In reply to Sciencemile (msg #220):

I will second that notion.

I think it's a good idea as well.  Also, it is possible to be a married catholic priest!  Orthodox priests can convert to Catholicism and retain their ordained status (ie, they stay priests when they convert), and in Orthodoxy men can marry before they become priests (I don't think they're allowed to marry afterwords, though).  Thus a married man can become an orthodox priest, then convert to catholocism, and end up as a married catholic priest.  Not many around, but it isn't entirely unknown, and does give the church a bit of wiggle room for changing the current rules (ie, no one can actually say "We've never had married priests in the past, why would change now!")

Oh there were (secretly) married priests in the 1600's. It was orriginally instituted for teh dual purpose (and I'll let you decide which ranked higher) of 1) not distracting the priest from his congregation and 2) not letting priests have heirs who would claim teh priests assets after his death instead of the church.

In Catholicism, there's a tradition of trading priests -- it's how priests take a vacation.  The Eastern branch of the Roman Catholic church received a letter a few years ago which asked them to not take a vacation to Italy this way as it was "confusing the faithful".

This message was deleted by the player at 17:29, Sat 10 Apr 2010.

I'm not sure it would help.

A true pedophile is sexually aroused by children.  You can't really do much about it beyond training a person to not act on those impulses.  I don't know if priests fall into the same category, but you can have a married pedophile in the normal world.

Priests not marrying is a relatively recent change. I believe it started in the medieval times. If you read the bible, the original conditions for choosing a bishop or priest require he be a good father (although I may be misremembering!) The change is not an ecclesiastical matter - it can be changed.

Not marrying is desirable in that it helps priests focus only on their work, rather than on a family. However, with the number of clergy dropping through the floor, I don't think they can afford to be so restrictive any more. Frankly, the longer they hold off on changing, the more damage they're going to suffer.

However, if these problem priests are either homosexuals or pedophiles, heterosexual marriage isn't going to help very much!

If you read my previous post 80% of child molesters are otherwise heterosexuals except when under some form of stress trigger, and most of those triggers are social-sexual in nature (divorce being one of teh first ones ussually listed) suggesting that a normal sexual relationship might in fact help reduce the number of instances of such priests 'discovering' their latent tendancies.

Of course if it were up to me they would allow gay marriages for priests and laity as well, but then again teh Catholic Church and I don't really agree on much when it comes to human sexuality.

http://www.thestar.com/news/ca...aws-struck-down?bn=1

Excellent news! Anti-prostitution laws struck down in Canada. As I've always said, all banning it does is endanger the safety and lives of sex workers by eliminating their ability to

And to paraphrase someone: "Prostitution involves precisely two factors. Sex, and commerce. Which of these are you opposed to?"

Sex behaves like a Drug, or more accurately, both behave as if their demand schedules were inelastic.

What else besides drugs and sex behaves this way?  Food is probably one of them, although due to the high supply and variety it isn't opaque in America's Market, or anywhere else that food is cheap and widely available.
This message was last edited by the GM at 04:07, Wed 29 Sept 2010.

I'm curious, does Canada have anti-pimp or anti-'coerce into prostitution' laws? Any sort of assistance to help those who are going to prostitution out of desperation, rather than true, free choice?

Well, the first part would be covered by anti-slavery laws. As for the second, now that the laws banning it have been overturned (in Ontario, at least), it will actual be possible for such assistance to legally exist.

I don't know that I'd call a pimp a slave-driver. As for the second... I guess that's a 'no'?

For those not in Canada, Prostitution wasn't exactly illegal in the first place. It was the public dealing of purchasing sex in public that was illegal.

What is legal is that the prostitutes can work out of private owned buildings, and can legally discuss any purchase they want in private.

I'm guessing here, but it appears that the only thing the judged overturned was the ability for a prostitute to now haggle in public. It was never an issue to have accountants, and body guards on the payroll.

I'm curious where you get the idea that sex acts like a drug considering the fact the DSM has specifically rejected the legitimacy of sex addiction as a diagnosis for the last couple of versions.

I'm not sure that's actually true, in my state prostitution is banned, bus as a regular customer of such establishments, I've found that prostitution in my state involves a lot less organised crime and people trafficking, I'm guess because the anti-prostitution laws make such people easier to prosecute.

I doubt you see the entirety of the sex trade in your state. I know in my own city I could at one point identify a half dozen procurement establishments where the women were well treated and seemed to enjoy their work, but then found out that some of my friends knew of other establishments which were less expensive where they doubted teh women were as well repsected.
And that's aside from idependant sex workers and the need for protection which is greatly diminished if it is legalized and they have government protection.

That is true, although I have seen even less of the sex trade in other staes, yet both organised crime and mall treatment of sex workers seem more prevalent there.  I have to admit that population factors probably play as much of a role as the law though, we only have one city with a population greater than twenty-five thousand, and that city still only sits at about the one million mark.

Reminds me of the joke that prostitution in western Kansas means she'll have sex for a six pack.

I read an article a couple days back that I thought might stir up some interesting discussion here.  The author's argument was that the reason that conservatives* support abstinence-only sex education, even when the evidence seems to show that they lead to more teen pregnancies rather than fewer, is because to conservatives the teen pregnancies aren't the real problem, the teen sex is.  Further, the author argued, that some conservatives even view the pregnancies as sort of a good thing, in that they're a sort of punishment for the bad behavior of unmarried sex.  They wouldn't view eliminating the teen pregnancies as a good thing, the author proposed, because then the teens "would be getting away with it without consequence."

I'm not sure I totally agreed with the author, but I thought their might be some truth to it, and the basic premise did get me thinking a bit.  I'm curious to see what other people here think about it, especially people who consider themselves conservative, or support abstinence-only sex-education, or who know enough such people to have some insight into their views.

So first question:  is the idea that conservatives view the sex as the real problem, and the pregnancies as just a symptom of it, an accurate one?  If we could make teen sex risk-free, would conservatives still be quite as opposed to it as they are now?

What about the idea that conservatives might actually view the pregnancies as a good thing in some ways, since it keeps the teens from "getting away with" having sex?  Any merit to that?  It seems pretty absurd at first, but I think I have read people here express somewhat similar positions, at least when it comes to abortion (they didn't like the idea of the woman being able to "avoid the consequences of her action").

To test the idea, here are some scenarios:
1.  If there was a sex education that was proven to reduce the number of teen pregnancies (and for sake of argument, STD transmission too), but increased the amount of teen sex going on, would you be in favor of it?

2.  If there was a sex-ed that was proven to reduce the amount of sex that teens had, but increased the rate of teen pregnancies for those who did have sex, would you be in favor of it?

(assume, for the moment, there's no "cake-and-eat-it-too" option available, so you have to either pick between leaving things as they are, or changing them in one direction or the other).

For me, sex isn't a bad thing, even for teens; it's just a potentially risky one.  If the risks are removed, I don't have any problem with teens having sex with each other (provided it's consensual, mutually respectful, etc. of course).  So I'd obviously be in favor of a sex ed program that reduced the rate of teen pregnancies, regardless of whether it led to teens having more or less sex.  And I'd obviously be opposed to any program that reduced the amount of teen sex going on but made the sex riskier.  I imagine most liberals will probably feel the same way.  Do conservatives differ on this, or was the author off base?  Do conservatives view teen pregnancies as a proper consequence of teen sex?  Do they feel that teens who have sex without anyone getting pregnant are "getting away with it"?



* I realize that I'm making a blanket statement here, and that not all conservatives share this view.  For the sake of simplicity, I'll use the term "conservative" here, rather than typing "people who support abstinence-only sex education."

Absolutely! Well, not 100%. I mean, I know a lot of people who are anti-war and want to cut the defense budget, but certainly the fact that we're also in a deficit feeds into that opinion. So yes, teen pregnancy is a problem. But teen sex is also a problem. In my personal (limited) experience, the people who are for abstinence-only education requirements in school* are also against legalizing homosexual marriages. It's a moral issue, not a social one.

* And to note, this is different from people who are okay with other sort of sex education at school, but teach abstinence only at home.



I think so, yes. However they'd lose some political steam. Teen pregnancy, being a social issue, gives the issue a certain boost it might not otherwise have.



This is a tough one to answer, partially because it's so vague ("in some ways"?) It's also very broad, as you pointed out earlier. I'm sure there are a lot of people who yes, want pregnancy to serve as a punishment for immoral behavior, just as there were people who viewed HIV/AIDS as the 'gay plague'. But I don't know that I'd say those people make up the majority.




For teenagers? Like high school and middle school? Yeah, I'd have a problem with that.



I don't know. That's tough. I think it would depend on the numbers. If a program helped 20% of middle schoolers to keep from having sex until after high school, but resulted in a 1% increase in pregnancy or STDs, yeah, I'd be okay with that.



I've seen a number of studies which seem to disagree. Adults who had sex before 14 suffer more stress and worse health later in health. Plus, this isn't just education for your children; it's education for EVERYONE'S children. I think I would be upset if my kids' school taught them sex is okay, as long as they use a condom. And, while I have less space to complain, I would be upset if my kids happened to miss all that day, but they went back to school surrounded by people who believe sex at 13 is okay.

Okay, while not totally surprising to me now, it has open my eyes a bit to hear someone say so explicitly.  All the arguments tend to be about social issues, which perhaps seems to be the wrong track if this is the case.  I mean, I can sympathize with conservatives making the arguments they think will be most effective, but if their reasons for taking their position are actually different from the ones they're arguing, it seems like we're like to going in a lot of circles as a society trying to figure out what to do!  Nothing new, I guess, but interesting to realize none the less.




Hmm.  Again, probably shouldn't be surprising to me, but it is.




Wow, I guess I just find that position somewhat foreign.  Interesting, but hard to wrap my head around.



Hmm, wow again, I guess.




I'd argue part of that falls into the "it's potentially risky," and part of it falls into "correlation is not causation."  I'd expect it's more likely that people with, say, low self-esteem, self-confidence issues, etc., are more likely to get pressured into having sex before they're ready, and also more likely to end up with higher stress levels and worse health.  In which case having early sex is more of a symptom rather than the cause of the problem (and probably one that abstinence-only education is likely to address).  Before 14 does seem very young, as well, so much more "potentially risky" I'd say.


But those in favor of abstinence-only sex ed are also pushing for what other people's kids get taught, so that cuts both ways.

Hmm...reading the last line of yours there, I had a bit of a thought.  I don't really view comprehensive sex ed as teaching "sex is okay."  That's more of a moral judgement.  What I view as proper sex ed is giving just facts, not morality.  Let parents teach morality.  But the risks involved with sex, and how those risks can be reduced seems like something it's good for everyone to know (even if (or especially?) if their parents think sex is just morally wrong).  I don't really want schools teaching kids that sex is right or wrong, but I do want kids to know where babies come from, how to use birth control, what the potential risks of sex are, etc.  To me that seems to be the version that doesn't impose any morality on anyone else the way abstinence only sex-ed does.  Abstinence-only sex ed tries to tell kids what they should do, whereas I think what's important is that they get all the facts to make an informed decision, not just at the age where they get the class, but as they grow older too.  People who don't get told the facts when they're 13 can end up making bad decisions when they're 18 or 20 or beyond because of that lack of knowledge.

I have to wow at your wow. I intentionally picked fringe cases (and was afraid you'd ask what if it's a 1:1 ratio).

Really? You're okay with twelve-year-olds having sex? People who are still just figuring out how to operate around other human beings? If you had a daughter who still isn't big enough to properly fill out a bra, you'd be comfortable with giving her a condom and sending her up to her boyfriend? To me, that sounds crazy-goofy, like not even requiring an explanation crazy. That, in a class of 100 kids, who are just starting to get pimples and still listen to Justin Beiber, you'd prefer 20 of them be boning each other in their spare time rather than the one who is already boning gets HPV or the clap seems like a weird trade.



The last experiment I read was done with mice :P



I would argue that teaching abstinence-only is the ONLY method is indeed destructive and to be avoided. However, it's quite feasible for a teacher to teach one thing, and a parent to teach an additional thing. It's not feasible for a teacher to teach one thing, and a parent to unteach it. While I am in favor of teaching a diverse set of birth control methods, I think teaching one that is known to INCREASE an undesirable behavior probably should be left to the parents to teach.



I would agree with you. But I'm not in the 'abstinence only education' camp either.

Am I okay with it?  No, but largely because of the consequences involved.  If the consequences are addressed, it sort of becomes a non-issue for me.  I sort of see wanting to reduce the numbers having sex, while at the same time increasing the danger for those having the sex as akin to mandating extra carcinogens be added to cigarettes in order to discourage people from using them.


You seem to be equating education on how to properly use a condom with encouraging sexual activity.  That's not what I'm proposing.  I would be opposed to a program that told kids they should be having more sex.  But kids are going to have sex no matter what anyone tells them, to some degree or another.  I want those kids who are having the sex to be a safe as possible while doing it.  If that leads to more kids having safe sex in total, I don't see that as a huge problem.


No.  I'd rather have 20 boning, and one getting HPV, than 10 boning and 2 getting HPV.  We can play with the numbers as we like, I guess, but really, for me, it comes down to how many consequences there are.  Has the education led to more kids dealing with undesirable consequences or fewer.

Again, it seems the difference is whether we see the sex as the problem, or an action that can potentially lead to problems.  For teens (and for everyone, for that matter) sex comes with risks.  It's not a problem in-and-of itself, it's the potential for unwanted consequences (STDs, pregnancies, self-esteem issues, control issues, etc.) that are the problem.  For me, sex education should be about identifying the potential consequences, identifying ways to reduce the risks, and preparing kids (who will also later be adults) to make good decisions.  For others, sex is the problem, and the purpose of sex education seems to be to discourage kids from having it, even if that leaves them even more at risk once they do have sex.

To me it seems foreign to view the sex as the problem that needs to be stopped, even if that comes at the cost of making the sex that does go on more dangerous.  It sounds like my position sounds foreign to others, too.  Not really sure where to go from there, at this point, to be honest.

I thought the whole thrust of your hypothetical situation is the education increases the number of kids who are having sex.

That isn't to say that your GOAL is to get them to have sex (any more than the contrary is 'adding carcinogens to cigarettes'). Your goal is to reduce STDs. Period. My goal is to reduce STDs, but ALSO to reduce the number of kids having sex. (As a note, I don't have an exchange rate for those. I can't say that 1 kid not having sex is equal to 1 kid having sex but not getting an STD.)

Now, if your hypothetical example was "you change sex ed training. Before you had 80% of kids had no sex, 10% had safe sex, 10% had dangerous sex, now it's 80/15/5", I'd say sure, that's a good change.



Just to be clear here, my original example was 99/0/1 changing to 80/20. You seem to be saying you'd be okay with changing 90/8/2 to 80/19/1. Either way, given the risks of HPV (which I intentionally chosen because it's relatively mild among STDs), yeah, that increase I think would be unacceptable to me.

(Just to be clear, if we replaced HPV with HIV, I'd be pretty uncomfortable with that trade.)



I think we actually both agree on this. The difference is, your list of problems seems to be STDs and pregnancy (given your original hypothetical situation). Whereas I'm not convinced those are the only issues we need to track. I can agree that perhaps all of the risks of sex can be identified and separated from it. But I don't think we're anywhere close to being able to identify and separate all of those risks (or that doing that is even desirable; sex comes with a significant emotional risk, but that emotional risk is what also permits those desirable emotional bonds!)