"Christian Running for WV House Is Appalled By Sex Ed Book Written for Pre-Teens"

[dianaiad]

Well, from the Bible we have the following, which I assume you go along with.

“Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart” (Matt. 5:28).

“Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.” (Eccl. 12:13.)

Honor your parents

Don't steal

No one can serve two masters

Love your neighbor as yourself​

And from the Bible and the edicts of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day saints (link is at the end of the list.)

Willful participation in adultery, fornication, homosexual and lesbian behavior, incest, or any other unholy, unnatural, or impure sexual activity is immoral

Homosexual behavior and other sexual perversions are an abomination, Lev. 18:22–23.

If a man forces a woman to lie with him, only the man is guilty of sin, Deut. 22:25–27.

Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart, Matt. 5:28 (3 Ne. 12:28).

Fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection are idolatry, Col. 3:5.

Sexual sin is an abomination, Alma 39:3–5.

Do not drink wine nor strong drink, Lev. 10:9.

The Lord counseled the Saints to not use wine, strong drinks, tobacco, and hot drinks, D&C 89:1–9.

Drunkards shall not inherit the kingdom of God, 1 Cor. 6:10 (Gal. 5:21).

The Lord has counseled His Saints to not sleep longer than is needful (D&C 88:124).

The wages of sin is death, Rom. 6:23.

Do not suppose ye will be restored from sin to happiness, Alma 41:9–10.

Unto that soul who sinneth shall the former sins return, D&C 82:7.

Cease from all your lustful desires, D&C 88:121.

In nothing does man offend God, save those who confess not his hand and obey not his commandments, D&C 59:21.

Seek not for riches but for wisdom, D&C 6:7 (Alma 39:14; D&C 11:7).

Whosoever repenteth shall have claim on mercy, unto a remission of his sins, Alma 12:34.

Let all men beware how they take my name in their lips, D&C 63:61–62.

Whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased, Matt. 23:12 (D&C 101:42).

Whatsoever you shall seal on earth shall be sealed in heaven, Hel. 10:7 (Matt. 16:19).

If a man marry a wife not by me, their covenant and marriage is not of force when they are dead, D&C 132:15.

Teach parents that they must repent and be baptized, Moro. 8:10.

All children have claim upon their parents, D&C 83:4.

If thy brother or sister offend thee and confess, thou shalt be reconciled, D&C 42:88.

Work out your own salvation with fear, Philip. 2:12.

“Remember, to be carnally-minded is death, and to be spiritually-minded is life eternal” (2 Ne. 9:39).

The Ten Commandments were given by God through the prophet Moses to govern moral behavior.

source
​

Whoa there a minute before you get all tied up in buttons and bows. Rethink what you've just said here and what I haven't said.


Good for the kids. They're lucky to have the parents they do. Unfortunately, too many kids do not and need non-judgemental help from outside their families


So what morals does the book set forth?

.

First, good list.

(grin) Some of the items need a good long look, I see. to see what THEY actually say and don't say, but...good list.

As for what morals the book 'sets forth,' WHAT is the title of the book again? "It's perfectly normal?"

THAT'S a judgment call. Absolutely not objective or factual, and I didn't even have to see the illustrations or the information to figure that out.

What I think is 'normal' might well not be what others do.
What others think is 'normal' may well BE 'normal,' but morally questionable. People do normal but morally questionable things all the time.

It is the job of the parents to raise their kids to understand that we humans are supposed to be BETTER than 'normal,'

And the title of that book not only presents not normal stuff AS normal, but assigning it 'perfectly normal' status is approval.

I mean, really....it's perfectly normal for a spouse to look longingly at a really good looking someone else. that doesn't make this perfectly normal activity a good idea, now, does it? We are supposed to be better than that. By "better," I mean...kinder to one's spouse and oneself, more loving to one's spouse and oneself, more respectful of the one we're looking at...shoot, more respectful of ones spouse and more realistic about ones self. I mean, really....what makes anybody think that the hottie one is looking at would take a second look back? What makes one's self so confident that s/he has the right to condemn one's spouse for not being what the 'other' is?



Like that. Sometimes 'perfectly normal' is neither.

 

[Skwim]

First, good list.

(grin) Some of the items need a good long look, I see. to see what THEY actually say and don't say, but...good list.

As for what morals the book 'sets forth,' WHAT is the title of the book again? "It's perfectly normal?"

THAT'S a judgment call. Absolutely not objective or factual, and I didn't even have to see the illustrations or the information to figure that out.

So, which of the facts represent something that is not normal? Like left handedness, an activity may not be typical (only about 10% of any population is left handed), nevertheless it's normal that for a consistent percentage of the population it's their dominant hand. Take oral sex for instance. " 69 percent of men report having given a woman oral sex, while only 59 percent of women have.* Or anal sex. "35 percent of women and 15 percent of men have engaged in anal sex." * So, while the vast majority of people don't engage in these practices it's perfectly normal that these percentages of the population engage do.

And just where does your "normal" come into play? At 51%, 65% 75% 85% 95% or 100%?


Now "The Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law, a sexual orientation law think tank, released a study in April 2011 estimating based on its research that 1.7 percent of American adults identify as gay or lesbian, while another 1.8 percent identify as bisexual." which I assume you wouldn't consider to be normal at all, yet you told your kids about homosexual sexual orientation. So you do make exceptions for some "abnormal" behaviors, but not others. Why is this, and what are your criteria?
source

What I think is 'normal' might well not be what others do.

Obviously not, yet you feel justified in using your definition of the word to condemn others rather than looking at how they use it.

What others think is 'normal' may well BE 'normal,' but morally questionable.

Right, but as I asked, "what morals does the book set forth?"


*source

.

 

[dianaiad]

So, which of the facts represent something that is not normal? Like left handedness, an activity may not be typical (only about 10% of any population is left handed), nevertheless it's normal that for a consistent percentage of the population it's their dominant hand. Take oral sex for instance. " 69 percent of men report having given a woman oral sex, while only 59 percent of women have.* Or anal sex. "35 percent of women and 15 percent of men have engaged in anal sex." * So, while the vast majority of people don't engage in these practices it's perfectly normal that these percentages of the population engage do.

And just where does your "normal" come into play? At 51%, 65% 75% 85% 95% or 100%?

Well now, doesn't that just prove my point?

Where does YOUR 'normal' come into play, and when does your version of 'normal' mean that any activity is absolutely 'acceptable' behavior, or 'perfectly normal,' and there fore OK?

I don't have to think very hard in order to come up with things from history that were done all the time in the cultures OF the time, but that neither you nor I would consider 'perfectly' and therefore acceptably' 'normal.' That is, acceptable moral behavior.

The fact that a large minority, or even a majority, of people engage in a practice does NOT make it morally acceptable, now, does it? It's an objective judgment call.

Now "The Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law, a sexual orientation law think tank, released a study in April 2011 estimating based on its research that 1.7 percent of American adults identify as gay or lesbian, while another 1.8 percent identify as bisexual." which I assume you wouldn't consider to be normal at all, yet you told your kids about homosexual sexual orientation. So you do make exceptions for some "abnormal" behaviors, but not others. Why is this, and what are your criteria?
source

Perhaps I was unclear. Let me try this again. My objection isn't so much to the 'normal' bit, as to the 'Perfectly normal,' and thus morally acceptable, part. Yes, it is 'normal' for a certain percentage of people to identify as 'gay." It's not a crime, or something they can help BEING.

but that doesn't mean that homosexual BEHAVIOR, especially promiscuity, is morally acceptable any more than being sexually promiscuous with the OPPOSITE sex is morally permissible, to everybody. It's certainly not to me. And one CAN choose one's behavior.

So for someone to tell my kids that it's 'perfectly normal' to ACT upon sexual feelings no matter where, what or who?

Not something I want told to my kids. And that book, simply by being titled "it's perfectly normal' and going into BEHAVIOR, is telling them precisely that. IMO, of course.

Obviously not, yet you feel justified in using your definition of the word to condemn others rather than looking at how they use it.

"normal' is objective. "Perfectly normal" thus implying that how they use 'normal' is 'perfectly' socially acceptable, is not. and I AM looking at how they use it. That's my problem with them.

Right, but as I asked, "what morals does the book set forth?"


*source

.

That every behavior and aspect of what they set forth is 'perfectly normal' i.e., socially acceptable no matter what your parents or anybody else thinks. THAT, sir, is 'morals,' and whether I agree with them or not, I object to my kids...or grandkids...being exposed to someone else's 'morals.' without my input, foreknowledge or opinions.

 

[Skwim]

Well now, doesn't that just prove my point?

Where does YOUR 'normal' come into play, and when does your version of 'normal' mean that any activity is absolutely 'acceptable' behavior, or 'perfectly normal,' and there fore OK?


I don't have to think very hard in order to come up with things from history that were done all the time in the cultures OF the time, but that neither you nor I would consider 'perfectly' and therefore acceptably' 'normal.' That is, acceptable moral behavior.

The fact that a large minority, or even a majority, of people engage in a practice does NOT make it morally acceptable, now, does it? It's an objective judgment call.

Sorry, but you have to answer my questions first.

Perhaps I was unclear. Let me try this again. My objection isn't so much to the 'normal' bit, as to the 'Perfectly normal,' and thus morally acceptable, part. Yes, it is 'normal' for a certain percentage of people to identify as 'gay." It's not a crime, or something they can help BEING.

You're confusing perfectly normal with morally acceptable. While it's normal that some people will abuse children it's not morally acceptable that they do so.

but that doesn't mean that homosexual BEHAVIOR, especially promiscuity, is morally acceptable any more than being sexually promiscuous with the OPPOSITE sex is morally permissible, to everybody. It's certainly not to me. And one CAN choose one's behavior.

Fine, but what does this have to do with the book? Show me, at least within the pages I could link to, where it says homosexual BEHAVIOR, especially promiscuity, is morally acceptable. Thing is, I didn't see a single insistence where the book takes a moral stance, one way or the other on anything---If it does please point it out. At most it notes those sexual practices that are normal within our society. Perfectly normal--"perfectly" I assume being used to denote definition 3b: "Completly," as found in the Merriam Webster Dictionary.

So for someone to tell my kids that it's 'perfectly normal' to ACT upon sexual feelings no matter where, what or who?

Again, show me where it says or even implies that "it's 'perfectly normal' to ACT upon sexual feelings no matter where, what or who."

Not something I want told to my kids. And that book, simply by being titled "it's perfectly normal' and going into BEHAVIOR, is telling them precisely that. IMO, of course.

But it doesn't. Nowhere does it say "it's' perfectly normal' to ACT upon sexual feelings no matter where, what or who." If you're going to make up things then I have no reason to continue here.

"normal' is objective. "Perfectly normal" thus implying that how they use 'normal' is 'perfectly' socially acceptable, is not. and I AM looking at how they use it. That's my problem with them.

But homosexuality (your example) is "perfectly normal and socially acceptable in American society." Like almost all behaviors, not everyone approves of each and every one, but to one degree or another they are socially acceptable. Crimes would not fall within that category, but most others, those that cause no harm, would. Not 100% acceptable or even 40% perhaps, but they are still normal. It's normal that about 10% of the population will be left-handed.

That every behavior and aspect of what they set forth is 'perfectly normal' i.e., socially acceptable no matter what your parents or anybody else thinks. THAT, sir, is 'morals,' and whether I agree with them or not, I object to my kids...or grandkids...being exposed to someone else's 'morals.' without my input, foreknowledge or opinions.

Do you not understand that just because something is normal, lying for example, doesn't mean that it's acceptable, which is why I have no problem with anyone not accepting oral sex, You certainly have every right to try to dissuade your kids from engaging in oral or anal sex, but but don't pretend it doesn't exist, or that your kids might enjoy it. Believe me, if so inclined they will at least try it whether you approve or not.

.

 

[dianaiad]

Sorry, but you have to answer my questions first.

No I don't, especially when the question I as IS an answer to your question.

Or...no I don't, even if it annoys you. Sorry....but if it helps my question to you IS an answer to yours.

You're confusing perfectly normal with morally acceptable. While it's normal that some people will abuse children it's not morally acceptable that they do so.

You are quite right. However, since the book is written by people who do equate 'perfectly normal' with 'morally acceptable' and teach it that way, I have a problem.

...............and I would even when I agree with the morals. The problem here is that this book IS teaching this stuff as 'morally acceptable." Some of it actually is, IMO....but that's not the call of the SCHOOL to make.

Fine, but what does this have to do with the book? Show me, at least within the pages I could link to, where it says homosexual BEHAVIOR, especially promiscuity, is morally acceptable. Thing is, I didn't see a single insistence where the book takes a moral stance, one way or the other on anything---If it does please point it out. At most it notes those sexual practices that are normal within our society. Perfectly normal--"perfectly" I assume being used to denote definition 3b: "Completly," as found in the Merriam Webster Dictionary.

If a teacher is telling you that it is 'perfectly normal,' then that teacher, being a being in authority and not being arrested or anything, is telling you that it is morally acceptable. I mean, really.....isn't that what many of you guys are screaming about when schools allow students to pray there, even when said students are NOT in classrooms or forcing others to participate? If it is allowed in school, then of course the students are going to figure that it is morally acceptable.

Again, show me where it says or even implies that "it's 'perfectly normal' to ACT upon sexual feelings no matter where, what or who."

Show me where the book, ANYWHERE, says that such behavior is a bad idea, never mind 'morally unacceptable.'

But it doesn't. Nowhere does it say "it's' perfectly normal' to ACT upon sexual feelings no matter where, what or who." If you're going to make up things then I have no reason to continue here.

If you are going to threaten me, Skwim, I don't need to continue the conversation. I don't deal well with "I'm going to take my ball and bat and go home if you don't do what I say."