flawed line of reasoning. All I need to do as far as the premarital sex debate is concerned is your our support point is flawed. And I don't have to provide an alternative in order to do this. Once again, I don't need to prove that 2 + 3 = 5 in order to show that 2 + 3 = 7 is wrong.

Originally posted by Digi
Common sense informs us that there is often more than one reason to justify something, perhaps several. The fact that you are reverting to this suggests to me you're still approaching morality as a right/wrong world of absolutes, no t a spectrum where we can apply broad rules to situations that have nothing in common. I've actually provided more than one in our long discussion, so it feels tiresome to reiterate. However...
- Setting aside free will/determinism for a moment, one could justify premarital sex on purely sociological grounds, as I as did earlier. I outlined several situations in which no harm ever comes of sex ("Sally and John have sex. They enjoy it. Horray for Sally and John!"😉 and your comeback was to try to paint premarital sex as an a priori bad act, when it is not.

I already responded to this point, however. Just because you can create a hypothetical situation in which no harm would come of an action, doesn't make said action right. Furthermore, simply because there is a chance that an action won't hurt anyone doesn't mean the action is right either.

Does this fact thus show premarital sex is wrong? No. But it does show that premarital sex cannot be defended with this point. You will have to provide another reason supporting your side because the simple fact that it is possible to come out of an action with no one being hurt does not make the action good or even acceptable. It's acceptable or not based on other reasons.

Originally posted by Digi
It's only bad when it's bad, and with proper caution and emotional preparedness, it's a good, loving, fun act. Your view of acts is very black and white, based on the concept of sin, and does not hold up to scrutiny. Nothing is inherently bad if it hurts no one, there is no ill intent, etc. You might as well say kissing before marriage is a sin because it has the potential to emotionally harm others, or give them mouth herpes or something.

This is another point I have already responded to. I fully admit that the simple fact that harm is possible is not justification to consider the act wrong. In the same way, the simple fact that it might NOT cause harm is also not justification for considering it right. There are levels.

Originally posted by Digi
But you precious book says nothing about it, so you don't take a stand on it. This isn't an analogy - it's literally the exact same thing. But because your dogma creates an arbitrary line at vaginal insertion, you're against it.

- To me, your view is ****ing sick because it's needlessly damning

This is starting to sound more like a personal attack on me and my religion rather than a logical debate point. It doesn't help either side to be insulting or disrespectful, so I would appreciate if we could keep this debate civilized.

Originally posted by Digi
. You can exercise and teach caution, care, love, etc. without creating guilt for acts that are harmless. I've seen people cry in guilt because they masturbate, I've seen people emotionally torture themselves because they engage in premarital acts that hurt no one except a mythical deity in the sky.

Once again, I disagree that these acts hurt no one. Furthermore, if they torture themselves or react in this way then they need help. No one is saying people should emotionally torture themselves. Not you, not me, not the Bible.

Originally posted by Digi
Because, to them, it is wrong. You can argue that this is the wrong way to interpret it, but how do you expect people to react when their desires lead them one way, they can't see the rational harm in it, but their religion tells them they are wrong, God is displeased, there's a possibility of hell, etc. etc. It perpetuates needless guilt and suffering, and that you can't see that is tragic.

There is nothing wrong with feeling guilty. Furthermore, your asserting that this guilt is needless is assuming that premarital sex is okay. Which is the topic of this debate.

Originally posted by Digi
[b]Dodging and Moving the Goalposts
- I'm still waiting on a reason to think we have a soul. Which, according to your own words, is what grants us free will.[/B]

And I still hold to the idea that this is irrelevant. I shouldn't have brought it up in the first place. The only thing I need to do concerning this specific debate is show that your defense point is flawed. Which I believe I have done.

Continued...

Continued...

Originally posted by Digi
[b]Burden of Proof
- We can confirm the existence of a material, physical world, and know that it operates based on physical laws that govern the universe and its workings. We're made of the exact same stuff as the rest of the universe, and our bodies operate by the same physical laws. The burden of proof is upon you to provide the supernatural element by which we defy causality. Otherwise, you're just talking shit without the slightest justification.[/B]

I'm not the one who made the point about determinism. You are. You made the claim, so YOU back it up. I pointed to a flaw in determinism. It is up to YOU to rectify this flaw. If you cannot, then you must admit that determinism is a flawed line of reasoning, and as such cannot be used to defend premarital sex.

Originally posted by Digi
- We know the physical processes of the mind can account for human behavior. We know that we actually make decisions before we have conscious awareness of them, that the physical processes of a decision and action are in motion prior to awareness of the decision, thus confirming that the physical underpinnings of life are all that is needed for us to function. Awareness is secondary - a byproduct - but not intrinsic to choices. These are facts that support my claim. What the hell do you have?

I have a flaw in your reasoning. One that you have yet to rectify. Which is all I need.

Originally posted by Digi
[b]Your objection
- What you have is an objection to the way we form thoughts, not an objection to determinism itself. You haven't provided one iota of reason to suggest we aren't entirely causal, determined beings. [/B]

In fact I have. I pointed to the fact that if we ARE we wouldn't be able to form logical theories or truths. If you are willing to accept this, then you would have to, at the same time, accept that the idea that we are causal, determined beings is itself not a logical theory. It's just a predetermined theory. One of many, in fact.

Originally posted by Digi
- You also haven't acknowledged that both inamilist and I provided the answer to your objection before you made it. Essentially what you're talking about is our subjective interpretation of reality, which means we can never know anything with 100% certainty. Yes, absolutely true. Because the objective truth of reality is filtered through our subjective perceptions and minds, whether determined or otherwise, we can't be 100% absolutely certain of anything. Religion, science, our own existence, nothing.
- The problems with that are two-fold, however, if you use it as a defense for religion. One, it applies equally to everyone, so if you want to use it to knock our theories - sorry, our facts - you must also concede that you yourself cannot know anything for certain, and that your own ideas are on equally tenuous ground (or more so, given lack of evidence).

This would only be true if I accepted that determinism was true. Which I have made very clear that I do not.

Originally posted by Digi
- Second problem, in order to function in reality, we have to assume that we can at least approximate reality and how it works. So when we see a desk in front of us, we can be reasonably sure it exists, and we are viewing the universe in some truthful way. Determined or not, our perception of reality has to approximate reality unless you subscribe to some sort of philosophical anarchism. So, in a determined universe, we can still observe the universe as it exists, so when we test that universe, we can come up with how it works. It's literally how science works. Your questioning of our determinism might as well question the entire history of scientific progress. Like, if we don't have a grasp on at least some aspects of reality, how does the iPhone exist?

We don't have to know logical truths about the universe to function in it. We have to know SOME things, sure. Like a desk being in front of you, or that fire is hot. This doesn't apply to everything, though, or even most things, because if it did, there would be a lot of people who could not function in reality considering how many different ideas and theories that exist in the world.

Originally posted by Digi
- Being determined doesn't invalidate our experiences, our perceptions, our knowledge. It's just the process by which the universe works.

It doesn't invalidate our experiences. It does, however, invalidate our theories, as I have pointed out.

Originally posted by Digi
Please, run that ice cream story through your head a few more times that I proposed earlier. If you can tell me why you don't pick vanilla every time, I'll be impressed.

It's not about what you would do, it's about what's possible to do. If you like vanilla and not chocolate then you'll probably always pick vanilla. You claim that vanilla is the only choice POSSIBLE to make. I disagree.

Originally posted by Digi
Why would the ball not fall?

It would always fall because of gravity. This doesn't prove anything, though, because I reject the idea that a ball reacting to gravity is the same as a person's conscious mind.

Originally posted by Digi
How can anything in existence not be causal?

I suppose, in a sense, you could say it still is causal if you consider free will to be a cause. An uncaused cause is not a logical contradiction.

Originally posted by Digi
How can the universe include elements that defy its other laws?

I don't think it does.

Originally posted by Digi
I also want to say that I think I'm more moral because I don't blame, I don't judge, I don't consider anyone to be in sin.

This isn't a "who is more moral" debate. Saying something like this seems to hold no other purpose that putting me down and lifting you up. We should stick to the debate at hand instead of going down the "I'm better than you" road.

Originally posted by TacDavey
That's the thing I've been trying to get across, though. It doesn't matter what I think is the answer. Digi provided an argument that was flawed. Meaning it cannot be used to support his stance until the flaw is rectified. Which was the whole point. The main point of the current topic is premarital sex. Not determinism. Determinism was used as a reason to support his side. So if determinism is shown to be a flawed line of reasoning, then what needs to be accomplished as far as the premarital sex debate is accomplished. This isn't a debate about determinism. What my stance on souls or free will is [B]is irrelevant to the debate about premarital sex. If you want to debate free will/determinism/other possible explanations it belongs in another thread. It would ONLY be relevant if you wanted to make the claim "My stance is flawed, but since you aren't providing an alternative, it's right." Which is obviously not logically valid. [/B]

would you participate in such a thread?

Originally posted by inimalist
would you participate in such a thread?

Sure. If you want I'll add my 2 cents to the thread.

As to pre-marital sex:

Countries like the U.S. that have reverted to as a whole to teaching only abstinence and ignoring proper sex education have higher teen and unwanted pregnancy rates and much higher rates of STDs.

Countries that have proper sexual education, have open lines of communication between parents and children, and do not beat the idea into people that sex is an evil, dirty thing have much lower accidental pregnancy rates, lower STD rates, and lower incidences of sexual assaults.

It is clear that humans have a propensity toward sexual desire once they become sexually mature. What is wrong is not being honest about this. If people are taught that one, sexual desire is natural and healthy, and two, that no one has ever died from not having an orgasm and that there is nothing wrong with deciding to wait to have sex because there are pretty powerful attachments that come along with it then certainly we'd have a healthier society as a whole.

Right and wrong are a matter of morality. Sexual drive is a matter of biology and people should be given the facts to make intelligent decisions and the support of those around them.

In regards to religion's stance on this it depends entirely on the religion, no?

Originally posted by Ascendancy
As to pre-marital sex:

Countries like the U.S. that have reverted to as a whole to teaching only abstinence and ignoring proper sex education have higher teen and unwanted pregnancy rates and much higher rates of STDs.

Countries that have proper sexual education, have open lines of communication between parents and children, and do not beat the idea into people that sex is an evil, dirty thing have much lower accidental pregnancy rates, lower STD rates, and lower incidences of sexual assaults.

It is clear that humans have a propensity toward sexual desire once they become sexually mature. What is wrong is not being honest about this. If people are taught that one, sexual desire is natural and healthy, and two, that no one has ever died from not having an orgasm and that there is nothing wrong with deciding to wait to have sex because there are pretty powerful attachments that come along with it then certainly we'd have a healthier society as a whole.

Right and wrong are a matter of morality. Sexual drive is a matter of biology and people should be given the facts to make intelligent decisions and the support of those around them.

In regards to religion's stance on this it depends entirely on the religion, no?

America hasn't "as a whole", as you say, "reverted" to teaching abstinence. I remember being in school (graduated high school last year) and they NEVER taught abstinence. It was always "use a condom", "use birth control", "be safe", etc.

I think if people could control themselves and keep their hands off each other for more than a couple minutes there would be less unexpected pregnancy and less STDs.

As a Christian, of course I believe that sex is meant for a man and woman in marriage. There wouldn't be such emotional attachments involved in sex if that weren't the case.

If you want to know why there are STDs and teen pregnancy and etc., look no further than the media. Casual sex is glorified in tv shows, music and movies. When the media stops pushing sex in everything they put out, we'll see a difference in the pregnancy and STD rates. Sadly, that's NEVER gonna happen.

[sarcasm]Yes, your high school reflects the entire nation.[/sarcasm] Most people attend public, not private institutions and part of the last administration's actions were to push abstinence and not true sex education. I have to say that the saddest thing is that it is most often Christians who spout the "if people just had self-control" mess. If people had proper sex education they would have an understanding of healthy sexuality and that is something that is not given at most schools. Most religions fail to speak to people as humans. They simply say, "don't do this, don't do that" instead of remembering that people actually have thoughts and emotion that need to be understood.

Glad to see that your religion puts you in the right though and that your high school experience speaks to that of the entire country. Whatever was I thinking looking at the facts?

Blaming schools for not giving sex education, when it is parent's primary role. Careless parents are the main problems. Children are thought morals from parents on first place. And if parents don't teach morals, no school will help.

Well, fact is a lot of parents can't be there to reinforce everything. Some parents work multiple jobs just to get by because they are in single parent homes. They do what they can, but regardless the extra push given by a multi-part sex education class in schools works. You hear something enough it starts to stick. Besides that no matter how close a parental relationship is most kids still have some discomfort discussing sexuality with their parents. Having someone giving a well-developed sex education program is nothing but a positive.

Let's also not forget the fact that some parents refuse to discuss it because of their beliefs. Should kids go unprepared because their parents won't broach the discussion with them? The rate of STDs and STIs in the U.S. is ridiculous and something needs to change. I'm not blaming schools, I'm blaming those who pushed sex education out of schools.

Watching a special on AIDS and HIV and one thing that happened to come up is a number of states that still mandate an "Abstinence Only" sex education policy. Just sad considering that the information is available but not allowed to be taught.

Originally posted by Ascendancy
Watching a special on AIDS and HIV and one thing that happened to come up is a number of states that still mandate an "Abstinence Only" sex education policy. Just sad considering that the information is available but not allowed to be taught.

hmm Obviously the issue is that Christian are weak willed.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
hmm Obviously the issue is that Christian are weak willed.

Nope, they're weak-ass queers.