|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 13 new of 187 responses total. |
jazz
|
|
response 175 of 187:
| 
Apr 9 16:46 UTC 2002 |
Let's keep church and state seperate. The fact is, a lot of children,
of religious upbringing or not, don't attend church, so offering sex education
in churches is, at best, a partial solution to a social problem of the state.
At the same time, I have to respect the views of parents in raising
their children; perhaps an opt-out system whereby all children were taught
sex education without religious biases, but parents could choose to opt out
if they wanted to teach something different, would work.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 176 of 187:
|
Apr 9 19:38 UTC 2002 |
The problem is to reach them with sex education *before* the ideas it
is "nasty", or amusing, get entrenched.
|
jazz
|
|
response 177 of 187:
|
Apr 9 21:16 UTC 2002 |
That's require cold-starting American culture.
|
russ
|
|
response 178 of 187:
|
Apr 9 22:32 UTC 2002 |
I'm terribly amused by beady's implication that masturbation
is an Anglican social value.
|
jazz
|
|
response 179 of 187:
|
Apr 9 23:37 UTC 2002 |
Well, it was sanctioned by Queen Elizabeth wasn't it?
|
other
|
|
response 180 of 187:
|
Apr 10 01:21 UTC 2002 |
Depends on which meaning of sanction you're using... ;)
|
senna
|
|
response 181 of 187:
|
Apr 10 01:28 UTC 2002 |
#173: What's worse, the inability to think rationally, or the choice to not
think rationally?
|
gelinas
|
|
response 182 of 187:
|
Apr 10 03:35 UTC 2002 |
Sure, folks are going to indulge in sex outside of marriage, but that doesn't
mean that we should condone, encourage or abet it.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 183 of 187:
|
Apr 10 03:36 UTC 2002 |
(NB: I leave "marriage" undefined in my previous response.)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 184 of 187:
|
Apr 10 07:21 UTC 2002 |
Nor should you un-condone, un-encourage, or un-abet it. Let people live
their lives the way they see fit. The legal structure doesn't seem to
make or break people's relations much anymore. It is best for society,
however, to encourage strong family ties (in my opinion) but there are
many forms in which that can arise.
|
bdh3
|
|
response 185 of 187:
|
Apr 11 05:57 UTC 2002 |
Uh, rcurl. I'm sure the taliban agree with your position re:
'Let people live their lives the way they see fit.' as would most
criminals. I do agree it *is* best for a society to set
standards - is usually called 'law'.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 186 of 187:
|
Apr 11 16:03 UTC 2002 |
The Taliban is the WORST possible example of a government willing to "Let
people live their lives the way they see fit". They limited and
constrained, with draconian punishment, every aspect of their subjects (!)
lives.
But I agree with you that laws are required so that one person's rights do
not interfer with those of another person. However if we let people live
their *personal* lives, in ways that do not harm others, as they see fit,
we have the most open, free, society. That is what I am talking about.
|
bdh3
|
|
response 187 of 187:
|
Apr 12 07:51 UTC 2002 |
I have yet to meet an IRS agent that wouldn't agree. The problem is
who 'they' are.
|