*puzzled*

[labellementeuse]

So my mother got me a Listener subscription, which is fabulous and kind and has made some people very jealous. But, er, I don't think I got last week's edition, simply because I think I would remember a cover that screamed "GAY PARENTS" at the top of its lungs.

Anyway. It doesn't seem to have been an especially well-researched article, so it doesn't bother me too much. But you guys should read some of the letters in this week's Listener and write snarky responses. Unusually for this area, though, every single writer has made a strong attempt to say nice things about gay people- not nice enough, obviously, but never mind. However one letter in particular... well, y'all just read it, and see if you can guess the one that makes me spit, huh?

I would do it myself, but I want to write them a letter about this week's feature: Tamaki and The Abstainers. *sporks* Okay, now look, abstinence is wonderful. But it is not sensible and it is not realistic. The article quotes statistics showing that, while an abstinence pledge may delay loss of virginity, kids who abstain nevertheless have the same rate of STDs- in other words, the rate of contraction of STDs is much higher among kids who have pledged. Why? because along with abstinence pledges come the inability to be prepared. What are we really worried about for our kids? the contraction of STDs. Your kids are at risk from this policy, and I'm goddamn going to write the Listener and tell them so.

I mean, forget the Gay Agenda- the Destiny Church openly admits to wanting to infiltrate school boards to put gorward their plans for abstinence. >:O

Comments

[eavanmoore.livejournal.com]

See... I think that with a more flexible definition of monogamous commitment, like the one you suggest in your second paragraph, abstinence might work better. One of the problems I see with the abstinence movement is that it offers a simple definition of a relationship that's ready for sex -- one that's graced with a ring -- and chooses to ignore the teens who rush into getting married because they want to have sex and not being married is the only thing holding them back, then fall apart because they're not mature enough or comfortable enough with each other to be married.

[cabaiste84.livejournal.com]

...and chooses to ignore the teens who rush into getting married because they want to have sex and not being married is the only thing holding them back, then fall apart because they're not mature enough or comfortable enough with each other to be married.

Agreed. I'm a Christian, and one thing I've noticed is it's very common for Christians to marry young, and I've had heaps of friends get engaged of late, who aren't even 21 yet! My non-christian mates are always digging at me about it, saying that it's only cos they want a shag, and they have to get married to do so. Very cynical, I know, but for heaps of young couples it's probably not that far from the truth.

In my opinion, sex should most definitely not be the reason you marry. Yeah, it's a beautiful part of a relationship, and the ultimate way of expressing your love for someone, but it shouldn't be the be all and end all.

There's a chick on my friends list, who is Christian, 18 and married. She seems lovely, but she's still got a fair bit of teen angst going on, which can't be good for her marriage. Personally, I reckon that you can't make it in a marriage unless you're secure in who you are and secure in your relationship with God...and at that age you've still sooo much growing to do.