<p>Let’s define normal as in what we SHOULD do and not what the majority is doing. Society can be abnormal.</p>
<p>And to citygirlsmom, I totally agree with you on the ‘being informed’ part. But please do not try to alter the usual definition of abstinence with your examples of oral sex, or the definition of traditional marriage just because some Christians get divorced. Can you prove me wrong otherwise? I am just disappointed at how you seem to be very concerned, but very reserved in some areas thinking that “we cannot deal with it and therefore we do not”. That attitude is what is deteriorating society, is it not? I do not accuse you for deteriorating society, but through your posts you proved yourself to have the same attitude as those who intend not to improve society.</p>
<p>So can Christian teaching. (Look what the Puritans taught about pre-marital sex and pregnancy.) </p>
<p>Abstinence is not normal, it’s not healthy, it’s not the way human beings are made, it’s not the way humans have evolved, it’s not even the way teens have changed in the past 100 years. And the pain, guilt, and disease associated with the preaching is not normal, is not healthy, and causes a great deal of harm. </p>
<p>I’m willing to play the “shoulds” game every bit as much as you are. Teens should be provided with the best information, the best tools, and the best technology to make the best possible decisions about their lives, and to care for each other. To do less than that is immoral, and flies in the face of my religious tenets, and what I believe is God’s plan for the world.</p>
<p>(Oh, and by the way, I am father to two teenage girls, and I wouldn’t say any differently to them.)</p>
<p>“I’m willing to play the “shoulds” game every bit as much as you are. Teens should be provided with the best information, the best tools, and the best technology to make the best possible decisions about their lives, and to care for each other. To do less than that is immoral, and flies in the face of my religious tenets, and what I believe is God’s plan for the world.”</p>
<p>Totally agree with you! Now which part of that statement is in conflict with the concept of traditional marriage? And please, do not judge the concept by statistics this time.</p>
<p>Which traditional marriage? The Puritan marriage, where pre-marital sex and teen unmarried pregnancy was expected as a sign that God blessed it? The Catholic priest’s marriage, with many offspring, none of whom could inherit? The gay marriages blessed by the church for hundreds of years prior to the 13th Century, and documented in exhaustive detail by Yale University historian John Boswell? The European chattel marriages of the 16-19th centuries where women are merely property, and couldn’t own any property of their own? Or how about the marriages about which Jesus didn’t say a single word? How about the marriages of post-menopausal folks, where children cannot be part of the reason for it? The arranged marriages of Victorian England - 40 year old men and 15 year old girls? Which ones are “traditional” - just those you happen to like?</p>
<p>Dear mini, I think we’re talking about abstinence BEFORE getting married, please~ And personally, I do not give what another person who claims to be Christian does; that does not alter Christianity itself. Christianity is solely based on the Bible.</p>
<p>Then I suggest you go read the sections where Jesus talks at very great length about sex and marriage.</p>
<p>It is so sad that the public face of Christianity is so focused on sexual sin, now especially. As a preacher I heard recently put it, “It’s far less important to worry about who is sleeping with whom than to make sure that people in this country and around the world have a roof to sleep under.” Amen.</p>
<p>If you don’t mind, here’s a little story. In the beginning God created one man. And he said that man is not good alone, so he created a woman. People may argue that’s sexist, but God planned it to be like this; the first woman would be from a man, and all but the first man would come from a woman. Now there’s also this part in the Bible where it talks about women needing to submit to their husbands as the Church subnits to Christ, which also creates a lot of controversy. But here’s why the woman was created: The LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.” In Hebrew and the old testament, the world ‘help’ was almost used exclusively when God helps Israel. Without women’s ‘help’, man does not lose efficiency; man simply could not do anything. God has given woman a figure resembling God which is superior to men in the very beginning. And also, as the Church submits to Christ, Christ sacrifices for His Church.</p>
<p>73% homosexuals have had sexual intercourse with males under the age of 19.（The Gay Report．Summit Books）
This is what I was referencing when I was commenting on CGM comment that the age of the individuals in the survey was not clear.
1st point- many if not all adults who are currently sexually active di in fact begin that activitiy intheir teens.
this study “the gay report” are they saying that 73% of male homosexuals first had sex under the age of 19?
Or are they saying that they were under 19 but their partners weren’t?
I am not shocked by teens having sex, especially when older teens are included as they obviously are by including teen who are also considered to be legal adults.
I am not shocked by gay teens having sex with each other. I am not shocked by hetero teens having sex with each other, as has been pointed out, our physical/sexual maturity often comes long before most are ready to be married and part of a normal healthy relationship for two people who are in love is a physical not just an emotional connection.
Our bodies physically mature even earlier than they did in our great great grandparents day, when in this country couples married much earlier than they do now. In other countries, people still often marry quite young , one young friend of mine has 20 siblings, her mother began having children when she was 13. This is not unusual.</p>
<p>And guess what sex is? It’s symbolic equal is the Church and Christ becoming one. Which is indeed, glorious and happy. </p>
<p>Not one and another. Not one and many others. Not two christs. And not a christ with one that’s not his Church. And not a christ who has no church yet, or church with no christ yet.</p>
<p>sorry emeraldkity, your response is in the previous page I believe. And just because people are physically mature does not mean that they are mentally mature. And please, I hope you all agree that marriage is not plainly physical.</p>
<p>Bneg, you are free to practice what ever views of sexuality you wish for yourself. Even remotely suggesting that I am–or wish to be–free of responsibility for protecting my child is contemptible. But thank you for demonstrating the threat of the would-be American ayahtollahs. Some people have a hard time believing they exist.</p>
<p>to aparent5, I think that is very sad. Although the public face is constantly dealing with the most recent attacks, I think people still realize that many christians are dealing with poverty.</p>
<p>Re homosexuality:</p>
<p>I wonder what the evangelical scientists will do with the recent study out of Sweden: smelling male pheremones provoke the same reactions in the brains of gay men as in the brains of heterosexual women. Neither gay men nor hetero women react the same way to female pheremones. </p>
<p>Now they are doing a new study to see of lesbians and hetero men both respond the same way to female pheremones.</p>
<p>“Such paternalistic “protection” I am happy to live without. You may do as you will…or not…I’ll thank you–or anyone–not to impose the same narrow religiously-based view on me or mine.”</p>
<p>theDad, why do you think everything is aimed to attack? If I wanted to attack you I believe there are better mean than so. But please, before you crown me as an ‘ayahtollah’, explain how I may be a possible threat. (It is nearly impossible for me to be an American one, but I think that does not matter; all Christians should be treated the same way in this democratic world). I will correct myself. And also, please explain your post if you think my question is contemptible. Thank you for sharing your opinion and pointing out where I should improve!</p>
<p>And thank you for pointing out that Christian have the freedom to practice views about sexuality that aim to protect. That would truly be liberal.</p>
<p>There are men who believe that the 70s revolution should mean that women shouldhave sex, which merely trades one form of paternalism (don’t have any sex/sex is sinful) with another (if you don’t have sex, something is wrong with you). Doesn’t take a genius to figure that out.</p>
<p>Yes, Christians have the freedom to practice sexuality however they want. </p>
<p>What Christians lack, however, is the ability to impose their beliefs on non-Christians. The decision to have sex is one of the most personal which can be made; while it can be made with the aid, guideance, or fiat of a religion is up to the individual, it cannot and should not be made by coercion of the government. Christian views about sex simply do not have a place in the government, much like vegetarian’s views on what people should eat at night.</p>
<p>Not all societies assume one partner/one mate.
Frankly I can see the advantages to a polyamorous, society- anything to get help with the kids!
I thought in this country we have freedom from religion as well as freedom* of * religion.
My political affiliation is not Christian.</p>
<p>And if you want to discuss traditional marriage what is that? many people in marriage do not have sex, have kids, many in traditional marriage have affairs, many drink, many beat their children and wives, many get divorced three and four time (yeah lots of Christians too), so obviously the tradtional marriage has many of its own problems without the fear of a few gays getting married making it any worse.</p>
<p>I think your idea of a traditional marriage is somewhat amiss. To my limited and perhaps inexperienced thinking, the examples you cited above are DEVIATIONS from a traditional marriage, not a traditional marriage itself; thats how we know the behavior is in fact wrong.</p>