Quote:
Originally Posted by Trumanator
1: Heroin addicts are addicted to a chemical substance, so thats a bad analogy.
2: At no point did I say that you should never ever teach contraceptives, or if I sounded like it that wasn't my intent.
3: The "they'll do it anyway" argument is part of the problem, as all it accomplishes is to cut parents out of the equation and make them the enemy.
4: The seperation of church and state was to protect the church, not the state, and you would be hard pressed to find major elements of the constitution that weren't influenced by Judeo-Christian religion. I will also repeat, I am not a religious person, I am an agnostic.
|
1) In fact, it's a perfect analogy. Our bodies and our brains secrete hormones, which are chemicals, which create urges to perform natural acts, such as engage in sexual intercourse. This further causes the release of pheremones, which are habit forming.
2) Well I'm glad that you are reasonable on this particular subject. However the majority of the people who preach abstinence are also 100% against contraception. Also, the point is that it doesn't matter what study you find that shows x% of people using contraception become pregnant. This will always be irrelevant in the face of the numbers that simply show that looking at the population as a whole, teaching the use of contraception is significantly more effective at reducing the rate of teen and unwanted pregnancies, than abstinence alone.
3) Parents are not "an" enemy, and young people "will" have sex. When adults are forbidden to have sex (read: priests, monks, etc), we find that many of them do anyways. In fact, there is a growing body of evidence that repressing sexual desires leads to perversion and illicit practices, while embracing sexual desires tends mostly to lead to great pleasure.
4) This is a cyclical argument actually, and so it is quite arguable that the separation of church and state was intended to protect both. Besides, the second part of what I stated was that if religious extremists push through enough doctrine into law, then the backlash will ultimately be somewhat harsh. This implies that protecting the state from interference from the church, is the only way to insure that the church is free from interference from the state. The problem being that evangelical Christians supposedly make up ~30% of the US population. They form the backbone of the Republican party, and they use that power to put a lot of pressure on Washington. The current atmosphere in America, among the other 70% of the population ranges from "agreement on some points", to "outright disgust and derision", and the situation is degrading rapidly. It is only a matter of time before it is deemed that the government must take steps to reduce the ability of the church to affect the efficient and effective governance of the people.
And seriously - with all of the vastly more pressing issues in our country today, you would let your vote be determined by such a ridiculously miniscule social issue? As if the "to condom, or not condom" argument is just so much more important than foreign affairs, our crumbling economy, our distressed energy policy, our predatory corporate regime, or corruption of our elected officials?
That's the beauty of the current 2 party smokescreen - to get you more concerned about petty personal differences, than you are about the real problems and issues facing this nation, and this world.