Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Sunday, July 15, 2007
Kevin McCullough :: Townhall.com Columnist
Why Liberals Lie About Sex
by Kevin McCullough
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


Liberals want your child to have sex. They want this to occur in spite of your religious, health, or parental objections. They are willing to substitute false thinking for solid fact on the consequences of what will happen. And they do so while simultaneously insulting you and your child's ability to comprehend, discern, and choose behaviors that make the most sense.

This week the teens of America sent a pretty solid message in response however - they don't want to.

For the first time since before President Clinton said what "is, is" a majority of American teens - 53% - have not had sex and are choosing to not do so. In Clinton's "hey days" the number was around 47%. But it would be hard to know this from just reading the headlines of the liberals' most important of allies, the mainstream media. Here's a sampling of some the outlets that commented on the survey that confirmed these amazing numbers:

CONDOM USE INCREASES AMONG TEENS - Chicago Tribune

SAFE SEX TEENS - New York Post

U.S. TEENS PRACTICING SAFER SEX - Ft. Worth Star Telegram.

BIRTHS TO UNWED MOTHERS INCREASE TO RECORD PROPORTION - Bloomberg

TEEN BIRTHRATE AT RECORD LOW, CONDOM USE INCREASES - Kaiser Network

Even outlets that did mention the reduced numbers of teens engaging in sexual activity nearly always also mentioned the increase in condom use.

Of course liberals need the story to be told this way. In April of this year liberals were out in full force making a complete mockery of our nation's youth population and their ability to say "no" when it comes to pre-marital sexual engagement. In that same month as study was released that had taken a small sample of 2000 kids from 1997 and followed them through high school. The kids selected were from four communities two rural, and two urban. The results of the study determined that abstinence education had almost no effect on the teens in the study.

As a result congressional liberals paraded up and down the halls of Capitol Hill giving press conferences stating the death of the abstinence education funding for the future. That simply because this study proved how "ineffective" these programs were proved the point that schools would need to revert back to the early 1990 style of sex ed. Of course it is easy to ascertain that the 1997 study focused on teens who were already teens in 1997 and who in large measure had no exposure to institutionalized abstinence education. These children of the "I did not have sex with that woman" era, were products of one of the most progressive and permissive sexual society's since the late 1960's.

The Bush Abstinence programs weren't implemented until the fall of 2001.

It is also important to point out that the study released this week examined far more than merely 2000 kids in 4 communities. The newest, far more expansive report surveyed 22 different federal agencies that tracked over 38 leading indicators. And it is very much worth pointing out that under the Bush Administration this is the sixth year in a row in terms of the drop of teen birth rates. Another stark contrast in recent history given that under the permissive Clinton regime the United States reached its all-time high in that regard.

It is odd to listen to Congressional liberals like Henry Waxman who regularly attempt to smear the Abstinence Education communities because of the certainty with which they pronounce abstinence's failure.

Yet even common sense tells us that the chances of incurring a teen pregnancy and then the possible tragic consequence of abortion, or the still very difficult consequence of a teen birth are affected by one's behavior. If a teen girl chooses to save sexual activity until she is married, she has zero chances of getting an STD, becoming pregnant, having an abortion, or out of wedlock birth. If a teen boy chooses to enhance his skills of communication, consideration, and leadership - instead of always trying to get in a girl's bed then he too avoids the heartbreak of STD's and responsibilities of pregnancy that he is not prepared for.

The truth is kids understand these simple concepts. And it is an insult to the teen's intelligence and nature to presume they don't. Faith based parents are pro-actively teaching their kids about the very simple reasons why sex before marriage will bring them confusion and destruction. Liberal parents do not, thus why they view all children as unable to control their drives any better than rabbits in the spring time.

The truth is we humans are capable of controlling every choice we make, and if we simply understood the natural outcomes of those choices perhaps we'd make better ones.

Perhaps the truth also includes the reality that as teens, liberals did not control their choices. Perhaps they did live their lives as animals copulating with anyone, and in people like President Clinton's case nearly everyone they ever had an eye for.

But this is not how it HAS to be.

And according to the most comprehensive study done to date - now more teenagers than ever before are deciding that they won't!

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Kevin McCullough is the nationally syndicated host of "'Xtreme' Radio and columnist based in New York. He blogs at www.muscleheadrevolution.com. His second book "The Kind Of MAN Every Man SHOULD Be" is in stores now.

Be the first to read Kevin McCullough's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

knight
You are wrong about "lie" number 2. Liberals have been promoting sex for years. Condoms in schools with demonstrations on how to use it? Is that really just to prevent pregnancy? You don't think that it is to promote sexual behavior? Most kids don't think about sex by the time they are given condom demonstrations.
Also, haven't you heard about that sex presentation in the Boulder Colorado high school? Liberals want us to be sexaholics.

Condoms, a Detergent of Pregnancy
Chicago Tribune (from Associated Press)June 13: "The percentage of high school students using condoms has increased, and the teen birthrate has hit a record low, according to the latest government report being released Friday on the well-being of the nation's children...The report was compiled from statistics and studies at 22 federal agencies and covered 38 key indicators...In 2005, 47 percent of high school students reported having had sexual intercourse... Of those who had sex during a three-month period in 2005, 63% used condoms. That's up 46% from 1991."

I don't see how any of this translates to a victory for Abstinence Only education, which actively discourages the use of condoms. The reality seems to be that roughly half of high school kids, being sexually active, have wisely ignored Abstinence Only's teaching by using condoms to avoid pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. Sounds as if the kids are smarter than the Abstinence Only people.

And, Knight of Bwwaa, relax. Be cool. The purpose of townhall articles isn't to convey information---it's to keep the base revved up so they'll be sure to vote against (to quote a townhall post tonight I just entered into the notes I keep for my own amusement) "...the media, Hollywood elites, liberals, socialists, communists, college professors, and other parasites". So the crazier the prose, the better. A statement of objective truth would have, to quote yet another post from today's collection, "a detergent [sic] effect".

Well done, lilly!
Perhaps the perfect post?

"A detergent [sic] effect"? LOL!

Condoms Schmondoms
The most important thing that the Leftie Losers overlook about sex is the spiritual component that bonds one human being to another.

There is so much more to the issue than the shallow things that the Libsters focus on.

Yes, it does matter whether or not a young woman conceives out of wedlock, and it does matter whether or not a young man contracts AIDS.

These are not insignificant, but without the spiritual aspect, they are superficial. That is: they are only on surface and lack the deep meaning of what our sexuality really is for.

When young people are able to keep themselves pure until marriage, and then bond forever with their life's partner, there is something powerful that happens, that cannot happen with someone who spreads pieces of themselves all over the map.

When a society fails to teach character to young people, it robs them of something very special, something that will shape their lives for the better, right up to the very last breath.

To add to my last post
there are things that are on my mind in the middle of my life, that did not concern me before.

The choices of our youth have repercussions for the rest of our lives that do not become apparant until we are past the point of no return.

Young women who put off marriage till later hit 40 and discover that men their age are persuing 20 and 30 somethings.

Women who choose to put off childbirth hit 40 and discover that it is now difficult to conceive.

And women who chose career over family pass 40, and realize that there is no one to care for them when they are old and infirm. Suddenly they they realize that the day will come when they are not able to make competent choices and they have to rely on the character of complete strangers.

Suddenly the choices of youth become more important, but it is too late to go back and do one's life over.

lilly (and you too, knight)
This is quite interesting. I've never heard of, nor can I conceive of (pun intended), abstinence not working.

While I can understand the *lack* of abstinence not working, I have never once seen someone who does not engage in sex become pregnant, contract a STD, or suffer from emotional problems because of the psychological bonding/breaking that occurs with casual sex regardless of age.

What you and knight fail to understand is the huge disservice we do to our culture in general and our teens in particular with the fatalistic "they're going to do it anyway, so let's make sure they have free condoms" mantra.

Why is it acceptable to be absolutely rabid about anti-smoking, anti-drug, and anti-drinking campaigns for teens, yet "foolish" to approach sexual behavior in a similar fashion and make abstinence not just an "option" but the primary message that is reinforced consistently through words and actions?

Heck, let's be consistent here in the world of lilly-logic: Kids are going to do drugs/booze/tobacco anyway, so why not make it safe, with euro-style clinics to get clean needles, pharmaceutical-quality street drug dispenseries, supervised parties where alcohol can be consumed with free transporation and non-judgemental chaperones, and specially filtered cigs?

Absurd? Of course. But it's entirely consistent with lib thinking when it comes to abstinence education.

And, pray tell, where did you get the idea that abstinence education actively discourages the use of condoms? What abstinence education teaches is that there is NO NEED for condoms if you are not engaged in sexual activity. That's a very different message from "don't use condoms."

Seriously, I don't know why folks like you and Knight hang out around here. You aren't interested in a dialog or a debate. You just like to lob grenades. Suggestion: give it up and spend your time posting over at DailyKos or pandagon.net with people that may actually find value in what you have to say.

Mountain Rose...
Nice post regarding the emotional component of sex, but you're wasting your breath with people like Knight and Lilly.

They want to pretend that teens will make "mature" choices (read: have safe sex) and that it is "inhumane" to not provide the necessary clinics and materials to mitigate the consequences of these choices.

They want to pretend that teens are incapable of controlling their impulses when it comes to sex, but are quite capable of doing so when it comes to addictive substances like drugs and alcohol.

They want to pretend that as long as teen STD and pregnancy rates are falling, all is well.

Funny how lilly never bothers to give us statistics from 50 years ago regarding the percentages of teens who were sexually active and compare that with today's numbers. No, that would be too embarrasing because it would lead one to the inescapable conclusion that all this "education" has implicitly and explicitly driven teen sex upwards, not downwards. But methinks that's what they prefer, lest kids grow up to be guilt-ridden, "inhibited" adults.

Like all good libs, lilly, knight, and the like-minded deluded prefer to treat symptoms rather than root cause. It's like loading kids up with junk food while simultaneously dispensing Lipitor to keep the cholesterol levels down.

Wanting it or acknowledging it?
Reverend McCullough wrote:
< < Liberals want your child to have sex. They want this to occur in spite of your religious, health, or parental objections. > >

This is utter nonsense. There is a huge difference between, on the one hand, wanting something to happen and, on the other hand, and acknowledging that there's a high chance of it happening and thus preparing for its adverse consequences.

Though I count myself as a left-of-center moderate, that puts me in "liberal" territory as for as Townhall pundits are concerned, and I certainly wouldn't want my teenage daughter, son, niece, nephew, or young cousins having sex.

But whether it's 47% who have sex today, or 53% back in the heady days of the Clinton administration, that's about one out of two that are going to do it. Yeah, if my loved one is among them, I want him or her not to end up getting pregnant or being responsible for someone who gets pregnant, I want him or her not to get a sexually transmitted disease, and I want him or her not to feel racked with guilt for choosing a path other than what I chose.

I did not have sex while I was in high school, because I was taught that it was not a good idea, by a devout Christian mother who was pragmatic enough to know that we might do it anyway and prepared us for it, just in case.

Yeah, because even proper religious upbringing can backfire. I found out quite by accident that the daughter of one of our deacons — a very strict and devout man — was a word you can't say in polite company. It's become something of a meme — even among Christians — where the reverend's or deacon's daughter is a bit easy, and (especially when Christians themselves are sharing such anecdotes) it's not necessarily borne of anti-Christian thinking.

So here is at least this one "liberal" who will tell his future teenage daughter and son not to do it and why, but will prepare them just in case they fall in a moment of weakness, as 47% are apt to do.

Saying that that means I "want [them] to have sex" is about as accurate as saying that me telling them to wear a seatbelt means I want them to get into a car accident.

NevadaMisterMom...
Solid post. Well-written. If you want kids to actually control themselves, you're suddenly a religious loser. It's just absurd and screams anti-Christian bigotry. All they did was to criticize and condemn anyone of faith who has a position on abstinence. Not an intelligent way to hold a debate.

To say that it's a myth that liberals want your children to have sex is a half-truth. So neither side is completely right or wrong on this one. The author does liberals a disservice by grouping all under one umbrella of unrestrained hedonism, which is unfair. The anti-Christian knight_of_baawa and his/her friends do the opposite, saying exaggerated and inaccurate things about "religious idiots", putting all Christians, Muslims and Jews who hold strict moral codes about sexual behavior under a very unflattering light. Also unfair.

God said that pre-marital sex is sin. Period. But He didn't say it because he wanted us to be frustrated or because He didn't want us to enjoy life. Sex is powerful. It can solidify marriages, create new humans, transmit deadly diseases. It's not a joke. It's not a video game. It's not a recreational sport. It's fire. Like it or not it is tied to life in a most powerful way. So just because you WANT people to sleep with whomever they want whenever they want doesn't mean you're right or sensible to hold that position.

To add to this, Lilly wrote:

"And, Knight of Bwwaa, relax. Be cool. The purpose of townhall articles isn't to convey information---it's to keep the base revved up so they'll be sure to vote against...the media, Hollywood elites, liberals, socialists, communists, college professors, and other parasites". So the crazier the prose, the better. A statement of objective truth would have, to quote yet another post from today's collection, "a detergent [sic] effect"."

But you ignored this:

"For the first time since before President Clinton said what "is, is" a majority of American teens - 53% - have not had sex and are choosing to not do so. In Clinton's "hey days" the number was around 47%."

I'm a conservative (with liberalish environmental leanings) and I can see that some of what is written on this web site can be deservedly criticised. But a lot of it also is legitimate opinion based on verifiable fact. However, if ALL you see is unfound emotional ranting designed to push an irrational agenda, then why do you lower yourself by coming here? Surely it's pointless. I mean, you and your cohorts regularly spout the same stuff about religious psycho this, neo-con that, etc, etc. You guys seem to be unable to make your points and challenge the conservatives here by using genuine, undistorted and unemotional fact. Notice that I insulted no one in this post. But it seems that that's all you folks are capable of. Does our point of view threaten you that much? Or perhaps your just throwing out bait to see who bites because you have nothing else better going on in your lives? (I know a lot of people who did this.)

If you want to really engage in a debate and challenge those with whom you disagree, get facts, get solid, unemotional reasons to back up your position and then fire away. Everyone involved might learn something and you might it more enjoyable, too. But to say that abstinence doesn't work, while ignoring a stat that says it's up, and then using your half-truth to insult a group of people with a certain worldview is intellectually dishonest and shows the lack of confidence you have in your position.

Good night folks.

What a Tidy, Fictitious Universe...
What a Tidy, Fictitious Universe Mr. McCullough inhabits. In his universe, liberals are all one way (they, you know, LIE, and want your kids to have all kinds of kinky sex like Bill Clinton), and conservatives another (they love God and do nice things like actually care about their kids).

Conservatives and Liberals -- if you see the world that way -- have a bad track record of telling the world what the other group wants. If Mr. McCullough were honest -- and, being honest ourselves, he is not, and clearly has no interest in the concept -- he would acknowledge the simple truth that all parents care about their kids, and few want them to engage in sexual activity too early.

The real difference seems to be that liberal parents don't want kids who engage in sex to have to die for it. They actually care about reducing STDs and teen pregnancy using ALL means necessary, not just telling kids "Don't!"

What Mr. McCullough doesn't mention is that about half the kids are having sex anyway, both in the older poll and the newer one. Do I want those kids having sex? Nope. If they do, do I want them to live in ignorance of basic sexual hygiene and preventive measures? Also no. The difference is that, for the second question, Mr. McCullough answers Yes. That's barbaric. If that's conservatism, who wants ANY part of that?

McCullough
Great article. There are some liberals and conservatives who live on both sides of the morals issue, and some of these people use that to take away from the issue at hand. Perhaps if kids didn't have diversity counselors and pornography on regular tv we would need to have this discussion.

correction
The last sentence should read "we would NOT need to have this discussion".

knight_of_baawa
Thank you knight_of_baawa for saving me the time of having to write that.

I would like to add something about how he twists the truth to support his predrawn conclusion. He reports on the headlines of some articles, and he carefully chooses those that support his argument that all liberal media are bad. He conveniently ignores the liberal media's reporting of the decline in teen sex.

I could do the same thing. I could tell you about a hundred black guys who have done bad things and then tell you how bad black guys are.

It's a fallacious argument

Mountain Rose is correct
If there are young people reading this, you will clearly make up your own mind on any topic. I would just ask that you consider advice given about refraining from sex until marriage. It is advice given with love and often by people who have lived a bit of life with their own regrets. Sex is a beautiful gift and a joy in life. It is a treasure between two people who have promised their love to each other. Quite an emotional thing for a young woman to find that the person she has given herself to so fully really doesn't care and is off with someone else next month.

Those of us who write here and seem to be no fun at all are nevertheless correct about things.

Enjoy the day.

The Sixties Whirlwind
Are you familiar with the phrase "sowing the wind and reaping the whirlwind"? The generation that discovered its wee-wee in 1964 and since then has needed no other toy is the generation that is now in control of the world. And why is this? Because the adults have abdicated.

It was much harder to convince kids that YouHaveToHaveSexEveryDayOrYouWillDie when there were nuns in the classroom to prove this was not so. Nuns are famously long-lived people and they do not have sex ANY day.

My bachelor friends tell me that the pressure on them to have sex every day and TALK ABOUT IT is enormous because the other guys harry them day and night "Wassamatter, YOU GAY OR SUMPIN?" Being a celibate woman, I can attest to the equivalent for women is "Wassamatter, YOU A PRUDE OR SUMPIN?" and of course from the men you turn down, "YOU A LESBIAN OR SUMPIN?" is supposed to make me anxious to prove them wrong by immediatley disrobing and inviting them to have a ball.

It is the Sixties Whirlwind that we are reaping because of all the adults that abdicated their role and left the Lord of the Flies Crowd in charge. This is the world when children run things. And the only way to change it is for adults to start asserting authority again and drawing that line between childhood and adulthood and keeping the kids on their side of the line.

Unfortunately a large part of the present generation will have to die before this can happen, but meanwhile you as an adult can do your part by behaving like an adult and adding the word NO to your vocabulary once again.

LIBERAL LOGIC - LACK OF
LIBERAL "LOGIC" - "abstinence does not work".
But - many teens do not have sex, so -
IT DOES NOT WORK 'CAUSE I SAID SO - say LIBERALS.

As usual, those "open-minded liberals" fill their posts with arrogant name calling".


Left out...
What this article conveniently leaves out is what Conservatives think about sex.

Maybe KMC could get a quote about GOP family values from some upstanding sexually moral Conservatives like Senator Vitter (hooker!), Newt Gingrich (Wives! Mistresses!), Nancy Reagan (knocked up!) or maybe Mary Cheney's "wife."

Barring that, maybe Strom Thurman's record might help show us all how morally superior the Conservatives are: let's see..... he raped his black maid and then hid his illegitimate daughter from the world.

Kevin's right: when it comes to sex, the Conservatives have ALL the answers!

In my work with teens
they bring a variety of backgrounds and experiences. Part of my job is counseling along with sex education, and I will work with what the kid brings with the goal of maximizing safety, securing success in school, and working with families whenever possible.

I think it is too rigid a view to say that liberals want kids to have sex. In truth, that has not been what I have witnessed. There have been some who identify with liberalism who think we should teach positions, skills, and same sex intimacy, but they are rejected by the majority at meetings and trainings.

Some kids present with so many areas of desensitization that sex is just another thing that is done like going shopping or turning on the TV. Often, their parents have a garden variety of issues (often willful and sometimes not) that leaves kids to fend for themselves. It is important to maximize immediate safety while building relationships with teens. Sometimes I do take kids to Planned Parenthood (PP is not an abortion clinic) for examinations and birth control. I've had a situation where a teen girl whose aunt felt the girl "owed her a baby", and was purposely trying to arrange the girl's pregnancy (child protective services in our state are useless).

As for sex ed. , I support comprehensive along with abstinence. Kids with solid foundations from home will not be swayed into having sex- they can be in the world but not of it. Above all else, the cold cup of water that a kid may need at a given time may not appear to be ideal, but we must start with where some young people are at and be God's love to them.

jesus c.
Oh, right! Of all the pedophiles I can find on the map in my area, there are no priests. Oops! Guess that blows your theory.

On the other hand, the Roman Catholic Church has clung to the idea that celibacy is beneficial in the priesthood. Jesus' disciples were not all celibate--some were married. I think the RCC holds much of the blame for what has resulted--they've ended up with many homosexual priests as well as some who are unable to keep their vows.

Republicans are the only ones who use prostitutes? That's a good one! Oh--but I guess liberals get all their sex free--so it doesn't count, eh? Unfortunately it's human nature to commit sin and that covers all political parties. Why people think a moment of pleasure is worth all the resulting pain, perversity and humiliation is beyond me.

Surrender!
I find it interesting that there are certain battles that the left is not only unwilling to fight, they won't even choose a side. We shouldn't be surprised at their reaction and posturing on the war for Iraq when they have been using the same mantra in the battle over the sexual morality of America's children for years. On both fronts, their mantra has been "the battle can't be won, so we may as well retreat and minimize our casualties. Consequences be d@mned!" Of course, the best way to lose is to fail to fight.

It has already been noted that there are NO negative consequences related to sexual abstinence. The negatives associated with sexual promiscuity, on the other hand, are virtually innumerable - ranging from STDs to nearly irreparable emotional and psychological damage, not to mention the damage it has done to our society as a whole.

I realize the left looks to France as a model in all things social and political. But I can't understand how any sentient being could advocate surrender when the stakes are so high and the consequences so clear.

The main difference between liberals and conservatives in these matters is that conservatives seem to be the only ones who realize there is such a thing as right and wrong in an absolute sense, and because of that fact, there are battles that must be fought regardless of the perceived odds of winning.

I'm curious...
...substitute the phrase "gun safety education" for the phrase "sex education",in the public schools.Which side of that issue would the posters on this thread come down on?

As for the Catholic bashers here,be advised that many more intellectuals than you have been attacking the Catholic Church for the past 2,000 years,and they are dead but the Church is still here.Does that tell you anything?

jesus c. writes: 15, 2007 7:37 AM

Conservative Republican Superfreaks
If a politician is going to be found in bed with a hooker or a little kid it is bound to be a republican or a catholic priest.

DESKJOCEKY RESPONDS

"Conservative Republican" is an oxymoron. The Socialist Party has two divisions summed up in one word, Republi-crats. That is why folks have so much trouble with the inconsistency they see with each division, it is the same group.

Here is an example of the false alternatives we argue everyday. Back in the early 90s the Crats wanted to increase skul lunch program spending 7.5% and stated anything less meant you wanted to kill the kids by starvation and they actually used those words. The Repubs wanted to increase it only 7.1% arguing the left's spending is out of control. In short an increase difference of .4% from a whopping huge increase of over 7% differentiated the evil death intended on the young.

Now with this false alternative we had the most vicious attacks by the siblings of the Socialist family. Of course this is the old Lenin tactic of false alternatives so that we all get worked up over 7.1% or 7.5%.

The beauty of this nonsense is we never get to hear the conservative view at all, NO SKUL LUNCH PROGRAM.

So it is with sex education, we argue abstinence versus sex promotion in skul. Abstinence is evil because it is promoting some religious phobia against the evils of sex and conversely left wing sex ed is evil because it promotes unbridled sexual activity, (that didn’t exist in my skul 50 years ago. Both these liberals of course keep the argument off the conservative position that it is not the function of the K-12 giver-ment indoctrination camps to be indoctrinating kids on sex one way or the other. Rather they should get back to trying to teach the 3 R’s that somehow they forgot about.

McCullough on sex
Here is one liberal who doesn't want children to have sex. Heck, I don't even want McCullough to get any...

To jesus c.
You posted "I guess no one is perfect." Whether you know it or not, that is the bedrock of Christian belief: that man committed orginal sin and can never be perfect. So God sent his only Son to offer us salvation. I think it's funny that you believe in original sin but you don't realize how you've internalized it, but I think it's sad that you don't know where it came from. However, judging from your moniker, I guess that you want to show your disrespect for God in all things. To be consistent, please start saying "there are some perfect people", and please find us some. I'd like to hear about them.

Liberals are out to get us
"Liberals want your child to have sex. They want this to occur in spite of your religious, health, or parental objections. They are willing to substitute false thinking for solid fact on the consequences of what will happen. And they do so while simultaneously insulting you and your child's ability to comprehend, discern, and choose behaviors that make the most sense."

And how to "demonize" one of the major voices of protest against them? Oh accuse that organization of being in "cahoots" with those that have crossed the border line.

After one of my youth group "grads" was in the "Peoples' Republic of Berkeley (CA) and came back to our little Northern California town with a flyer he picked-up, to show our Pastor, and to come talk at a youth ministry meeting...

"Broke? Need Cash Fast? Come see how to get free money?" He was interested - who isn't at that age, IT WAS A SEMINAR OF HOW TO CRY - A DEAD CATHOLIC PRIEST RAPED ME!"

You know BEFORE, I was rather believing that a person would not lie about such things... Not any more. It is a scam, a huge fricking scam!

Besides, the majority of cases that I have learned about actually involved NAMBLA types of activities and the LIBS really respect that stuff and THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH IT, in their little bigoted world view.

Heck, I'm certain SOME members of NAMBLA or queers have entered the seminaries and actually got ordained. It isn't a CATHOLIC problem, but affects the Protestant and LDS communities, I'm sure the Jews have their own troubles -- and the Islamics... better not go there.

IT is a societal crisis!

Original sin was NOT sex, original sin was lying to G-d and yourself about your thoughts, acts and actions.

Wise Scribe
Scribe writes: Sunday, July, 15, 2007 7:25 AM
Mountain Rose is correct... It is advice given with love and often by people who have lived a bit of life with their own regrets. Sex is a beautiful gift and a joy in life. It is a treasure between two people who have promised their love to each other."
***************************************

Yes it is a treasure between two people and I am sure that you will agree that the purity of the marriage bed is a part of a generational glue that extends beyond the bond of a man and a woman, the very glue that prevents society from unraveling.

Libsters who say "they are going to do it anyway," are fools and incapable of seeing the big picture. They seperate the whole into little bits and pieces and then blame the disintegration of society on external causes, when the problem stems from a lack of character on the part of each individual.

Furthermore
The things that young people do today lay the groundwork for their futures. Many are preparing for the day they will hold down a job and perhaps have a family.

But few look down the road to the end of their lives. What kind of character will their children have, and their children's children?

To a Liberal, a sexual encounter is a moment's pleasure, like eating out in a nice restaurant.

But to the truly wise person, your sexuality is a key building block for the structure of your family that will follow, and ultimately care for you in your old age.

What do you think will happen to women like those in "Sex in the City" when they are little old ladies? Will they be in an old aged home? Will they have Alzheimers, and have to take care of their own effects without family to help them with decisions? Will they hire someone who will steal them blind?

All because they preferred to have fun and avoid responsibility.

knight
Mtn Rose - "When young people are able to keep themselves pure until marriage,"

Knight - "They find out how bad at sex they are, and further condemn sex because they don't know what they're doing."

Since you, like every other liberal, are smarter than everyone else, maybe you can explain away the results of a recent study showing that married protestants report the highest levels of sexual satisfaction (I'll have to find the link after church. Sorry).

The study validates Rose's point. A loving, comitted, married couple's bond grows stronger in sharing physical love. Non-comittal sexual promiscuity, on the other hand, effects the body and mind in much the same way as addictive drugs. The "user" ends up going to extremes looking for higher highs, and ends up unsatisfied.

I predict you won't understand, and that doesn't bother me. Sensible things only make sense to sensible people.



Bob is a fool
Bob writes: Sunday, July, 15, 2007 9:58 AM
"Sex is a NORMAL part of life...
Women need to marry and start getting laid regularly at about age 14..."
*************************************

There is a reason for the stereotype of Hillbillies marrying off their teenage daughters. That is exactly what they used to do, and it kept them in poverty.

Marriage at too young of an age sentences young people to a life of squalor. There is a balance between marrying too early and too late.

The years between puberty and maturity is a good time where young people can grow in character and gain self control that will serve them later in life. They will know how to say "no" when they are tempted to cheat on their life's partner.

Why do you assume that one should have sex the moment that you have the impulse? You have been sold a lot of Freudian nonsense.

knight of BS
You seem to think I don't know what liberals believe. I was raised by liberals and missed out on the wisdom of thousand of years of civilization, because Lefties like to keep reinventing the wheel.

When you are an old man and in the old aged home, looking like a fool with a sleeve of sagging tattoos, and no one visits you, don't begrudge the people who have loving children and grand children visiting them.

They worked hard for it, putting off the pleasure of the moment for something more important.

Warfare of kingdoms…


Finally some truth from the radical left. They tell us their ideology: ‘God is dead…’ From this perspective their nonsense makes sense. While ruled by the prince of darkness, they think themselves autonomous. Such is the depth of their deception.

The Bible says that nations rise and fall, but the Kingdom of God is an everlasting kingdom. Those in the kingdom are ruled by the laws of their King.

How is it that ‘God is dead’ when the kingdom of darkness is in warfare against the kingdom of light? If God were dead then there would be no conflict, because there would be no Christians.

And the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah, saying, “Thus says the Lord: ‘If you can break My covenant with the day and My covenant with the night, so that there will not be day and night in their season, then My covenant may also be broken with David My servant, so that he shall not have a son to reign on his throne, and with the Levites, the priests, My ministers. As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, nor the sand of the sea measured, so will I multiply the descendants of David My servant and the Levites who minister to Me.’” [Jeremiah 33:19-22]

The Son of David has fulfilled this prophecy and is fulfilling it today and will fulfill it at the end of the age. He must reign until all His enemies become His footstool. [I Corinthians 15:20-28]



Thanks Knight of BS, but the Lord
has taken my sins and cast them into the sea. When God looks at me He does not see my imperfections, but the face of Christ Jesus, who covers me.

What about you?

LAUGHABLE!
Christian conservatives revile Waxman for having the audacity to investigate the effectiveness and accuracy of information taught in these federally-funded programs that waste taxpayer dollars and violate the establishment clause of the constitution by allowing religious dogma to be preached in public schools.

Even if abstinence-only education is effective, it achieves this effectiveness via unscrupulous means. ALL abstinence education programs contain blatant falsehoods about the effectiveness of contraceptives (in REALITY, condoms have only a 2-3% failure rate when used correctly), the risks of abortion (fertility is almost NEVER affected), and the spread of sexually transmitted diseases (some programs actually tell students that HIV can be transmitted via TEARS).

Lying to children is a bad policy. They're NOT stupid, and they will eventually find out the truth. When that happens, they will no longer trust you!

In step with the programs he's promoting, McCullough's article contains many distortions. One of his supposed BOMBSHELLS is the statement that "the Bush Abstinence programs weren't implemented until the fall of 2001." True, but for Clinton's last budget in fiscal year 2001, abstinence-only education programs received $80 million in federal funding! To say we can't gauge the effectiveness of abstinence-only education before Bush took office is ridiculous. The fact is, teen pregnancy rates have been in a downward trend since 1991.

Knight of BS yawning about old age
but you won't think so when you are in a wheelchair and being left in the hallway, forgotten.

Of course, that is why Liberals are so hot to promote Physician Assisted Suicide: because they panic at the thought of what it will be like to reap the nothingness they have sewn.

Of course, being pragmatic, I am willing to make it legal for Lefties to "do themselves," and for conservatives to live long, happy productive lives, surrounded by large, loving families.

I am favor of Lefties ending their lives alone in a hospice, while the conservatives will have the spouse they have devoted their lives to at their side.

I am in favor of Lefties aborting all their children while conservatives have lots of well-adjusted children, who have character, wait until marriage, stay together for life as well and continue to pass positive values along to subsequent generations.

I am Conflicted
On the one hand, I agree with the spirit of the article (young people should not be sexually active for any number of moral, spiritual, and physical reasons), but find it hard to accept generalizing the blame into some unrelated category.

According to the comments, I fall into the following categories:

Democrat
Liberal
Catholic (even studied for the priesthood)
Father of 2 children
Professor
Parasite

However, I am responsible enough to bring up my children properly, and teach my students properly, when it comes to sex. Maybe instead of meaning "Liberals" lie about sex, the article means "Libertines" lie about sex.