Sett
[14] Master
I think its good at 16, last year of highschool and into college/sixth form.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You see, even though I totally agree with you from a moral perspective, a person's morals should have absolutely no effect on the law; that's the whole point of the United States: A country ruled by laws, not people or religion.snip
People are free to make shitty decisions, up to the point that those decisions hurt other people. The point of the law is not to prevent them from doing so. The point of the law is supposed to be to protect people from other people, such as the weak from the strong. For the same reason that usury laws exist to protect you from the savvy of predatory bankers, age of consent laws exist to protect young kids from predation. It's generally thought that it's natural for kids to do it among themselves. For this reason the law is well thought out and accounts for human nature, leaving them free to make "stupid decisions". What the law does accomplish however is to protect them from those they could not physically resist, from those who are not looking to support them but would use their experience to take advantage of them, or those whom they would feel pressured to consent to thanks to an unfair imbalance of power. In any event an arbitrary law avoids a lot of murky hassles. This was obviously creating enough problems back when the law was written that a law was written.Besides, people make shitty decisions anyway. There are already countless teen parents, since age of legal consent only means that an adult can't have intercourse with a minor, but minors can still do it among themselves.
I would think from the progress in rights acquisition it seems to be working alright. Don't ask don't tell is gone, several states have okayed marriage... That ball is rolling along. Isn't it?Homosexuality is a very difficult topic to explain in a classroom. But why teach them in a classroom? Why not leave that to the parents? Well... is that working right now? Hm...
I meant sexual education in schools as a whole (given the large amount of teen mothers), but you brought up another important point. IfI would think from the progress in rights acquisition it seems to be working alright. Don't ask don't tell is gone, several states have okayed marriage... That ball is rolling along. Isn't it?
ou know? I see these birth control pill commercials every day, and they did say that they don't prevent HIV or STDs.I once overheard a girl ask 'Wait, you mean you can still get STDs when you're on the pill?'
Sexual education is fucking terrible in America.[/quote
Y
Quite frankly, what country doesn't?American sex ed also completely ignores the issue of homosexuality.
I grew up in another country so I'm gonna have to ask: What do they teach kids in Sex Ed. classes here? Do these classes even exist?
It's all abstinence-only or 'abstinence plus' information (despite the fact that we still have the highest teen pregnancy rate in the world, which is still increasing).
American sex ed also completely ignores the issue of homosexuality.
Snip
It really depends on where you are. I've had friends tell me how their sexual education programs went, and TBH they had quite different experiences.
Mine was somewhat similar to yours. They went over reproductive organs/myths, contraception, random tips like your aforementioned one, how to put on a condom, etc.
But sexual identity was nowhere near addressed in sex ed, nor in psychology.
I've also had friends who went through the "ABSTINENCE GUYS" program that Slade mentioned. It's really a case by case basis.
The act of homo-sex is a choice. I don't know why you're bringing Jesus into this but, you should know all religions not just Christianity, all of theology condones homosexuality. You can take that however you will, but realize sexuality as whole isn't something overly glorified in religion be it straight or not. Sex is between a husband and his wife, and divorce isn't even supposed to factor into the equation. Monks and nuns are good examples of individuals that choose not to engage in sexuality at all because of their beliefs.Edit: Also you have to realize that people that still think homosexuality is a choice, are not going to change. Doesnt matter if sex ed tells them, doesnt matter if science tells him, hell Jesus could come back and they would toss him aside because "Jesus would never condone a sin". Ignorant people will forever remain ignorant.
Sex education in UK is how shall I say... gory....
The act of homo-sex is a choice. I don't know why you're bringing Jesus into this but, you should know all religions not just Christianity, all of theology condones homosexuality. You can take that however you will, but realize sexuality as whole isn't something overly glorified in religion be it straight or not. Sex is between a husband and his wife, and divorce isn't even supposed to factor into the equation. Monks and nuns are good examples of individuals that choose not to engage in sexuality at all because of their beliefs.
IMO everyone is free to do whatever the hell they want. So even things like incests, I don't see what qualifies one individual to judge another.
However, society dedicates what is the most functional environment that favors the most people.
Edit: Also you have to realize that people that still think homosexuality is a choice, are not going to change. Doesnt matter if sex ed tells them, doesnt matter if science tells him, hell Jesus could come back and they would toss him aside because "Jesus would never condone a sin". Ignorant people will forever remain ignorant.
I agree.Gay sex is a choice. Being attracted to males exclusively, isn't.
I am specifically talking monotheistic religions. The major ones. You have to be specific. Most major religion are pretty fundamentally similar.However, you should also know that not every religion condemns* homosexuality. Hell, there are several places where homosexual acts are part of the culture. In some of these, the men/women don't even consider themselves homosexual.
Christianity is divided into many sects, but the initial fundamental doctrines are what matter. So I would say as far as I know sex between married couples is for the purpose of birth not for indulgence. But you can modify your religion to whatever you want, for example mass murder(despite the premise "do not kill")But to be honest, your representation of sex within religion is entirely too simplified. Especially considering you mentioned monks/nuns. Sex and Catholicism do not mix, and while you're right that they are chaste, I don't think you understand Catholic teaching. Sex wasn't really even a great thing to have for a married couple. Catholicism itself is rather bleak.
I am specifically talking monotheistic religions. The major ones. You have to be specific. Most major religion are pretty fundamentally similar.
Christianity is divided into many sects, but the initial fundamental doctrines are what matter. So I would say as far as I know sex between married couples is for the purpose of birth not for indulgence. But you can modify your religion to whatever you want, for example mass murder(despite the premise "do not kill")