<p>Furthermore, as I read more into the Dalai Lama's position on things, I find that it's far more nuanced than FeR gives credit. </p>
<p>For example, regarding homosexuality, the Dalai Lama has stated, "If the two people have taken no vows [of chastity], and neither is harmed, why should it not be acceptable?" What he does, however, say is unacceptable is Buddhists engaging in these acts. However, he does say, very clearly, that society should accept gays.</p>
<p>"It sounds to me like they just had a bad or misguided priest."</p>
<p>That may be true. I wouldn't know; I wasn't there. But this was over the course of at least 20 years, during which time the parish went thru several priests.</p>
<p>"...Think of the Dalai Lama as the leader of a branch of Buddhism. Like how the Pope is the leader of Catholicism. Just like the Pope doesn't speak for all Christians, the Dalai Lama doesn't speak for all Buddhists..."</p>
<p>Well said! (so nice to finally agree with you on something, UCLAri!)</p>
<p>Then, of course there is Taoism, which spiritualizes sexuality. And Paganism does as well. And of course Tantra. </p>
<p>So there are some major spiritual traditions that see it differently.</p>
<p>Along this same line of thought , I never really understood this:</p>
<p>What's wrong with being a 40 year old (unmarried) virgin? </p>
<p>I'm talking mainly about the movie which is supposed to be 'hilariously funny' and all that stuff, and its this idea that kids HAVE TO HOP IN BED WITH OTHER PEOPLE (or else!) that is wrong with some of the sex ed that's going on in today's schools. I mean, why else are people in Planned Parenthood so adamant against having both abstinence and birth control taught in public schools. (Well, here's one reason: <a href="http://snipurl.com/10toq%5B/url%5D">http://snipurl.com/10toq</a>)</p>
<p>By the way, here are some of the things that are good about being a 40 year old virgin:
-no STDs
-none of this (<a href="http://snipurl.com/10tnh%5B/url%5D">http://snipurl.com/10tnh</a>)
-no child support, no alimony</p>
<p>(completely off topic, but wow, our school just installed Firefox 2.0 and IE7, they are both rather nice...I may have to download these at home...)</p>
<p>"The problem, I guess, is that so many people don't follow anything these days. A lack of religion in peoples lives may not directly lead to moral relativism or a lack of morality, but it sure does seem to blur the lines of right and wrong. Evils that are not immediately self-evident to be evils are often given the A-OK, when a serious and deep theological reflection on them would lead one to different conclusions. If one is not religious at all, that serious and deep theological reflection tends not to happen. It often becomes merely "everyone else is doing it, why not I?" Such people truly become products of their time; what they believe to be right is what their ever-changing culture says is right, no matter how messed-up it is. "</p>
<p>Moral relativism is a myth. NO ONE is actually a moral relativist</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm talking mainly about the movie which is supposed to be 'hilariously funny' and all that stuff, and its this idea that kids HAVE TO HOP IN BED WITH OTHER PEOPLE (or else!)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Either you haven't seen the movie or you TOTALLY missed the theme. The point was that while he did somewhat put women up on an impossible pedastal, the guys who were egging him on to have sex were also guilty of not taking the right view. In the end, the movie was very sympathetic toward Carrell's character's situation, and almost erred on the side of complete favor.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I mean, why else are people in Planned Parenthood so adamant against having both abstinence and birth control taught in public schools.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Because it's rational. I mean, we KNOW that people are going to have sex before marriage no matter how much we try to moralize otherwise. Is it better to equip them with the proper tools to protect themselves, or to hope that they'll just magically stumble upon solutions?</p>
<p>OIC about the movie, although I highly doubt that most people who saw the movie would have drawn your level-headed (meaning rational, not an insult) views about it.</p>
<p><em>Because it's rational. I mean, we KNOW that people are going to have sex before marriage no matter how much we try to moralize otherwise. Is it better to equip them with the proper tools to protect themselves, or to hope that they'll just magically stumble upon solutions?</em></p>
<p>Key word in my post: "both". I didn't say abstinence-only education. By letting Planned Parenthood only present one side of the coin, they makes it appear to students that they HAVE to have sex before marriage.</p>
<p>Vail,</p>
<p>The majority of people I've met who've seen the movie share my opinion about the general theme. I think that a lot of people who haven't seen it, however, share the opposite opinion.</p>
<p>And as far as PP goes, I didn't realize that was what you're saying. I don't think that they exactly try to say that you HAVE to have sex, but there is a certain slant to their outreach.</p>
<p>"Planned Parenthood so adamant against having both abstinence and birth control taught in public schools... "</p>
<p>I have mixed feelings about PP. I am completely against their approach to dealing with women seeking abortions. They definitely provide a very slanted approach - propaganda! - when a woman shows up for an abortion. They pretend to offer different options to her, but their bias is towards abortion because that's where they make their $$. For example: referring to the unborn as 'fetus' instead of 'baby.' When that same woman goes to an OB-GYN and lets him know she wants the baby, s/he will use the term 'baby.' PP has also put up a huge resistance to efforts to help women get more informed about the risks of abortion. For example, Feminists for Life (feministsforlife.org) works to educate women so that they don't have to choose between a man and her baby, or an education and her baby, or a career and her baby, or financial security and her baby. They are completely pro-woman. Yet PP has called FFL the 'biggest threat to women's rights'!!!</p>
<p>OTOT, PP does also supply birth control. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater (now that fits!)! I fully support PP's efforts at educating people about contraception.</p>
<p>Sure, abstinance can be offered as a possible option. But that's pretty much a no-brainer. That's like saying insurance companies must tell their clients that of course the best way to avoid a car accident is to stop riding in cars. duh. I don't anyone criticizing insurance companies for not recommending that people stop driving cars!</p>
<p>ULCAri, this slant you mentioned is what I'm referring to when I insist that both methods be taught in public schools. I think that main reason that PP is afraid of absitinence being taught period is that if more children (and people in general) started choosing that option, then they'd be out of business.</p>
<p><em>Sure, abstinance can be offered as a possible option. But that's pretty much a no-brainer. That's like saying insurance companies must tell their clients that of course the best way to avoid a car accident is to stop riding in cars. duh. I don't anyone criticizing insurance companies for not recommending that people stop driving cars!</em></p>
<p>The main problem with your analogy is that insurance companies aren't marketing to impressionable young kids, but adults who are competent enough to own a state driver's license. </p>
<p>Kids need to be taught about both options when it comes to sex ed, the option of abstaining and the option of birth control.</p>
<p>"insurance companies aren't marketing to impressionable young kids, but adults who are competent enough to own a state driver's license."</p>
<p>Actually insurance companies do market to 16-year-olds (who are old enough to have a driver's license but hardly mature adults). When my son took driver's ed a salesperson gave a presentation to the class and he came home all excited about buying a NEW car, thinking that car payment and insurance TOGETHER would only total about $250!!! They were completely misleading - they were referring to liability only and there must have been a balloon payment, or else the loan would have to have been for 10 years. </p>
<p>I am not against offering abstinance as an option. I just think that it's unrealistic to think that kids are going to quit having sex. And I am very against these religious people trying to teach ONLY abstinance! Many of them are against teaching the kids about contraception! I don't see how anyone can be against both abortion and contraception. Contraception is (realistically) the best way to prevent abortions.</p>
<p>Also, I think the biggest thing influencing kids about sex is their God-given hormones. (What WAS God thinking, anyway?)</p>
<p>lealdragon, perhaps you've never been to a Planned Parenthood? Or perhaps it's just very different in your neck of the woods. In my state (CT), Planned Parenthoods do not perform abortions. When I was pregnant with my first (my current high school senior), I didn't have medical insurance, and Planned Parenthood was where I went for prenatal care. They do NOT pressure people to have abortions, but they are definitely there to tell you all the legal options available. I would not have been able to afford prenatal care without the free/low cost medical care PP provides.</p>
<p>Planned Parenthood provides a plethora of reproductive health and other medical services. They use the word fetus not because they are trying to talk people into having abortions but because that is the correct medical terminology. OTOH, the organizations that Feminists for Life support are indeed spreading misinformation about the effects of abortion, and are definitely there to stop women from having abortions. That is their whole raison d'etre. </p>
<p>I don't have any problem with starting sex ed with a general "if you don't have sex, you can't get most STDs, and you can't get pregnant", but that should be the starting point. Whether you have sex or not, knowledge is power. We should want our children to have information that is accurate.</p>
<p>"misinformation about the effects of abortion"</p>
<p>Thanks for sharing your perspective. What do you mean by 'misinformation'?</p>
<p>to answer the OP's question:</p>
<p>I think that abstinance is a great idea. It, as you said, would limit the number of people with HIV+. You cannot cure an incurable disease by trying to kill the "pathogens" in the body; the most effective way to eradicate a disease is to get people to stop the "activities" that might cause it. Per-marrital sex and/or gay sex are the primary cause of AIDS now, if people just waited a few years, AIDS would be gone forever.
Of course a condom would certainly limit the transmission of such STDs, yet, as it has been mentioned before, condoms are not 100% effective. condoms get ripped!
I personally believe in the "wait til marriage" thing. It's reasonable, effective in preventing STDs and would be much better for the couple who decide to do it. There's not a single personin my family who has had sex before marriage, and they all turned out okay. And none of them have AIDS or any kind of STD.</p>
<p>What people today see as being "too hard" or "unrealistic" is usually the path to true happiness. Personally, as someone who has had sexual relations countless times with many girls before becoming a Christian and converting to Catholicism, I can say that ultimately all this behavior did for me was cause unnecessary drama, pain, and anguish in my life. Yes, I was satisfying my carnal desires, but I wasn't really happy at all. (I have come to believe that this turmoil is a natural result of living in sin. We always have free will to do whatever we want, but there is no way to be a truly happy and fulfilled human being while repeatedly turning ones back on God's plan for us.) </p>
<p>I have been celibate for close to three years, and I've never been happier. And I know that -- barring the priesthood, which I am discerning -- when I meet that special woman and we decide to enter the Sacrament of Matrimony together in a state of purity and grace, there will be nothing in the world like it.</p>
<p>Reffering to a fetus as a baby is a question begging epithet</p>
<p>I love semantics. They always make everything way more complicated.</p>
<p>"Reffering to a fetus as a baby is a question begging epithet"</p>
<p>Well if it's strictly a matter of using the correct biological terminology, then why do OB-GYNs commonly use the term 'baby' even when the pregnant woman is not very far along yet?</p>
<p>Fides, I am happy for you that you have found peace. I actually do agree that sex without love is less than fulfilling.</p>
<p>But, different people draw the line in different places. Just because a couple might not wait til they're married does not mean that their sex is not based on love. It's not a black-and-white thing between freely having sex with just anyone and waiting til marriage. There are many shades of grey in between.</p>
<p>I also don't think waiting til marriage will necessarily guarantee a happy marriage, any more than not waiting will gurantee that it won't be happy.</p>
<p>A woman paster I once knew told me she barely even kissed her 2nd husband before they got married. She said that God would bless her marriage because they waited. She humiliated couples who were living together in front of the congregation, asking everyone to pray for them so they'd be 'delivered of their lust.' (It didn't work. They never came back to church but continued to live together.)</p>
<p>Interestingly, her marriage ended very badly, while that couple she judged are still together, 25 years later.</p>
<p>I think everyone should do whatever they feel comfortable with. It's a very personal thing. 2 of my closest female friends (now in their 40s-50s) have each had 50+ lovers each. That would never work for me, but I don't judge them on account of it. IMO the most important thing is that each person be true to his/her personal values, and to not impose on someone else or hurt someone else by insisting they do something they don't want to do.</p>
<p>"I also don't think waiting til marriage will necessarily guarantee a happy marriage, any more than not waiting will gurantee that it won't be happy."</p>
<p>I think the real important thing is in how a couple approaches the idea of marriage together. My view (which is the Catholic view) of the foundation of a successful marriage is thus: Both man and woman see what they are engaging in together as something holy and sacred. The Sacrament of Holy Matrimony -- and it is a Sacrament, just like the ordainment of priests and other religious -- is an amazing gift, a real vocation from God the Father. Therefore, it is something very special, something to be cherished. (Of course, many Catholics fail miserably at living up to this ideal, but the ideal is there nonetheless for those couples who are serious about their faith together.) Marriage, then, is a loving expression of faith and a sacred religious vocation, rather than merely a cold legal arrangement. </p>
<p>The secular view of marriage seems to me to be rather cheap and fragile in comparison... it is, I think, the reason why most of them don't last. Two things are missing: God and theology.</p>