[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:<< Wouldn’t it just make more sense to leave this kind of stuff to parents and their communities?
I have a feeling that’s the way the good ole US of A used to work, but it’s been so long, so very very long, that maybe that is just a wishful dream of a time that never was. [/quote]There used to be families.
[/quote]
Sloth and I have been saying this for pages now, but this is a perfect summary of the ACTUAL root problem of this entire issue in five simple words. [/quote]
Allright, so “there used to be families”, and you feel that’s the problem, right?
How, in your words, would our modern problems be solved if there were “families”, and how would those “families” be structured?
[/quote]
No no no, eph. That’s not how it works. However reading what I wrote just above, your question is fair. The solution, if there is one at this point, is not finding some way to cobble together families.
When these modern problems are solved, intact families are a natural result of that state.
One thing leads to another, to another, to another, to another.
That’s why we appear to be focusing upon one thing (propagation of obscenity masquerading as edification) while pointing to another. [/quote]
Modern problems are not [just] caused by [amongst other things] edification of obscenity. In my view it’s the unnecessary puritanical approach to sexuality and the consequences of feminism that lie at the core of these issues.
Sex-ed works, birth-control works [most of the time, but you get what I mean]. What does not work are abstinence-only programs and parents who stick their head in the sand and pretend their kids aren’t having sex.
Ofcourse I realise that pragmatism does not gel with religious beliefs, just look at what Tiribulus posted one or two posts up, but the stats are clear on this; if fewer abortions and fewer teenage pregnancies outside of wedlock [another archaic concept] are wanted, education is the way to go.