Abstinence Criticized

[CamEdwards]

Not abstinence education... abstinence itself.

hxxp://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald...te/7942316.htm

ORLANDO - Melissa Millis feels bombarded by everyday messages of sexual promiscuity, whether it's Janet Jackson's bare breast during the Super Bowl or her classmates' casual sex talk.

So Millis, a public high school senior in Michigan, and thousands of other students around the nation are wearing white T-shirts to school today, the day before Valentine's Day, to publicly show their commitment to not having sex outside marriage. They're calling their effort the ''Day of Purity,'' and they will distribute pro-abstinence pamphlets to their peers.

''The way sex is talked about, it's so casual, like it's an everyday thing, like going to McDonald's,'' said Millis, 17, who goes to Milford High School in Highland, Mich.

The grass-roots effort is supported by Christian groups and organized by Liberty Counsel, a conservative group based in Orlando. It comes as President Bush is pushing in his budget proposal to double federal funding for sexual abstinence programs.

''Decisions children make now can affect their health and character for the rest of their lives,'' Bush said last month.

But the Day of Purity is being watched with a wary eye by groups that promote sexual tolerance, such as the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network and the Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays.

'The word `purity' in this context is morally self-righteous,'' said Alice Leeds, a spokeswoman for Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays. ``It's redefining it in their context to conform to their frankly bigoted agenda.''

Could someone please explain how practicing abstinence and telling others about its benefits is bigoted?

[HornedFrog Purple]

I believe this is the opposing stance:

This campaign is claiming the higher moral ground.

In particular, gays and lesbians cannot be married legally in some states. Therefore in this campaign's eyes they are impure and morally wrong.

[albionmoonlight]

I think that HFP gets it right. Some people feel that it is wrong to advocate abstinance outside of the commitment of marriage, but then to deny the right to that commitment to certain segments of the population.

If, however, you advocate abstinence outside of marriage for everyone and hold homosexuals to the same standard (recognize their unions as binding commitments in which sexual intercourse can morally occur), then there is no problem with your position.

I don't know if this is what the people obejcting believe, but if it is, it makes sense to me.

[John Galt]

Note too that they don't say that purity and abstitence are bigoted per se, but that this campaign is part of a bigoted agenda overall.

For gays, it seems like this:

They are being told there early lives that being normal is being straight. Other feelings are "sinful" or "abnormal."

When they discover they have "sinful" or "abnormal" feelings, they try to repress them, but most can't do that.

When they try to explore their "abnormal" feelings, they are told to be "pure" and wait.

Wait for what? They can't get married. They can't ever have sexual intimacy without being a deviant and sinful. Purity and abstinence become more ways to ensure gays don't have a place in our society. It just pushes them further underground.

[MrBug708]

Well in this case, unless she has a good deal amount of girls hitting on her, I doubt this is HER reason to do so. But coming from a family that believes this, they both go hand in hand and my parents are very adament about what I was "allowed" to watch growing up. IE no PG-13 movies til I was 13, R when I was 17, my mother would kick my ass if she knew some of the stuff I have done, and the like.

But to say the purity movement has a "hidden agenda" is really ridiculus because it's more the group of HS'ers and the like, then 35 year old's who are a alittle homophobe.

[rkmsuf]

And then Melissa went to college and let the good times roll...

[Ksyrup]

Whether you are gay or straight, "wait" should at least mean "wait until you get out of high school." The marriage issue doesn't even enter the picture - unless, of course, you've knocked up your high school sweetheart and get married. But that just takes us back to the original issue.

[rkmsuf]

It's only a day of purity so don't worry about it. There are 364 other days left in the year...

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Whether you are gay or straight, "wait" should at least mean "wait until you get out of high school." The marriage issue doesn't even enter the picture - unless, of course, you've knocked up your high school sweetheart and get married. But that just takes us back to the original issue.

The problem is for gays, what are you waiting for? Marriage is the logical answer for the straight purity movement. For gays? They don't have to worry about pregnancy and they don't know what the rest of their life has to offer in terms of being gay, so why not experiment? Waiting only makes sense if there is something better to wait for - and society has offered gays very little to wait for.

[sachmo71]

Casual sex is a sin. Only meaningful, love sex is pure. Or a really great night of shagging. Sometimes that can be divine. Even if it's casual.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by John Galt

The problem is for gays, what are you waiting for? Marriage is the logical answer for the straight purity movement. For gays? They don't have to worry about pregnancy and they don't know what the rest of their life has to offer in terms of being gay, so why not experiment? Waiting only makes sense if there is something better to wait for - and society has offered gays very little to wait for.

Well, let's see...how about waiting for the maturity to deal with the complications that come with having sex? Gays might not have pregnancy to worry about, but what about sexually transmitted diseases? What about the issues dealing with intimacy and relationships that become extremely complex once you involve sex? Those are issues common to both straights and gays. And I, for one, don't think it hurts anyone to suggest that maybe kids should wait until they are at least out of high school before they make that kind of choice.

I fully understand that the "wait until you're married" mantra means very little to a gay person. But I think there's enough common sense involved in telling high school kids to wait, that it should, and does, apply equally to gays and straights.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Well, let's see...how about waiting for the maturity to deal with the complications that come with having sex? Gays might not have pregnancy to worry about, but what about sexually transmitted diseases? What about the issues dealing with intimacy and relationships that become extremely complex once you involve sex? Those are issues common to both straights and gays. And I, for one, don't think it hurts anyone to suggest that maybe kids should wait until they are at least out of high school before they make that kind of choice.

I fully understand that the "wait until you're married" mantra means vey little to a gay person. But I think there's enough common sense involved in telling high school kids to wait, that it should, and does, apply equally to gays and straights.

Note that your argument is very different than suggesting "purity." Gays are already "unpure" and can't redeem themselves according to the "purity" movement. As for maturity and STD's, they are both concerns, but that is a reason for teaching about sex rather than pretending that "purity" is the answer.

The "purity" movement is really a straights-only movement and presumes heterosexual normalcy - it pushes gays to the side and pretends they don't exist. The motives may be "pure," but the execution is poor, poor form.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Note that your argument is very different than suggesting "purity." Gays are already "unpure" and can't redeem themselves according to the "purity" movement. As for maturity and STD's, they are both concerns, but that is a reason for teaching about sex rather than pretending that "purity" is the answer.

The "purity" movement is really a straights-only movement and presumes heterosexual normalcy - it pushes gays to the side and pretends they don't exist. The motives may be "pure," but the execution is poor, poor form.

John, I'd imagine the "religious right" groups probably piss you off as much as the ACLU so we won't get into that really. Purity in the case of THESE high schoolers is sex before marriage. Like Ksyrup said, it's not a bad thing to wait for marriage or even after HS.

Like I said before, bringing homosexuality in was the article and your own doing's, not the 17 year old girl who wants to wait for marriage.

[MrBug708]

Dola,

If you are gonna stereotype what the conver's believe, gay's are sinful. Unpure is a synonym for it, but a difference instance.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Purity in the case of THESE high schoolers is sex before marriage. Like Ksyrup said, it's not a bad thing to wait for marriage or even after HS.

Rewriting Bug's argument:

Purity in the case of THESE [Hetero] high schoolers is sex before marriage. Like Kysyrup said, it's not a bad thing to wait for marriage [which gays can't do] or even after HS.

These campaigns are made with only straight students in mind and they pretend gays are invisible. Worse, they use words like "purity" which necessarily exclude gays.

If you want to form an abstitence first campaign that doesn't use concepts like "purity" and actually addresses gays too, then go ahead. This campaign doesn't do that.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Rewriting Bug's argument:

Purity in the case of THESE [Hetero] high schoolers is sex before marriage. Like Kysyrup said, it's not a bad thing to wait for marriage [which gays can't do] or even after HS.

These campaigns are made with only straight students in mind and they pretend gays are invisible. Worse, they use words like "purity" which necessarily exclude gays.

If you want to form an abstitence first campaign that doesn't use concepts like "purity" and actually addresses gays too, then go ahead. This campaign doesn't do that.

Coceptually sex before marriage is applicable to whatever preference you have. Take out the word marriage and replace it with life partner or something. The spirit is to treat sex more seriously --- look at the analogy "going to McDonalds.". Maybe marriage is a poor choice of words but I think the campaign speaks to lessening casual sex.

Take it as you will but gays can also abstaine from sex until they find the person they want to spend their life with regardless of semantics...

[MrBug708]

Where did the girl mention homosexuality once? Pure is a biblical term and I think you and I can both agree that this girl is most likely a Christian and if the term has been warped over the year, I'm sorry, but doesnt make this article pro or con about homosexuality until the author tied it in.

I guess the big issue is that homosexuality is tied into sex while heterosexuality isn't? That seems to be the case here.


Edit-forgot to finish the sentence

[Drake]

Meh. Not every message has to target every demographic. In fact, for decent signal-to-noise ratio communication, messages shouldn't target every demographic. Pick your audience, broadcast your message and hope to hit your group with the big points. When you select another audience, you change your message to suit them.

This isn't an argument about bigotry, but about information theory -- though it can academically be argued that any message which targets a demographic is exclusionary (and, I suppose, bigoted) by definition. You'll note that most feminine hygiene product commercials don't address issues of male hygiene. By suggesting that the feminine product can make only a woman feel "clean and fresh", it consequently argues that men cannot use the same product in the same way and feel equally clean and fresh. I have nothing to look forward to in choosing to use said product. On the other hand, if I want to feel clean and fresh, I can always watch a commercial for a product that is marketed to men.

I see this issue pretty much the same way.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

Coceptually sex before marriage is applicable to whatever preference you have. Take out the word marriage and replace it with life partner or something. The spirit is to treat sex more seriously --- look at the analogy "going to McDonalds.". Maybe marriage is a poor choice of words but I think the campaign speaks to lessening casual sex.

Take it as you will but gays can also abstaine from sex until they find the person they want to spend their life with regardless of semantics...

The problems are 1) Use of language like "purity" which screws gays , 2) The arguments for abstinence are very different for gays and straights (pregnancy being the core argument for straights + "wait for marriage"), and 3) The moral element of the campaign (related to "purity issue") - this isn't a sex education campaign, it is a moral one.

I'm not arguing that a gay friendly abstinence campaign can't exist. I'm just arguing that the one you and Ksyrup describe isn't the same as this one.

[MrBug708]

7 people reading this thread....

[Drake]

dola...

"Purity" is not a solely Biblical term. Let's not get into this argument again, please.

[MrBug708]

Dola, 13

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by Drake

dola...

"Purity" is not a solely Biblical term. Let's not get into this argument again, please.

No, but it's more then likely where the idea came from in this article

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Where did the girl mention homosexuality once? Pure is a biblical term and I think you and I can both agree that this girl is most likely a Christian and if the term has been warped over the year, I'm sorry, but doesnt make this article pro or con about homosexuality until the author tied it in.

That's my point. She doesn't mention homosexuality and presumes heterosexual normalcy while using words and arguments that exclude gays. This has nothing to do with her being (or not being) Christian. It has to do with the way the campaign is structured and the assumptions and arguments it makes.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by John Galt

... 1) Use of language like "purity" which screws gays ...

JG,

Isn't this really an example of false internalization rather than an actual fact? If we start worrying about what beliefs about themselves people may have internalized, there's no reason to attempt to communicate at all.

Edit: My problem with campaigns like this is that when we start harping on inclusiveness, we end up diluting the message to such an extent that it the nebulous platitudes apply to no one in any real way.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Drake

Meh. Not every message has to target every demographic. In fact, for decent signal-to-noise ratio communication, messages shouldn't target every demographic. Pick your audience, broadcast your message and hope to hit your group with the big points. When you select another audience, you change your message to suit them.

This isn't an argument about bigotry, but about information theory -- though it can academically be argued that any message which targets a demographic is exclusionary (and, I suppose, bigoted) by definition. You'll note that most feminine hygiene product commercials don't address issues of male hygiene. By suggesting that the feminine product can make only a woman feel "clean and fresh", it consequently argues that men cannot use the same product in the same way and feel equally clean and fresh. I have nothing to look forward to in choosing to use said product. On the other hand, if I want to feel clean and fresh, I can always watch a commercial for a product that is marketed to men.

I see this issue pretty much the same way.

This is a fair argument, but I have a couple problems with it. First, sex discussions and campaigns at the high school level almost NEVER include gays. This is part of a pattern. Second, there is a difference in these campaigns between targetting and using rhetoric that necessarily excludes. Targetting allows for inclusion of unintended groups - exclusion doesn't.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by John Galt

That's my point. She doesn't mention homosexuality and presumes heterosexual normalcy while using words and arguments that exclude gays. This has nothing to do with her being (or not being) Christian. It has to do with the way the campaign is structured and the assumptions and arguments it makes.

If I say let's go find some hot girls, am I excluding guys because I didn't mention them when there probably are some good looking men around too?

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Drake

JG,

Isn't this really an example of false internalization rather than an actual fact? If we start worrying about what beliefs about themselves people may have internalized, there's no reason to attempt to communicate at all.

I think the pattern is what is important here. No one is arguing the extreme, but this is not the first or last campaign which pretends gays don't exist and then uses language to reinforce that fact. And I think this has a lot more to do with internalization of "sin" - gays, especially at this age receive a constant barrage of messages to be straight. There is no diversity of messages for them and the internalization is inevitable.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by John Galt

This is a fair argument, but I have a couple problems with it. First, sex discussions and campaigns at the high school level almost NEVER include gays. This is part of a pattern. Second, there is a difference in these campaigns between targetting and using rhetoric that necessarily excludes. Targetting allows for inclusion of unintended groups - exclusion doesn't.

We MUST be in the 1950's then because when I was in HS, they talked about it. You always hear about schools having to update their ciriculum (sp) in order to include homosexuality as part of it and conservative groups fighting it to the bitter end.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Second, there is a difference in these campaigns between targetting and using rhetoric that necessarily excludes. Targetting allows for inclusion of unintended groups - exclusion doesn't.

Ah, this may be the difference. Being a WASP male heterosexual, I'm not used to thinking in terms of people trying to specifically exclude me from their message/campaign. You may very well be right and I'm just not looking at this deeply enough.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

If I say let's go find some hot girls, am I excluding guys because I didn't mention them when there probably are some good looking men around too?

Come on - look at my argument - that is not what I'm saying. Invisibility is one of the three issues that bothers me. Alone it is not as significant, with the other two, it is part of a bad pattern.

[HornedFrog Purple]

I should have been an attorney... I guessed the opposition's argument.

If this was an abstinence campaign, it would say "don't have sex period" not "don't have sex until you are married".

There are no conditions to abstaining from something. You either do it or you don't. But somehow I don't think nuns and sisters of a faith are this campaign's target.

Go back to the 1930's and start a "purity by voting" campaign and see the results.

[MrBug708]

John, you are only giving one side. You keep mention the exclusion of homosexuals in a lot of life's aspect and how they hear about being straight, not gay from a lot of the religious groups, of which I agree, they are pretty relentless. But for every article chastising homosexuals, you could find one chastising conservatives. It's a two way street. One tells you that your whole belief structure is wrong, the other says that our belief structure is right. So which is it?

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Come on - look at my argument - that is not what I'm saying. Invisibility is one of the three issues that bothers me. Alone it is not as significant, with the other two, it is part of a bad pattern.

The world is too PC IMO. Everyone thinks that everyone else has a hidden agenda. You wouldn't believe some of the stuff I read in a lot of religious right magazines. Whether or not I believe what they believe or their conspiracy theories and what not, it's pretty out there.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by HornedFrog Purple

I should have been an attorney... I guessed the opposition's argument.

If this was an abstinence campaign, it would say "don't have sex period" not "don't have sex until you are married".

There are no conditions to abstaining from something. You either do it or you don't. But somehow I don't think nuns and sisters of a faith are this campaign's target.

Go back to the 1930's and start a "purity by voting" campaign and see the results.

That's why the core of the issue isn't tied to picking apart the verbage. I think it's a reaction to what's in the first sentence that refers to "messages of sexual promiscuity" and the main issue is to curtail irresponsible sex. You can argue semantics until your blue in the face but I think anyone can identify with treating sex in a morally responsible way...which by the way can mean different things to different people.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

John, you are only giving one side. You keep mention the exclusion of homosexuals in a lot of life's aspect and how they hear about being straight, not gay from a lot of the religious groups, of which I agree, they are pretty relentless. But for every article chastising homosexuals, you could find one chastising conservatives. It's a two way street. One tells you that your whole belief structure is wrong, the other says that our belief structure is right. So which is it?

To compare the persecution of gays to that of being conservative shows me that there is no way we can come to terms on this argument.

[Bubba Wheels]

The secular humanists just don't know when to quit. Bad enough they continually insult God's Word and those who actually believe in it by ridiculing and scorning both whenever they get a chance. But now they would even attempt to deny the difference between their own world view and those of Christians by not even allowing those who would like a 'choice' in what is appropriate and not.

Sorry, this one push's my buttons. The arrogance of the secular humanists always seems to come down to how much 'smarter' they are then those 'backwards fundamentalists' and how they push their beliefs in a self-righteous manner twice as bad as those they always claim are religiously self-righteous.

Perfect example, nothing on earth in more self-righteous and pious than a secular humanist who feels that his/her 'rights' have been violated by them having been subject to someone else's religious belief. (Like the sanctimonious folks all over the news shows talking about how that 'fanatical pilot' should be fired!) It was actually a gay columnist for some publication aboard the plane that stated what the Pilot said was not at all 'in your face' and that the passenger's reaction was way overblown.

By the way, Supreme Court has ruled some years ago that Secular Humanism IS a religion (of man) and holds all the same doctrine-types and mandates as any other religion. So all the phonies who like to hide behind some false claim of 'neutrality' and 'superiority of rationality, not religion", ect..., yes you can be every bit as self-righteous, pious, ect...as the backwards religious folks. Only the religious folks actually seem to know better.

[John Galt]

Go away, Bubba.

And I'm neither "secular" or a "humanist."

And it is always interesting to me that those who want their life choice (religion) actively protected by the law think that arguing being gay is a "choice" somehow denies their claim to even basic protections.

[Noble_Platypus]

Clearly.
Why does everyone feel the need to read into everything and look for non existant hidden meanings. All this girl is doing is try to motivate kids to not have sex at a young age. This cuts down on teenage pregnacy, disease and boosts self esteem. Yet because somebody out there doesnt like the word she uses to describe it theres a huge deal made about it. Its like a new version of the Kevin Bacon game. In every news story there a hidden anti gay agenda that can be linked to it in 6 moves or less. Doent be stupid, applaud her for what she is doing because everyone knows what she is trying to accomplish and if you sympathize with they gay movement turn your attention to people and organizations that are openly anti gay.

[HornedFrog Purple]

That's why the core of the issue isn't tied to picking apart the verbage. I think it's a reaction to what's in the first sentence that refers to "messages of sexual promiscuity" and the main issue is to curtail irresponsible sex. You can argue semantics until your blue in the face but I think anyone can identify with treating sex in a morally responsible way...which by the way can mean different things to different people.

right.... so I am guessing these pamphlets being passed out talk about homosexuals and their different situation also... I bet not.

What's the difference between saying "don't have sex before marriage" and "don't have sex until you have matured mentally as an adult"

Marriage doesn't automatically make you mature all of a sudden. That's conservative talk. errr no I'm messing with verbage...

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by John Galt

To compare the persecution of gays to that of being conservative shows me that there is no way we can come to terms on this argument.

Because no one has ever been killed for being a Christian....

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Because no one has ever been killed for being a Christian....

This doesn't even deserve a response, but you said "conservative" not "christian."

[Bubba Wheels]

Homosexuality is hostile to the Christian World point of view. Doesn't mean that Christians want gays 'eliminated', all it means is that if you are not Christian be just as respectful of their rights and sensativities as you expect them to be of yours.

And anybody who thinks that no one has ever been killed for being a Christian, lol, you are historically lost without hope.

Example of the former. You don't want teacher's or school administrators telling you about Jesus Christ, don't expect them to shove anti-Christian messages about homosexuality and different forms of 'safe-sex' in your face either. Think this is possible?

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by John Galt

This doesn't even deserve a response, but you said "conservative" not "christian."

Not too many liberal christians out there are there?

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

I'm just going to throw this out there:

Christ told us all to love one another.

Discuss.

Ronnie, He also talked quite abit about hell, unless your the kind that just likes to pick and choose.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

I'm just going to throw this out there:

Christ told us all to love one another.

Discuss.

Original

Do you love your children even when they do something you don't like?

[timmynausea]

Alright, fellas. Good thread. Let's tally the votes.

Mark me down for John Galt. He seemed much more articulate than his opposition, and I feel he will ultimately come out the winner in this. (When all the votes are counted, of course.)
The one who has me stumped is MrBug708. What the shit? I can't figure out what the hell this guy is getting at. Part of me wants to say his whole strategy is to confuse his enemy and reduce the argument to merely typing random insane nonsense, which would be something of a feat, to be sure.
Anyway, get those votes in.

[MrBug708]

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

I just am amazed by how much religion (whether Christianity, Islam, etc.) is so often used as an excuse to hate and harm other people.

Nice generalization there

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Not too many liberal christians out there are there?

Huh? Look at the numbers - you will be suprised. And if you don't know the difference between "conservative" and "christian" when making your argument then maybe you shouldn't assume you understand what "purity" means either.