At DI, we have an extremely conservative fellow visiting the blog these days. He’s trying to convert all of us to his reactionary world view. He clings to his Bible as a book of literal truths and he seems to love everything that Sarah Palin ostensibly stands for. I’d like to issue a challenge to this fellow, who goes by the name “Erik.” To me, he represents many people out there who seem to believe that if you pretend something isn’t important, it isn’t important, even if it IS important. This includes such critical topics as as Iraq, the cobbled together all-too-human nature of the Bible, Global Warming and, of course, sex education.
Please tell me which of the following sexual education topics you would rather that our children not know anything about. Please tell me in what specific ways we should keep children, including teenagers, in the dark.
These topics are actually the chapters of a popular book that I have read. I would wholeheartedly recommend this book to any parent seeking a sex education book for their children: It’s Perfectly Normal: Changing Bodies, Growing Up, Sex, and Sexual Health (2004), by Robie H. Harris (Author), Michael Emberley (Illustrator). Here are the topics:
Part I – What is Sex
Girl or Boy, Female or Male (sex and gender)
Making Babies (Sexual Reproduction)
Strong Feelings (Sexual Desire)
Making Love (Sexual intercourse)
Straight and Gay (Heterosexuality and homosexuality)
Part II – Our Bodies
The Human Body (All kinds of bodies)
Outside and Inside (The Female Sex Organs)
Outside and Inside (The Male Sex Organs)
Words (Talking about Bodies and Sex)
Part III – Puberty
Changes and Messages (Puberty and Hormones)
The travels of the Egg (Female Puberty)
The Travels of the Sperm (Male Puberty)
Not all at Once! (Growing and Changing Bodies)
More Changes (Taking care of your Body)
Back and Forth: (Up and Down – New and Changing Feelings)
Perfectly Normal: (Masturbation)
Part IV – Babies and Families
All sorts of Families (Taking care of babies and kids)
Instructions from Mom and Dad (The Cell, genes and chromosomes)
A kind of Sharing: (Cuddling, kissing, touching and sexual intercourse)
Before Birth: (Pregnancy)
What a Trip! (Birth)
Other Arrivals (More ways to have a baby and family, including adoption)
Part V – Decisions
Planning Ahead (postponement, abstinence and birth control)
Laws and Rulings (abortion)
Part VI – Staying Healthy
Talk about it (sexual abuse)
Checkup (Sexually Transmitted Diseases)
Scientists Working Day and Night (HIV and AIDS)
Staying Healthy (Responsible Choices).
So what is it, Erik? Should we avoid teaching our children about puberty? Sexual feelings? Masturbation? Shall we keep our kids from knowing anything about any of these sex-ed topics? Truly, tell me exactly how ignorant you want to keep America’s children and teenagers. Should we keep this book out of America’s public libraries? Should this book even be sold at all? You are aware, aren’t you, that many parents are so mentally stymied about sex (because their own parents thought it better to keep them ignorant) that they don’t have a clue about how to communicate these sex-ed ideas to their kids. Shouldn’t those parents have access to a book like this to provide them with clear information about compelling topics?
Here’s a caveat to those people who want to live in ignorance: you can peek in this book at Amazon–beware that you might learn something.
For a little journey that is pretty amazing, though not unexpected, take a look at the comments regarding this book at Amazon and you’ll be Amazed at the cultural chasm displayed. This book typically gets either 5 stars (from people who want their kids to be informed about these important topics) or 1 star (by people who want to keep their kids ignorant about sex). Too bad Bristol Palin didn’t have a book like this a year ago.
Because you might actually learn something important by reading it, It’s Perfectly Normal is one of the top ten challenged books of 2007, according to the Economist.
Erik, you didn't answer my question. Could ANYONE or any THING turn YOU into a homosexual?
I have bad news for you. Your friend already was a homosexual (or at least bisexual) to some degree before the bad boys "convinced" him to try it. I don't buy his story one little bit…and neither should you.
What you refuse to acknowledge is that sexuality, like many other human characteristics, lies on a continuum. You can have EX-homosexuals because they were nearer to the center of the continuum of sexuality than someone who is a homosexual for life.OR a heterosexual for life. They lie at the far ends of the spectrum. Just like you can have someone who is extremely right or left handed or perfectly ambidextrous. No difference.
Why should sexuality should be an "either/or" proposition when EVERY OTHER human characteristic (that God supposedly created) isn't?
P.S. I applaud Erik for the courage to take us all on here at DI. He is obviously strong in his convictions and willing to fight for them. I admire that, even if I disagree with him.
Erik: Please read this aloud, and while you read it put one finger in one of your ears, so that this doesn't go right through. I am approving everything you send, except for one long passage that (in my opinion) violated Fair Use (I indicated with a truncated version of that comment that you should send the link).
A few of your comments slipped into a special spam filter. I have retrieved those and posted them too. If you want to repost a comment that got lost, send it again.
If I was really trying to censor you, I wouldn't have posted dozens of your comments. You are getting more than a fair opportunity to be heard. If you don't believe that, try posting to any other free-thinking site that gets our amount of traffic (between 3,000 – 4,000 visitors per day) and see what happens.
Erik says, "If you want to teach evolution in school and are so sure that it is 100% correct then why are you afraid to allow a different opinion?"
Erik: I'm for teaching creationism (or "Intelligent Design), but only as part of a religion course, not as part of a science course. Therefore, teach it in a religion survey course, or mention it in a biology class as an failed attempt to explain biological phenomena. It is a failed attempt to explain because it does not not support objectively testable propositions.
The way life has evolved on Earth (a spectacular evolution, at least for those of us who are not young earthers) shouts that there is an apparent design, or at least a high degree of interconnectedness among the critters in the biosphere.
The question is whether that apparent "design" can be accounted for by natural selection. Thousands of careful experiments from many scientific fields suggest that the answer is "yes."
You might want to make a treasure hunt of the inquiry by leaping to the word "God" as an "explanation," but that is not how science is done. Therefore, you are free to believe that there was a God and that this God created the world, but that is a conclusion that goes beyond the real-world evidence. It is thus not science.
You can yell at skeptics all day long, but one thing they're not going to do is to go beyond the evidence.
Erik: "If immorality were portrayed as it is, shameful, then sexual abuse would decrease."
Two words: Catholic. Priests.
to erik brewer:
i am not taking sides on this debate; however, i do wonder why it is important for you (as well as to erich veith, by the way) to spend so much time trying to convince people who you do not know of your point of view?
if 500 people (none of whom you know) wrote in comments to the effect that everything you say is 100% correct (or 100% incorrect), how would that make any difference to you?
i don't get it.
Stephen said:
"The bible teaches what to do with rape victims (stone them)"
Erik said:
"The Bible says to protect the rape victim by punishing the rapist with death. Otherwise the rape victim is victimized twice, once by being raped and a second time by not seeing the guilty punished."
Bible says (Judges 22):
So, actually, it's a bit more complicated than either Stephen or Erik claim. If you're in the city and don't yell loud enough, you get raped, then stoned. Guess you're out of luck if the rapist thinks of using a gag. If you're out in the country though, you don't get stoned.
If dear old dad has already sold you off, uh, I mean betrothed you, your rapist gets the death penalty. If you haven't yet been sold off, and someone rapes you, they pay a fine and you get to marry your rapist! Sounds like a slap on the wrist for the rapist, and the girl gets victimized twice.
Erik, can you explain why the penalty for raping an unbetrothed woman is so much lighter than for raping a betrothed woman?
It's really, really difficult for me to understand how someone could read the OT and still consider it a template for wholesome family values. Most of the OT portrays the morality of a primitive tribal society, in which it's OK to capture and rape another tribe's virgin girls, but kill all the men and women who have had sex (including some pregnant ones I'm sure.) If you study human history, it's hard to remain shocked by stories of torture, brutal rape, and murder – they happen all the time, and not just in our primitive past. But I have to admit this little story made me want to throw up and then immediately take a long shower:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/jg/19.html#22
I never, ever came across that one in Sunday School. I thought the story of Lot and his daughters was pretty bad, but this is just…
Now, there may be some sort of moral lesson here (more likely some obscure allegory about the 12 tribes of Israel or some such) but I don't know why anyone would consider letting this book be openly available to minors.
This is heating up…
Now where did I put my asbestos underwear????
Anyone else think that this is our new Erik's blog?
http://erikbrewer.wordpress.com
The writing seems similar.
There are very few comments, but there is an apology by Erik for deleting one that ran counter to his post. No wonder he seems sensitive to Erich's non-existent censorship.
Conceited, aren't ya? I don't fear gods judgment, because I don't fear anything that doesn't exist.
Want to know why STD's are being transmitted? Because your abstinence only sex ed that you tout so much, is being punctuated with repeated failure. Getting tested, using preventative measures, and using false facts to make claims that you know nothing about, is not education. Condoms stop 96 – 99% of pregnancies and STD's. The only reason why STD's continue, is that people younger than me don't get the real facts about it at a young age, so they're taking risks that preventative measures, like sex education, would alleviate.
Quick question: Why are Atheistic countries, like Japan and Sweden, less prone to teen pregnancies and STD influx? One would think that the less religious a country is, the more immoral it would be, yet those two countries have one of the lowest murder and teen pregnancy rates out of the top industrial nations.
But enough about that, lets look at my own experience with a montage of born again christian girls compared to catholic girls.
The one born again girl I dated had very little sexual education, and asked me about everything. Eventually, I found out she was off and dating while we still were 'together'. I halfway expected it, seeing as how they pull the high and mighty role in life. Oh well, last I heard she's pregnant with some guys kid, after they had unprotected sex during her fertile stage. Good for her, the 'miracle of life' should straighten her out.
My experience with catholic girls was thus, in that 2 of the 3 were nothing buy passing fancies, and that I had no idea what I was doing in the emotional part. I didn't have a focused sex drive back then, and I didn't want to do anything stupid. They agreed, and before anything got out of hand, we parted ways. The 3rd one, the one I'm currently with, and I hope to be with for a long time, was well educated on the matter of sexual education, preventative measures, failure rates of birth control, and all that. Basically, the more educated, the better understanding of what sex means in the relationship. Lemme say that again:
The better educated on sex someone is, the better they understand the implications that sex has on relationships.
Is this always true? No, but its better than letting children sit in the dark about it. Sexual education doesn't cause immorality, which is a laughable concept anyway.
Are you immoral if you enjoy sex? Are you immoral if it turns out that you're a homosexual? The correct answer is no, but I bet you have a cunning remark insinuating that I'm gay. For shame…And to think this is a progressive country.
Erik Brewer wrote…."All homosexuals choose to be homosexual, there is no “gay” gene …."
Could you please show me the "straight" gene? In addition to that, could you please share with me what someone with AIS (Androgen insensitivity syndrome) presenting certain specific characteristics (XY genetically but otherwise and in all ways female in appearance) is supposed to do about marriage?
With so many millions of fundie gay-haters like Erik Brewer in the world, I am at a loss to understand why anyone would actually consciously "choose" to be gay. But that's not something I'm going to get into.
I am, however, at a total loss to explain why exactly it is fundies like Erik B are (a) so hell-bent on controlling what people (not just Christians, but EVERYBODY) do in the privacy of their bedrooms and (b) so utterly, bafflingly opposed to educating young people about the facts of life, the dangers of STDs and the (often harsh) realities of teen pregnancy. Surely fore-warned is fore-armed, right? I know lots of religious people have this inexplicable idea that "sexual education equals a license to go and just fuck your brains out with whoever" but here's a newsflash: teenagers, regardless of religion, upbringing or whatever, WILL go and fuck their brains out when they want to and if they're not adequately informed they'll make stupid, thoughtless or unsafe choices. Bristol Palin is the archetype, the poster-child for the utter failure of religious abstinence-only so-called "education". Teenagers are, by nature, impulsive and rash and if you think "don't ask questions, just DON'T DO IT" qualifies as education you're simply not fit to be a parent. If you were to just accept the undeniable fact that teenagers, bursting with hormones and new thoughts and new physical developments but lacking the self-control of an adult, will do exactly as they please, you'd realise the way to keep them healthy, safe and enable them to CHOOSE when to become parents is by actually educating them. Telling them "just don't do it" is neglectful and tantamount to child abuse.
Teenagers may not be adults but you should give them some credit for being able to make the right choice in a situation that they've been mentally prepared for, either by you or by a teacher. Hell, teach children about sex *before* their teens and by the time they do start dating they'll have an arsenal of knowledge about to protect themselves if, by chance, the Virginity Pledge you made them take takes a metaphorical back seat to an actual back seat.
Making kids promise not to do something while simultaneously keeping them in the dark about the possible consequences of breaking that promise is grossly irresponsible. Hypothetical (as I'm not religious): what if no one ever told you the consequences of not accepting Jesus as your savior and just let you wander about blindly? You'd be heading straight to hell because no one ever gave you the "right" information. What if you didn't teach your kids about Jesus? They might grow up to be atheists!
vicki
I was waiting for this comment as well. The virgin who is engaged in verse 23 is not raped, look at the words that are on the page before you jump in judgment. She has a chance to cry out and people would hear her because she is in the city but she does not, there is consent here, she is engaged (same as married in the eyes of God but sex is not yet allowed, study a little bit of Jewish history). I knew that you would mention something that was not in the text, like a gag, she has a chance to cry out but does not. Read the text for what is there and not for what you want to see!!! In the country the girl has a chance to cry out and does but no one hears here. She is not punished and should not be because she is a victim, the girl in the city is not. So again the guilty is punished and the victim is protected, as well as other innocent people because the rapist will not have a chance to rape anyone else. In verse 28, again, there is consent, they were found out does not necessarily mean that they were caught in the act, if she becomes pregnant then they will be found out. Again you are trying to distort what is actually written there and God does not like it at all. In fact He has something to say on the subject,
Revelation 22:18-19 18 I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.
I am sure that you do not believe what is written but that does not make any difference. God will punish if you do not repent. He wants you to repent and gives you chance after chance. In fact He is reminding you through this message that I am writing. Why don’t you listen to Him?
Ps
You wrote “it’s OK to capture and rape another tribe’s virgin girls,”
Never in the Scriptures will you see God’s people commanded to rape anyone. God hates rape because it destroys the gift of virginity that was meant to be given to a husband/wife on the wedding night. Again you are imposing things that are not there!!!
Mobius 1
How do you get conceited? I do not claim to be the master of wisdom but I do know who He is and where He has placed His wisdom. I am writing everything from the wisdom of God so if you have a problem with it then you need to work it out with God. He would love for you to do that and I would be glad to help. You have to set your pride aside though (just like I did).
How many people have contacted an STD while being a virgin or faithful in marriage? How many people have contacted an STD from immorality (all STD’s come from immorality)? How many have contacted an STD even while using condoms (many because they are not even close to 100% effective)?
You wrote “Condoms stop 96 – 99% of pregnancies and STD’s”
I am so glad that you wrote this misleading statement, I was waiting for it. Condoms are 98% effective at stopping pregnancies but not anywhere near that at stopping STD’s. This is why condoms are so misleading. Everyone assumes that the protection against pregnancies works the same way against STD’s and that is simply false. There are many stats on condoms and protection against STD’s. The best that I have found is that it is 92% effective against STD’s but as low as 30% in other studies. Not looking so promising anymore. Anywhere from 30 to 92% is very risky. Would you play Russian roulette with those odds? Why not? Because it might kill you. That is exactly what STD’s can do as well. Why play with your life? Why encourage other people to play with their lives as well? It just does not make sense, 100% all the time vs. 30 to 92%. I will go with the 100% every time.
Just because a person claims to be born again means nothing. A person can claim to be a dog but that does not make him one. A person who is born again is changed from the inside out. I have been born again. I was a terrible person, the sinner of sinners and a skeptic as well. I thought that the Bible was full of mistakes and lies even though I had never taken the time to study It. I just listened to liberal ideas like the ones mentioned on this blog. I met someone who taught me how to study the Bible and I began to study It for what It was and not for what I wanted It to be. I realized that I was wrong and that those who had fed me all the misleading info about the Bible were wrong too. I realized that I needed forgiveness and a changed heart. I repented and God completely changed me, my thought life, and my actions. That is what it means to be born again. You become a totally different person on the inside and it leads to an outer change as well (speaking of actions). So just because you had an experience with a girl who claimed to be born again does not mean that all are like that.
I am sorry that you have to date so many girls. God wants you to have one woman for life and truly be happy with her but you are not waiting for her, instead you are going from one to the next looking for happiness and not finding it. There is a better way, trust me, I found it.
Practical sex ed (the act of sex) takes place in the marriage. That is the place where you learn together. Sex ed is good when immorality is not glorified and virginity is not mocked. The way that you speak of sex ed glorifies immorality and mocks virginity so that is wrong because you are encouraging teens to put their lives and futures in danger with getting an STD. Virginity before and fidelity during marriage will protect you 100% of the time, prove me wrong on that statement and then we will talk (rape and cheating consist of immorality so they are not valid responses because as I said, stop immorality then you stop STD’s).
Sex with your spouse is blessed by God. Homosexuality is a sin and punished by God along with all immorality.
I am beginning to wonder if some of you guys can read. I do not hate homosexuals. Let me repeat I DO NOT HATE HOMOSEXUALS. I hate sin. Homosexuality is sin so I hate homosexuality but not the homosexuals who practice it. Can you get this through your heads? Please leave off the name calling (a trend among free thinkers, liberals, and homosexuals).
1 in 20,000 have AIS, roughly 15,000 people. Most of them have a mild form of it and function as a man or woman with mild effects (side effects) so a woman marries a man and a man marries a woman.
• mandrellian
I have been waiting for this comment as well. I do not want people to sin because sin is like a virus, spreading itself all around. We live together in this society so the sin of one affects others (especially sexual sin). If homosexuals are “hell-bent” on being homosexual and want to keep it in the privacy of their own homes then I have no control over that. On the other hand, when they leave their bedrooms and come out into society spreading their agenda then I have every right to speak out and not allow my rights to be infringed upon, especially the rights of my children. If homosexuals want to keep it in the privacy of their own bedrooms then why are they so “hell-bent” on getting their propaganda into public schools. As long as homosexuals impose their lifestyle onto society I will speak out.
I want to teach people about the dangers of STD’s and that you can be protected 100% of the time by remaining a virgin until marriage and be faithful in marriage. You want to warn them of the dangers of STD’s and then put a condom in their hands (encouraging them on to immorality) and putting them at risk of STD’s because condoms do not protect 100% and you know that for a fact!!!
Teens are intelligent and if they are presented the facts as they are then they will be better equipped to make right choices. When immorality is glorified then they will be more inclined to be immoral. The sex ed that you speak of leads them to immorality.
Dan
You are wrong, the Bible says from the four corners of the earth, do you understand what figure of speech is? We use expressions like this all the time in English, it means from every part of the earth. Weak argument on your behalf, you are searching hard but you will not find mistakes. If you see what you think is a mistake, try this, study the passage in context and you will be amazed that everything is correct. Jumping to conclusions too early, only leads to mistakes.
Mike Pulcinella
I could choose to be a homosexual but I will not because I do not want to sin against God and God chose my sexuality for me when He decided to make me a man.
My friend had never considered homosexuality, never had any homosexual “feelings”. He was convinced into trying. Now he is a slave to something that is killing him. It is sad to see someone whose life is being ruined because of homosexuality.
Peter Magellan Says:
you wrote "Two words: Catholic. Priests."
I was hoping that someone would bring that argument. Because of sin even if a person is told not to sin he still does it. That is why the heart/mind has to be changed along with the character. This is where repentance and being born again comes in. When a person trusts in the Lord Jesus Christ and chooses to become His disciple (follower) through repentance (admitting what sin is, that he is a sinner, and turning away from sin) then he/she will have the ability to say no to sin (even sexual sin/immorality). That is available for all, even you guys on this site. Being set free from slavery to sin is an amazing thing and I want all people to be able to experience it.
Ha, my "anti-spam" word was "Darwin" 😀
Erik: you've just ticked another box on my fundie bingo card – the alleged "spreading of the gay agenda". I assume that means, to you & your brethren, something like "the nasty old gays lurk around schoolyards and try and "recruit" or "convert" honest little god-fearing Christian hetero kids into Team Homo." That's such a mindblowingly retarded piece of copy+paste fundamentalist bullshit propaganda I'm not even going to respond to it … except to say this: the only "agenda" gay people have is to get people like you to leave them the hell alone. And if anyone's forcing anything onto anyone, it's (as usual) the American Religious Right forcing their own narrow morality down the throats of anyone & everyone – the prime example being this vehement opposition to sex education.
Then you laid this golden egg:
"I want to teach people about the dangers of STD’s and that you can be protected 100% of the time by remaining a virgin until marriage and be faithful in marriage. You want to warn them of the dangers of STD’s and then put a condom in their hands (encouraging them on to immorality) and putting them at risk of STD’s because condoms do not protect 100% and you know that for a fact!!!"
You're absolutely right there. The effectiveness of condoms is actually closer to between 95-98% if I recall correctly. A shitload more effective than barking "don't do it" at a teenager. Hell, spouting this "condoms don't really work all that well" sounds like the kind of homicidal bullshit the Vatican spreads around.
OF COURSE people will be free of STDs if they don't have sex. That's such an obvious non-argument it's like saying "you don't need to learn to swim – just stay out of the water, dumbass." But here is my point, AGAIN: teenagers WILL do what they want, regardless of how earnestly they promise you that they'll do what YOU want. Making them promise not to have sex is just plain ineffective – the high teen pregnancy rates in abstinence-only areas speak to that. Do I need to mention how well "abstinence only" education worked for Bristol Palin again? Like I said, she's the damned poster child of AO! The sex-ed I'm talking about isn't about your subjective morality, it's about REality. Some teenagers WILL have sex before they're married and some of those WILL get pregnant or get an STD. Not all of them, but some. And some of those un-educated teens who promised to stay pure and then fucked around cluelessly may then, without knowing it, contract a disease and then continue fucking around, perhaps even infecting a teenager who DOES have a clue and usually takes precautions – or, worse, they could even infect a child they babysit for (and possibly the child's family), or the family doctor, or a recipient of the blood they kindly donated to the Red Cross, or the next boyfriend or girlfriend they kiss. This is because many STDs don't require traditional vaginal intercourse to spread between people. The point: effective sex-ed isn't just to keep "immoral" teenagers free of pregnancy and disease, it's in the interest of everybody. It's a freaking public health issue!! Each individual bears a degree of responsibility for the wellbeing of their entire community, and every single school student should be taught that as part of any sex-ed class. Naively believing kids will do what they're told went out with the year 1959.
"Teens are intelligent and if they are presented the facts as they are then they will be better equipped to make right choices. When immorality is glorified then they will be more inclined to be immoral. The sex ed that you speak of leads them to immorality."
Who the hell is glorifying immorality? The completely subjective topic of immorality aside, I agree with that first sentence there 100% and that's all I'm advocating – tell kids exactly what can happen if/when they have sex and, most importantly, how they can avoid those undesirable outcomes. Just lay it out for them: "unprotected sex CAN equal babies, diseases or both. IF you do end up having sex with someone (because you're a randy teenager and it's likely that you MIGHT), here's how to avoid a result you don't want. And, now that you know how what can happen if you do it, dont' do it."
Yours is a ridiculous position, Erik. On one hand you say you want to "educate" kids and make them aware of the potential dangers of sex, but on the other hand you don't want to follow it up with action & arm them with the knowledge to avoid illness or unwanted pregnancy. It's reprehensible, counter-intuitive and arse-backwards. I haven't (and won't) advocate handing out condoms in class or giving fellatio lessons or whatever it is you think I want. However, not telling kids about condoms for example – or, in your case flat-out lying about their effectiveness – is bordering on criminal. Because of HIV, sex without precautions can equal an early death these days. Better safe than dead, even if you are acting like a little slut, right?
Like I said, effective sex-ed is NOT about arming kids to go out and fuck each other silly. Sex-ed is a public health issue that affects EVERYBODY. To exclude a significant portion of the population (the very people who happen to have the strongest sexual desires and the least self-control) from receiving that education isn't just denying those kids the truth; it's denying society as a whole of a large number of educated, informed young people who know how to avoid potentially risky behaviour.
TL;DR version:
Sex Ed is and should remain a public health issue, to be taught subjectively and without bias; not a private religious issue to be laden with sectarian dogma.
Erik: I have a question for you. Let's assume a man and a woman get married and (only after the marriage!) start having sex. Let's assume that they are in good all round health. Let's assume that they only want two children. But let's also assume that if they have unprotected sex for the next 20 years they will likely have 10 children.
Based on your interpretation of the Bible, what are their options (if there are any options)? Should they simply stop having sex after two children? Should they welcome as many children as "God" delivers to them? May they use condoms? May they use any form of the pill or any other method of birth control? May they use "rhythm" (sometimes known as "natural family planning"?
Assume, further, that you are the leader of the United States, and you have the power to take any or all birth control pills/devices off the market. You have the power to totally outlaw abortions, if that is what you choose to do. What, exactly would you do?
And while you're at it: What would you do about the "gay problem" if you were a dictator? Would you allow gays to teach in public schools, even if they were excellent teachers? Would you allow civil unions or marriages for gays? Would you force gays to undergo "re-education"? Would you enact any laws forbidding gays to express any affection (hand-holding or kissing) in public? Would you fund AIDS research, or would you just consider AIDS to be God's will to serve as a natural consequence to those who have gay sex?
In sum: Please paint the picture of how would run your utopia in terms of sex and reproductive rights? This is your big chance. Lots of people are waiting . . .
If a woman cries out in the city and no one hears her, is she still being raped? Anyway, so glad to hear that the woman is getting stoned to death for consenting to sex. I was worried there for a minute. Serves her right, the slut. Oh wait, what if she was unconscious when he did the nasty? Now my brain is starting to hurt again.
Re: rape as part of the Israelites foreign policy:
Here are Moses' instruction to his army about what to do with MIdianite civilians.
17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man. (Numbers 31)
Admittedly it doesn't spell out what they were supposed to do with the virgin girls. Maybe Moses and his homies needed secretaries. We do know from other Bible stories that Israelites had concubines, and the concubines' duties included sexual services. That's rape. However you try to explain this away, the text clearly says that the survivors of this genocide are to be the personal property of the perpetrators.
Oh, and I see we're at the stage of passive-aggressive threats of eternal torture. Nice. I'm starting to miss Karl, he was much nicer and he was more original.
"Maybe Moses and his homies needed secretaries."
LOL, Vicki – must remember that one for future debates!
Erik B, you seem very fond of Bible quotes; here's a Shakespeare one for you:
"Zounds! I was never so bethump'd with words…"
Karl got scared of Jehovah and went away. Maybe that would work with Erik, too? 😀
You think the bible is the literal word of god.
You think your scare tactic of pointing out 'fallacies' with teaching kids going through puberty what will happen if a couple has unprotected sex, and how to prevent babies or disease, actually works.
You think I was even remotely intimidated by your words. I was chuckling at your inability to reconcile fact from fiction.
Not once when I received sexual education did I see immorality taught, nor virginity mocked. Nor did I ever take sex for granted. Anal, vaginal, or oral, I was not going to just go and hump the first girl I date. Seeing as how dated around, not necessarily for sex, but for feeling out reason, I can tell you that, as an atheist, relationships don't come easy.
Ah, but when the time came, I was ready. I knew what to do, how to do it, and, by science, I did it. God had nothing to do with anything in my life, and I've been better for it. Also, growing up is a hard thing to do, going through several shitty relationships is part of the deal. If god had done the one man for one woman deal correctly, each penis would have a matching vagina. A square dick trying to go into a star vagina would pretty much negate all the pesky dating trial and error.
Which is what sexual education is about negating altogether. That trial and error part can be greatly alleviated with a good dose of education, so the error is not as deadly. Abstinence only education is worthless, the facts prove that. It is YOU who cannot apparently read, or comprehend, since you miss the point completely.
Also…you don't hate homosexuals…but you hate homosexuality? Don't you see the paradox in that statement? Homosexuals don't choose to be gay, you negligent plebeian. I suppose you hate all the gay animals out there? Kill your dog, because humping the weaker male is a show of dominance. Film it for true internet proof, so we can see how much you hate homosexuality.