Visitors - Come on in and say hello!

Thursday, February 09, 2006

Who needs the reality check here?

I'd encourage you all to read the linked article in full, but in reading it, I decided that someone needed to address a couple of problematic paragraphs.

http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/columnists/13825052.htm

In sum, the article is trashing the idea that Valentine's Day as it is now "celebrated" should be replaced with "A Day for Purity" focusing on teenagers. The highlights I enboldened here draw attention to the very fact that this columnist is completely missing the point.


I'm not sure "moral decline" is really a hot-button issue with today's teens. The word "purity" raises some red flags that human sexuality is somehow impure. I'd also argue with the group's belief that the culture encourages teens to "experiment with their sexual preferences

I'm just going to come right out and re-write this paragraph according to the truth of the situation:

I'm sure that moral decline is not an issue addressed with today's teens. The word "purity" is not discussed with them so they, much like the author of the column, have NO IDEA what human sexuality is all about. I'd argue with the immoral majority's belief that current culture does in fact, out of willful ignorance and a definitive lack of openness to learning the truth, teach teens to experiment profusely and copiously, not with sexuality, but with their sexual organs.



There is no responsible educator in our country who does not include an abstinence message. You don't have to have sex. You don't," says Brigid Riley, executive director of Minnesota Organization on Adolescent Pregnancy, Prevention and Parenting. "But the majority of people will eventually have sex, and with the average age of marriage at 26, most will do it before then."

I'm not entirely sure that our schools hire responsible educators with regards to topics on sexuality. I remember these classes...abstinance was just an afterthought, and from what I have heard, it's gotten worse.

Check out Brigid Riley's quote above. It bears repeating. "But the majority of people will eventually have sex, and with the average age of marriage at 26, most will do it before then."

Oh.....Kay. So maybe we should present the same non-logical argument with regard to the topic of war. Responsible educators do not encourage wars, and in fact teach that people die in them. You don't have to go to war, or acknowledge war..you don't. But the majority of people will eventually be confronted with a war of some sort, or a school shooting, or terrorism...so rather than educating our children in the art of mediation, let's just hand them guns and tell them where the safety button is and where the dangerous end is so that they'll only kill the people they shoot at.

Let's face it, y'all...this woman, and the larger public, needs a reality check. She first has a problem with the idea that "purity" implies that human sexuality is bad. WRONG! Human sexuality is a gift from God. Misusing any gift has consequences. And the misuse of human sexuality is called "impurity".

The rightful use of human sexuality, that is, an intimate, physical expression of love between a married man and woman (married to each other, that is, not to other people), is purity. And even that is not correct. To be specific, human sexuality first is a definition of the person with regard to the specific DNA of that individual which allows for healthy sexual expression. There is nothing inherently impure about sexual expression, only the misuse.

What the immoral majority don't care to understand is the fact that there is such a thing as "immorality". They don't believe in sin, they deny that God actually cares about what they do to themselves and to each other.

People suffer consequences every day of sexual impurity, and I guarantee that NONE of those issues would ever surface if they understood true human sexuality, purity, and morality.

This issue makes me want to shake the dust from my feet and wash my hands, but then I'd walk away as Pontias Pilate did...still wearing the blood of Jesus Christ. As Catholics, we are called to stand out and speak the truth, especially when we don't want to, and we're weary of an unlistening world. Jesus DIED for this miserable, unlistening world, and darn it, if he can give and give until he's given ALL, well, then I'll continue to rant against the illogical fallacy of the culture of death which holds us all prisoner in a society which can do nothing but fall.

God Bless Pope John Paul II, God keep his soul, and God Bless Christopher West and Jason Evert as they work so hard to carry this message. Let us all follow suit and re-educate people. If we can just plant a few seeds, maybe there will be a little more shade for our overheated minds and burning fingers.

2 comments:

Ray from MN said...

First of all, check out Clayton Emmer's blog on current plans of the Twin Cities homosexual community. Clayton is a former seminary student at the St. John Vianney Seminary in St. Paul, now living in Los Angeles trying to sell a movie script. He's got a pretty good blog:

http://www.doxaweb.com/blog/blogger.html


The problem with columnists who disparage proposals with which they disagree is that they live in a all or nothing world. Cynic that she is, she admits that of people who marry at age 26, 12% have abstained from sex with their partner. I would bet that a fairly significant number have had few sexual experiences.

But what if a program is instituted that would bring that 12% number up to 25%? Think how many more two parent families there would be and perhaps more well-adjusted children. These people are against social programs unless they can see gigantic advances within a few years. That doesn't happen with any program involving changing behavior.

Government has been attempting to get people to quit smoking for 40 years. There's still a lot of smokers out there. But what if they had quit trying 30 years ago? There'd be one heckuva lot more.

I don't disagree with the philosophy of "Day For Purity" or a "Year For Purity" or "Abstinence Until Marriage", but I cannot conceive as to how this would be implemented in any public school and most Catholic/Christian schools.

It really isn't the kind of thing that can be imposed. There might be a few that would go along with it. But there would be huge resistance.

It would seen to me that a large education programs, year-round to parents and children, as to what is happening to children today where in some places 50% or more of unmarried teenagers have children, and by doing so generally have to abandon educational plans and sometimes confine themselves to a life of poverty. Many also end up with incurable diseases.

I don't think that you can convince kids logically that abstinence is the way to go. But you might be able to scare them enough that they decide to choose it.

----

I owe you an answer to your previous post. I'll get that tomorrow.

Ray

Adoro Te Devote said...

I agree, I don't think that this is something that can be imposed, but as a society we sure aren't doing much to DISSUADE early sexual activity. I wish I had a nickel for every time a co-worker, or friend, etc., asked me if I was going to "hook up" with some guy I met somewhere. The term has nothing to do with courtship or marriage, but is all about sex. The teens see it the same way. The assumption is being made that they are going to have sex so why bother to tell them about abstinance, or even encourage it?

And this columnist does the same thing. Decides sex is a foregone conclusion, so here's the gun, go shoot yourself, try not to die of horrible diseases.

I think that the immoral majority can do more to bring abstinence into the program if they'd get off their apathetic asses and actually open their mouths instead of their legs.

((Did I say that out loud?!)