Tuesday, August 31, 2010

Burying their heads in the sand -- condom promoters.

I was on WCCO radio with John Williams yesterday morning regarding a Star Tribune story that reported the Pawlenty Administration refused to pursue federal condom dollars.

Williams, who's a dyed in the wool liberal, is incredulous that anybody could seriously be opposed to promoting condoms to kids in our schools. One's simply burying one's head in the sand.

I would argue the exact opposite is true. Those with their heads in the sand are the condom promoters. We have an epidemic of sexually transmitted diseases and far too many teen out of wedlock births. What's been the approach to this epidemic over the past 30 to 40 years? Condoms, condoms and more condoms. What's the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

Condom promotion doesn't work because the implicit if not explicit message is kids will have sex and it's fine if they do. On the contrary what needs to happen is changing kids behavior. Having them wait to have sex until they are married. Yet of course marriage is never mentioned much less discussed as the proper place to to have sex.

Kids need to be given a vision for and an understanding of the beauty and wonderment of marriage. That a lifelong union is a beautiful and achievable goal. In their heart of hearts kids (and adults) desire that. But they're never given that message. Sex is presented as a sterile, function activity. It's a leisure sport. A form of entertainment with the goal being doing as much as possible without contracting a disease.

The vision for the good life, in the classical sense not modern narcissistic sense, understands sex is inextricably linked to marriage. The purpose and beauty of sex is fulfilled in that context.

Modern liberals don't see it that way. They generally don't understand what marriage is and definitely don't understand the purpose of sex.

The problem is they're foisting their vision of sex on kids today. The result is only more sickness, disease and broken hearts.

Interestingly, liberals argue, "Well, kids are going have sex anyway, so they better be safe." This a classic case of blaming kids. It suggests kids are animals in heat who have no control over their hormones and sexual organs. The fact is lots of kids haven't had sex in high school and there would be a lot more who wouldn't if they received the proper encouragement. We expect kids to do the right thing in other areas of their life why not with their sexual organs.

Of course, this mindset can also be applied to drug use, drinking and cigarettes. Well, kids are going to do it anyway so we better accept the fact and give up trying to encourage them to abstain.

Certainly, some kids will do the wrong thing whatever you tell them. Many of them end up in jail and prison or die early. But there are lots who will and we need to be encouraging them to do the right thing. That's where giving them a vision for marriage and the purpose of sex are so important. And that's where children of the 60s and 70s, the John Williams of the world, come up empty.

7 comments:

elaine said...

for every study you find that says abstinence only is the way to go, there are 10 studies that shows differently.

Any person can find this information by simply doing a google search on the matter.

perhaps you did not?

KEEP YOUR RELIGIOUS STATUS AND YOUR RELIGIOUS EXTREMIST RADICAL FUNDAMENTALIST VIEWS OUT OF OUR EDUCATION SYSTEM AND POLITICS.

if you want this send your children to private religious instruction only.

Stand with your church people only.

sleep with your church people only.

stop getting into my bed with me!

mom said...

your purpose for sex is marriage.

NOT everyones is. that is your view.

STudies prove you are wrong.

Math, science, social sciences, all prove you wrong.

you have been debunked over and over and over again.

but you still push your indoctrinating views, and bigotry onto the public, and into MY CHILDS schools. you push your personal agenda onto my politics.

Herb said...

interesting take on pawlenty's choices...

Sen. Al Franken, speaking on AM 950 at the Minnesota State Fair yesterday, said he believes Gov. Tim Pawlenty “misrepresents what the health care reform bill is” and said it’s “very bad” that Pawlenty is ordering state agencies to refuse discretionary funds related to the national health care law. Franken says he frequently gets thanked — “even members of the Pawlenty administration thank me” — for his vote in favor of the reform law.

“I think it’s very bad that he’s turned down this hundreds of millions of dollars,” Franken said in a conversation captured in video by The UpTake. “And I saw the proclamation. I think he very much misrepresents what the health care reform bill is.”

“According to the CBO [Congressional Budget Office] — that’s all we can go on. It’s what Republicans and Democrats go on in the Congress — they say it will reduce the deficit. And the whole point of health care reform was to address the unsustainability of increasing health care costs.”

Chuck Darrell said...

Mom and Elaine, I think the state has become your idol. And, your comments are "personal" as well.

Is it your personal opinion that people of faith should keep their beliefs to themselves and not intrude on the workings of government, economy or culture?

I think so, regardless of whether said belief is shared with other revisionists.

However, people of faith are not required to be silent in civil society just because you say so. Religious freedom, says Archbishop Charles Chaput, includes the right to "preach, teach, assemble, organize and to engage society and it's issues publicly, both as individuals and joined together as communities of faith."

These rights, which you so vehemently disparage, are clearly defined in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

You can call us names, rant, and ignore history, but the fact remains, the American founders "did not confuse the state with civil society. They had no desire for a radically secularized public life. They had no intent to lock religion away from public affairs."

"On the contrary, they wanted to guarantee citizens the freedom to live their faith publicly and vigorously, and to bring their religious convictions to bear on the building of a just society."

Herb said...

Dear Chuck,

you have no claim, you need to educate yourself better.

"When the government puts its imprimatur on a particular religion it conveys a message of exclusion to all those who do not adhere to the favored beliefs. A government cannot be premised on the belief that all persons are created equal when it asserts that God prefers some." Supreme Court Justice Harry A. Blackmun. 1

This is what the mfc is all about.

the imposition of your belief onto all the public.

You are trying to indoctrinate the public to your view.

Thomas Jefferson, as president, wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut on 1802-JAN-1. It contains the first known reference to the "wall of separation". The essay states in part:

"...I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State..."

During the 1810's, President James Madison wrote an essay titled "Monopolies" which also refers to the importance of church-state separation. He stated in part:

"Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and Government in the Constitution of the United States, the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history."

The US Supreme Court has interpreted the First Amendment as if it requires this "wall of separation" between church and state. It not only prohibits any government from adopting a particular denomination or religion as official, but requires government to avoid excessive involvement in religion.

Herb said...

history is revisionary in your mind Chuck.

you are guilty of anything you put out it seems

you stand against things and not for anything.

elaine said...

colonization is a form of indoctrination which is a form of slavery.

But your God codones slavery.